To think we need a complete re-think of child protection?

[Feelingoptimistic]

Like many others, I have been thinking a lot about the Baby P case. What I completely fail to understand is why no one did anything earlier. Have we all become too PC? Is it considered ok for children to live somewhere where there is dog poo on the floor?
This morning I just read this:

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/11/child-deaths-baby-p

The thing is that in most of these cases the death of the child follows months of abuse and neglect - so there is an opportunity to spot what is happening and prevent it. I think we need a system of consistent monitoring of children and early intervention when things don't seem right.

I know of children who live in similar conditions as you describe.
Loosely monitored, but not removed, because they have never known any different

I know of children who live in similar conditions as you describe.
Loosely monitored, but not removed, because they have never known any different

I once called about a child who told me she had been strangled

CP said 'oh yes we know about that, we have recorded it'

she ewas returned the nextt wee

why?

without her to clean up, the other children qwere at risk of further abuse from angry aprents

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Yes, and thresholds for what is 'acceptable' os SO low it is shocking. It wasn't my case, obviously, nor one I had any influence over, but it was horrible to see the children do so well, and change totally once they were in care and experience a 'normal' family life, then have to return to the crap that was their birth family. They had security,comfort, hope when in care, and then they were returned - for mainly financial reasons - to a place where all they got was negativity and neglect. How can they have any sense of self worth after that?

What an interesting thread. I agree with lots that has been said about the lack of resources, the difficulty in retaining high calibre professionals etc. Even with these things in place, it seems to me that we have to accept it is a really, really hard job to get right. I'm always amazed when i read comments on MN about snooping SWs taking kids away on the slightest pretext - it seems to me much more how WalnutCake describes it, that you really have to go some before you get your kids taken off you (I'm not denying that there are sometimes miscarriages of justice, I'm talking about the bar is generally set).

I am friendly with a local mum who is very damaged and very disturbed. Drugs, prostitution, violent men, and serious mental health problems - and three frightened and withdrawn children. Social services have been involved for years, and various support packages have been put in place, but there is no suggestion that she will lose the children. I don't think they're wrong: she hits the children (a lot), and shouts all the time, and lives in chaos, and it's no kind of childhood. But she also loves them, and is working hard to clean up her act, and keeps them clean and fed and at school, and I have no doubt that they would be traumatised by being removed from her. Of course she should get more support - but to give all families like hers the level of support needed would bankrupt the country. And frankly, even then she would be a very damaged woman who simply cannot provide great parenting.

I suspect most of the families where social services are involved are like this - life is crap, but not quite crap enough to split them up. There are probably hundreds of thousands of dysfunctional families in the UK, and our overstretched social services are trying to work with them all and keep tabs on them all, and that means a service spread far too thin. I was really struck by one aspect of the Baby P case - that the social worker kept giving the mother the benefit of the doubt because she seemed eager to co-operate. It's easy to imagine that in a situation where you're overworked and rather scared of many of your clients, you'll be easily won over by a client who is acting compliant and trustworthy.

I agree to some extent with you feelingoptimistic. However, there is more too it. With the best will in the world a HV or SW with 500 or more cases to deal with cannot detect every child at risk and to drop the caseloads means huge investment (which is happening in most trusts now)and will not improve things overnight. Society in general needs to stop turning a blind eye. Where were the neighbours? Extended family? Friends? Why did nobody say anything. We seem to live in our own little worlds where nobody interferes anymore, regardless of what is happening. People need to make child protection their business and report anything suspicious to the authorities and not assume that everything is fine. I also feel that HVs should have more powers to contact the police to help gain entry and locate parents who repeatedly are out when visits have been arranged. Then we have the human rights lobby who will say it is an infringement and harrassment

I am a family worker and have just moved into this job from education and the biggest shocks to me were the amount of paperwork ( and crap computer systems) and the fact that if someone is off sick long term , on maternity leave or leaves you don't get any cover. When you are already in a very stressful job your caseload can double overnight because your team is losing people all the time.

