Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to be horrified by the Stolen Children of England

999 replies

LivingOnTheDancefloor · 29/11/2016 22:30

I just watched a French documentary called "England's stolen children" and can't believe this is happening in England. Horrifying, scary, unbelievable, it is like a horror movie...

Basically, social services are taking babies from their parents based on suspicion that abuse might happen in the future, except that the decision is made based on ridiculous things.
A lady had her three children taken from her, including a breastfed baby because she went to the ER for a child's broken ankle and they judged that he must have been beaten by his parents (only based on the ankle). X years later the parents manage to prove the fracture was due to scorbut. And they found out the initial report from the ER says "no sign of fracture".
The judge admitted they shouldn't have taken the children and the parents were innocents. But the children were given to adoption so the parents will never see them again.
That is just one of the stories.
Some women are told while pregnant that their newborn will be taken as soon as he arrives (and thzney do it).
The documentary says it is due to the facts that counties have to reach a number of children given to adoption so they target poor/uneducated parents and find any reason to take their children.
And as fostering costs money to the state they prefer adoption.

AIBU to ask if you heard about it here in the UK? And if yes, what do you think? Could it be true or are they exagerating?

I am really shaken.

www.google.fr/amp/s/researchingreform.net/2016/11/14/englands-stolen-children-controversial-new-documentary-on-forced-adoption/amp/?client=safari

Sorry, no idea how to post links, and I am on my phone

OP posts:
quaidorsay · 08/12/2016 14:25

(Haven't your recent link on reform yet... if that answers the questions, apologies!)

Leanback · 08/12/2016 15:10

Just my personal opinion but I don't feel that having lawyers involved from the start would make for a better system. Quite the opposite actually. Sws main role is to help the family. That should always be their primary motivation and goal. Having lawyers involved would create a very difficult working relationship between the family and the professional. Arguing over every single point in a child in need or child protection plan would probably make the plan unusable.

For the social care system to work you have to have some professional trust in social workers. Already so many of us feel like our daily job is a battle. Don't make it more so.

We need a government who does not cut our funding and resources and change its policy of action every five years. Who listens to the people on the frontline about what is needed. We need regular updated training for all children's teams and an expansion of advocacy programmes for parents. We also need to try and destroy the culture of fear that the media (and our government) have helped to perpetrate about social workers. It is very hard to help families when they are already filled with misconceptions about you and your practice.

Spero · 08/12/2016 15:44

I agree with lean back. Lawyers aren't usually involved in section 20 because they are supposed to be voluntary arrangements for short term respite. The problems arise when children 'drift' for months or even years when there should be a care order. The LA don't have PR under section 20.

quaidorsay · 08/12/2016 15:44

We need regular updated training for all children's teams and an expansion of advocacy programmes for parents. We also need to try and destroy the culture of fear that the media (and our government) have helped to perpetrate about social workers. It is very hard to help families when they are already filled with misconceptions about you and your practice.

That is all very true. Good lawyers don't argue over every point and are often particularly good at advocacy though.

Leanback · 08/12/2016 16:04

An advocate is cheaper than a lawyer though.

Natsku · 08/12/2016 16:16

I agree with Leanback, lawyers involved from the start except in a purely advisory/advocating role makes the experience and us versus them from the start whereas it should be them helping us.

quaidorsay · 08/12/2016 17:16

Natsku, at the moment I think people who can afford it get lawyers involved in the early days to advise and check compliance - but someone said upthread that legal representation is not permitted at meetings, and I think what this means is that lawyers are not allowed to speak for (or advocate on behalf of) clients at the child protection meetings.

Spero, thanks for mentioning s20 again.

Natsku · 08/12/2016 17:36

To be honest I never saw a need to take my lawyer to any of child protection meetings, but I did sometimes need an interpretor. I suppose for a low educated person it could be similar to needing an interpretor, to prevent them misunderstanding something important.

MagicChanges · 08/12/2016 18:35

Hello Spero - fancy seeing you here! I don't go on MN very often these days and have name changed (KW) in RL. I can't plough through 34 pages but I'm sure your input has been helpful. I suppose we have to be grateful for small mercies that our mutual friend JH is banned from MN - doesn't stop him and his lackeys coming out with the same old crap though.

I'm a retired social worker (30 years all told in children's services) 25 for a LA and 5 as an independent social worker. I worked in child protection and for the last 15 years with the LA I managed a fostering & adoption team. As an independent social worker I mostly carried out kinship assessments and SGOs once they were made law, and was commissioned by courts to carry out parenting assessments.

I agree with leanback - I feel saddened by the way the service has deteriorated in the 7 years since I retired. Budgets have been slashed and many LAs have had to sell off buildings and cut services every which way, as more and more savings are demanded by the government. My ex colleagues tell me social workers are sitting in car parks on a laptop.

