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 don't think it's the word target that is the problem - it means something to aim for and we live in a target driven culture. They are part and parcel of almost everyone's job in both public and private employment

But this is exactly the problem, magic. Targets mean something to aim; not achieving a target = missed, failed, must try harder to rectify. If you hit your targets in business you are rewarded with pay, bonus, incentives. If you miss targets, say in running train lines, ambulance waiting times, immigration etc what happens? Targets are a universally understood criteria that mean success or failure depending on whether they are met or not. We are conditioned to meet targets.
Can you really not see why this is a troubling phrase when used in conjunction with adoption?

Spero he gives platforms to all kinds of different people who otherwise wouldn't have a voice. You don't have to agree with all of them to accept many others can still be very credible. The parents featured on that particular show are real people with their own experiences to tell x

We do live in a target driven culture yes. And all professions will have targets yes. But it's still important WHAT you set targets in relation to. There's a huge difference between a GP having a target of, for e.g, seeing 25 patients a day and having a target of only referring 4 patients per week to further investigations. The former ensures that the service is running efficiently. The second might very well be in conflict with her professional judgement and result in patients not getting the proper care.

No one is arguing that SS shouldn't have ANY targets. I'm sure they have all sorts of targets about responding to referrals in good time etc etc. And I don't even think it would be hugely controversial to have a target to e.g. 'ensure that, of those children who have placement orders, at least 70% are matched with suitable families within 12 months'. But it is inappropriate to have ill defined targets for adoption numbers.

And tldr is one of the best informed people I know on MN.

Needasock I agree with you about the fear that people have of social workers. I have a mental health problem and so frequent the MH threads on MN and am saddened at the number of women on those threads who are too afraid to see their GP in case their children are "taken away from them" - naturally I do my best to re-assure them, but I've been on MN since 2011 (I think) and still the posts appear on the MH thread about fear of children being "take away."

Sorry I don't follow your point in you last post - when you talk about judgements are you referring to the link that Spero posted today. I haven't had time to fully digest the contents of the judgements but I have look at the para she mentioned where judges complain about the lack of analysis in social worker/guardian reports and an absence of comparing and contrasting why a particular Order is being requested rather than an alternative Order to secure the child's future. At least this has to be addressed in an SGO assessment.

Lack of analysis was always a problem with so many social workers - reams of detail and description but no analysis, and even more frustrating when this issue was raised there often appeared to be a lack of understand of the need for analysis - I chaired planning meetings and reviews (in the days before IROs) and would challenge social workers about lack of analysis and it occurred to me that some of them didn't actually know HOW to analyse the situation. I found myself saying things like "it's about what all this detail means - what conclusions have you drawn from xy and z, what are the positives and negatives of the detail etc" - the management group were all concerned about this important issue and did what we could to coach social workers into providing an analysis. Likewise I used to get fostering and adoption reports detailing all sorts of things that were irrelevant e.g. a long para about a woman whose mother had died and how much she missed her and visited the grave every week............when I wanted to know how she had coped with the loss, not how often she visited the grave! I ensured that my team were all well aware that all issues covered in fostering and adoption reports had to be related to the task, and I didn't want to know whether the applicant preferred sweet to savoury food!

I will give this issue some more thought and look at the judgements Spero provided but I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think if there was evidence that there was a correlation between care plans for adoption and subsequent request for a PO and targets, I would get it - totally, but in the absence of that evidence I don't think I will change my position.

Spero he gives platforms to all kinds of different people who otherwise wouldn't have a voice. You don't have to agree with all of them to accept many others can still be very credible. The parents featured on that particular show are real people with their own experiences to tell

Sorry. No. He gives a platform to some very dangerous people. He supports what these people believe! He is promoting a petition to re-open the bloody Hampstead Hoax! This man can have zero credibility and I would be very suspicious of anyone he champions.

I agree with conserve and comehome - the use and acceptability of 'targets' depend on their context.

Entirely and acceptable 'target' would be phrased as conserve suggests 'to ensure that, of those children who have placement orders, at least 70% are matched with suitable families within 12 months'.

