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 i do get it thank you, i have worked in social care for 27 years, DC's are not fucked by two and three, DC's adapt.

The DC's have a right to be brought up in their birth family. The LA has a duty to put in support services. It works. If you went onto any 'rough' estate you would find situations that you could judge, it would be acase of were will it end?

Child rearing is more than clothing and feeding them, people have ties and love each other and are happy to take the rough with the smooth, DC's included.

This thread is getting a bit of 'handmaidens tale' about it.

Now I will concede that parents who have already had children removed or have a heavy drug habit should have judges ready to move much quicker

Also I would like sw to have More teeth often judges who are deciding on cases never meet the children and only see the parent in a smart suit clean and sober and did not meet the foul mouth mother with a dirty home that the sw had the pleasure meeting

Often don't speak to the foster carers and take evidence from a guardian who has meet the child a hand full of times to the sw and foster carers frustration

You cannot 'represent the needs of the child' without taking into account the wider family.

Most of what used to be seen as the norm now 'flags up', DV, alcohol abuse etc, there have been changes but it was recognised that balance is needed because we deal with human needs as well.

Explain why SW should hang their heads in shame at your link and why every member of a birth family should be taken out of the DC's life.

Adult adoptees have been part of the research in policy making, which you seem to ignore.

Birds - don't understand your last post, particularly 1st sentence - statutory duty is law - tautological?

Didn't realise you were referring to adult DCs.

But if the abuse doesn't start a early as I think then why are there women with removal orders as they give birth? That contradiction is at the heart of the matter.

For example, you posit that the abuse becomes worse with second or later dc. By then 1st dc may be damged beyond repair. What do you do? Wait and see if the family do the same to the second dc.
Surely you're allowing the emotionall bonds to develop which you argue will then deter you from removing the 1st, 2nd or more dc. That, in my opinion, is wrong - when yoou have a fair inkling of the way things are going to pan out.
Is there sufficient reflection on the lives these children are being condemned to? Failing in education, the pain of social isolation, forming relationships, having their own children - I'm sure you've heard it all.
As a society, and SWs as the individuals empowered to act, there's no stronger argument for early removal.
Crikey, if biological parents were forced to complete the same vetting process as adoptive parents - on pain of the child being removed - is there an argument for this?

Birds - "The DC's have a right to be brought up in their birth family."

You see this view is problematic. Human Rights are a construct - a creation of a 'civilised society'. There is no objective Right or Entitlement that we are born with.
We, all children, are fortunate or not, depending on the circumstances of our birth.
Enough of that, there is however, in a civilised society a DUTY to care for the child. A duty to remove the child from harm.
Society determines that it is desirable that children are not mistreated. We impose a duty on responsible adults because the cild cannot exercise any 'Right' - it is our duty to care for the child even if that means removing it from a birth family because to do otherwise would compromise the child's existence.
I did not say the child's Right to a happy existence - such a right doesn't exist - nor does the right to be kept with a crap family - because that would be wrong. The right to be brought up in their birth family assumes that the exercise of such a right would be to the benefit of the child and if it wouldn't we have a duty to remove the child.

In most cases the abuse doesn't start early, were elder DC's have been removed the court can have a removal order waiting, you seem to think that every DC is left in the situation and it isn't the case.

Abuse is rare it is mainly neglect, this doesn't always happen to the first DC, it is after a bad pregnancy or PND, for example or a relationship breakes down and depression sets in.

You seem to think that it is claer cut, in the link i posted only one twin was abused, child abuse doesn't make sense and follow a pattern, that is easily picked upon.

The outcome for DC's in care isn't that different and no better for DC's in neglectful situations, we could not find adoptive parents for all of them.

It doesn't always happen at birth, parents lose jobs, start on drink/drugs, the emotional bond was formed when things were fine.

DM gets new BF, BF is the problem.

You seem to supporting any adoptive parents rather than birth families.

It wasn't actually a creation of a civilised society, birth families have always raised DC's, it is only when 'middle class' values ruled that we started removing DC's on flimsy evidence, usually from WC backgrounds.

You still haven't explained your link or why the GM shouldn't have the DC's.

The idea of family hasn't been constructed, it's inate in all of us.

I thnk it's fair to say that adoptive parents are vetted more thoroughly than natural parents.
Nature exercise no control over who gives birth and whether they are suitable parents
So yes, I would say that in reference to the cases highlighted in the media (and many many others) adoptive parents, on the balance of probabilities,, given the intensive screening they are subjected to, are more likely to have made better parents.
In some ways the debate pans out like this, if social services can't decide when to take a child away from abusive families, then on what basis do they claim the right to assess who can adopt children?

If there is a danger of harm, then the DC is removed, i don't get your point.

The idea of 'harm' varies to everyone, you only have to look at the debates on here.

You still haven't said what we do with all of the DC's that we cannot find carers for, the childrens homes system didn't work any better than a neglectful birth family.

