Take more babies away from bad parents, says Barnardo's chief

[bubblebutt]

Many more children need to be taken into care at birth to stop them being damaged beyond repair by inadequate parents, the chief executive of the children's charity Barnardo's has told the Observer

How you can you say that when they the parents don't know how they will turn out themselves till after the event

Martin Narey called for less effort to be directed at "fixing families that can't be fixed" and for social workers to be braver about removing children at risk .

what tosh some families can be fixed and yes some cant but come on that means all babies that are under the SS would be taken into care because he fears another baby P and that is so wrong on many levels. A lot of families out there are going to suffer because of this reporting.

After revelations about the neglect and dysfunctional background of two young brothers from Doncaster who viciously attacked an 11-year-old boy and his nine-year-old nephew, social workers have once again come under fire for failing to intervene at an early stage.

this is alleged neglect and abuse no one knows this except the kids and their parents SS have to do a report and have to get all their facts together BEFORE they can remove a child. This takes time not 2 minutes. Another reason mistakes are made as there isnt enough Social Workers.

The brothers, aged 11 and 10, had been known to social services and police for several years. Their mother had allegedly given them cannabis as toddlers and forced them to forage for food in bins, while their father was allegedly a violent alcoholic. Despite this, the pair had been taken into care just three weeks before the attacks. The case has led to Doncaster social services opening an inquiry, its seventh serious case review since 2004.

What do they expect the SS to do wave a magic wand and its all better it doesnt work that way.The 2 boys are damaged now and need help as much as the other boys do.

Calling for more children to be in care from the moment they are born, Narey, a former director general of the Prison Service and previously a permanent secretary at the Home Office, made clear he was not reacting to this case in particular, but to issues with Britain's child protection services that needed urgent attention to avoid failing many more troubled young people.

Yes he is and a lot of families are going to suffer because of it.

"If you can take a baby very young and get them quickly into a permanent adoptive home, then we know that is where we have success," he said. "That's a view that is seen as a heresy among social services, where the thinking is that if someone, a parent, has failed, they deserve another chance. My own view is that we just need to take more children into care if we really want to put the interests of the child first.

So some one struggling is going to leapt on and the child taken away all cos she isnt coping the way the SS want and some want you to go after there arses cleaning em when they are old enough to do themselves Oh there is SS like this out there or the one that comdemns you if you cant cook and give your kids microwave meals all the time or something out of a tin god forbid they do that,

"We can't keep trying to fix families that are completely broken. It sounds terrible, but I think we try too hard with birth parents. I have seen children sent back to homes that I certainly wouldn't have sent them back to. I have been extremely surprised at decisions taken. If we really cared about the interests of the child, we would take children away as babies and put them into permanent adoptive families, where we know they will have the best possible outcome."

If the family is beyond repair so be it but what if they have turned there life around and can get their kids back why take that chance away as some SS do just that. they seem to tar every bad parent with the same brush hence why the SS shouldnt be there after 3 years as it makes them jaded in what they see everyday.

He said he understood his views would be seen as "illiberal heresy": "I think if social workers were courageous and sought to intervene quickly, and were supported properly in that, we would see far fewer problems."

As above and also there would be a national out cry from parents that have done nowt wrong but asked for help to be told they are neglecting their child(ren) when they clearly need help to be a better parent. Not penalized this way.

While foster care was on paper a good option for older children who had to be taken into care, he said, a shortage of suitable placements meant that children were suffering from a lack of stability. "What troubles me is the number of children I meet who have had vast numbers of placements. Last week, I met a 15-year-old girl and her foster mum. It was her 46th placement. The woman said that whenever there was a row or disagreement, the girl went to pack her bags. She expected to be sent on.

there isnt enough foster parents in the world as they are told to see the foster side as a business and it so isnt its helping and nuturing and caring for a child that needs your help

"It is undoubtedly a good option when children have been taken into care to replicate the family in foster care placements, but I have spent the past four years meeting a lot of children in care and I can tell you that it is by no means anything out of the ordinary to meet a child whose foster placements run into double figures. There comes a point where we have to accept that it is not working."

