Calling social workers...

[edam]

inspired by somethihng WWW said on the Fran Lyon thread...

Do you think that it is possible that social workers sometimes make mistakes?

And at which point in all these discussions is the family/client involved & the options discussed & support offered to keep the family together either with the parents or other blood relatives?

Although I do understand other relatives may not be a safer option if abuse is suspected.

Mamazon, I thought - forgive me if I'm wrong - that your view on FL was 'there must be more to this' i.e. there must be facts in existence that justify the immediate removal of the baby.

So the fact that all your colleagues in child protection agree with you means 'they all think there must be something that justifies the action suggested'?

we only spoke vreifly about FL as they were of the same opinion as me...we dont have the full facts so there is little to debate. but that there must be more to it in order for it to have got this far.

Roy Meadow the paediatrician involved in so many of these MSbP cases where babies have been removed from their mothers by social workers only needed the evidence of two dead babies in Sally Clarke's family to pronounce it must be MSbP because the chances of it happening were one in 73 million. He was wrong bu she got sent to prison. Don't be so sure Mamazon.

but the Sally Clarke case was a poplice investigation. it had little to do with SS.

and as far as i am aware roy meadow has been discredited and no longer works as a police expert witness so can no longer be used to give evedence.

I am aware that mistakes can be made but its always SS that takes the blame.
a social worker is there to give reports on teh family situation. they cannot decide that the expert witness is atalking rubbish. even if they thought he was.

they have to give their report and allow the more senior officers or in care proceedingas a judge, decide what the outcome should be.

In the cases where a child has been removed because a pead/psych has given misleading reports it is not the SW's fault surely.

how can an untrained person challenge the opinion of an eminant expert in their field? if they did and they were relied upon anything tah happened to that child would be the sw's fault.

we get in experts because we are not trained to give such evedence.
we cannot be held responsible if the esxpert turns out to be a waste of space surely?

The question is why social services are still turning to expert witnesses whose testimony about MSbP has been discredited in criminal cases. Martin Ward Platt was involved in Angela Canning's case and in Trupti Patel's, both of whom were finally found innocent (Angela Cannings after a long time where she was wrongly imprisoned). Now he's giving his expert opinion in Fran Lyon's case.

If those cases hadn't arisen you might have a point but social workers can't ignore that this man's so-called expertise has now been called into question. Why are they still using him? Why are they still pushing the MSbP diagnosis when it is one of the most unscientific, subjective "syndromes" ever invented?

Anyhow Mamazon, you've repeatedly said that you don't want to comment on Fran Lyon's case on this thread and then gone right ahead and commented on it (to defend social workers). I don't really get it.

Honestly all I've heard here is "it's not social workers fault", "they don't decide", "they can't make judgements about professionals" (even though social workers are professionals themelves and ought to act as such including exercising judgements), "they have no power" (even though they actually make recommendations to remove children from their parents' care permanently)" It's beginning to sound like an extreme case of slopey-shoulderitis.

I dont feel able to comment on much of the stuff on this thread except to say that in my very recent personal experience, social workers make a decision and the other professionals generally devise their reports and investigations in-line with SW recommendations. Whilst, the little one with us is definately better off with us than he would be with his parents (i absolutely believe that he would not be alive today had he been returned to his parents care), I cannot, with my hand on my heart, say that all the other professionals involved (CAFCASS, Independent social workers, psychologists, paediatrician, expert witnesses, etc) carried out what I would perceive to be thorough and full investigations of the situation on both sides (us and the parents). All their reports merely cited each others reports, plus information based on vey limited observations of us and the parents with the little 'un.

Thank-you for that Joash, I hope your littl'un gets to stay with you.

This will be my only post on this subject but I have to say WE DON'T KNOW THE FACTS!

I think Fran deserves the opportunity to show that she is able to care for her baby. However, I will not sign any petitions or campaign in any other way for this simply because I don't know what the basis is for SS taking the decision that they have - and nor does anyone else.

MSbP is a crap diagnosis which has been disproven BUT make no mistake - there are parents out there who harm their children call it fabricated illness syndrome or whatever you like - it happens.

In at least one of the cases where a Mum has been freed on appeal (a case that a friend had the misfortune to be involved in - no not a social worker) the appeal judges noted compelling evidence of her guilt (and my friend has absolutely NO doubt of it) BUT because the jury would have been led by Roy Meadow's discredited statistics her conviction could not be safe. My friend is actually relieved this woman is not in prison as she never felt this was the right place for her. Let me say that children do not always die innocently and if you read the details of this case there are good grounds for suspicion - no I am not going to say who this woman is - go and read all the reports from the Court of Appeal - it's not difficult to work out.

I'd like FL to be given a chance - but I am quite willing to believe that there may be a solid reason that this is not happening. The child protection laws are there for a reason.

This is my only post on this subject - am not coming back to read any replies - just do yourselves a favour before championing all the women freed on appeal - read the appeal reports.

Shinysink, Mamazon,

The FL case is shocking because it is about MSbP - Hexham children's services have stated that as being the reason that Fran's baby will be taken from her at birth.

