Domestic Abuse and Care Proceedings - the AWR case (another mum on the run)

[johnhemming]

Hopefully this won't happen to any of the readers, but another mum on the run story has been publicised in the Sunday Telegraph

Here
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3868100/Mother-flees-abroad-with-her-son-to -escape-social-workers.html

I have put additional information on my weblog here
johnhemming.blogspot.com/2008/12/arw-mum-on-run-with-her-children.html

This is a case which will interest anyone who is looking at how to contest Hague Convention proceedings in public family law.

I know of two cases like this. The other one has been publicised in The Times, but I cannot find it at the moment.

Camilla Cavendish has also written about DV/DA and Care proceedings
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5050750.ece

But if so many people have such a low opinion of the calibre and power of social workers something needs to be done to restore confidence in the system and if that means that every single hearing is open to the public then so be it. Taht's more important than privacy rights in my view. As a lawyer, albeit it no in this area, I have absolutely no faith in justice in this area. I believe a social worker could come into mine and just about any home and find some pretext to remove my children. I might have no choice but to flee abroad. It is dead easy to get stitched up even if you're clever and well off like I am.

The only advice you can give at th meoment is unless you are in really really dire straights go no where near social workers, child protection people or even make any allegations about an abusive partner. Just deal with things yourself and keep well well clear from the authorities if you possibly can because once you're enmeshed in the system there is a risk the result won't be what you were after and perhaps you're even better off a little battered and bruised at home in an intact family and your children around you than your children removed into care and even lost to adoption. the thought of having to be all nice and smary and pretendy to low grade low IQ social workers whom you have to please.. is just such an abhorrent thought like the awful stuff parents must suffer if they want to adopt.

I entirely endorse Xenia's points.

In particular, I feel that a family voluntarily seeking involvement of social services is making a likely to be making a mistake of some magnitude.

I would also say that the harm to children of being involved in local authority care can be significantly greater than being in dysfunctional families where there is a degree of neglect and deprivation.

Sadly

Xenia, I agree with what you say about making family court hearings public, even if it goes against the confidentiality of children. There is too much of a pattern of petty tyranny and bullying behaviour with tragic consequences for families allowed to be conveniently kept under wraps under threat of contempt proceedings.

If I was a child who was about to be removed from my family against my wishes, heck, I would Want my story to appear in The Sun. If being put into care meant I was going to "8 different placements in 12 months? 22 placements in 7 years" (bluesapphire's dd), what value is confidentiality to me. Nobody would know me anyway, well, save for my parents!

Johnhemming, to what extent is Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, reviewing social and child protection services in this country, particularly in the light of public furore over Baby P?

I understand (reply from Ed Balls' department) that as a result of Baby P, Ministers have asked Lord Laming to prepare an independent progress report of how Lord Laming?s original recommendations in relation to the Victoria Climbie reforms have been implemented across the country. The findings are supposed to be due early this year.

Are you involved?

I had a meeting with Herbert Laming before Xmas. However, it is useless to look at to what extent his proposals have been implemented as they were the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

The system is broken and needs a completely different approach. Where it fails is in the operation of judgment and the ocrruption in the family courts.

There are good judges and good lawyers, but there are also lots of bad ones. Whilst they shore up the system and certain judges in the Court of Appeal operate in cover up mode the system will continue to go wrong.

Hi blueshoes, you have made some very valid points

Just to clear one thing up though, i wasn't trying to rebut controlfreaky as a poster, it was more that she actually made the points i wished to answer, i have no interest in making anyone look small, or wrong, or anything.

