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"

Sadly, dittany, you could be wrong about scandals coming to light as children reach 18. Remember the MNer who was trying to clear her name? SWs rushed to give her dd a 'letter for life' containing claims that, by this point, they knew were downright lies, just to screw up any chance she had that her dd might want to get in touch.

And the children who were seized in dawn raids during the Rochdale 'satanic abuse' nonsense are now adults, and have said how much damage it did them - no-one has apologised, much less made recompense. The SWs involved are still bloody well working, despite being shown on their own tapes to be perjurers who tormented and terrified children. A profession that can entertain those people is, at best, deeply wrong-headed.

edam and dittany - yes, you are right. i see it now, social work is wrong, wrong, wrong. i am off to write my letter of resignation.

I think it is totally understandably why people may have a negative view of the profession of social workers, and after the high profile cases I would not want to join the profession.

One can not deny that social workers played a part in the tragedy of Baby P.

It has been reported that a senior police officer had urged social workers not to return the child to the family home for his own safety but

Social workers were able to overrule the police and instead produce a ?care plan? consisting of regular visits from social workers.

I understood that the Children's Act was largely borne out of tragedy in Haringey after the death of Victoria Climbié.

Yet eight years after her death the law created to stop this happening again has failed to prevent a similar tragedy in the same borough. With some of the same social workers involved in the Victoria case also being involved in the Baby P case.

'wiw i have nothing against people questioning what social workers do. i DO have a problem with people making patronising statements and hugely ignorant generalised comments about social workers who, for the most part, are trying their utmost to do an incredibly difficult job with very limited resources.'

You've maybe not been on the recieving end then. As a home educator I have, as have many of us. SW with a theory they then try and prove befause they lack understanding about home education.

'DMshouldbeR - I would be interested to know where your evidence comes from that "social workers pick up a term and act on it etc etc." This is simply not the case and I don't think it is helpful to be so critical of social workers from a perspective of lack of knowledge and experience in this field.'

My 'evidence' is having been on the recieving end of ignorant judging by people who should know better. As a home educator and a parent. I was told by a SW that 'home educators suffer lack of proper socialisation'. Actually, the research points in the opposite way.
I was told 'your children don't know the alphabet' because my 9 yo didn't like being interrogated.
When my disabled child cried at being put on a respite carer and I picked her back up I was told 'you are damaging your child by responding to her needs'
Many many such anecdotes from the 5 SW's we have had in the last 5 years.
All disability team SW's by the way.
So, I don't have a lack of knowledge. I've seen how 5 of them behave twoards me. Because they think I'm wrong to be HE'ing. Because they think they know more about living with a disabled child than I do. because they are prejudice against disabled parents.
But I'm a strong person and have corrected and got apologies for every ignorant comment and made formal complaints.
But someone who wasn't would be in a very vunerable position if a SW appraoched a case with pre-judging or a lack of knowledge of certain lifestyles.
Hence I think giving SW more powers and more immediate powers is a bad thing and a dangerous road to go down. Not without a whole heap of training.
Home educators have always been vunerable, but the poorer or autonomous ones have been subjected to harrassment from SS over the years and some terrible things have happenend

The same shambolic system that fails to protect children from harm can obviously also get it wrong the other way - and remove children wrongly from families.

TheDMshouldbeRivened - Was the SW that made the claim about you responding to the needs of your child being a damaging action disciplined? Given your experience I would never ever meet a SW on my own. I think that the risk is far too high.

Also I think you should rightly expect your name in the press if you were a social worker who worked and failed to intervene on the baby p case - thankfully employment tribunals are public hearings so we could be informed of their susbsequent claims for unfair dismissal.

It is only by having cases publicised as being in the public interest, and removing the secrecy that positive change can be instigated.

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4375064.ece

women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4295839.ece

There is a good debate here. I have read Sue Gerhardt's book. The sad thing is that the way our care system operates in practise is to put babies into the care of overworked foster carers and take them off mother who are recognised by the courts as loving them.

Furthermore the courts recognise that the care of the baby would be of a good enough standard for the early years.

That is so spectacularly evil because it is the state that is entirely creating the difficulties.

I heard of another mother "on the run" last week who has left the country because she is under threat of having her child removed because of rows between her and her partner.

These cases and including that of Angela Wileman are so very very very wrong that the judges in the court of appeal who tolerate this should hold their heads in shame.

Instead, however, the machine keeps grinding on chewing up children and parents and also from time to time doing some good work, but also a lot of bad work.

I accept there is good practise. However, there is also bad practise and the checks and balances that are supposed to deal with this fail badly.

Sue Gerhardt's book is excellent isn't it. Every sw should read it.

I agree 100% with your post johnhemming.

