Residence Order & Facebook

[tigerlillyd02]

I currently have my little one on a Residence Order and soon to be pressing ahead with an adoption (wish me luck!!) as he will never be placed back with his biological mother.

I am very worried about his emotional wellbeing at the moment, as well as his security. He currently has contact with his birth mum 6 times yearly and each contact session feels like he's gone for a photo shoot as she must take one hundred pictures, easily.

Because of his age (20 months) I have been advised that direct contact at the very least is likely to stop altogether if the adoption goes through.

However, in the meantime, I am worried that his biological mother puts these pictures she takes on facebook, with details of his name, where born, date of birth etc and information about myself and what she thinks of me (not nice things as you can probably imagine).

I've recently had a group of girls stopping us when out shopping saying "oh this is X's little boy and so you must be X". I didn't deny it but looking back now, wished I had! Then they were commenting saying how unfair it was he was taken from X and that he should be with her and should love her etc. I had to say to them that details about his case were confidential and certainly don't need to be discussed whilst out shopping, in front of him!

She has also requested that she bring her new boyfriend (one of many) to contact, who goes by the name of X 'The Hitman' X. I refused entirely as, just by his name he sounds a danger and the little boy in question, in my opinion doesn't need to be meeting her boyfriends, who change frequently. But, I worry about these types of people knowing exactly what he looks like.

Anyway, my main question really is - can I stop her placing these pictures on facebook whilst he is on a Residence Order? I have asked her directly to remove them but she refuses. I just worry about him having to grow up around here and all these strangers approaching him and knowing his business. He could possibly even attend school with some of them as we live quite close. If they didn't know what he looked like, it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

[hester]

That's very interesting, NN.

I do worry about social media sites a lot. I'll admit I have checked out various members of dd's birth family online, and I do worry about their ability to do the same...

[thefirstMrsDeVere]

Hi NN. Lots of great info in your post, thanks.
Kinship carers do unfortunately need access to legal aid if the LA refused to pay. I have known this to happen on many occassions and kinship carers (who can be friends as well as relatives) have been forced to pay for their RO and things like medicals (not legal aid related I know).

We were lucky that we had the full backing of the LA (after intial wrangling) and they paid all the fees relating to the adoption. I know families where this has not happened though. Kinship foster carers are also supposed to receive the same allowences (less certain components) as foster carers but this is often not the case and KC are left with the responsibilities of a foster carer but not the financial and emotional support.

TBH I am glad I am well out of it. It was the second most stressful period of my life and pretty much tested me to the limit.

With regards to the RO being changed to an AO, you are far more knowledgable than me in this area, but would the child's age and the fact that it is now clear that he will not be returning to his birth mother, be a good enough reason for the change?

I know in our case the LA were very keen for an AO whilst we thought this was a bit OTT at first. They were right but at the time we thought it was too final. The LA thought an RO wouldnt be secure enough and given b.mum's behaviour since I am very glad we now have full PR.

[tigerlillyd02]

MrsDV
I'm not sure how legal aid works in general in terms of cases such as these.

However, when obtaining a RO I did not require any legal representation at all as the LA was fighting on my behalf. They were initially fighting also for the AO and SGO but when BPs starting fighting them, I was then told I'd need some legal representation myself as it wasn't going too well. They then said that they were settling for a RO and I didn't end up needing my own legal representation (perhaps if I had anyway, I'd have got the desired order!). I think SS just wanted it all done and dusted and out the way to be honest so settled to make it quicker.

Although the childs (ex) social worker is all for me applying for an AO or an SGO (she prefers an AO) and saying she will fully support it, I am guessing that this is perhaps her view rather than a department one as she has stated I will need my own legal representation to change the order and they will not pay. I am guessing it's because, as far as they view it, an order has already been made which means the child is safe and he's no longer on their books! I really don't know.

However, in terms of legal aid, I was advised by the solicitor I spoke to on the phone the other day that anyone with PR (which I have) is entitled to legal aid. So, at this moment in time (don't know if it's changing) I can get it?

In terms of changing an RO to an AO, I would guess that those 2 things may not be a good enough reason on their own for an order, although they certainly help. But, this, together with all the other problems (there are many more than just the facebook issue listed here), could mean it would be in a childs best interests to remove BMs PR entirely. I don't know for sure, but will obviously be seeking further advice on what is best.

[NanaNina]

Hi Mrs DeVere - I'm sorry I misunderstood your post about kinship carers (and here am I talking about confusion!) I thought you were talking about relatives or friends being assessed as kinship carers, not kinship carers who were wanting to get more permanent security for a child via the court process. Yes I realise it's friends as well as relatives and it used to be called Relative & Friends A/ment, but somehow got changed to kinship care.