My DD's story and those of many others, should serve as a warning to the SS and other professionals, as well as a warning to 'normal' every day parents...it can and DOES happen, If you get involved with these people make sure you have a good memory for mistakes or keep a log because you will be shocked, i didn't know so many things until i went to fassit , and before that i was on yvonne coulters' site but i forget the name, i remember hearing her personal story and shuddering.
They were, and especially yvonne with her having her own problems, extremely supportive and i know i would not be here if it was not for yvonne sitting with me on the phone sobbing for over two hours one night, i owe that lady my life, literally.
The final point in airing my DD's story is that no child should ever go through what she and others have, and no family should either, no mother should be brought to the brink of suicide by a child being stolen by the state, and have their parenting undermined. ONE CHILD IS FAR TOO MANY..but my DD isn't the only one by a long shot, neither is baby p the only baby to die a sad and lonely painful death. The system, therefore, is fucked, and no amount of pay rises, hand wringing and 'lessons WILL be learnt' bollocks will help change that.

Openness in family court .. if joe public doesn't give a shit about the kids involved i bet he will give a shit about the money that is wasted on these proceedings.

Sorry, i mention keeping a log or diary from the beginning because you would not believe the amount of mistakes made, and at first you are swept along in the tide..but later on down the line you can look at all the mistakes and errors and make a case out of them, if not for the return of your child, then for when they are older and can sue the ass off the SS.
As i say, it will take a while because all the crap overwhelms you and you don't know anything about the system and how it should operate, find books on the subject as well, as soon as anything no matter how minor, kicks off. It is useful to know what procedures must be followed and what statutory obligations are placed on the SS, for example i didn't know until it was too late that my DD could have been placed with any member of my extended family who were willing, rather than in foster care.

I have experienced the highs as well, where you think you have the SS by the balls and then it slips through your fingers because the judge says, well, ok they cocked up but it doesn't matter now.
A jury wouldn't do that.
I would happily ... oooo i can't say what i would like to do to my trial judge, she flew in the face of any right to a fair trial human right i may have had. She ignored stark staring evidence to the contrary of what the SS were claiming...even written evidence on occasion. Then she reserved any future proceedings to herself to keep abreast of the situation because it was complicated keep her beak in and make sure no other judge saw the shit she had pulled.

Sorry for my swearing and common approach to things but yeah, i am slightly annoyed PISSED OFF.

Ok mistake with the striking out there

johnhemming, I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong solution to the wrong problem". Do you mean the wrong solution to a different problem? After what happened in the Baby P case, I agree that Laming's reforms didn't seem to have worked but severe physical abuse of children (especially of pre-school age) isn't the "wrong problem"- it's very much something for state involvement.

It is generally accepted that the objective is to protect children from harm. My personal belief is that we should proritise protecting children from serious harm and that the time wasted on trivia would be better refocussed on serious cases.

What I mean, however, is that his report correctly identified a problem in that procedures were not followed. However, his solution was in essence to change the procedures. The problem was not that the procedures were wrong in the first instance,m it was that they were not followed.

Other things have occurred post laming including the complete reorganisation of Childrens Services. However, England's position in terms of protecting children from severe physical abuse appears to be getting worse.

I would not, however, reorganise childrens services again as that merely gives the impression of change rather than improving outcomes.

What worries me about this thread is that individual cases are being used to make generalisations about a particular professional group.

Xenia-as a lawyer you should know that individual social workers cannot come into your home on some pretext and remove your children. Making comments about 'low IQ' social workers is a tad ridiculous and unhelpful and I'm not sure how it contributes to the debate.

As I keep banging on I'm a social worker and also have had involvement with child protection services on a personal level. However my gripes are less with individual workers but with a system that is in crisis and where social work has become increasingly driven by policy, proceedure and performance indicators.The focus is also on child protection rather than helping families help themselves.

I completely understand that people form their opinions from personal experience and I'm not undermining the validity of that.

Both scummymummy and controlfreaky have tried to give alternative views and whilst its right to challenge their views, both have now left the thread. I think thats a shame.

I'm still a bit confused, tbh, but in general terms I agree with you that the first duty of the state should be to protect children from serious harm. For me, physical harm comes first but at the other end of the scale I am also very concerned that adoption targets may mean babies and small children are being targetted on dubious grounds.

tuttyfrutty: "However my gripes are less with individual workers but with a system that is in crisis and where social work has become increasingly driven by policy, proceedure and performance indicators."