Yes, nymphadora - when a team member is not there, the case gets shunted to duty - ie no-one, or the Snr takes it on, in addition to their own caseload. Or, you get very expensive Agency staff, who just are not up to speed, taking cases on and then leaving after a week.
Then team member does not return for whatever reason and the post is not filled to save money. Team numbers have been decimated by vacant posts being left vacant for months and management then justifying that the team doesn't need that 'extra' member of staff afterall as they appear to be 'coping'.

I have seen student SW's taking on the most complex of cases with minimal supervision, just because they happen to be there and are seen as a spare pair of hands. It is fire-fighting all the way.

Yes, CP need more resources, they need more workers, not just a procession of newly qualified SW's who get burned out after two years. But, it also needs a complete culture change about what is acceptable. It may cost a lot more than is being spent, but none of the powers that be are brave enough to spend now, and save the nation money in the long term on prison services, family support, mental health. This is because despite all the talk of joined up thinking and being in it for the long term, local authorities work in their own little domains with their own little money pots and the bigger picture just can't be seen.

Meanwhile thousands of little children just like ours are sleeping tonight on stained mattresses on the floor, will have nothing to eat for breakfast tomorrow, and have no idea how it feels to be loved and cared for. Tis all fucked up. Oh, but I do love what that Camile Batman..... woman says and does. She is f*cking amazing . I want her cloned.

What would have happened to Baby P if he had survived his childhood? Neglected by his mother, physically and psychologically abused by "father figures", he would have learnt little of love, affection and stability, and learnt a lot about brutality, cruelty and indifference. Like his mother, who had an appalling childhood herself, it is very likely that he would have made a terrible parent, because he would have no idea how to love or nurture. Baby P's death and the circumstances around it are truly terrible, but the future for him had he lived, and continued to grow up in such a ghastly family, is no less so. And, of course, Baby P is only the poster child for all the many thousands of other children who get beatings and neglect instead of kisses and cuddles. The long-term implications for our society of so many children growing up without love, affection and stability are truly appalling.

I'm with walnutcake on Camila Batmangelidh - but cloning's expensive, so let's give her the money instead. Lots of it. Maybe she can take over Social Services nationally?

I would very much like to be a fc. Particularly as there is a shortage of fc in London. Children tend to be moved out to Kent from here. Not ideal for mixed race and black children, not ideal for maintaining contact with extended families for any children, crap for allowing children to stay in school etc.

But people in my area just dont have a spare room or two. Most people have adequate or cramped housing. Very few younger couples will have a spare room so the majority of carers tend to be older people whose children have left home. Nothing wrong with older people being fc but surely we need a greater mix of ages and backgrounds?

If there is to be more recruitment of younger, more ethnically diverse and urban fc there has to be a long hard look at finances.

There has to be a commitment to helping potential fc to extended their homes for example. I know it could be problematic but there must be a way of making it work?

It would be expensive and TBH I have no ideas about where the money would come from but in the long term GOOD care is far more cheaper than the alternative.

I am working with an agency sw atm who is very experienced and hard working but because they are agency they are so expensive that 3 days = full time permanent staff . They are filling a space that somone left in may and they haven't even got to first interviews for yet due to beurocracy(sp?) and then we will gave to wait for crb (even if they work in the same dept) and then for the person to work their notice.

I was appointed at Christmas and anothr job that was advertised at the same time finally has someone starting in it next week

Makipuppy - your sw does sound a touch over zealous. I think not allowing your DP in the house with you because he was not crb checked was a little OTT.

Also not allowing the girls to go to tea because of non crb checked people present is ridiculous. In fact there has been some govt intervention about allowing LAC to have sleepovers so that they can experience "normal life" (your sw shoudl know about this - can't just remember details - think it was the Childrens Minister Margaret Hodge) who made this interention.

Re CRB checks - an enhanced CRB check does not just cover the area in which you live. that is why you have to give previous addresses etc. Before CRB checks we used to contact the local police and that just covered the area in which you live and was therefore of not much use.

