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?

Mamzon that's a great post thanks for doing it! We need Sw's like you who acknowledge the failings of the system to work on the inside & change things for the better.

Would it not be more helpful for the family courts etc to be more accountable & transparent so that the "dead wood" as you put it are shown up for what they are & as you say either re-trained or re-employed!

It must be really difficult to critisise internally but TBH I don't think your image as a profession would suffer any more than it has/is already. By speaking out & to be seen to be trying to improve the service would be a really positive move.

However with the massive underfunding you all face I suspect it's like pushing water uphill!

Edam, I agree totally with you regarding the letter written by the paediatrician in FL's case: "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 is very worrying if this type of circular logic is being used when considering what will happen to FL's dd.

Looking at the article that Elizabetth links to I think that the theory behind adoption targets was based on good intentions, ie we need to stop children from languishing in LAC when they would be better in adoptive placements. I do not believe that sw and other professionals are deliberately removing children from their birth families with the express aim of meeting those targets though I do think that a consequence of the target setting is a shift in funding which may well lead to it being more difficult for adequate support to be offered to families who potentially could manage to look after their children.

I haven't seen the letter written by the Cp in Fl's case.

I agree LaDiDaDi about under funding making it difficult for adequate support being given to familesi who could care for tehir children if given teh correct support.
but because they aren't able to get the helo they need their situations owrsen and the children end up in care.

its a knock on effect, not a direct consequence of targets. IMO

of course either way its a disgrace. why is it we can afford £50M to send young men to their deaths (iraq) but we cannot afford to keep children with their parents?

Oh I haven't seen the letter but I have seen direct quotes from it in the media which read as edam puts it.

Very interesting post, Mamazon. Relieved to hear it, in a way (hope YKWIM).

I know you say you prefer to discuss these things with colleagues due to fears about the public image of SS. But would you be able to say here what you think has to change, and how? I'd be very interested to know.

FWIW my local SS dept is, to put it charitably, struggling. Service users are being very let down by desperate staff and funding shortages - despite the fact that the county council are always happy to give us above-inflation council tax rises none of the money seems to go towards social care, far from it. There was yet another damning official report into my county the other week. I imagine local SS must be a very depressing place to work.

Oh, and I understand your piont about preferring to discuss these things in private due to fear of making things worse... but if you look across these sort of situations, the best way to resolve it is for the organisation/profession to be honest. The Stevenson inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder was absolutely damning wrt to the Met - but it has actually had a positive effect. By (broadly) accepting the criticisms and showing how they were dealing with them, the service has not only survived but succeeded.

Obviously right now there's a whole other issue that is causing chaos for the Met, but the Lawrence case shows how an organisation can respond to catastrophic failures.

i agree that open discussion is always pf benefit as it brings to the table to gripes of the foot soldiers. BUT on a forum designed for mothers where there may well be some of our members involved with SS i wouldn't want to either worry them or make them feel as though Ss are not to be trusted.

i also get your point re Stephen lawrence. but we had something very similar in the Lord Laming report. all that happened was some more red tape put in place and yet more funding wasted on buerocracy.

of course fundng is the biggest issue. second is the fact that social workers seem to be a complete dicotomy of attitudes. you get the fresh from uni types who think they can change the world with hugs, each parent is just a few positive parenting sessions from being Ma Walton. or you get the old hag who has never qualified as she first joined the service back when all you needed was to prove you could read. she feels that any mother that works is failing her children and if your gay you have no business being around chidlren.

(of course these are very exagerated examples)

the fact that Media will only portray our failings. we need to be more open about our sucess rates and politicians need to champion our cause more often.

we need to ............no actually i shall stop now and put teh soap box away lol

but surfice to say there are a great number of things i feel SS can do differently. yes SW can and do make mistakes. but they are far outweighed by the good decisions made daily and under extreme pressure.

You are sadly right about the Laming report - just gave the government an excuse to waste billions on yet another bloody ridiculous massive IT database rather than actually spending the money on front-line services and training, where it might do some good. Grrrr.

No mamazon you get on your soapbox mate it's very refreshing! I take your point about not wanting to worry mothers on here about the ss & also the dichotomy of attitudes. You get that in any profession I suppose it's just that with yours being so focused on your relationship with the clients it's worrying that so much variation is allowed. I mean there must be some basic training that dictates what the party line is surely? (Not havinga pop just interested!)

Hello,

Just a quick query. I'd be really really interested to know about this Clinical Psychologist that is attached to each Child and Family team. I've not seen anyone like that, and not seen any report written by anyone like that. I had to wait ages for my psychological assessment (identifying someone we agreed on, sorting funding, letters of instruction etc.) - and the written report won't be in until the 7th of December.

From what I'm reading here (and I'm really sorry if I've got this backwards) it sounds like there would be a psychologist within the department who may well be able to offer an interim opinion or assessment? Is it worth me asking for that?

Sorry if I missed other bits in people's posts - it's been a hectic few days and I'm shattered now! I'll read properly tomorrow!

Thanks,

Fran

BUMP!

Santa that's unforgivable!! What if you had been someone with an axe to grind or who knew the other side in the court case & could have used the knowledge to detrimental effect?

Good for you for having a go! (I'd love to have seen their faces!!)

Did you report them to the Sw dept concerned? I would for unprofessional conduct.

That underlines what we were saying, bad SW's get the rest a bad name.

Well done you & nice to hear of a SW froma child's point of view!