When I first entered the profession in 1979 (was a mature student) I was in a team with experienced, committed and competent workers who had the time and motivation to help me "find my feet" - I learned more in the first 3 months in practice than the 2 years in college. We were able to carry out preventative work with struggling families. I will never forget my first "client" (that's what they were called back then) who had 3 children and there was concern for the welfare of the children and I used to visit every day! This mom had a mild learning disability and I managed to get the father of the children who was living nearby to accept that she need more support with the children. Eventually with their agreement 2 of the children went to live with him, which meant that the mom could cope with one child. None of those children came into care.

There were many families like this, whose children stayed put because we had the time and resources to do this preventative work. Obviously there were cases where sadly we had to apply to the court for an Order to protect the children.

Moving on - my eyes were opened wide when I started working for a neighbouring authority (Birmingham City Council) on a freelance basis. The quality of social work was poor in almost every case with which I was involved - the very first case I did, the aunt who was fostering her nieces told me I was the 8th social worker she had had in 18 months! The major problem was social workers struggling with horrendously large caseloads, totally overwhelming, many of the workers were young and inexperienced and the managers were often incompetent. I spent hours (unpaid) helping social workers as they had no idea how to plan for permanency and neither did their managers.

I'm 7 years retired so I don't know what goes on in court but I simply don't believe that social workers or other professionals deliberately lie and falsify reports. I know there was a recent case that Spero mentioned where reports were falsified - I think it was a clinical psychologist who reported verbatim what had been said by the parent, whereas it was revealed that she hadn't in fact made these statements. It was a bit odd as he was if I recall correctly a very experienced professional but I can't hazard a guess why he would behave in such an unacceptable way. I'm not saying professionals don't make mistakes - I just don't believe they deliberately lie in court. I think sometimes it is a matter of perception - the social worker might think X Y and Z are matters of concern in terms of safeguarding a child and the parents disagree, and so there for accuse the social workers of lying.

The other thing is that parents DO accuse the professionals of lying because it's too painful to accept what they have done. I recall a new foster carer being very indignant and upset, saying that the mother of the children she was fostering said they had been removed because she hadn't taken them to the dentist. Of course this was far from the truth - it was actually a very bad case of neglect.

It did become the norm while I was working for the LA for all parents involved in care proceedings to be assessed by a clinical psychologist which was advantageous but I think in some cases, it de-skilled social workers who came to believe that they weren't wholly competent enough to carry out a parenting assessment and provide the evidence that was necessary in care proceedings. I gather that this is no longer the case because of the cost of these assessments.

I read criticism that guardians simply go along with the views of the social workers, but I have seen cases where the opposite has been true, the social worker has changed her view to align herself with the guardian, so as not to have a hard time in court, as guardians tended to be more influential in court. I don't mean that this was routine, and of course one of the tasks of the guardian is to identify areas of agreement, and it was sometimes just a case of the social worker slanting their views towards those of the guardian.

Sorry I realise I am rambling on and haven't followed the debate. But I do want to say that these rumours of babies being "stolen" for adoption is nonsense. There are adoption targets and I know Spero has sent FOIs to every LA in the country I think? The thing is though we live in an age of targets, and the social services targets for adoption are for children exiting care not entering care - why would LAs want more children entering care when they can't really afford to look after the one that are already in the system. It's all very well having targets for children who are not going to be returned home, to be placed for adoption, but the fact is it is mostly only children between 0 and 5 who will be matched with adoptors. Demand far exceeds supply and most adopters want a child as young as possible. Once a child is over 5 their chances of being matched with adopters diminishes by the day. The need is for older children, sibling groups and children with disabilities. So whether it's the govt or senior managers who are setting these targets, unless these children can be matched with adoptors it won't happen.

Finally I believe that the tories agenda is for privatisation - we've seen it in the NHS, schools, prisons, probation, and it won't be long before social services is privatised. I think this will bring about further deterioration in service delivery, because it will no longer be a public service but a business, incentivised by profit which of course is the case with all businesses. There is a huge problem on a national basis with recruitment and retention of social workers and I think this will be exacerbated once the service has been privatised.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 08/12/2016 18:43

I don't think I would ever suggest anÅ·body took one to a regular meeting either.

spero thank you for your thoughtful and detailed post responding to my dirty loo question.

I also agree with you that that is something that is highly unlikely to be a sole reason for CO action and hope you do not thing I was suggesting it could be.

My thoughts on the matter are that things like that are what can harm or hinder the ability of a SW to be effective and that it does contribute towards a lack of trust which in turn can create fear.

Someone having obtain a copy of the notes about a meeting could quite feasibly believe the SW had despite efforts to be factual had actually over egged or implied something inaccurate which is not helpful to the family or SW.
If that makes sense (I think I have correctly explained what I mean)

heythereconniver · 08/12/2016 20:16

It's all very well having targets for children who are not going to be returned home, to be placed for adoption, but the fact is it is mostly only children between 0 and 5 who will be matched with adoptors. Demand far exceeds supply and most adopters want a child as young as possible.

This is exactly the point. There is a very short window of time in which to decide if a child is going to make it back to their birth family - or if they will remain in the care system. The incentive to meet the threshold for adoption while the child is young enough to still have a chance at being adopted is very clear to me. I have heard SS explaining the rationale and I can see it.

