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.

Sorry, I don't think I agree. It's not a 'start' for many of these parents. It's like expecting them to carry water in a bucket with a hole in it. They just can't do it. It doesn't matter how much you encourage them to go to the tap.

If your problems are debt, poor or no housing, violence, drugs, learning difficulties, no family support etc I can't see parenting classes even touching the sides for some families.

That's very sad. Obviously you know a lot more about it than me, but that's very depressing.

And it's also incredibly sad that us teachers would often dread having a pupil from x or y family in our classes, or hear of another one coming up to the school. The time they eat up, the effort and passion i would put in trying to keep them in class, making sure they had a snack at break, yet another pen etc, just to find out they were yo yo ing where they were living. Again. And so all progress on building a relationship so they could learn would be put back again. And it could all have been so different with stability at home.

This just an aside:

I just want to acknowledges the responses from Spero and Hardshoulder. Although the differences between the UK and other European countries is an interesting topic in itself, it’s really a side issue that might better be raised in the History Club. The essential issue is where we are now, and that’s complicated enough.

I might come back with other thoughts/questions. But I will still keep reading. One of my DS's friends adopted; two of my DD's friends adopted. Obviously I have no knowledge of the circumstances, but I hope that was the right decision.

just want to acknowledges the responses from Spero and Hardshoulder. Although the differences between the UK and other European countries is an interesting topic in itself, it’s really a side issue that might better be raised in the History Club. The essential issue is where we are now, and that’s complicated enough

Eh?

I am talking about what is happening NOW. We have about 5,000 adoptions a year. Germany, our nearest next biggest number has only about 300. This is insane. Either we are getting something very wrong or Germany is.

Either we aren't giving children in care what they need or the rest of Europe is getting it very, very wrong.

I think some research into outcomes for children in the different jurisdictions is absolutely essential. Otherwise we are promoting options without really knowing what we are doing and what the consequences are.

It may be that the long term fostering options in other European countries are as similar to our adoption to make not much odds - i.e. child stays with foster family, feels secure, ends contact with birth family. But I don't know. I don't think anyone does.

And this is crazy. We are utterly out of step with EVERY SINGLE other European country. Why?

I can see the thread is taking all sorts of twists and turns which is interesting. However Spero I'm afraid I must return to this issue of targets which has been revealed by your FOI requests. I honestly cannot understand how you have drawn the conclusions that you have, that even if it doesn't mean social workers go out "looking for adoptable babies to steal" it could mean that decisions are made about specific children even before care proceedings begin, for the care plan to be adoption to meet the targets. I am shocked that you have drawn this conclusion, and believe that you have made a serious error of judgement. I know how you and I (and many others) have over several years fought the likes of Hemming/Josephs/Booker and done our utmost to abolish their conspiracy theories, and yet now you seem to be playing straight into their hands, based I believe on a false premise. Targets in any event mean something to aim for - not something that has to happen.

Can I ask how the questions were asked of the LAs about targets for adoption. Were the questions broken down into specific areas of adoption e.g.

1. Which children did these targets relate to - children already being Looked After,under S31 where there was a care plan for adoption, ratified by the Adoption Panel and a Placement Order made in court.
2. Children being looked after under S31 where adoption was the care plan but no Placement Order yet made.
3. What age range of children did the targets relate to if 1or 2. above was relevant.
4. Did the targets relate to children in 1or 2 above who had been waiting to be matched with an adoptive family for a specific period of time and were placed with short term foster carers.
5. If the targets did not relate to 1. above which children did they relate to?
6. Was there any possibility of making decisions about a child's care plan as he was of an adoptable age, prior to initiating care proceedings, to assist in meeting targets
7. Was there any possibility of seeking out children of an adoptable age who were not LAC.

As far as I'm concerned the targets would only relate to 1 or 2 above, but for you to draw the conclusions that you have, you must have received information that did in fact prove that decision making about a child's care plan was affected by adoption targets. OR is this something that you have just decided could be the case. If so I think that is wholly wrong and creates totally the wrong impression of planning for permanency for children who cannot live with their own family.