I think the thing is that sws are doing a lot of "back covering" these days and are afraid that they will be criticised if somethign goes wrong. This is understandable as the media as you will know are only too willing to pillory sws for anything and everything.

The Foster care minimum standards also mean that everyone hs to be far more careful these days. Also SSDs live in fear of inspections where cases are scrutinised to see if they have kept within the legislative guidelines.

Yes onthe onehand I agree foster carers should be trusted to get on with things but the sad fact is there is a tiny minority of children who are mistreated by carers and then of course it is the sw who is seen to be at fault. In one case (subject to a S.8 enquiry) a child was actually murdered by the male foster carer.

I think it calls for understanding on both sides and a degree of common sense. Do you have foster care group meetings where some of these issues can be discussed. i think they are empowering for foster carers.

Hope this helps a little.

makipuppy you might be interested in the report on the cypnow website

"Foster children could be at risk because the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has stopped vetting some people who care for them after discovering it was illegal.

Government-backed guidelines state that it is best practice to carry out CRB checks on regular visitors to foster carers' households. This includes baby sitters who might, at times, have sole charge of a foster child.

But last summer, a CRB audit of who is eligible for these checks revealed that the law does not actually allow regular visitors to foster carers' households to be vetted."

No need for CRB checks for overnight stays for children in care, says Ofsted

20 July 2009

Many children and young people in care continue to raise concerns about being prevented form staying at friends' houses for sleepovers because carers and professionals mistakenly believe that adults living in the friend's house would need to be CRB-checked first.

I am an experienced sw of 20 years - i told my manager that i felt a child was going to be hurt- obvously i cant go into detail- but i was told to leave it was we need the foster parents and it may harm child more if moved-I felt that the latter statemant was to take me off track !.I took it straight to the top - with no hesitation- but not to be supported by manager was v hard and i know some new sws or some sws may not have felt able to go against their direct managers instruction-for fear of being punished or victimised as this does happen.One of my guides to my own practice is that i have to be able to sleep at night - ie my conscience -and i stand by that but its costs emotonally at times, but a child is at the centre of it so if you do this job you have to face that sort of issues or walk away from it if you can,i wish i could sometimes.!

no homestart still exists. They have supported me and my family for nearly 8 years now.

You have to want to be supported by homestart to get the best out of it, homestart would not have prevented the death of baby p.

Btw I'm not with homestart because I don't know how to be a parent or i'm neglecting my children, I have other issues

Homestart is still active in some parts of the country but not here unfortunately

bichonbuzz, we need more sws like you.

How did your direct manager react when you went over his/her head? And how did the people at the top react to the situation you raised?

Hi blue shoes - thankyou i appriciate it .i obvoiusly cant say too much but direct manager was very angry .asked why i did it - i said to protect child and that i wasnt being listened to at their level so i had no choice but to go up higher..manager said that was hurt - i said at end of day it wasnt about him or me it was about the CHILD i had to protect. Sadly manager never changed stance - .I ended up trying to support manager.in end i left the job for another.I think manager saw me as trouble maker in some way, but again all i could say to manager is it was about child not us and to move on but that didnt seem to happen.It was very stressfull for me indeed and i did suffer, but i had to do what was right and be answerable to my own concience.Im not trying to sound saintly ! its just when there is a hild at risk you have to do what you have to do .Im not a hard person ,quite gentle nature ,a softy, and i have to say that it was v frightening but i had to do the right thing- at a cost to me as it turns out.
Higher management took it v seroiusly.They also spoke to my line manager but i wasnt party to outcome .I would have liked for my line manager and myself to had a bit of support.. say ,with higher managers so that my line manager was helped not to feel so awkward and perhaps give them further training as they were less knowlwdgeble than me re child protection issues and adress what to do if you are aware that you may be colluding throught anxiety etc.It could be, of course ,that my manager was burned out exhusated and making bad decsions.I really felt for my line manager.

Thank you to all of you for contributing to this discussion.

