Zahawi's statement to the HoC today

[Ted27]

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/education-secretary-addresses-parliament-on-child-safeguarding?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=842b3750-dcbc-412a-a020-84af17a0a8a3&utm_content=immediately

It’s not difficult really, fund social work properly so they aren’t carrying a case load of 30 plus kids like Arthur. That one thing will stop experienced social workers from leaving the profession.

All the reviews in the world won’t make a difference without proper funding.

I agree with Jelly. Fund social services, fund surestart/children's centres. Fund home ed groups. Fund school nurses and health visitors.

Even fund schools better, so classrooms are not overcrowded, well ventilated, good washing facilities etc, so they never have to close in a pandemic again.

Future Arthurs can be saved. But they need to stop lining their own pockets, and spend.

I don't disagree funding is an issue, but just throwing money alone at something doesn't make it better.
The privatisation of social care is a huge issue for me, also the the lack of accountability- not SWs on the ground, but senior management, and mechanisms to raise concerns and be taken seriously.
My sons brother is in residential care. I made 3 safeguarding complaints about the home he was in during 2019. I was everywhere SWs, supervisors, the Chief exec, head of services, councillors, IRO, Childrens Commissioner - fobbed off by everyone - what did they do ? Send him back to birth family- where is he know - residential care

I agree, there needs to be a change in accountability, senior managers need to have their eye on something other than the bottom line. I repeatedly complained about my kids foster care - the level of care was little short of abusive - but there’s a shortage of carers so kids kept getting placed with them. Even knowing the system well I got passed around and fobbed off repeatedly. It shouldn’t be so hard to have concerns properly considered.

In the press and on MN and in the speech there is a lot of focus on the horror, showing the awful footage, the speech talks about evil, and I think that what is missing here is information about why it happens.

There has been research about this, and it was found that intentional sustained torture like this was found to occur in between 1 and 2 percent of all physical abuse cases and the causation leading to the harm is very different between torture and other abuse cases - in physical abuse it is mostly people losing control, whereas with torture it is intentional and more common that the perpetrator believes on some level what they are doing is right, it is moral or other discipline, the child needs discipline, the parent is the victim.

I think that the primary responsibility is in relation to safeguarding, and this sort of information would help improve it, help recognise warning signs better. I also believe there is a societal responsiblity to understand better why things happen in order to put in place better social nets and preventive measures.

I agree it isn't just about funds. I agree about the private sector role being problematic. There is no private sector acccountability in reality, this has been shown for decades in many areas in relation to public/private partnerships, in relation to social housing, hospitals, schools. You cannot contract for accountability - you can include clauses but you can't enforce the obligation or objectively quantify damages - the damage is to people and once it is done it is done.

I think that a lack of competence across the board is a huge problem

whilst what happened to Arthur is beyond words, the true horror is that about 65 babies and young children are killed by their parents every year.

Nor do I think that criminal charges are brought often enough when the abuse and neglect does not end up with the death of the child.
More criminal prosecutions, more compensation for the child which would fund therapies.

Absolutely @Ted27, only a few of those deaths ever make the headlines and even fewer are reported nationally. Even where abuse and neglect do cause death, it’s relatively rare that parents are prosecuted because evidencing the actual cause of death can be very tricky indeed, it’s often not obvious in a way that can be prosecuted/meet evidential standards.

The problem is that in criminal cases the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" which is a very high standard. A court must decide whether it is satisfied to the requisite degree that the matter alleged has been proven and cases won't be brought unless that is likely to be achievable. In relation to removal of children because of abuse the burden of proof is the lower standard "balance of probabilities".

This is a separate issue to preventing it though, because whatever the deterrent, the neglect and abuse would continue - I think that finding ways to stop it happening via better education, better action in relation to MH, a better social net throughout life etc is needed. Not just safeguarding and retribution when it has gone wrong.

Sorry, in relation to compensation to pay for therapies, did you mean accountability by LAs, ted27?

If criminal charges are brought the victim is entitled to compensation through the criminal injuries board, which maybe be what @Ted27 was thinking of. In saying that, I do think local authorities should be held liable for harm done to children in their care where they have corporate parenting responsibilities. Outcomes for care experienced children are appalling still and far too little is done to monitor and improve the quality of care giving, never mind the way the formal processes utterly undermine the security of the child.

I would love to see care leavers taking the local authority to court over deficiencies in their care, which might be the only thing that does change things for the better.

I thought that initially but then realised she might have meant LA accountability!

Care leavers do bring actions but it isn't easy and there will be issues around confidentiality. I am not sure what would change things for the better. More public awareness and public pressure maybe.

I don’t know either, the public are drawn to sympathise with a beautiful young boy as in this case however that sympathy utterly runs out when children from similar backgrounds struggle with pro-social behaviour, develop addiction issues and start offending. They don’t make the link from some of the awful backgrounds our children come from and vulnerability and social issues into teen years and beyond, and without that explicit link there’s no appetite to invest in these kids.

I think a much better awareness of the life long impact of early trauma, that you can’t cure a child by putting them in a nice home, would help but honestly things have got steadily worse over the length of my career so I don’t see it changing much now.

@Jellycatspyjamas

I work in DfE, we have an adopter network. One of the group told us about a meeting she was at where she was asked ' do you consider adoptees to be vulnerable'

I despair

I work in DfE, we have an adopter network. One of the group told us about a meeting she was at where she was asked ' do you consider adoptees to be vulnerable' do you mean an internal meeting, ie indicating that awareness of adoption within the DfE is poor? There is a pool of expertise surely or otherwise how do they formulate policy?

@mincemeatpancakes

There is an adoption team that does 'adoption' policy

that's very different to ensuring that issues that might impact adopted children, children with additional needs are taken into account when wider education policy is formed.
As an adopter network we are making inroads into making our voice heard.

We are also hopeful that the departure of a particular minister who had a very outdated views will open up the pathways to make sure the needs of all vulnerable children are considered properly,
The Dept has over 5000 employees, with differing levels of knowledge and understanding - that's inevitable
But the fact that we are called the Dept for Education tells you want you need to know about priorities

Is there a section of the Dept which is dedicated to children services and child protection and does the adoption team fall within that? (Sorry if that is a stupid question!)

Would you like to see greater centralisation, to prevent so much disparity between LA s and also more supervision over different LA s in relation to children's services, or are either of those things impossible due to legislation? (I haven't a clue what legislation applies to the split of functions by the way, not from the top of my head anyway!)

Sorry, questions but only because I am interested, no obligation to answer!

@mincemeatpancakes

yes there is. You may not remember that the DfE used to be called the Dept for Children, Families and Schools which I think was more balanced in terms of our purpose/priorities. Michael Gove changed it to Dept for Education
There is a lot of work going on to get LA and RAAs to work more closely together.
But at the end of the day, the Dept does what the politicians want it to do,

Thanks for your replies. I understood what you had said in your other post, that you thought that the change of name was an indication of priorities - I was interested to know what changes had been made to internal structure since then, and how adoption fitted in. I am guessing that relevant agencies feed into policy making too. I think you misunderstood my question about centralising, but no worries, I don't want you to feel interrogated!

@mincemeatpancakes

Not at all, so much depends on who the ministers are though.
Timpson was a great loss, he understood adoption and fostering.
The adoption team team tell me they hopes for the new ministerial team. And we are also having a big restructure next year.

We live in hope!