AIBU to want to carry on this interesting discussion about the Child Protection System?

[Spero]

Following on from this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2792849-AIBU-to-be-horrified-by-the-Stolen-Children-of-England?

I thought it was interesting. Some people didn't agree with me and said they would tell me why. I would like to hear their views.

I would, Sock. I'm a bit of a lurker on MN generally but I'm an LA social worker (with looked after children) and I think this is a vital conversation.

Sock - yes. I think that is key here. Just been arguing with Hemming on Twitter over his misrepresentations in the Latvian case. I think it is clear that he and his entourage have encouraged this mother to 'fight' - with predictably awful results.
childprotectionresource.online/john-hemming-an-apology/

If the trust is gone or never there between parents and social workers, others rush in to fill those gaps.

But I am not sure how practically this can be done while social workers have to wear both the 'hat' of support and investigation.

Maybe Surviving Safeguardings parent advocacy scheme can be part of it. I hope so.

I am a firm beliver that it can be done.

We used to do it and we used to do it well, we just have to make sure we are reasonable and honest.

There are different ways of being honest and sometimes it's just not about telling what you percieve to be the truth.

Often it's about understanding what can be inferred or understood from what you do say/write.

And I don't think it's just about social workers but obviously they are the most important ones it's about every single professional who has a responsibility for safeguarding.

I'm about to pop out and take some mini but loud pirates (otherwise known as children) on a trip out because the little odd bods for some reason want to go and see some taxi's but I shall be back later.

I asked one of the parents who contributes to the CPR site to comment here as I thought she would have a valuable perspective and unfortunately she said this:

"Well the first thought that sprang to mind was Mumsnet, that’s not the sort of place for me. For me the image of Mumsnet is the online gathering place for the type of Mum who attended NCT anti natal classes rather than NHS and has no bigger problems than worrying if their child falls out of the top 5% in their end of year tests.That is not people who have walked in my shoes, so know nothing but theory about how to parent in my situation.So I have prejudice too.
It actually is born out by reading the threads, as it seems mainly to be professionals answering"

But she did have some useful comments:

"I think to answer your question, what parents need pre proceedings is to not feel afraid, because flight or fight kicks in and crowds all reasoning out. One of my greatest helps to clear my head has been to be part of a supportive groups of people with similar problems. One didn’t have any particular agenda other than to decrease isolation, and mainly consisted of having a cuppa and eating biscuits whilst chatting. It has been a runaway success, with members who had even severe problems that had previously needed hospitalisation moving on with their lives and having considerable improvements in their mental health. It was led by a professional , but one who related to the members and did not impose her ideas. Interestingly when she left, and less experienced workers took over, who did want to improve the group, by making us do activities rather than eat biscuits the membership dwindled.The members keeping in touch outside of the group. So once again I come back to peer support, a mum of a child with special needs talking to another, someone whose child has been on the at risk register explaining the process , because this is why my type of parent turns to JFF, rather than listening to the professional who has not had their experience. If CS want to stop scared parents turning to JFF and Ian Josephs, they need to provide something that fulfils the need to be supported and understand what is happening at the parents level"

I'm going back a page or two here, so bear with me. Vapours if that was a report that a social worker had written (as you printed it) then it's rubbish and shouldn't get anywhere near a court. BUT it did occur to me that the points raised were taken out of context e.g. take the first sentence "it is evident that sock does not understand the emotional needs of baby X"..............................then the evidence referred to needs to be comprehensively outlined. Surely the next sentence didn't follow on "socks spends a lot of time on social media etc" but it's difficult because I don't know if you are quoting an actual report, or picking sentences out of an actual report but out of context, or just making the whole thing up.

If someone is going to go all out to talk of disassociation and attachment issues in a report, they need to be very sure they know their stuff or a defence lawyer will have a nice time demonstrating that the writer of the report doesn't in fact understand those complex issues. The sentence about sore breasts and the risk to baby X being exposed on social media makes no sense at all.

As far as I can see you can't be asking a court to make an order based on what Dr Nod MIGHT say - that's ridiculous. The issue of the untidy house is also ridiculous. You say that these are the kind of reports that routinely go into court - really? I can't imagine any lawyer acting for the LA would be so dim as to let something like this go through. I can only assume that IF they do, then the request for an ICO is denied. BUT I've been retired for 7 years and worked for the same Shire county for 23 years where the standard of social work was relatively high. I did however come across very poor practice when I worked independently for 5 years after I retired. BUT not this bad...................surely?

Sock are you a social worker/manager/lawyer - just wondered

Magic, it was a spoof report aimed at me based on a demonstration of how something I said could be misinterpreted.

Obviously for effect it was exaggerated HOWEVER I do agree with her that it happens lots.

The full description of what I do and my history narrows me down to being one of only about 10 people in the UK so I tend to give a very generic description that means I could be one of thousands.