That social services would take the opinion of a paediatrician who has not even met Fran, regarding a psych "condition" which has no scientific basis and has been discredited seems extraordinary. Why is he being used as an expert witness in an area outside his field of expertise, even after his disgraceful role in the Patel and Cannings cases?

If there is more to the FL case than we know, it is irrelevant because MSbP is the reason her baby will be taken away. And not even MSbP but the possibility she might develop it at some stage after her first baby is born.

Surely that amounts to punishing her for a crime she has not commited? And doing actual harm to her baby by taking her into care on the most tenuous grounds?

The content of Shinysink's post is interesting and worthy of debate. But in fact I'm not inclined to take seriously someone who smears people who have suffered hugely through wrongful convictions and says, 'this is my only post... I'm not coming back to this thread' to boot.

The first is despicable, the second suggests she has little confidence in the strength of her own arguments; they won't stand up to debate or discussion.

Very dodgy, to say the least, to claim, 'you lot are naive, you can't possibly campaign to support people who have suffered wrongful convictions because they are baddies after all'.

Give a dog a bad name and hang him... appalling that people who the bloody courts have declared have been wrongfully convicted are STILL being slated.

What I find frightening is that Mamzon has said SS take the word of 'expert' doctors literally and are not in a position to assess it. Despite the fact that 'experts' are not gods and have been proven, in this class of cases, to have given faulty evidence - in particular the 'expert' who SS say have cast doubt on FL. SS are happy to take at face value the word of an expert who has previously given evidence that led to a wrongful conviction and who has never met Fran.

And in fact, it seems that the 'expert' said if SS allegations were true then the child would have to be taken into care - so SS are misinterpreting his remarks and using them to bolster their case when in fact they do nothing of the sort.

It's this kind of faulty, circular logic that leads to miscarriages of justice. Accuse someone of X, then ask someone else who has made mistakes in the past to comment, and than mis-read the line that 'if you are right thetn x follows' as 'you are right'. Madness.

And when anyone tries to point out this is not logical and not an unbiased, professional, objective assessment of the evidence, say 'I have to assume proper procedures have been followed - there must be something in it'.

Just shows how twisted the system is - start a rumour and then have a procedure that assumes any response to that rumour bolsters your case, whatever the response is.

Fran Lyon today, any of us tomorrow.

Thank-you for posting mamazon & shiny.I know it must be frustrating for you feeling as if we are attacking ALL SW's but we aren't really honestly!

It's just that in the light of the recent cases & FL's in particular we cannot understand why there is accountability & self-regulation in many caring professions & not in SS. There are bad or incompetant people in all walks of life but they should be held accountable.( & often are) I do firmly beleieve that there ARE SW's on the ground who want to be critical of the system & their peers but they can't because of the system & culture of secrecy & job protection.

It would be refreshing to hear of a SW who held up their hands & said "Yes we've made mistakes- we need to do this that, & by the way these are the GOOD things that have resulted from our actions"

Sadly only an ex-SW would have that freedom of speech.

I know none of us are experts on Fran's particular case, and the SWs who say 'we can't comment on this case' have a valid point.

But in general terms, there needs to be a root and branch, open review of what has been going wrong with MSbP in the light of the tragic series of proven miscarriages of justice. Proof that lessons will be learned. That is the only way to restore public confidence.

I know SWs get a hard time - esp. those in child protection - but I think an open and full inquiry including health, education and the legal system would actually help them, as well as prevent future miscarriages of justice. It's not just Fran, it's countless others.

"In at least one of the cases where a Mum has been freed on appeal (a case that a friend had the misfortune to be involved in - no not a social worker) the appeal judges noted compelling evidence of her guilt (and my friend has absolutely NO doubt of it) BUT because the jury would have been led by Roy Meadow's discredited statistics her conviction could not be safe. My friend is actually relieved this woman is not in prison as she never felt this was the right place for her. Let me say that children do not always die innocently and if you read the details of this case there are good grounds for suspicion - no I am not going to say who this woman is - go and read all the reports from the Court of Appeal - it's not difficult to work out."

As if anybody has the time to read the Court of Appeals reports ( and you don't even bother to provide a link).

If the judgement is in the public domain you can name the woman and quote what the judges said. Until then I'm not going to believe you. Everybody else here has provided facts and sources, you just expect to be able to jump in here and for us to take your word for it. It sounds like more rumour-mongering and smears to me.

Edam most of the people who have said "we can't comment on this case" have gone on to do exactly that, in support of what is being done to Fran Lyon. As far as I can see the "we can't comment" is just a disingenuous tactic. I think what they are really trying to say is that the rest of us shouldn't comment. They seem incredibly resistant to questions or criticism.

Bossybritches, there is legislation in place now to protect whistle-blowers, if social-workers knew there was a problem they could come forward and be protected.

Yes I know Elizabeth but it takes a brave SW (or anyone else!) to go against the culture of closing ranks whenever cock-ups are made & you have to go a long way down the whistle blowing route before you get resolution & that can be VERY uncomfortable to work/deal with. However one would hope that shouldn't stop people otherwise how will it ever change?