I can't recall your exact para and I can't cut and paste on here but you suggested there should be targets for social workers to deal with child protection matters and make decisions about the most suitable kind of alternative care if they would not return to their families, and you must have mentioned going to court for an Order of course - Care Order, SGO, Supervision Order or Placement Order. Well you know aswell as I do that there is a target (well more of a rule than a target) and it's 26 weeks

Just looking at the options for children who cannot be returned to the care of parents by order of the Court, there are very few. Young children (under 5) in the main will be able to be matched for adoption and I believe this is absolutely right - why should a child not have the permanence and stability afforded by adoption. BUT adoptions don't always work out, and as others have said, adoptive placements of even young children break down. I firmly believe that this is related to the child's pre placement experiences with the birth family, and the adopter's inability to cope with the challenging behaviour that the child presents - this is an observation not a criticism. Admittedly it is quite often in the adolescent years that adoptions break down, but it can happen at any age. I have seen families torn apart, marriages break down, adoptive parents suffering mental health problems. No matter how much vetting and prep courses, it is an absolute gamble as to whether the adoption will be a success. I ran adoption prep courses for many years and I look back now and think how I would do things differently. I would insist that every applicant read "Parenting the Hurt Child" because "normal" parenting doesn't work with children who have suffered such trauma and whilst we did put on course on attachment, I would make that much more of a focus.

A very good outcome for a child could be to be cared for by a member of the extended family (usually a grandparent or aunt etc) and the Order requested is usually an SGO and the birth parents are usually given contact once every 2 months. OK things can go awry but it means the child stays within his family of origin. The only other option is permanent foster care and I don't know if things have changed in the 7 years since I retired, but trying to recruit permanent foster care for children between 5 and 12 was more or less a non-starter. One of the most successful routes to permanency was if the short term foster carers made an application to keep the child on a permanent basis, but this didn't happen very often. Whether there are more permanent foster carers now I don't know. In terms of teenagers, we ran a very successful Teenage Placement Scheme for 13 - 18 year old young people - foster carers but specialising in the care of adolescents. In fact some of these teenagers stayed on beyond 18 years and we converted the placement to Supportive Lodgings. The shire county that I worked for did retain a few residential establishments for teenagers (but small ones - max 8 beds) but I have seen some horrific examples of "care" in these residential establishments. If you put half a dozen disaffected young people together and 12 staff who work on a rota basis you are courting disaster. Also it is a very expensive way of caring for young people as is any form of residential care.

I'm sticking my neck out here and I know Spero that you work hard on the Transparency Project and many other things, but I do get frustrated when you (and others) criticise social workers, as they are like all other professionals/employees ranging from highly competent to those who would be better in a different job. I'm not given to blowing my own trumpet or being competitive, but I think to say that Louise Tickle understands adoption because she has been part of the TP for 12 months is a tad insulting, given that I have spent some 30 years involved in child protection, fostering and adoption.

MagicChanges - and equally, it is a little insulting to say that Louise Tickle knows 'nothing' about adoption when she has been a committed member of the TP for over a year, has attended both CPConf2015 and CPConf2016 and spent a lot of her own time and money in investigation and research, including establishing some useful legal principles as the applicant in Tickle v North Tyneside.

this debate will never, ever get anywhere if attempts to have sensible discussion are simply met with the response that you are 'shocked'.

the TP were very careful not to draw conclusions beyond what the evidence could show them.

But it is impossible not be to be worried when SOME councils say 'we have a target for X adoptions this year', in a culture where the Government clearly favours adoption to conclude that their MIGHT be a corrupting impact of such a target on decisions made about individual children at a very early stage of proceedings.

And that cannot be right.

The corrupting influence of targets is well known and apparent in many different organisations. Why should Children's Services be any different?

With regard to your specific questions, I am afraid I cannot be more helpful, mainly because a lot of the information we got from the councils was pretty opaque and unhelpful. It should be a relatively easy matter to say - no. We don't 'target' children to improve our statistics, and here is the proof.

A few commendable councils did say loud and clear 'we do NOT operate to any kind of target and we make decisions based on children's needs'

And that is great. but in the current climate of fear and distrust we expected a lot more by why of explanation.

you can put your head in the sand if you wish and proclaim yourself shocked. That would be a shame as you have been a valuable contributor to the CPR and I know that many have benefitted from your knowledge and experience.

But the time for being 'shocked' is over. The time is long overdue for engagement with what are very real and serious issues. While you waste your energy being 'shocked' Hemming is even now trying to the get the UN interested in bogus human rights abuses. You have seen for yourself the energy and the vitriol of the Facebook Groups. Their members number many thousands now. This is a growing and serious problem of lack of trust and considerable fear and it must be dealt with.

