Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

[EldonAve]

Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

"social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children."

Is 46 really too old?

Ceres - my impression is that SWs and councils vary hugely. In some areas SS depts are working well. In others, the culture and management are dire.

I don't really want to keep this going so sorry to bounce but I do have to say this.
The social worker I know is human and on the biggest power trip you could imagine.
She did her degree later in life and applied for 2 years to be a social worker and didn't get job after job.
She then took a masters and within 6 months of completing that was taken on by the same council in a position of authority over other social workers.
She openly admitted to me she hit her own child with a wooden spoon and yet removes children for less.

Bad News folks. It appears that Ofsted are still putting pressure on local authorities to increase adoptions.

I am trying to get to the bottom of this.

saying that you know an individual who is less than a shining example of a good social work practice is hardly a good argument for writing off a whole profession.

sorrento - your statement about the sw you know removing a chid is scaremongering. individual social workers do not have the power to remove children.

edam - yes, there are variations in ss performance accross local authorities. difficult to know how to address this. it is a catch 22 more's the pity - recruiting social workers to work in a poorly performing LA with a reputation for inadequate staff supervision and support is never going to be easy. attracting people into social work, when it is known to be so badly funded and has such a poor public image, is also difficult. retention of staff is yet another issue - there are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar easier ways to earn a living!

unfortunately there IS a need for social work, that is the harsh reality.

ceres,

No one is saying there is not a need for social workers because we all know there is.
We all know tht social workers have a hard job to do and see the sights in life that no one wants to believe is humanly possible of a parent to ever commit against their child.
What we are saying is that social workers are taking children into care that they shouldn't be, by whatever means necessary to achieve that aim. That is wrong.
We also know that the management (mostly managers who have never been frontline staff ) are forcing social workers into these situations, so where a social worker may want to work with a family to keep it together the managers are refusing the funding for this to happen and the children are taken into care.
Not all social workers are bad, but there are bad social workers like there are bad coppers etc, give some people the power and they abuse it, fact.

Social work dogma needs to change, the emphasis needs to be back onto the best interests of the child, this is not happening now.

There needs to be scrutiny, public not chain of command, because as we know that chain of command is rotten.

But above all the focus needs to stay with the child, kinship adoption should be the norm, not targets and not personality.

Laming ruined the whole structure of social work when he introduced the lists, checks and target era of the profession and the governement have only added to the paperwork since.

If it in't broke don't fix it, well the system is broken and needs a complete overhaul but from the outside.

Ceres, this woman is in a position of authority and has the sort of personality anybody would have trouble questioning her decisions. She decided on our close who the good mother earth ones were ie fitted in with her way of bringing children up, I was very glad when we moved.
I appreciate she cannot act alone and I'm not trying to scare anyone at all. But I do believe people have to keep their wits about them and not naively leave themselves open to inviting these people into your lives.
But how bloody sad is it that people might become worried to ask their doctors, teachers, HV or even internet forums etc for help in case it leads to something more sinister

Social work unfortunately has the problem that when there are not enough good people coming forward (or remaining) people who are not so good, for whatever reason (attitude, skills, capacity) get jobs or keep jobs because there simply are no better alternatives, and the job needs to be done. I have seen this in the health service. In the area where I used to work there was a real shortage of GPs (lots of vacancies, locums etc). Then after a big international recruitment drive (and other changes like GPs not having to do on call, and generally getting paid more) the vacancies were filled, and when new ones came up there was actually more than one really good applicant. It was only really at that point that a lot of effort was put into addressing the significant numbers where they were either past their best (too old, or ill, or stressed) or really should never have been in the job at all. Most of the enquiries show front line staff who are unsupported, overworked and often not as good as they should be. My experience of working with child protection specialists (again health not SS) is that they burn out very fast. It is a very soul destroying job, people can easily become paranoid or judgmental unless they are really well grounded, which is why management support and mentoring are crucial.

I'm afraid I don't think Labours policies on adoption have anything to do with your fear of crime.

Nooka, I don't know if management support and mentoring are the answer as they are already supposed to be in place and frankly that hasn't helped.