That is a valid concern. Thanks for pointing that out. Focus on policy, procedure and performance indicators, if they are allowed to dominate the agenda (Sharon Shoesmith at Haringey?), will take the heart out of child protection and turn social workers into box-ticking robots that are no use to anybody and destructive to families. That needs to change. Good social workers should not be impeded and distracted from their day job.

Why are you less concerned about individual social workers? Granted there are good and bad apples, are you not even concerned (based on the harrowing personal tales on here) that bad eggs are allowed to pursue their unfathomable agendas via a system that insists on secrecy and does not offer real checks and balances to stop such abuses by errant social workers? I would think that should be tackled as well or even first.

Tuttyfrutty: "The focus is also on child protection rather than helping families help themselves."

I agree with you. In that statement, are you assuming that 'child protection' involves removing the child from his/her family? If so, that is an erroneous view of child protection and if that is the mindset of social services, it has to change.

'Child protection' should mean just that - exploring all options to best protect the interests of the child. That would involve in cases of real physical harm or abuse, removing a child into care. But in the case of emotional abuse, other options should first be considered, like supporting the family (as you mentioned) via half-way house measures. There also needs to be a recognition by child protection services of the genuine harm caused by the care system, particularly in the light of children removed for 'emotional abuse'.

Child protection is holistic and deserving of many solutions, rather than one-size-fits-all. It does not and should not just mean separating a child from their family.

But they could in effect come into my home if I took the chidlren to hospital with a bruise or if I complained that my children's father hit me (as he sometimes did not that I would have dreamed of complaining to anyone about it was it wasn't very hard). I am just saying there seem to be legal grounds fairly easily to make out a case to remove children in lots of cases where parents really aren't doing too badly and far too many miscarriages of justice. I actually suspect the worst ones are not the relatively few where a mother has her children taken away but the many many more where a mother after divorce who excludes the father from the children's lives. I would estimate there are probably 1000x the number of fathers denied contact by the system in that category than these awful cases of children entirely taken away from both parents.

johnhemming, can you elaborate on which procedures were not followed, as identified in the report?

controlfreakyhohohohohohoho.

I wouldn't want you to stop replying to the thread because you can't contribute to the topic.

I take your point that it's not your experience. Other posters have a different experience. Clearly it's not an agreed point, Agreeing to disagree on one point but continue to partake (where possible) sounds like the next logical step.

I personally value the contributions of some legal professionals, even if I don't agree with what I hear/read.

Tsk i'm the first to say please don't stop replying to thread ect but if they haven't got the stamina or the courage of their convictions then might as well forget it. Let them go do whatever.
I wouldn't lick my SW's shoes like they wanted and am certainly not going to start begging a stranger no matter how useful their posts may be.

We're still here and not in mental hospital or lying in a grave with slit wrists or something as a result of the YEARS of shit we have been through, shit that we needn't have been through had members of their respective professions had done their jobs properly, our families are broken, our kids ripped from us...and we are still here and fighting on, so i am no longer interested in people who post a few comments then walk away.

I really am not being nasty here but i know i have the courage of my convictions ect and fought for years it felt like on my own against a system that threw wave after wave of scum and crap at me, neverending, replacing worn out 'troops' with new ones, where i was alone in my fight, and fended them all off, pushed them back, kicked back at them as much as i could, and only stopped when i realised what was happening to my son as a result.
These people cannot be expected to see what has not happened to them, they can only speak from their own experience and their own experience is that the system isn't corrupt.
I know it is.
They cannot hope to defend something they have not seen so fair play if they want to back out graciously. Maybe they would go into work today, though, and mention this thread, and hopefully others like them, but with more knowledge, will be tempted to come and have a look.

