to wonder how social workers can hold their heads up?

[downtothesea]

to think that our society must have lost its moral compass when the same social services which set the adoption bar so high also determine that children should be made to stay in this situation:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020464/Emily-Harbour-Mother-avoids-jail-leaving-baby-son-squalid-Newbury-house.html

OP incase you are a bit lost reading the Children Act 1989

Provision of services for children in need, their families and others.
(1)It shall be the general duty of every local authority (in addition to the other duties imposed on them by this Part)?
(a)to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and
(b)so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such CHILDREN BY THEIR FAMILIES,
by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children?s needs.

You are well within your rights to campaign for a change in the law, good luck on that one.

OP, You are being totally unreasonable. Your OP is ridiculous.

Sorry computer lost plot! she managed to stay fairly clean during pregnancy and gave birth to a beautiful boy and was allowed to keep him. Move on 8 months mum on massive cocaine trip, son becomes ill and is founnd virtually dead with pneumococcal meningitis. He is now deafblind CP epilepsy and the errors go on. He came to us at 5yrs. Social services must put children 1st

LineRunner - that's exactly the slightly barbed point - who says SWs can't just take kids, hummmh?
Birds - That right? Don't see anyone but me arguing that point. Clearly a lot of SWs have difficulty deciding what is a crap home - don't you agree - not that one would want to be judgemental of course.
And of course, a blood relative would never turn you over. And that really removes the child from the sphere of influence of the mother.
And who advises the court as to whether the risk is substantial? Who plays a part in that - not any SWs?
Maypole, what leads you to believe that white babies are not abused? Is that not implicit in your reasoning there? Plenty of white babies being fecked over by their parents - any reason why they shouldn't be considered for adoption? What, should every potential adopter have to have a disabled child because having a white baby is not PC enough? Is there a shortage of battered white babies? I don't think so.
Spero - I suspect you must be an awful literalist not to see the point being made .... or having me on.

Birds Birds Birds - "Ask the DC's"

Because the children would know best, wouldn't they? Didn't that four year old boy say his mum thought he was old enough to look after himself?

Now, I wonder where the mum got that little theory. Still, saves someone from having to do anything.

downtothesea can you clarify EXACTLY what changes you want to see? I am very confused by the points you are making.

Birds - it's all very well quoting the legislation, if the LA and its agents (SWs) did their jobs as legislated - we wouldn't be having this debate.

Oh dear she just can't seem to get it

Feckwit - it's easy - early intervention, (within 12 months of birth) permanent removal from destructive home environments.

Op you cannot be 'judgemental' and a SW, you have to want to act in everyones best interest whilst weighing up risk.
The birth family have the right to care for the child first, the aim isn't to remove 'the influence of the mother' but to remove harm of phsyical abuse.
The SW can put its reckonmendations to the court, but the judge decides.
All professional are involved, not just SW's.

You have a idolised view of DC's in care and in the system, you don't seem to want to acknowlege the damage done by removing a DC to quickly.
The majority of neglect/abuse is borderline, not extreme.

In your link the right outcome has been achieved, i still don't understand your point. Babies aren't being left in danger.

Did you personally like the system under the Magdelaine Launderies, you seem to support it?

Maypole - you're an apologist for incompetence

THEY DO DO THEIR JOB, AS LEGLISLATED

The system has worked in your link.

"Early intervention within 12 months", what if it is the third DC and the DM has PND and should be given time to recover/get treatment.

What about recoring MH problems/illness.

Sorry OP but you don't have a clue.

OP do you not thinbk that parents/birth families have any rights? or cannot make mistakes/become ill?

There has been no incompetence, the DC's have been removed before any harm was done.

But how do you decide a family is not going to cope so quickly? There has to be a period of assessment.

Now in families already known to social services, children ARE being removed quicker now than a few years ago due to better processes. But many many people struggle in the first 12 months only to go and be great parents with the correct amount of support.