Whats needed is that every child taken into care should have a full outside overview and scrutiny process done by people not inside the CP genre and before an adoption is authorised the same thing should happen.

Lets not forget these people are employees of the local la, they are paid by the tax payer to do whats in the best interests of a child, they should be accountable to the tax payer but by the law of secrecy they are not.

It's not hard to set up boards of scrutiny for theses processes where all names are removed and the actual evidence presented on all sides, the trouble is a social workers evidence in some cases consists of "we don't like the way your raising your child ", personality clashes and an intollerence of anything thtat does not fit in with the master plan as written by a handful of psychiatrists and psychologists (who lets face it manage to come up with quite a few new mental illnesses every year from thin air).

There are a number of reasons sw's are overworked a one of them is cafcass sending them in on cases of strong arm tactic in private law cases.

Atlantis - when SS want to remove a child they can't just do it. They need a court order...ultimately it is the court who 'remove' the child not SS and the court does this after reviewing the evidence not just of SS but the parents, the children's representatives, experts, many witnesses and any other interested parties.
These cases can go on for an age ( hadn't the case in question been going on years rather than months?) and are not a rubber stamping exercise. I have represented kids for a long time and I can tell you SS always have to fight their corner and often do not get what they want. Everyone is represented by a lawyer who knows their stuff, everyone gets their chance to present their case.
I'm sure mistakes can be made but the law is not infallible.

I meant to post this earlier but care of the DC got in the way of timely posting.

DISCLAIMER: I believe SWs are fantastic people BUT the profession does seem to attract nutters.

The most HORRIBLE woman I have ever met has eight neglected children and is training to be a SW. She is the sort of person who had no life so would cause no end of problems at the excellent state school I taught at, and later became a parent of. Problems where there were none IYKWIM. For 20 years she did this! You would think that she'd choose another school. Most sane people would. No, it was all about feeling important.

Her DD bullied mine terribly, (learned behaviour) but in the early days before I knew about this I agreed to a playdate and saw her screaming at her mother and refusing several times to go to her room when told. Hitting her and spitting and throwing things! My DD was quite shocked at what went on. She and her "friend" were four years old.

She took against a boy in DD's class and made people sign a petition to get him moved. I refused to sign. I said it was bullying. She hates me now and I am sure she is petty enough to remember me when she gets a job.

Scary scary scary. Do SS have checks for people like this? They bloody well should.

True the SS can't remove a child without a court order...and I find myself thinking about the Nottingham case where the social workers took the child without a court order. Munby LJ ordered the child to be returned. An isolated case - I know.

However, it seems that there are some social workers who want to keep the children in the care off the LA, by hook or by crook. I find myself remembering the grandparents from Norfolk (if I remember correctly) who had their MP at a meeting with them. The 3 SS members reluctantly admitted that the only thing they had against the parents (or was it grandparents) was a strained relationship - but who can like a child snatcher?

A social worker down in Devon (again if I am remembering correctly) gave evidence in court to a Judge. Part of that evidence involved injuries to a child. The social worker said something along the lines of - if the child with those sort of injuries was in the care of his parents, that child would be removed. The child was in the care of the LA and the child remained with the same abusive foster carers because the court entrusts the care of the child to the LA and the court can't make an order, relating to where the child lives while in LA care.

A Birmingham case. The children ran away to be with their mother. It took 10 Policemen to rip the children off their mother (everyone screaming and crying) and the social worker was grinning.

Manchester. A mother had her children removed and the children went into foster care. One of the younger (boy i think) came to contact and there was blood on the nappy (from anus). The contact workers did nothing to record their observations. The boy was clinging to his mother after every contact. The social workers kept reducing the mothers contact because she was upset at seeing her son being abused (presumably by foster carers). Again, social workers did nothing.

Guardians seem to be social workers with extra attitude and a much higher demand for being the center of attention. Guardians don't want to listen to anything anyone suggests and sometimes are selective about which expert or other professional they share views with. I have heard of a guardian who told a mother that a psychiatrist (of 30+ years) experience that he didn't know what he was talking about and the guardain would prove that the mother and her psychiatrist was wrong. There are two similar cases with similar problem guardians.