We'll see

From Lord Laming's report in respect of Haringey he says:

6.3 Although the failings in Lisa Arthurworrey's (Victoria's social worker) practice were many and serious, she was badly let down by her managers and the organisation that employed her. In particular, council members and the senior management of Haringey must be held to account for the yawning gap between safe policies and procedures, and poor practice in their children and families' services.

In the report he details a number of procedures not followed.

Laming Report

Blueshoes,you are right I should have been more specific than just stating child protection. I meant using statutory powers rather than preventative/supportive intervention.
The other point is that if my personal situation occurred in a neighouring borough then it would not have even got to the point of a child protection inquiry as they had different local policies and probably a different organisational culture. There is a bit of a post code lottery in relation to this which creates inconsistency and unfairness.It may partially explain why there is such a diversity of experience and its why I don't subscribe to views that these issues are necessarily related to bad individuals-although I know they exist.

Since Baby P and other high profile cases I can only see child protection services become increasingly defensive in their practice and to alienate the people they work with even more.
I have always defended my profession and still would-however it took personal experience to realise how unfair and arbitary the 'system' can be.

tuttyfrutty, I am reassured that you have been at the sharp end of SS but still feel able to defend it. If you say there is a lottery postcode as to the culture and policies of specific boroughs, then at least there is a benchmark of good practice out there and the task is to focus on the failing boroughs like Haringey.

I read an article about the social worker in Haringey who blew the whistle ahead of Baby P on that council's general failure to protect children. She subsequently found herself investigated by the council for abuse for shaking a fist at her challenging 14 year old daughter, investigations which were later dropped:

article here

Shows how frightening unchecked abuse of child protection powers by local authorities can be.

I have finally made my way through the summary of the Laming report, all 49 pages of it.

The procedures and recommendations are largely common sense - talking to the child, talking to their carers, good interagency communication, joining the dots kind-of-thing.

I agree that a major reorganisation of social services is premature ahead of first getting down to thumbtacks and ensuring that the very sensible procedures are followed on the ground and properly supported by management both in terms of training, supervision and funding. And to remove ridiculous targets and league table concerns that are divorced and distracting from frontline child protection.

In the words of the report: "I am convinced that the answer lies in doing relatively straightforward things well."

I think the governmental interpretation of Laming is also part of the problem.

How has the government interpreted the Laming report? Do you think Ed Balls, in the current review, is likely to go down the same track?

Xenia on Sun 28-Dec-08 16:05:07
"The removal of children because a parent supposedly has a violent partner in cases where that is not really so are appalling.

The best advice to most people is never go anywhere near social services if you can possibly help it. Keep away from the attention of the authorities always. It rarely does you any good"

Depends on individual cases. When the paediatric consultant at the children's hospital tried to prove that dd's joint problems were psychosomatic and caused by sexual abuse and her headteacher was trying to labelled as a problem family, Social Services represented the voice of sanity. No one profession have the monopoly of unbalance and irresponsible individuals.

We would have done better keeping away from headteachers But I don't suppose they're all loonies. I just happen to have met a couple.

LOl cory "I just happen to have met a couple" sums my feelings up when i am not feeling too bad or angry about the past with the SS...
I'm sure not all of them are evil.

The problem is for me, that if the sw says jump, everyone else immediately says, how high, and seem afraid to say 'hold on a bloody minute'

Good job a lot of the time that these interventions in family life are multi agency.. the best reviews i ever have had, and the people most likely to object or stand up for themselves in these meetings, are the POLICE.
Their job obviously means they aren't pushovers, they learn to question circumstances that on the surface seem black and white, and they know the workings of the ss given that when these things start, more often then not the police are involved from day one.

Also there must..MUST be something where they know that the ss can't make their professional lives difficult if they DARE to raise objections ect..so therefore are more likely to be 'braver' than other agencies and make comments which the others are scared to.

Just a small observation on my part. Especially given that i have paperwork galore and the only people ever to stick up for my family or me were the police officers involved who weren't afraid to say they were sickened by MH SW's hounding of me and my family.
Unfortunately they have also been less than helpful at times but hey you can't have everything lol.