But what we GOT on the FOI requests were documents that just had bald phrases about 'we are on course to meet our ambitious target of 12 adoptions this year, up from 9 last year ' or similar. There begins to be - at the very least - a worrying perception of a disconnect between adoption as the right out come for the individual child.

And it wasn't just the social work analysis criticised by the Court of Appeal in various cases in 2013. It was the court judgements. Re B-S is a very important case and anyone who wants to understand how we have ended up in our current toxic stew, needs to read it carefully.

This is why the 'targets' debate is so important. A system has already been criticised for not operating fairly in many cases. And this criticism is being levelled by the senior judiciary, it's not just Hemming having a wobble.

Add to this mix, a pinch of the Government's clear and explicit drive for adoption as the gold standard. Put in a dash of 'targets' and give it a good stir. you can see what we end up with won't taste very nice at all.

Spero I posted the link to the interview as I thought people would be interested in listening to the views of actual parents who have been in the situation discussed on this thread. I'm not aware of this being done in the mainstream at all. To dismiss something so readily without having even listened to it could be considered quite ignorant.

Again here's the link

Also Richie Allen doesn't support Sabine McNeils view actually, he openly stated he was still sceptical in the most recent interview with her. He's just providing a platform for her to speak.

He's just providing a platform for her to speak.

And if you don't know why providing Sabine McNeill with a 'platform' is such a hugely irresponsible and dangerous thing to do, if you can't even be bothered to read up about the damage, harm and misery she has caused, then you have absolutely no right to be pushing the Richie Allen show on this thread.

If you don't take my word for it, perhaps you would like to follow the proceedings at Blackfriars Crown Court? hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/breaking-sabine-mcneill-pleads-guilty/

You might be comfortable with giving a 'platform' to convicted criminals and child abusers; I am not.

And have a read of what one of Richie Allen's own supporters had to say about him
hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/is-abraham-a-psychopath-part-ii/

"The way this case has been covered by the alt. media has also obliged me to revise my opinion of several self-styled ‘journalists’ and commentators, whom I formerly respected. Richie Allen’s fawning interview with Sabine McNeill was contemptible. This woman has given herself some quasi para-legal status as a ‘McKenzie’s friend’ without apparently understanding how the Law works. There has been no ‘gagging order’ but simply due process and her leaking of the childrens’ police ABE interviews – which are sub judicae – is in contempt of court. That is why she is wanted by the police, not because she has done anything to compromise any evil-doer. Again, like Araya Soma, Sabine has herself abused those kids by exposing their identities. As for Belinda McKenzie, she does not even appear to understand the legal jargon and yet she presents herself as an expert!"

Spero I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you, neither am I interested in Sabine McNeil. The interview with the forced adoption parents was interesting and relevant to this thread, hence why I posted it

In case anyone is not aware of the Hampstead Hoax, it was pushed by Sabine Mc Neill and Belinda McKenzie in 2014/2015. John Hemming was patron of their organisation 'The Association of McKenzie Friends' until early 2015.

Two children were tortured by their mother's boyfriend into alleging that their father and every teacher at the primary school in Hampstead had sex with all the children every Wednesday and killed and ate babies, which were made into burgers in their local Macdonalds. The killers then wore babies skulls as hats and shoes made of their skin.

Unsurprisingly, this was chucked out of court as entirely mad, insane, made up nonsense. But 20 children in Hampstead remain at risk of kidnap as McNeill and her cronies promoted the myth that they were at risk of satanic ritual abuse. McNiell and her cronies posted videos of the children making false allegations, their faces and names revealed, which is in contempt of court for very obvious reasons.

Mc Neill has been back and forth to Blackfriars Crown Court this year on charges of criminal harrassment and has been made subject to a life long restraining order.

If Richie Allen goes anywhere near her or anyone in her organisation, then he is complicit with her actions.

'providing her with a platform' . Disgraceful.

Babynamechange - please don't be so naive.

You cannot seriously be suggesting anything being promoted by Richie Allen is credible. If you are, then I am afraid I am going to very seriously take issue with you.

You are entitled to post whatever links you want, so long as they are not in contempt of court. And I am entitled to say just how very dangerous I think some people are.

magic
It's not what I believe, no, as indicated by my saying 'I mean, I really can't see it myself, but I can see why others might see it that way.'