I can well imagine some LAs refusing to pay court fees for a RO,SGO or AO, shocking really, but as budgets get more and more tight there will unfortunately be much more of this kind of thing. I know when I still worked for a LA, kinship carers were being asked at LAC reviews if they would apply for a RO. I kicked up a bit of a fuss about it, because the Independent Reviewing Officer just threw the question to them and poor kinship carers were left not knowing what to say. Very often they needed the security of the fostering allowance (albeit without the fostering fee, as was the case with the LA I worked for) or other reasons why they wanted the continuing support of the LA. What really annoyed me was this was all about saving money and nothing about the best interests of thre child. There would be a great saving of money and social work time between kinship care and someone with a RO, as the LA can then close the case - end of matter.

I absolutely agree that kinship carers should be paid the same as non kinship carers, but unfortunately there is nothing in the Fostering Regs to that effect.

I think you are right about the fact that TLs child is quite young and reunification with BM is never going to happen, and this presents a very good argument for an AO to be the best route for this child to have a permanent and stable home, where all of the PR is with the relative.

Hi TL - All my a bit of a cynic but I think the child's ex sw is being so proactive about an SGO or AO in the knowledge that she will not be the one to carry out assessments and go to court. She obviously knows that the LA will not pay the court fees because they believe the child is safe etc. and I think you are spot on about the LAs reasons for this.

Re legal aid - my understanding is that legal aid is being withdrawn in private law cases (eg divorced or separated parents fighting for a RO or Contact Order in the Family Courts) but not in public law cases, which your case is. I'm really not sure about court fees (we always just paid them) but Mrs DV knows of people who have had to pay themselves, and whether Legal Aid would cover that, but that is something else to add to your list of what you need to check out with the solicitor.

I think social workers and other professionals involved in care proceedings are going to have to address this issue of social networking sites and confidentiality, and judges too (as I can't imagine any of them using FB or My Space or whatever!) It is an absolute can of worms, as you know only too well TL.

[thefirstMrsDeVere]

Its very confusing.

Family and friends carers/kinship care etc. Fostercarers who go on to adopt are sometimes included in this group too.

All depends on who is doing the reseach

What happens with adopters who are not family/friends? Who pays then?

[NanaNina]

Me again! Just wanted to say that the fact that LA SSDs are having to tighten up so much on finance is because of the massive savings they are being compelled to make, which has come about from this coalition govt. I don't want to get into politics here, but the slashing of all public services' budgets is going to make it impossible to run a service efficiently. As far as SSDs are concerned the cuts will mean that more children are going to be abused and neglected by their parents or carers, because there will not be the sw time available to get into these families and take appropriate action to protect the child, and certainly no time for any preventative/supportive work to families to enable them to keep the children safe in their own family. Social workers are very wary now and since the Baby Peter case, applications for Care Orders has risen by approx 50% and there are insufficient judges experienced in family law, so there is a huge backlog of cases.

I have heard from ex colleagues who are still working in the LA that I worked for, that it is horrendous because of the cuts, that are now starting to bite. Apparently most people from snr mgrs to sws (and anyone in between) are very stressed. The sickness rate continues to be high as does the use of agency workers to cover the 30% vacancy rates. It's awful really because the LA is a shire county and social work practice was generally very good. The inner cities are suffering most of course, because of the massive workload and fewer social workers to deal with it, but from what I hear the shire counties are suffering in much the same way.

My neighbour works for the CPS (crown prosecution service) and she works from 8.00 in the morning till 7 or 8 at night and looks truly awful, white faced and stressed and sometimes in tears. She has to prepare the cases (a lot of murder cases) for the CPS to use in Court. She told me last week that they are asking for voluntary redundancies, and made her an offer which she couldn't afford to take. This I am sure people will agree is ludicrous, given the high workloads, but again they have no choice because of the massive cuts they have to make in their budgets.

I'd better go now before I get carried away..............just feel so angry and sad that it is public services that are having to pay for the greed of the bankers etc. Sorry I did say I didn't want to get into politics, so will definitely go!

[thefirstMrsDeVere]

I work in a specialist children's team. I agree.

The services that would normally go in a proactive capacity are being deleted (yes they use that word). How can it NOT lead to more CP procedures when families have to get to the point of desperation before they are eligible for help?

[tigerlillyd02]

I was a HR advisor in the NHS before I left to be with baby. But, the cuts were obviously drastic there too (it was a primary care Trust). I worked alongside somebody who had just come from the local council who were being affected in the same way. It was highly stressful and, we were not only expected to carry on our normal duties but expected to do a better job with less than half the staff! Laughable really.
I left in September last year and I believe there are only 3 left in the team now (was once a team of 24!). It was a stressful role even with 24 so I cannot even imagine what those 3 are going through! The remainder all left through stress but there was a recruitment freeze too within the commissioning side which meant nobody could be replaced.
I also believe it's got so bad that they're having to join forces with another Trust as they can't keep on top of workload.
The services cannot run as efficiently without staff (and obviously the money to pay them). It's impossible! It'll all lead to no end of complications in these public sector services, I'm sure. And, then in terms of Social Services the poor SW's will be to blame for missing something!