"Rights" of any kind are a social construct - they don't objectively exist outside human society.

The idea of "family" is not inate - hence the social problems.
If it was inate, we'd all be rearing lovely kids - and we're not - clearly.
It's a learnt process.

But the DC isn't removed - is it? That's the problem.

So you don't believe in any rights for birth parents, the state should decide?

Who gets to set the standard.

DC's are removed from abuse, only very occasionally a mistake is made, it has worked in your link, that is what i don't understand.

You still haven't said what we do with all of the DC's that we cannot find carers for, the childrens homes system didn't work any better than a neglectful birth family.

So, because I highlight an issue - I'm expected to solve the whole of societies ills, with a suggestion for a complete functioniing system, - something you guys with all your experience haven't yet come up with.

There are thousands of potential adoptive families wanting children. I've never advocated fostering or homes.

DC's are removed from abuse, only very occasionally a mistake is made, it has worked in your link, that is what i don't understand.

How has that worked? Do you thin that four year old is going to fulfill their fullhuman potential with no lastin effects despite still being in the extended family?

That's not in the least bit fixed

We are rearing lovely kids, neglect and abuse is in the minority.

A sense of family as in grandparents, aunties, they are all important, it is developed, you cannot take away every member of a family like you seem to be suggesting.

You cannot make parent responsible and not afford some rights, also.

"So you don't believe in any rights for birth parents, the state should decide?"

It doesn't matter what I personally believe, I'm stating that 'society', 'rights' the political system are constructs.

A child isn't literally born with a 'Right' to anything - look at somalia - where are the 'Rights'.

Humans create legal and political systems which use these terms. But what happened to the 4 year olds 'Rights' - and all the other kids, who is looking after them and their 'Rights'.
The theory is great.

With the parents the obligation, the duty to the child, should take precedence over any of their Rights

Very few people ever achieve their full human potential, for a variety of reasons.

Why do you not think that giving the four year old to strangers and them knowing that they have been removed from the family, will not also block the process.

The four year old can totally recover from what has happened. it needs stability and love, the GM can provide that, like it or not they may want a relationship with the mother at a later stage and that can be developed also. She was neglectful but not abusive, very different.

I don't see how you can make child removal quicker without ending up with more mistakes being made rather than less if I am honest.

I personally believe that intensive support in areas where we know abuse is more likely is key, but I know others may not feel the same. If we can pinpoint potential abusers early on and work to prevent it, it would be the best way to change the "cycles". If you simply remove children, you don't make the problem go away.

It is incredibly frustrating when you work in this field and you see generation repeating behaviours. Or you see people becoming pregnant time and time again, only to fail.

But on the flip side, you see the successes. The 14 year old mum in care who everyone said would never succeed as a parent who 5 years later has proved them totally wrong.

There are no hard and fast rules. People can change. Some won't, some will. We have to offer the opportunity surely? Human nature is such that we cannot predict how people will react to their life situations.

Op we couldn't do what you are proposing. You are basically saying that DC's are the property of the state to do with what they think and take nature out of the equation, that is very dangerous.

op actually I can see where you are coming from. I think a lot of SWs would agree that many children need to be removed earlier and adopted earlier. It simply isn't up to them though. Sadly the lack of foster placements means some children stay in less than ideal conditions. What would you do to rectify that situation?.It's all very well pointing out the failings of the system but if you have no idea how to rectify things why should anyone else.

You are right there are thousands of people wanting to adopt. The fact is though the majority of them want white, babies with no special needs. I may be wrong but it is my belief there are less than 200 such babies put up for adoption each year.
I have fostered more than 50 children and I have never met one who didn't want to be placed back with their birth parents no matter how badly they were treated. If this is not possible for a child surely you can see that the next best thing would be for them to be with family. Parents need a chance to get things right. Families can break down for many reasons and often with help they can put things right. You seem to be suggesting that parents who suffer stress, PND, financial difficulties, DV should immediately lose the right to parent. How can that be good for the dc?.

Also, why are you laying the blame completely at the feet of the SWs. What would you suggest they do to make the changes you feel are needed?.

i did hear a senior social worker on a radio phone in the other day confide that the reason more kids arent taken away from neglectful/abusive carers is simply down to cost and it was a real real struggle to get anyone to listen . He said what the figure was to keep a kid in care and it was simply too expensive

now that is absolutely disgraceful

The Government won't fund any aspect of social care, from children to the elderly.

SW's do have to work within their resources, however it is written that under the CHildren Act that they have to make decisions based on need, not cost.

The Government will get around this by cutting services generally, SW don't have magic wands, if the service no longer exsists, such as Surestart, leasure services, or a counselling service, then they cannot be put in place. So in reality you are choosing the best out of what is available, not what is needed.
'Care' isn't value for money, in any way, it is cheaper to direct resources to families, but often neither is done.

Re foster placements, it's very difficult to match if they are so short in county and agency placements are so much more expensive. Meaning children will be stuck in 'temporary' placements for years.