Targets should have no business here at all. In my work, targets are what I use to prove to my boss that I've done my job and so therefore deserve a job/a bonus/a raise/a promotion. That's pretty standard practice.

Their very existence makes it possible for JH and his ilk to keep banging that drum.

Targets should have no business here at all. In my work, targets are what I use to prove to my boss that I've done my job and so therefore deserve a job/a bonus/a raise/a promotion. That's pretty standard practice.

^this^

Not only are we allowing the "stolen" narrative but language can and does influence assumptions and decisions. Look at the difference that "allegation" and "disclosure" have in perception of whether an event happened or not. We need to tread really carefully because the stakes for our children couldn't be higher. Targets will always make a person feel they should strive to meet it - this Is inappropriate language psychologically on people making crucial decisions.

This is interesting from the Transparency Project's weekly round up
www.transparencyproject.org.uk/family-court-reporting-watch-weekly-round-up-8/

IN OTHER TRANSPARENCY NEWS

The Public Accounts Committee reported on Child Protection Services and the DfE mishandling of the conflict of interest in relation to the appointment of the Chief of Social Work
The report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee was published on the 16 December. It criticised the Department for Education (DfE) for ‘worrying complacency’ on improving child protection services quickly enough and mishandling the conflict of interest surrounding the appointment of the Chief Social Worker.
Key findings with recommendation included that the DfE:
Mishandled a clear conflict of interest after appointing the Chief Social Worker and should report to the Commission by the end of March 2017 on changed procedures; new agreed constraints on the Chief Social Worker’s dealings with Morning Lane Associates; management of future conflicts; and plans for clear guidelines for officials on conflicts of interest “as the Government moves ahead with plans to outsource children’s social services to private and voluntary sector partners”. The DfE & Cabinet Office should require much clearer declarations of interest in future with “close and personal relationship” defined. The taxpayer and Parliament are entitled to be clear about potential conflicts of interest given the millions of taxpayers’ money spent annually on contracts with the private sector. The Cabinet Office should also report by March 2017 with outline plans to standardise and clarify such declarations;
Children are being left at risk of harm through inconsistency in the quality and consistency of help and protection services. The DfE should report by March 2017 on ensuring minimum standards so all children have equal access to high-quality services and practice standards; and whether children with disabilities need a different pathway of support where there isn’t clear evidence that child protection is an issue;
Lack a credible plan for improving the system by 2020 and should develop plans with detail on timetable & resources for transforming services by 2020;
Ofsted inspections do not provide sufficient and up-to-date information on service quality and the DfE should report by March 2017 on how they will get more timely assurance on the quality of children’s services from Ofsted;
Allows problems with services to go too far before it intervenes and must speed up use of leading indicators to intervene in councils before Ofsted assesses them as having failed and report on this by March 2017;
Six years after the Munro review the DfE still has no evidence on ‘what works’ and must set out its plans for evaluation, dissemination and embedding good practice to the committee;
Not done enough to attract sufficient people to the social work profession and must set out how it will attract more high calibre people to social work and ensure their training and assessment is relevant to their work.

spero

You will make far more sense than me so would you mind explaining exactly why Re B-S is so important

Just before Re B-S there was a Supreme Court decision called Re B. This was the first wake up call for the courts. It stressed that adoption was draconian and serious and was an order that could only be made on proper evidence, properly analysed.

The President of the Family Division Sir James Munby then picked up this ball and ran with it in the Court of Appeal decision in Re B-S in 2013. He made explicit criticism of the 'sloppy' analysis from both social workers AND lawyers AND judges and said - quite rightly - it could not continue. He remained us of the very clear law from the European Court about the positive obligations on member states to take steps to support families to stay together.

This then put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. Applications for placement orders (the order necessary after a final care order to make it lawful to place a child for adoption) plummeted by about 47%. The Government were furious and got Sir Martin Narey on the case who was then running the 'Adoption Leadership Board'.

The Judges were accused of trying to thwart Government plans to do what is best for children. Sir James Munby responded in several further judgments to make it clear that he had NOT attempted to change the law but simply made it clear what the law was. See re R 2014.