My judgment I trust. I can't demand that others do. I offer them the work that I do and let them draw their own conclusions. If after all that I have done and continue to do people do not trust my judgment, that is sad but not something over which I have any control. I simply cannot do any more than I am doing.

I just had a little look at what Finland does and it seems its long term foster care and children's homes but the possibility of returning to birth family is always there so sounds like it could be quite unsettling and insecure but I suppose that depends on how well the foster care and children's homes work. Save The Children are very involved in the whole thing and it can be read on their Finland site.

magic

I usually read your posts and nod along. I must say with that last one I'm a little surprised.

It is not a huge stretch to go from we have a target to have x amount of children adopted from our care system to, this family have just had x children come into the system it would require xyz to fix the issue but y has a waiting list and costs a fair bit and may require actual weekly visits from the SW without y they will most certainly fail, we can't do y easily so let's proceed as if adoption is inevitable.

That attitude from the off can be a game changer for that child and that is not often a good thing.

Oh and having been on the recieving end of one of JH's ever growing fan club I do agree that it's unnerving and very concerning, and I strongly believe that the way to stop them being taken seriously is not through ridicule or expressing shock about the crap they come out with.

Doing so IMO damages the integrity of the system and in turn damages the ability to protect children.

Looking at what we can do to increase trust in all the cogs in the system is a far better goal

What does JH get out of doing what he does though? Or does he really believe he's right?

Also I must plug again Surviving Safeguarding, if there are any parents reading this who are nervous. She has just written something about surviving Christmas without your children survivingsafeguarding.co.uk/2015/12/20/facing-festivities/

Namechange - I think the best explanation for why Hemming now crusades in the way he does can be found in this 2007 article by Jonathan Gornall. TLDR: his girlfriend experienced some investigation when pregnant with his child because she had previously failed to report a still birth. He was very angry and tried to sue Birmingham council for £300K.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/08/hemmingsway

FWIW my view has always been that the many men who are campaigning in this field do so out of anger that the male right to control the family is under threat from the State and/or it gives them access to a large number of vulnerable women they can sexually exploit.

I am sorry to say that I have heard persistent rumours of sexual exploitation over the years but nothing I can ever prove.

I have just been crying buckets and holding my 4 month old extra tight while he naps reading that survivingsafeguarding blog :(

I do think our current government policy of 'adoption is the gold standard' is harmful, and I can see how targets may create pressure on both social workers and others involved in the care of LAC to push for adoption. I don't believe this is the overall aim of these targets but I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in adoptions being rushed. I have in the past supervised foster carers who have had in the past been hounded by an IRO and LA social worker to take out an SGO or to adopt on the children they wanted to long term foster. The couple stated (with good reason) that this was something They would happily consider in the future but at the moment the placement was complex and they felt they needed the support from their supervising social worker. It was still brought up at every LAC review and meeting to do with the child even though there was nothing wrong with the carers capabilities and standards and the children were all happy and settled there.

I don't feel there was any malic on behalf of the other professionals however I think the push for 'permenance' in this instance overruled the best interests of the child.

I agree with you Leanback. I have no evidence of deliberate plans to target blue eyed children - which is the Hemming/Facebook group position.

But I do think that adoption is given an enormous amount of weight as an 'ideal' over and above what the actual child in front of them needs. There have been a few cases for e.g. of foster children being told they had to leave settled placements to find adopters - even when the children said they didn't want to leave!

It makes me uncomfortable as well that permenance through adoption trumps other needs of the children on many occasions. For example sibling groups are often split as the younger ones are 'adoptable' and the older siblings are not. In my experience children who remain with their siblings do much better later in life and develop much greater resiliance. I am yet to be convinced that separating a toddler from their older sibling so they can be adopted is the better option the majority of the time.

I've seen evidence of adopters pulling out due to the Childs eye colour. But it's not consumerist.....

Where? Where have you seen that, everything? Bullshit.

Spero - ok it may have been a little churlish to say that Louise Tickle knows nothing about adoption* but I don't believe academic research (regardless of who pays) and attendance at 2 conferences does actually equip her (or anyone else) with the complexities and complications of the adoption triangle - birth parents, adoptee and adoptors.