I just read today an excellent article that I think raises all the issues discussed by us here. It does not offer solutions, but I think it covers a lot of things other similar articles have left out. One thing I found interesting were the comments about grandparents, etc. expecting to be paid for being foster parents. The article is a bit long, but worth reading IMO.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/16/baby-p-family

Hi bichon, you did the right thing by your conscience and for the child. I wish you did not have to suffer detriment for it.

Did you say your line manager was less experienced in child protection issues than you were? Is that a common thing? I am wondering because who would an inexperienced social worker go to then, for guidance, particularly in complex cases.

Being an experienced social worker, would you typically mentor less experienced colleagues?

feelingoptimistic, thanks for that link.

It was interesting to me as it explains the role that Connelley's mother (ie Baby P's maternal grandmother) played in her daughter's upbringing. The grandma strongly condemned her own daughter and supported the lifting of the identity ban.

Whilst parents cannot be entirely blamed for how their children turn out as much of it is genetics and their offspring's choices, it seems to me that where you have callousness and cruelty of the nature exhibited by Baby P's mother, the fruit does not fall far from the tree.

She might not have been deliberately or intentionally cruel to her daughter or even been able to recognise it in herself, but the chaotic environment and casual violence she exposed her daughter to (in addition to her stay in the Islington home) means that she must take some responsibility for the way her daughter has turned out. I wonder if she sees that. It does not excuse her daughter's actions BTW.

I am similarly saddened about grandparents demanding to be paid to be foster parents to their own kin. In certain cases, the cycle of neglect that is perpetuated through the generations being used to generate more cash for the ultimate perpetrators who work the system par excellence. But the saddest thing is that it keeps the children within the same deprived family for the cycle to continue.

What is the solution?

Blueshoes- yes i would mentor but manager can overule ie have final say in my expereince.I did say manager less expereined than me.. would not say it is v common for manager to have less expereince but it can happen.Eg if sw has years of expereince but no desire to go up the promtion ladder cf with a person who goes for promotion early .Also if teams re structure and their remit changeswhich can often occur - eg a sw was working in a spefic elderly team and was managed by that team leader but then the team had to also do safeguading adult work - like child protection-which it prevoiusly didint do .Or if a sw was in a children with disablities team which didnt used to do child protection in that team, but then did have to do so due to changes in what the main child protection team did...obvoiusly the sw will get training but it may take a while to get it and build experience.I had more exp that manager as i had done cp before and the team I was i had just started to do it in last year or so.New sws would seek manager or experinced sw advice . All sws are supervised by line manager in my expereince.The trouble in my case was the line manager did not engage in the child protection issue- it comes down to the individaul how they would handle that situation experienced or otherwise ..some but not many?expereineced sw s may handle it less well than a newer insightful, perceptive worker in my view - as im sorry to say i have experienced sws just not" go there" when in my view they should - tis rare but...thanks for support....

A problem is where SWs try to predict problems where families aren't managing and there are other triggers for concern they come under heavy fire in the press.
Where they give families a chance the children end up hurt.

Key predictors from the parents include
Poor mothering/parenting as an infant
Convictions or evidence of animal cruelty
Abuse in childhood
Lack of boundaries in childhoods.

Once they step into the realm of abusing their child very few of these parents can or want to step out of it.

These were all present in the BabyP case
. But not every LA including Haringay I believe have learnt from BabyP.

There is a school of thought which prevades Social Services that parents need chances and help- in my opinion they don't they need one chance to turn themselves around- in this case can't really does mean wont, then the child gets all the chances not the parents.

There is only so much Social Services can do- once you stop allowing families to assume responsibility for their own lives then you face the consequence that they wont take it.We have degenerated into a Welfare System in some areas where you don't have to work you don't have to pay rent you don't even have to look after your children properly and we keep piling in the pounds.
The overhaul doesn't lie with working practices of SWs I think it lies with saying to parents look after your kids or lose them.
I am a huge advocate for the welfare state just not for the abuse of it.

As an aside I do not believe that LAs should be using their budgets to pay for the legal costs of taking children into care-and that FCs should be centrally funded.