For a funny but bleakly accurate account of the journey the law has taken in last few years, this by suesspiciousminds cannot be beaten.
suesspiciousminds.com/2016/12/10/adoption-law-illustrated-by-way-of-passive-aggressive-post-it-notes-on-a-student-fridge/

So you see - to respond to the conspiracy theorists by saying 'I can't believe that social workers/lawyers/judges would make wrong/bad decisions...' actually plays right into their hands.

There just has to be open, honest, clear eyed engagement with these very real and troubling issues.

I'm not involved with SW, (though I do work in a school and I'm sometimes shocked at some children who aren't taken into care from damaging families), but I'm glad you stuck around, we need people on here that actually know what they are on about.
I've read through most of the thread, and can remember the whole satanic abuse farrago. On a similar vein, what happened with the families involved in the Cleveland abuse accusations? As I remember the "test" carried out was found to be erroneous, but were there apologies?

I don't think there were any apologies. Mainly because the experts seemed to refuse to accept they could be wrong. This is part of the problem when people crusade to 'save' children - they can justify any idiocy.

A really scarey aspect of the Hampstead Hoax was how another paediatrician Dr Hodes, seemed very keen to agree that there was evidence of sexual abuse - I think relying on the anal dilation test that was big part of the Orkneys and/or Cleveland fiasco.

So you see - to respond to the conspiracy theorists by saying 'I can't believe that social workers/lawyers/judges would make wrong/bad decisions...' actually plays right into their hands.

There just has to be open, honest, clear eyed engagement with these very real and troubling issues

I agree totally with this. As an adopter, I know what tack my son's birth family will take if/when they have contact in the future. It's all lies, conspiracies and unfairness. I obviously have all the information, chapter and verse, on the the opportunities to change, help offered, multiple agencies supporting and genuine will to create supportive structures that were ignored, abused and generally discarded.

However, the instances where fuck ups happen (e.g. my child's life story work having the wrong name and birth date, court papers containing details of contact sessions that weren't my son's, court deadlines missed) can give credibility to the wilder claims and have allowed my son's family to absolve themselves of any accountability for his removal - they can demonstrate that sloppy work was done so therefore, in their minds now, EVERYTHING that social workers did was sloppy and fucked up.

The use of targets make a me fearful that birth mum will latch onto the notion with glee - yet more evidence that she was wronged. And it's crucial that my son understands he wasn't removed from his birth family unfairly and with no opportunity for them to have turned things around or his trust in ME will be diminished.

If we try and pretend that over stretched services and sometimes just poor performing social workers don't fuck up or that things are running totally perfectly with no issues, we risk opening the door to conspiracy claims and those that seek to raise their own profiles exploiting it. I think the TP project are doing fantastic work by challenging all aspects of the debate and challenging where it's needed.

I found Babyname link very interesting, despite spero seemingly attempting to put off mnetters from listening to it without spero's opinion first. Thanks Babyname.

I have noticed that whenever posters disagree with spero she links them to Hemmings, Sabine Mcneal,etc. As if mnetters can't possibly be posting on their own merits, they must be linked to one of those groups. This seems to be more of a conspiracy theory than the conspiracists themselves. Is this why some very interesting posters don't return to the thread? Give it a rest spero, let people speak with their own views and opinions.

That should read : let people speak with their own views and opinions without assuming they are aligned or in agreement with one group or another.

Have you seen the truth Seenthetruth? Interesting new name/first post. Who are you aligned with?

seen

That's what happens when the poster she is taking issue with actuallŷ posts stuff that is from one of their sites or from a person who does actively support them.

I have never seen her do it when the poster disagreeing is not doing so or is not pretty much copying and pasting crap JH comes out with.

And given that despite most of the issues happen a lot sooner than the stage of forced adoption it often surprises me that the only discussion around childrens social care that we ever do have is always surrounding the adoption targets. We could go a great way towards reducing the problems and the fears people had if those in a position to make changes talked about the earlier issues leading to distrust but nobody ever does.
How is anŷbody meant to keep a conversation away from JH's nonsence if that's the trigger for the conversation and that's what someone's talking about.
Hugely unfair snide little observation you made really.