Conversely I have spent some 30 years "on the ground" as it were with work related to adoption,. I'm not an academic but I believe (rightly or wrongly) that there is no substitute for being involved with families facing care proceedings, giving evidence in court and involvement with the child in the foster home. Allied to this, the search for suitable adoptors takes up an enormous amount of time, often travelling the length and breadth of the country, and finally being involved in the placement of the child, and supporting the adoptors in those first difficult months as they adapt to caring for a very traumatised child. For what it's worth I always treated birth parents with respect and never apportioned blame, because as I've said before, in every case I dealt with, the parents were merely repeating the patterns of parenting that they themselves had suffered as children. At the risk of repeating myself I think managing a team of 10 fostering and adoption social workers for 15 years has to count for something, but you have chosen to ignore all of my experience. I know I am sounding defensive and the other social worker on the thread Leanback is able to post in a far more measured way - an enviable skill.

I'm sorry you disapprove of my assertion that I am shocked but that is how I feel. You say "the TP were careful not to draw conclusions beyond what the evidence could show them" but you did exactly that It appears that because LAs didn't give specific details about these targets (incidentally do you agree that targets are something to aim for) you decided that there might be a corrupting impact made upon decisions for specific children at an early stage in the proceedings.

There was no evidence to confirm or even suggest that this was the case - and you're the lawyer not me!

You say you can't answers my specific questions because the response from LAs was opaque but can you at least tell me what question(s) the FOI requests asked. I think LAs would simply give a number as the quickest way of dealing with the request.

I'm certainly not going to "dig my head in the sand" and I feel so strongly about this that I am willing to request FOI requests about exactly which children these targets relate to and their legal status. In saying this I have no idea how to go about this task, but what I do have at my disposal is time though not sure about the cost involved.

I honestly don't think that Hemming is any threat whatsoever - he is an old windbag, full of hot air and as far as I can see his attempt at engaging with the UN is a ridiculous interview with an Estonian interviewer, where he is trotting out the same weary conspiracy theories. As an MP he was not taken seriously in the House of Commons. I saw on TV on one occasion when he got up to speak, there was a mass exodus for the exit. He rambled on and the 6 members left in the house were certainly not listening. As for the hate posts on FB, I can only feel sorry for them as they are mostly mothers whose children have been removed, and who are unable to write a sentence that makes any sense but they clearly get some comfort from slagging off social workers. There was a topic earlier this year about the different ways they would like to kill or maim a social worker. Not a single person admits to making any kind of mistake - every post is similar - the social worker was lying

OK so the government are pro-adoption but at the risk of repeating myself, that matters not one jot, nor do any targets because if there are no suitable adoptors available for a specific child there will be no adoption and no one knows better than you that a Judge is not going to make a Placement Order unless he/she is convinced that this is the right route to permanency for a specific child.

Needsasock I take it you are not a social worker involved in adoption work. I am trying to disentangle your xyz's (!) I think you are saying that xyz is preventative/support work with the family but it can't be done because of lack of resources, so let's move straight to adoption instead - have I got that right? It is most certainly a fact that lack of resources does indeed mean that preventative/supportive work with families can't be done in many cases. When I began my social work career in 1979 it did happen and I can remember a budget for "preventative and supportive work" although that didn't mean that some children needed to be removed from their families because of abuse/neglect just as it happens today. I recall my very first case which ended up in court (in the magistrates court in those days) and the LA lawyer asked me to give the court details of my visits to the family and I think the bench almost nodded off as I read out date after date after date - at least 3 times a week for many months, to no avail because the step father thumped the 2 year old so hard that he was badly bruised around the face and ears.

I'm assuming the hypothetical situation that you pose is related to the fact that the children can't return home as LAs don't have the resources so they will need a care plan and care proceedings will be initiated. It seems you think there will be a jump to a care plan for adoption to meet the targets - well firstly the LA have a duty to find out if there is anyone in the extended family who can care for the children on a short or long term basis and the possibility of them applying for a Special Guardianship Order if after a comprehensive assessment they are considered suitable. I don't know what ages these hypothetical children are but unless they are under 5 years any social worker who understands planning for permanency will not consider a care plan of adoption for older children, or a large sibling group or children with disabilities, so no the jump you talk of cannot be made.I know I am repeating myself but before any care plan for adoption can be agreed it has to be presented to the multi professional Adoption Panel chaired by a person who is independent of the LA and the plan agreed (or not) by the Agency decision maker - the Director of Deputy. Then the application has to be made in court for a Care/Placement Order and the social worker and any other professionals involved with the case will have to demonstrate by evidence that this child is being significantly harmed and the best way of serving his interests will be by placement with an adoptive family, and (and I'm sure Spero will confirm this) a Judge will only make a Placement Order (allowing a child to be adopted) when nothing else will do ..............so it really isn't possible to think "we can't do xyz so let's jump to adoption to meet the targets."