But yes I used to be a SW but in the old days and I coincidentallly have some legal qualifications (but nothing even close to spero and I do not act on people's behalf) I mainly now spend my time advising my lovely staff members on all sorts of issues that people who experance or have experanced domestic abuse may come across in their day to day lives.

I forgot to add she was talking about far sooner than court

User I have some sympathy for the comments in your post. I think people tend to forget that it's the foster carers and adopters who are having to cope with a child's often challenging behavior on a daily basis, knowing that this is the manifestation of his pre placement experiences. This is not going to make them kindly disposed towards the birth parents. I ran prep groups for foster carers and adoptors for many years and tried very hard to help applicants to understand the reasons why children came into care and how so often the parents were merely repeating their own patterns of parenting, as they had almost always been abused or neglected as children. Applicants would show some understanding and empathy on this issue, but once a child was placed and the household was in turmoil because of the child's disturbed behaviour and carers were anxious and distressed, their own kids were suffering and life often felt like a battleground, then the empathy for the birthparents often ebbed away. I think this is just called being human. And of course you're right that the child's grandparents are "known" to social services and back along.............this is at the root of parents who abuse/neglect - it's a cycle of deprivation.

I absolutely understand how it is that parents are not able to offer "good enough" parenting (or as user puts it) "not everyone can parent" - and it isn't because of some inherent deficiency that they have acquired, or are bad or evil, it is simply because they have suffered some kind of trauma in their childhood, not a "one off" but years of abuse or neglect, because their parents were treated in the same way. These children have received no empathy, so they are unable to show any - they do not mature emotionally, suffer low self esteem, can turn to criminal activity and/or suffer a range of mental health conditions. They are ill equipped for adult life and are not able to offer good enough parenting. These (often young) parents live on the margins of society, poor housing, financial problems, and domestic violence often characterises their relationships. Some will abuse alcohol or drugs - there is no support for them because their own parents are disinterested in the way that their parents were before them..................and so the cycle turns round and round and no-one has ever found a way of breaking into that cycle.

Having said all this I also understand people (foster carers and adopters) who don't accept this theory - often believing that it is some sort of excuse, or that parents who suffered as children should make sure that they don't repeat that pattern, and many don't of course. I am not saying that all parents traumatised in childhood will go on to abuse or neglect their own children, but many will.

I agree too with user that sadly for some parents, no amount of support is going to enable them to be "good enough" parents, and that children don't have time to wait - their childhoods should not be slipping away awaiting their parents to give up drink/drugs or separate from the violent partner, or whatever it is that is causing trauma for the child.

User says "it's often not about support it's about insight" - but insight is an abstract concept and is unlikely to be understood as ime many parents involved in care proceedings are concrete thinkers and are unable to conceptualise abstract issues. It's complicated and of course all parents are going to be different with their own problems so I maybe shouldn't be making blanket assertions, but I can't help but recall that I am describing almost every parent with whom I was involved as a social worker.

Needs you say ahuge amount of parents can be helped. Can you enlarge on that please. I think in a later post you say "we used to offer support" and I agree - I recall that time too - but I also recall that there were many families that were not going to keep children safe no matter how much support. It's difficult isn't it because you're talking about huge numbers and I'm talking about many - and we don't really know do we?

Spero You quoted ECHR Article 8 in response to User - I don't know anything about this legislation but I googled and it does state that there have to be limitations to the legislation. And surely it isn't "stand alone" legislation is it, otherwise any legislation designed to protect children would be irrelevant.

Yes needs I did realise Vapour's "report was a spoof!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh - just spent a long time posting and it's gone poof - so have I.............!

Spero You quoted ECHR Article 8 in response to User - I don't know anything about this legislation but I googled and it does state that there have to be limitations to the legislation. And surely it isn't "stand alone" legislation is it, otherwise any legislation designed to protect children would be irrelevant

Article 8 imposes positive obligations on States to keep families together. I have written here about my worries that some social workers don't seem to understand the law or think it important.

childprotectionresource.online/care-proceedings-article-8-and-the-rule-of-law/

My thought process goes a bit like this magic

Let's use the number 100 for ease of use.

Say 100 kids files are in an office it's not unreasonable to say that chances are only 10 of them will end up with long term care orders, so 90 of them are deemed to not need them it would be safe to say that of those 90 guidance and support was a help.

Of course another way of looking at it is Nope 90 were failed and left to continue being abused or neglected and they needed care orders

Or that Nope 90 of them didn't need anything at all they were all malicious referrals

I cannot believe that the failure rate is that % because that would be unlikely so we are left with the first situation or the last one.

I choose to believe that the majority of SW's are pretty good at advice and support as well as identifying abuse and the majority of parents are adequate or can be with help and my own experance echos that it also is that the majority of the parents I came across did make changes and did end up doing ok.

I haven't checked for a while but I should imagine it's safe to assume there are still significant differences between the number of families referred who don't result in care orders and those who do, it's also my understanding that referrels are rocketing at a vast rate of knots yet rates of actual abuse are fairly static so again it's fairly safe to say that the majority of referrels result in help or have nothing needing to be actioned.