All isolated cases. No. social workers have plenty to be worried about when the media gets involved in family courts.

If social workers are honest, and open and transparent instead of being secretive and manipulative, things would go so much better.

Power hungry authoritative social workers should be retrained or removed.

N1 with your last statement I agree. How would this be implemented though? We cannot jettison power-hungry authoritative leaders at this level because they are so protected.

The mention of blood sends a chill down my spine. I have a hospital cool-bag and letters from DD's doctors in London and thousands of pounds of live cells in my fridge but DD could be examined by someone at school without evidence of her bleeding disorder being admissable if SS should choose.

If I were to offer advice, I think that all social worker interviews should be recorded. None of this exchanging CD's. Each person has their own personal recorder and disputes over what was said sorted initially between service provider and service used. If the dispute still remains, send both recordings further up the line and if the social worker gets a history of getting things wrong, move them out.

A social worker provides a service to the public and there for should en exposed to being accountable for their actions and conduct. There is no better way to asses conduct than to have recordings. The GSCC can analise a recording and make their own mind up about conduct.

There needs to be accountability and referencing. If any service user wants to discover other families using the same social worker, that information should flow without any resistance from any LA.

The complaints process needs to change to be effective and quick, far quicker and less complicated than what it is at the moment.

That would be a start.

Are you allowed to record meetings at present ?
I can't imagine for a moment you are.

You shouldn't, but if I give advice to people, I suggest that they do secretly record the meetings, with the intention of not disclosing that the meetings were recorded. Sometimes it's worth listening to the conversation again, after the meeting. There is no point in asking to record the meeting because the answer is always "no".

I do accept that's it's not quiet open, but if it's the only way to show up a lier, then you are pushed into a corner, you are going to be more pleased at having the evidence than not having it.

There was a case mentioned on another forum, where a mother recorded a guardain. Those recordings were entered into court and the Judge commented that social workers should not fear being recorded.

Litchick,

actually if the child is 'believed' to be in immediate danger they can be removed without an order by the police, the social workers 'friend'. When I say the judge rubber stamps it I mean that the judge will usually take guidance from the social worker in question without actual proof of the claims or lies they are preposing. Hence the no evidence needed as per criminal law.
Yes the cases can run on a long time if the parents become swkward and do not give in to the social workers demands.

Parents are alwyas represented if they choose but grandparents are not.

It is much better to get a mckenzie friend to run your case than a solicitor as the solicitors usually wear two hats, one minute they are working for parents the next they are working for the la, as the la presents the better bread and butter pay your mortgage option those solicitors do not want to upset their friends the social workers and will therefore give a less than honest account of what a parent can or should do to hold off the adoption.

Much better to have someone presenting your case than working against you.

Also as LIP you can always present arguements and evidence that a solicitor or barrister would not put in front of the court because they have legal 'training' where as a LIP can get away with a lot more.

In the family courts solicitors have become next to useless,especially when legal aid funded.

sorrento,

It is not illegal to record meetings if for your own personal use, to take notes etc afterwards (except in court) but wait for the social worker to lie then correct that lie in front of the judge and tell him you have the tape of the meeting and he will be only too happy to read the transcript, remember to bring a copy of the meeting to court on disc and a player to play it on.

Worked for me.

I know one of the people appointed by courts to represent children's interests. When her child first came out with us for the day she phoned them 3 times in the first couple of hours to check up and again several times when we were on the way back (and not late). Might have been more in the middle but the child turned the phone onto silent as they were embarrassed.

My work (which she knew about) means I have an up to date vetting certificate. My husband has been vetted in the past but he doesn't need to be now so his certificate has expired. I'm afraid she sees so much abuse that she suspects it even when there is no reason to do so.

It must be very difficult to retain a sense of balance in these cases but while the courts are secret I don't trust them to get it right.

Making a recording in your own home for your own use is not illegal but it could not generally be used in court.

You can use a recoding in court, but if you made the recording secretly - expect many accusations about abnormal behavior.