Surely a child who is being adopted is exiting the care system? And if this is a child who SS are 95% sure will end up in the care system if they stay put??

So spero has no research and has worked in various pockets of the UK but not throughout and doesn't have numbers. Disappointing. I assume there's a wealth of academic research out there to which social workers and lawyers have contributed and it's strange not to find it on the thread. Not having an ATHENS password at the moment, I'm not in a position to look. If SS feel their service is hindered by lack of trust, the first thing to do is to establish if there are grounds for lack of trust and if so, where.

Adala · 08/12/2016 20:50

"So spero has no research and has worked in various pockets of the UK but not throughout and doesn't have numbers. Disappointing."

I don't get it ... were you expecting her to be omnipotent?

You don't have to have published research to be an expert in a field, or be able to reveal exact figures from an employment or a volunteer capacity from memory.

I work with academic researchers and while some are brilliant, others are blinkered or very focused and narrow in their field of study and outlooks. And some published authors will simply not have Spero's insight because they'll be barely starting out in the field.

I couldn't tell you how many academics I've worked closely with over the decades because who keeps meticulous count of things like that? It'll be hundreds, but not sure exactly.

tldr · 08/12/2016 20:59

Not having an ATHENS password at the moment, I'm not in a position to look.

It's funny, my Google works without an Athens password.

Adala · 08/12/2016 21:02

Yes - any major work worth looking at will be on Google - universities publish findings in press releases whenever they humanly can.

Or try Google Scholar. Even if you can't access whole texts, you can usually see citations and summaries.

Thisjustinno · 08/12/2016 21:11

hey - Why on earth would you think a barrister was involved in research and would work throughout the UK?.

And what 'weath of academic research which social workers and barristers have contributed to' do you think exists?. You seem sure it must.

Spero · 08/12/2016 21:16

I have posted the links to some highly relevant research conniver. You dont need your Athens password. Just click on the links, and open your mind a little.

It's quite nice.

tldr · 08/12/2016 21:17

conniver was just showing her academic credentials by knowing that Athens passwords exist. Even is she doesn't have one. Expert, innit?

Spero · 08/12/2016 21:28

Well that's me back in my box. Never heard of an Athens password.

Maybe conniver can help us with a list of all her published work?

But what do I know? Just 17 years of my life in isolated geographical pockets such as London. Snort.

quaidorsay · 08/12/2016 21:44

I just googled athens password and it gives you access to research if you work for the nhs.

i don't think it is helpful to start bitching at each other. Conniver, I honestly don't think anyone understands what point you are trying to make - can you explain exactly what research you think exists or should exist which hasn't yet been discussed? Are you saying that there is definitely research out there which isn't being mentioned here?

Adala · 08/12/2016 21:46

Also Dorcas' question above is pertinent: what is the evidence that would convince you, and how should it be collected?

That's a big one.

Who could be trusted by parents to answer the question truthfully? Not social services and probably not academics either, since the public are reported not to trust "experts" anymore.

Even if someone did a report, what if they found basically what Spero's been saying? (Some shitty stuff, mostly not).

Would that study change anyone's minds do you think, or would it be ignored or assumed to be biased? (Especially if someone's been privy to a parent saying "it wasn't my fault", even when it was.)

heythereconniver · 08/12/2016 21:52

Stop blustering, spero. You were never under attack. When you took offence to my saying your experience was valuable but anecdotal, I thought I'd got it wrong in thinking that you were speaking wholly from personal experience or informal information-gathering. I then asked to see the data because I presumed you were speaking with that sort of authority. You did sound very certain that you had left no stone unturned and felt very confident to speak in very broad generalities. Obviously you are an experienced practitioner and have the right to speak as that. But speaking personally, I'm surprised that you aren't leaning on research to support your personal experience and I expected you to have that at your finger tips. To someone who has contributed to research as you would with that level of experience if you were in say medicine, the question wouldn't have posed a problem. Rather than assuming I was out to pop your ego and put you in your box, it's fair to say we were at cross purposes, I think.

quaidorsay · 08/12/2016 21:53

Are you talking about the NICE guidelines on social care re children which are evidence based??? Are you saying that some relate to corruption?

In relation to corruption/incompetence, there are cases where judges have slammed poor conduct by sws (and courts) - but there are no statistics - just saying that it happens and it shouldn't. It doesn't quantify at all i don't think - just says it happens and it shouldn't.

heythereconniver · 08/12/2016 21:54

For those who asked, athens is the gateway to academic research. Journals that are prohibitively expensive are accessible online with a password. Anyone connected with a research institute will have one. I didn't anticipate that it wouldn't be recognised - and am still hopeful that someone with that info. will pop up on the thread.

Adala · 08/12/2016 21:55
quaidorsay · 08/12/2016 21:59

But....what info? No one can pop up with it if no one knows what you are looking for. Please tell me or i won't be able to sleep.