As above

Philippa Stroud of the thinktank Centre for Social Justice reacted cautiously to Narey's comments. "If the model is to move children very quickly to adoption, not necessarily from birth but certainly under a year, then that is something we would support," she said. "We need far more early intervention to try to stop this disintegration of the family we are seeing, but we would like to see more working with these families. What we recommend is the model of the mother and baby going into care, filling that hole and giving the whole family a chance. "With child protection, all the legislation is actually in place: it's the implementation that is the issue."

So if this is the case why do we see baby P stories all the time. I feel that the child protection and SS should be overhauled and the government needs to bring in more and they shouldnt be allowed anymore than 3 years in that field and then moved on if they wish to return they have to wait 3 years to do so. Also the work load of a SS shouldnt be anymore than 5 families and this is for full time workers not the part time.

The numbers of children taken into care rose slightly following the death of Baby P, the 17-month-old boy later named as Peter Connelly, who died in London in 2007 of injuries inflicted by his mother and her boyfriend, despite being seen repeatedly by doctors and social workers. But Narey says it was only a temporary increase.

How many of these babies, children whom parents hadnt done anything wrong really to their children and they where taken because of the mistakes of another SS office hmmmm that worries me more.

"As soon as these cases recede from the memory, everyone will get reluctant to move these children all over again. Only 4% of children adopted from care in England are under the age of one and the figure is even smaller in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I for one hope it doesnt recede from memory as we need to be reminded of baby P and the others out there that their own parents didnt give a stuff about them. We need to address these mistakes and take stock and agree we where wrong. Not hidding behind we did nothing wrong and it wasnt our fault crap. If known abuse of any kind you amass your info and remove the kids. Not this wishy washy oh we didnt see this or that or she wouldnt let us in crap either. Also if on the "at risk registrar" they should visit more than once a week or what is the point of being on the registrar in the first place. Also no written warnings either. They should just turn up on the door. Again this would mean a full over haul of the SS departments all over the world.

"Less than 5% of the children taken into care in England last year were aged under a year old. Some 3,500 children were adopted in Britain from care, at an average age of four."

This is to do with the birth parents wanting their children back and fighting the SS over it and it takes on average a year to go to court with all the evidence they have against the other to proceed and sometimes this can be stopped if the paperwork isnt done right. Also the parents themselves could have turned their lives round and can show they have so this again hinder any proceedings. Also the SS could be dragging their heels too as one SS could be busy on other cases so it is again delayed. Not good for the child is it.

I copied and pasted this as its the article of said subject and it has angered me the silly man he is. I have added my own bits to it and wondered what you all thought.

"here itthe piece"

AND the role of the MP in this case is particularly poignant as, until very recently, parents whose children had been seized by the state were banned from even consulting their MPs. A complete abuse of democracy.

Yes, some children do need to be protected from bad parents, but what on earth was going on with a system where parents who wanted to protest their innocence were threatened with contempt of court for even daring to think about consulting their own ruddy MP? It's akin to the worst regimes behind the iron curtain, FFS. And yet it happened, in this country, in this decade.

Dolly PS - I would have no concerns about the scenario that you present. All social workers visit thousands of homes like this every day of every week and if children were removed from home for these reasons there would be very few children left at home in the sort of world that social workers inhabit. There has to be a good reason for social workers to visit a family in the first place. The need to protect children has to be balanced with the parent's civil liberties and sws can't just go barging into people's homes without a good reason.

At the risk of repeating myself, social workers only consider removal of a child from home as a very very last resort (and this thread started out to discuss whether children should be removed sooner rather thanlater) and ONLY if they are at risk of significant harm and this as it's name suggests means something very serious in terms of some kind of abuse or very serious neglect. Social workers DO NOT want to remove children from their parents.....why oh why do so many people think this is the case without the slightest scrap of evidence. Please can you tell me why - I really would be interested to know.

Again this is a repeat but decisions about whether a child is removed from home are NOT made by social workers but by courts. Did you know for example that if a sw removes a child from hom they have to apply for an Emergency Protection Order from a Court and the matter then has to be presented in court within a few days and allof the facts laid before the court and it is the court that makes the decision about the child's future.

