To not understand how councils can have awful things happen to children in their care?

[SoWhereIsTheElusiveWorkman]

I was gutted to learn of the death of Casey Louise Horrocks tonight. She was a thirteen year old girl from Manchester who was in the care system.

I am really at a loss and angry as to how councils, as corporate parents, can have children end up in danger.

The public sector needs to employ fewer managers and more bodies on the ground. I have worked in this field for over 10 years and the financial wastage infuriates me to no end.

Aren’t a lot of children’s care home run for profit? I remember reading about lots having been set up
in Blackpool which has lots of issues with drugs, violence, deprivation and prostitution. Not an ideal environment for traumatised, vulnerable children. However cheap housing stock, support workers on min wage and being able to charge councils who have no capacity thousands per week and I’m sure it’s very profitable.

Strangely the Daily Hiel and the Torygraph never publish any stories about positive outcomes achieved by overworked social workers. Have you ever seen "200 children not abused by their parents" as a headline? It's almost as if the right wing press has an agenda.

What by letting children attend school, play with friends, get the bus into town. Do you believe children in care should be kept in detention style conditions?

I'm a social worker and I would say we don't have enough managers. In the nearly two decades I have been practising caseloads have become so much more complex, the issues so much more unlikely to be resolved just through throwing money at a problem.

Even very experienced social workers need good, skilled managers who have the time for decent supervision and support and managers don't have time to do that if they are managing too many staff because it is seen as wasteful to have enough managers.

The risks to all children but especially for children in the care system from adult access to them through social media cannot be tackled by individual councils however good or bad their children's resi homes are.

It might not have anything to do with a council, lots of 'care' is outsourced to private companies.

Yes, if she was in a children's home at any point they're entirely privatised.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/18/meet-becky-aged-14-suicidal-alone-and-unwanted-victim-of-a-cruel-uncaring-state

There are legal measures available in place, to keep teenagers safe and restrict their liberty - but these are pretty draconian. It's almost impossible to get the balance right and protect some vulnerable teenagers.

How can they let them out of their sight?

What do you think this care should actually look like?!

The 16 yr old is the problem here!

So would you also sexually assault or murder 13 year olds in care and simply blame them for your actions? As thats what tends to happen.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if he was a child in care, what with having access to a flat. While he committed the crime, the wide issues with care may have played a part.

very sad, she was a vulnerable child

^ this.

Sorry, my english in this is so poor even I don’t know what I’m going on about!

Oh good because I wasn’t sure how to answer!

Of course the care system isn’t good enough- I don’t think it can be. I have been a foster carer and am clear on t,he weaknesses of the system.

However it’s impossible to protect dc 100% from violent aggressive people. In this case a 16yr old man. I grew up in a relatively safe family and the positions I put myself in were hair raising, with hindsight.

Men. Sorry. Not all of them of course. But more than we want to believe.

It seems men need culture to contain them and right now it isn’t working.

A 16 year isn’t a man, he’s still a minor. Not to remotely excuse what’s happened here but ascribing 16 year olds full capacity isn’t helpful. I’ll bet my house both these kids were very vulnerable.

The local authority hold corporate parenting responsibilities for a child in care regardless of where the child was placed. The residential placement holds enough responsibility to care for the child say to day, but parental responsibility rests with the local authority, so they have a role here. It’ll be interesting to see the case review.

There is quite a lot of money now allocated by this government to start the process of bringing children’s homes back in-house - there are going to be 5 in my county soon apparently. I do see that as a good thing and good use of money, but fundamentally these are very vulnerable children and bad things happened in LA children’s homes in the past.

How do we support families further? What more can be done for these children, knowing it’s a cycle that will keep on repeating.

Early years support for both children and parents, thats where you make the most impact.

I think it’s also important to understand that residential placements now are not like the council children’s homes of old which were large, chaotic and sometimes unsafe. They’re often 1-3 bedroom places and the children and young people are carefully matched in terms of existing children living there.

Lots of YP in residential placements are there because they really struggle to live in a family environment. Because of their own trauma and attachment difficulties they cannot cope with that set up and some thrive in a different setting.

Also, some behaviours and presentations are just too much for a family to cope with, even very experienced carers. But a dedicated core team of staff can have more stamina and resilience to cope and to maintain placements that otherwise would be breaking down.

I’m not saying every residential placement is amazing at all but they’re sometimes demonised because of the past and some poor providers. They have an important role in the care system and shouldn’t be seen or treated as a dumping ground for kids they can’t find foster homes for.

Absolutely @whatasillygoose for some kids a residential placement is the very best thing for them because a family type setting is too close and too intimate for them to cope well. Not every child thrives in foster care, some really do well in a good residential home.

Unless the child is in a secure unit, they are free to come and go. Locking children up in secure units is only done as an absolute last resort.

Maybe look at the reasons this poor girl was in care in the first place.

Social services can only do so much.

Because it's illegal to imprison teenagers in their home without a court order - google DOLS - only ever used for short periods and with very high thresholds. I fucking hate threads like this. Local authorities have huge multi agency responses to children/teenagers experiencing exploitation and social workers/YOT workers/youth workers/police work incredibly hard to reach and keep these kids safe. As do the foster carers and residential care workers. But these are often neglected and traumatised kids who run away because of many complex reasons that are not easily fixed and it's not a case of 'not letting them out of their sight'.

Because it's illegal to imprison teenagers in their home without a court order - google DOLS - only ever used for short periods and with very high thresholds. I fucking hate threads like this. Local authorities have huge multi agency responses to children/teenagers experiencing exploitation and social workers/YOT workers/youth workers/police work incredibly hard to reach and keep these kids safe. As do the foster carers and residential care workers. But these are often neglected and traumatised kids who run away because of many complex reasons that are not easily fixed and it's not a case of 'not letting them out of their sight'.