That's very true, bossybritches. I think the problem is that the social workers don't actually see anything wrong with the system. Everybody here who is involved in child protection have staunchly defended it.

You are right re 'we can't comment', Elizabeth. I was trying to be generous and see the other point of view.

And bossy, you are very right about the pressure to fall into line and not make trouble - I've known people who stood up and did the right thing and it does tend to make you unpopular with your colleagues (massive understatement). That's why the (very eminent) doc who told me how much pressure he had come under to roll over and stop pointing out the flaws in the case being made against his patient didn't come out in public and criticise the child protection system, even though he could see the sort of practices that led to the high profile cases were still going on.

You're a nicer person than me, Edam.

I think I'd be more supportive of the "we can't comment" stance if they really didn't comment. Nobody has to comment if they don't want to, they can just stay off the thread which is fair enough.

There's an interesting Q&A here in Community Care where social workers put their questions to John Hemming MP about his views about child protection cases and adoptions. Some of them agreed with the criticisms he was making -

link

Wow Elizabeth- good bit of research!

Basically it reiterates what we have all been saying here, and don't the calm measured responses from JH contrast with the often hysterical questions of some of the posters? Although I have to say well done Miss V for backing him so strongly, hope she doesn't get the sack for speaking out!

Well done John Hemmings - great, measured and research-backed responses. I like the way he approached it, too, answering social workers' questions.

I was involved in a lot of research in the NHS into the effects of government targets. They certainly do lead to 'gaming' to meet the narrow target, rather than any wider context of improving patient care. When people's career prospects are on the line, or their bosses are putting the pressure on because their jobs are on the line, they do modify their practice.

For instance, in the ambulance service, you got trusts fiddling the figures to meet the emergency response times articificially. By, for instance, only starting the clock after the call had ended and the ambulance dispatched rather than when the call was received. Saves time when you have a 8 minute target - but means you actually arrive after 8 minutes so a patient in cardiac arrest is beyond resuscitation. The patient is dead, but you've hit the target. Or stopping the clock when the ambulance arrives on scene, rather than when they reach the patient. The claimed improvements in ambulance response times are largely based on these fiddles, rather than genuinely saving lives. Survival rates did not improve at all. Those services that did change the way they worked to save more lives were pilloried for showing the others up.

Targets have what you could generously call unintended consequences, if you assume the original idea was to make things better. I can't see why it would be any different in social care.

Elizabeth - i cannot comment on FL's case as A) i have only read small amounts and seen what has been put on here. i do not know the facts and so cannot say that IN HER CASE this that or the other shoudl be happening. i have said that IN GENERAL pead's or psychs will give statements etc.

you are taking my generalised points and attaching them specifically to FL's case.
as you are so keen to keep bringing these threads back to Fl i shall give you my opinion on the case given only the knowledge io have gleened from these threads.

yes i am surprised she has nto been given the option of attending a supervised mother and baby unit so that they can asses her childcare skills.

No im not surprised that the PSych report has been given so much weight as, as i have already stated most teams have a Psych attached to teh service and will get reports from them. it is up to them to decide teh mental stability of a SU and then give recommendations.
it is highly unlikely that SS would over rule a CP's recommentdation as they would be liabel if they were found wrong in their judgment.

the diagnosis of MSbP is controvercial yes. BUT call it by whatever name you like there are people out there with a mental condition that causes them to hamr their child in order to recieve attention.
i dont know if FL has this difficulty, whether by the name of MSbP or mad as a fruit loop condition, but clearly teh CP does and that is the opinion SS HAVE to take into account.

Joash - yes. most agency reports ( especially those written for court purposes) seemt o quote each other over and over and just repeat things.
what they are doing is reffering to each others opinions and either agreeing or saying "well yes maybe but maybe XYZ"
i also agree that there are some huge decisions made with seemingly only small amounts of contact with the child. i think in the situation you are describing there has probably been involvment over a long period or it is just patently obvious that the LO could not be cared for adequatly within its birth home.
i hope your FC is very happy with you and continues to be.

Shiny - i think i have also heard murmering about that case 9 if its the one your talking about). there was strong evedence that the woman actually had caused the injuries but because it was RM that compiled the Psych report it was dismissed. not because the diagnosis or his finding were found to be at fault at all, but simply because he had been seen to have been at fault previously. the Jury may have convicted on the basis of his testimony and therefore it would be "unsafe"

it is daft and everyone connected to teh case knew she did it apparantly.

elizabeth/edam - there are MASSIVE failing within the social care field. i could go on for HOURS whinging and moaning and listing all teh things that MUST change in order for A) our public perception to improve B) to be able to effectivly help those who really need assistance but are unable to recieve help due to funding issues.
C) getting adequate trainging for new proffessionals and to FORCE teh dead wood into ongoing training or out of the service.

but i feel teh public have a bad enough view of SS as it is without adding to teh rot from teh inside out. i save my criticism to when i speak with colleagues who can discuss both the good and bad about our job.