Wahwah - you are more charitable than I am! I did suspect that JH has some personal axe to grind which makes it even more worrying I think and even more irresponsible to be involving himself in these debates. I don't actually understand what his position is other than he is totally opposed to adoption for some reason. I find his assertions muddled, vague and contradictory. I willgoogle him too as I don't know which party he belongs to.

Edam, if you think Social Workers resist any examination of their behaviours or practice, then you know less than you think. I am so pissed off with this sort of hyperbole.

Re Johnhemming, my understanding from the article is different and that his response was not altruistic but vengeful. However, this may be entirely wrong and I'll let him respond, or not. Frankly I'm not that interested in his personal life, I just felt a bit of sympathy for him.

edam - i don't think social workers are resistant to having their practice examined. in my experience we are pretty used to it.

there is a hell of a difference between questioning practice and making sweeping statements and patronising comments.

the way your describing attachment disorder I should have it then as my own mother didnt cuddle me or say I love you. left for hours I could go on but sorry I dont as I have kids I do love and show love to and cuddles and kisses as well.I knew what a beating was as well as I got one everyday so your theory on attachment disorder is rubbish. To this day my mother wouldnt cuddle me or say I love you and I have let go of that as she isnt that kind of woman so I did break that cycle and many more children will and do. I had a spell in care many moons ago.

I know that SS are overworked and underpaid I have had dealings with them in the past some nice some not nice. I think that some are jaded by the job after so many years. You have been lucky that you have had 25 years of service and now a part time job in the same field Nana.

I know of one that sat in her car and sobbed as she was overworked to many cases, she has now left SS as she couldnt cope with it any longer. There will be more that have left the service for the same reason and more SS should be employed but it all comes down to money doesnt it.

wahwah - we obviously think alike!

Nana this is what that SS wanted to remove the kids from the home all because the mother couldnt cook or keep the kids clean all the time. The lass in question was my friend, I was there to voice my concerns there and then when they came back as the SS didnt see her bathe the kids when it was bed time or the stories she made up for them of a night. See some are over zealous in what they want to do.

Edam -I think social worker should be accountable and where is your evidence forsaying that sws resist any examination of their behaviur or practice. PLEASE tell me how you arrive at that conclusion. I am seriously trying to understand this negative feeling about social workers.

Social workers are no different from other works, they are accountable to managers, who in turn are accountable to senior managers who are accountable to chief executives and to the politicians (members of the )They are accountable to service users (quite rightly) and to the other professionals with whom they work. Their work is scrutinised by the courts and judges regularly make comments about the qulaity of their work. When something goes wrong their names are on the front of the SUN!

All social workers have to be registered with the General Council for Social Services and they have to re-register every year and every 3 years habe to provide evidence of post qualification learning and development in order to be re-registered. No social worker can practice if they are not a member of the GCSS and they can be struck off the register for bad practice.

Sorry if I sound impatient but I am struggling to understand this negative view and assertions made without evidence.

OH dear DollyP - it is not my theory on attachment disorder - I wish I was that clever! I purposely mentioned that in the main we repeat the experiences that we have had but there willbe exceptions to this, to prevent the kind of thing you have posted. I am glad that you have found a better way of parenting and let's just agree to disagree without "rubbishing" each other's comments..........yes?

How many SWs have been named by the Sun, exactly?

That pathetic excuse for a director in Haringey isn't actually a social worker, so she doesn't count, btw. And in that case lack of experience at the top was probably a big part of the problem - neatly demonstrating how knee-jerk reactions to one crisis often cause even more problems next time. Thanks, Lord Laming...

Nana, you have shown reluctance to have SWs challenged on this thread. All that 'John Hemming, you know nothing, get back in your box, none of your darn business' (I paraphrase but that's what it amounts to). You are far from the only person in your profession to have this agenda - just look at the forums at Comm Care...

Scrutiny is A Good Thing for any profession, especially for those who wield huge power over the rest of us. The power to take your child away has to be one of the most draconian that anyone has. (I can only think of the police/the medical profession/mental health social workers as a comparison although there may be others.)

And FWIW some of us who have criticisms have actually heard of the General Council etc. etc. etc. - we aren't complete ignoramuses, you know.