It's because of comments like the ones made by Needs that I am so concerned Spero because I think the conclusion you have jumped to will give people the idea that planning for adoption is a simple matter to meet targets and nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed it is in my view only one step away from the "stolen babies to get them adopted to meet targets"and you and I and others have invested a lot of time and energy in dispelling that myth.

On the Childs file.
Pulling out of this thread. It was interesting because allegedly it's about my field but it's so abstract it could be about agriculture.

Leanback I have similar recollections of kinship foster carers being pressured into applying for Residence Orders (pre SGO days) and this was nothing to do with the best interests of the child, and everything to do with money. It caused a great deal of upset to the kinship carers and as you say this was sprung on them by the IRO at the 6 monthly review. Shocking. And I am absolutely convinced that adoption targets are exactly the same - related to finance,but I have tried to put forward some evidence of how these targets cannot and should not be met unless it is in the best interests of the child.

Spero Please tell me how you know that a "great deal of weight is put on adoption as an ideal over and above what the child in front of them really needs" Do you attend the planning meetings for these children? Sorry I don't want to be sarcastic but I am growing so tired of people thinking they know exactly how social workers and managers make plans for children who have been traumatised by their families, especially when there is an absolute dearth of fostercarers and adoptors. And these children ho had to leave foster homes to be placed with adoptors, "even though they wanted to stay........." give me strength! You must know that children in the first place are placed with short term foster carers (though many such carers will tell you that short terms can be years rather than months) - and IF the plan is adoption and all the proper steps have been taken and a Placement Order made and adoptors found for this child, then he/she has to leave the foster carers. Of course he doesn't want to go (in most cases) because he's become settled but the foster carers are short term - they are approved as short term carers and do not want to be permanent carers or adoptors - but most do excellent work, helping the child to make the transition to the adoptors and many keep in touch all over the years.

Leanback I agree the issue of keeping/splitting siblings is a difficult one and yes I've known many cases where the little ones have been adopted and the older ones fostered. I'm not sure about whether children do better in later life if they remain with their older sibling as I think there are too many variables and much depends on individual circumstances. I think for me the fact that the children awaiting placements are so emotionally harmed and will have insecure attachment patterns, that sometimes they do in fact need to have the full attention of the adoptive parents without competing with the needs of the sibling. Also adoptors need all their energies to cope with 1 or 2 children rather than a larger group. I used to worry about placing say a 9 or 10 year old for adoption because she had a very young sibling (or half sibling) as I worried that the older child would miss out somehow, as she was being taken on the basis of the fact there was a very young sibling.

These matters are complicated and never easy and I firmly believe that this govt will pursue its privatisation agenda - and their sites are already set on Social Services and I shudder to think what will happen to this service when that comes to pass.

I haven't 'jumped" to any conclusions. I have been part of a team that has taken about 2 years to reach conclusions you don't agree with.

Fair enough, you don't have to agree with me. But do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting my position so unfairly.

And yet again, a poster when challenged about something crazy they definitely read somewhere, disappears.

I am still waiting for my opinions to be 'taken apart line by line' as I was promised. Guess I won't be holding my breath.

O and btw Hemming is dangerous. I have provided considerable proof of why on the CPR site which I am not going to repeat here. You are entitled to take a different view - but I will very strongly disagree with you.

Magic - the 'great weight' to which I refer is that placed by central government, in very many press releases and other activities.

I am not trying to cast aspersions upon your profession.

But your very angry and unfair rejection of my work and that of the TP is not assisting a sensible debate. We are not a bunch of crazy conspirators. We have given this much thought over a period of time. I am afraid you may have to be more open minded and consider what we say before rejecting it so firmly.

Or not - as you wish. But don't expect me to warm to your arguments when you make them on the basis that I am a fool.

O and Magic - the case I am talking about involved LONG TERM foster cares who had to take the LA to court to prevent them removing a child who wanted to stay. They succeeded - and were awarded damages for breach of their Human Rights.

Credit me with a little understanding please.

magic I don't think think hemming is considered dangerous because he may bend the governments ear or manage to change policy. I think what spero is suggesting is that he is dangerous specifically in regards to encouraging people to flee the country when under SS investigation. For the children and parents he becomes involved with I imagine he does pose a real threat.