I suspect many families who end up with children removed from their care, are not even properly noticed in the first 12 months of the child's care. It takes time to see cycles of injury, malnutrition etc.

I do agree, that families that clearly are not ever going to be able to cope should see the children removed sooner rather than later in order to minimise longterm damage but we cannot have a system where social workers can march in willy nilly and remove children else that leads to destruction too.

Unfortunately there has to be regulation and procedure and EVIDENCE to support it and that does take time to find.

Shall we explain again ladies and its not sinking in

THE COURTS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE UK WHO HAVE THE POWER to remove a child not ss they are fact finders just like the police

The police don't have any rights to put people in jail or decided what sentence they get just like sw can't decide what intervention is needed or weather a child should be adopted

Gurrrr parents usually have lawyers which will stand in court and say its all lies and the parents have changed

Sw have no power you don't even have to let them in your home as the law stands even police can't enter with out a warrant come on it can't be that hard to get

Birds - you HAVE to make judgements (there's a difference from being judgemental - that's the point I was trying to make) - you MUST make a judgement for the good of the child.
It's impossible to act in everyones interest - an impossible task - and I don't believe that is your statutory duty.
So, you must act for the one person unable to act in any way for themselves - the child.
The dysfunctional family have every right to employ their own representatives, you are there to protect the child on behalf of society/the state.
I don't have an idealised view of the care system - that's why I advocate early adoption.

"Early intervention within 12 months", what if it is the third DC and the DM has PND and should be given time to recover/get treatment.

What about recoring MH problems/illness.

Sorry OP but you don't have a clue.

BUT BIRDS ---- How long do you wait? For crying out loud!!! By age two or three they're FUCKED forever - do you get it FOREVER - because Mum was given a chance to get over her mental illness.

Whose side are you on? Mum may never recover - why fuck the kids too?

What do you mean by 'a blood relative would never turn you over'

Were you matched with a child who was then taken in by a kinship carer? Is that why you are so bitter? Did someone take 'your' child?

There must be some reason for the bile directed at the families of these children.

Sw have no power you don't even have to let them in your home as the law stands even police can't enter with out a warrant come on it can't be that hard to get

MAYPOLE - you don't know the law

If the police believe a crime has been committed or is likely to be committed

STOP being a patronising git and ENGAGE - you obvioulsy have stuff to learn

tfMDV - trainee psychotherapist perchance?

downtothesea I think you may make some interesting points but they are being lost in your desire to reject any discussion.

Are you saying you are in favour of giving social workers more power? So they can remove children without court processes? I think that would be very dangerous...

downtothesea no love, kinship adopter.

Whats your excuse?

Why don't you believe it is the statutory duty when it is written in law

You are not just advocating early adoption, your link makes no sense, it's as if you are saying that no-one should have a chance to parent based upon tick boxes ie a certain age, income, background etc.

When i said ask the DC, i am talking about grown ups that have come through the system, there aren't adoptive parents for everyone, you are proposing a massive change in the law. It is normally after the second or later DC that the families problems worsten, you are then removing siblings, it isn't as easy as you think.

A change in the law has come about after much research into a time when DC would be removed earlier and easier, it wasn't a good system. There are emotional needs to consider.

DC's that have an attachment to their parents suffer when removed, abuse doesn't start as early as you seem to think. There are women who have removal orders waiting as they give birth, it happens.

As a Local Authority Representative (SW) you strive to find a balance, it is happening at present.

DC's go on to recover from a less than perfect childhood with the right support without being removed.

Feckwit - I perceive the discussion as being rejected by those who are excessively sensitive and defensive to general criticism.
I don't think SWs should be able to remmove kids without going through a rigorous review system.
But that system should be quicker and the driving ethos should not be to keep families together at all costs.
The ethos should be to selfishly represent the needs of the individual child in a damaging environment over the needs of the family unit where the desire for the family's unity conflicts or compromises that of the child.