Nananina, there are views here which resist the light of day. For those of us who know the reality it's frustrating / bloody annoying, but when I calm down I am grateful for understanding the fears of the few.

The secretive family courts snatching babies for adoption stuff really pisses me off though!

Ceres, I'm so glad that there are a few of us on here who actually are involved in the work and that we have such consistency!

Dittany - I'm sorry but you are still totally failing to understand attachment difficulties and child abuse and to be honest I am too weary to respond any further. I think I am banging my head against a brick wall as I think you have more invested in believing that you are right than furthering your understanding in this debate.

Why are you so interested in my work. I don't really feel inclined to give you any more details - I wonder what is behind your queries?

Wahwah, the family courts are secretive - that's not in dispute. Although there is a tiny chink of light there, let's hope it grows.

It's also not in dispute that the government did set targets for adoption.

...but not for the paranoid reasons people think. That's what I'm getting at. If you're in the work, you know what utter crap this stuff is. If you're on the outside or the fringes like Johnhemming, then i do accept that it could look different.

Wahwah - I am really trying to understand the negative views that people have of social workers as the opportunity to do this doesn't come along that often. However I am growing weary of some of the stuff that is being posted by people who clearly have some axe to grind.

Have just noticed it is past 10 and isn't this a bit of a sad way to be spending a Friday night. I get a bit carried away though and it's all a bit addictive I find.

Anyway good night all and sweet dreams!

www.la-press.com/redirect_file.php?fileId=1059&filename=CMPed-1-Wrennall&fileType=pdf

www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=3058

The family courts tried to protect children and their families. Adoption targets were to try and ensure children could achieve the best outcomes in a stable setting. Both well thought through, both horribly misinterpreted by people like JH who link them with false logic. This is why he's so annoying to some.

However, if change prevents this misinterpretation then all well and good, as long as children don't suffer further.

the above links not re competence or otherwise of social workers but re the dangers of making hasty decisions based on medical evidence

Dittany, I don't thin you understand what Nananina was actually trying to say. Perhaps if we were all in a room, our debates might move on a bit, but I don't see much point in responding to you at the moment, as it seems unlikely that we'll get anywhere tonight. I'm going to follow Nananina's good example. Hope to catch up with you all again later, this has been really interesting.

edam - there is a huge difference between sevrecy and confidentiality. the family courts are closed to preserve confidentiality.

social work is open to scrutiny, i really don't understand why you insist it isn't.

the adoption targets that you speak of were brought in to try and speed up the adoption process for children ALREADY IN the care system......and therefore to try to address one of the many criticisms levelled at the care system i.e. children remaining in the care system and experiencing multiple foster placements.

yeah, right, so threatening parents that they will be sent to prison for talking to their MP is all about confidentiality, is it?

'Confidentiality' in those terms = the courts and child protection system being able to evade scrutiny. We seem to manage to preserve the anonymity of rape victims without making it impossible for anyone to know anything about the treatment of rape by the judicial system.

As for targets, yes, that may well have been the stated aim. However, in practice targets don't quite work like that. There is an awful lot of gaming. Give a public sector manager (or private sector, for all I know) a target, tell a director their job is at risk if they don't jump through the right hoops, and that target will be met, by fair means or foul.

In the NHS, that meant ambulance trusts pretending they were reaching 999 calls within the 8 or 13 minute deadline while actually delaying the start of the clock, or stopping it when the ambulance arrives 'on the scene' rather than reaches the patient (saving you a good few minutes if 'the scene' is a block of flats, for instance). Among a good few other fiddles - playing around with the definition of urgent.

I have no reason to believe that managers in the ambulance service are significantly more dishonest than those in social services. So I suspect the target culture may well have had similar unwanted effects in local authorities.

Ceres, if you say that social work is open to scrutiny, can you please explain? Do you mean public scrutiny?

The crux of the matter is whether it is possible for the public to know the basis of a decision to remove (or leave) a child in any particular case - so that a precedent can be set and lessons can be learnt for the future, and all relevant authorities (I mean social workers, health, police, legal etc) held publicly accountable for egregious mistakes.