Has anyone else noticed that the same thing is happening on this thread as happens in society in general i.e. that social workers will never be able to get it right. One of the main thrusts on this thread from a minority of posters is that social workers are "incompetent know-alls who just want to take children away from parents" (not exact words I know but that is the sentiment being expressed) AND on the other hand criticisms about baby P and sws not "acting properly to keep him safe" etc etc. Do people who are so critical of sws recognise this I wonder? Do you Dittany, Edam, DM DolyP and others.

Ceres/wahwah - I honestly don't think that it is any point us trying to explain or show things from a different angle any more because some of these posters are using this thread to vent their anger at sws based inmany cases on their own personal experience, AND of course as usual we only have one side of the story, which I suspect may well be distorted to say the least. I have given up with whoever it was that thinks child abuse/neglect and attachment difficulties are different things........it amazes me that people can be so adamant about things that they clearly don't know very much about. Of course we don't know on here very much about people's own backgrounds and life experiences and how they have been affected.

I have noticed on MN that interesting threads get "hi-jacked" by people coming in to air their own prejudices which serves to detract from the debate but there you go.

Ceres - SO glad you are resigning BUT if you do change your mind don't go snatching any children from their parents but also remember NOT to leave any children at home who might be in danger ...........got it?? Good!!

JH - have you REALLY read Sue G's book. I cannot believe that anyone who has read and absorbed the concepts discussed could go on to make such odd/vague comments that you do and who still thinks that attachment disorder is caused by being in care rather than by parents in the child's very early life. Did you agree with the issues raised inthe book??

Do you have some personal experience that is driving you in this debate because that is how it sounds to me. There are others here who are motivated by anger/frustration against social workers and I suspect this is the case with you. Your comments lack any clarity,or cohesion and appear to be largely anecdotal. Your focus seems to have changed to the courts now and you talk of them being "spectacularily evil" - would you be prepared to enter into a debate with Judges on this issue. I honestly think the leader of your party needs to be made aware of the sorts of things you are openly expressing. As an MP I find this totally irresponsible.

I'd like a response but don't expect to get one as I note you don't respond to posters on issues raised but rather make a succession of randon comments that don't quite honestly make a great deal of sense.

NanaNina Sat 12-Sep-09 10:35:36 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"Has anyone else noticed that the same thing is happening on this thread as happens in society in general i.e. that social workers will never be able to get it right".

As I pointed out earlier on this thread, this is no different from the attitude taken towards other people in responsible jobs. You will never be seen to get it right when...you get it wrong.

Operate when you shouldn't have and the patient dies- you will get criticised.

Fail to operate when you should have and the patient dies- you will get criticised.

Prescribe the wrong medicine- you will get criticised.

Fail to prescribe any medicine- you will get criticised.

Doctors cope with this. What gets me is why social workers should expect to be any different.

No-one criticises social workers for making the right decision. Any more than they criticise doctors for curing patients.

You are not different to anybody else in a responsible position. I have never ceased in my vituperation of the irresponsible paediatrician who misdiagnosed my dd and refused to do the tests he should have done. And not once have I had a medical professional come on the forum (though I know we have them) to whinge about how doctors can't get it right.

Personally I have not had any bad experience of social workers and have therefore not taken part of the slagging off of them on this thread. The social workers I have met have been excellent.

But I am surprised that you never responded to my posts about how easy and dangerous it is to misdiagnose children with certain conditions and how essential it is to be cautious in removing children without a second medical opinion.

And I must say I have been surprised on this thread to see a social worker who says she can only vaguely remember that some children may have been wrongly taken into care during the Orkney and Cleveland trials. Wouldn't have thought there would be an adult in the country who doesn't remember Rochdale and the Meadowes and Southall scandals, let alone someone who is in the profession and should therefore be keen to keep up with any possible pitfalls.

Cory - yes point taken about other professsionals who are criticised whenthey get something wrong and of course the same must be true for social workers an just out of interest I have met some fairly awful social workers in my time so I really am not trying to defend them all. I suppose the thing that bothers me about all professionals who get it wrong, is that there is public condmenation when no one hears about all the times they got it right if you see what I mean.

Re the misdiagnosis of certain conditions - I did notice it but tbh I was getting carried away with attachment stuff at the time and it slipped past me. whilst I don't have any professional experience of this I am sure that it happens and it has clearly happened to you which must be truly awful and I can well understand your "co]easeless vitupration" as you put it. I will have to go back and read your original post about this as I can't recall the details.

Re vague memories of Orkney & Cleveland. I followed them with great interest at the time but several years down the line I'm afraid the facts have faded (could be my age!) but I do recall that sws and medics were over zealous about "diagnosing" that children had been sexually abused etc etc and that many children were removed from their parents without good cause - horrific and I can well understand the anger of anyone caught up in this.

Re Meadows and Southall - again I don't have all the facts to hand but this is about MSBP (or fabricated illness syndrome) isn't it and again I think these Pdtcns were "seeing" this when it was not there. I think that Paediatricians are put on a bit of a pedestal and it is difficult because sws don't like to challenge them because of the fact that they are not medicaly qualified and this is a fact.

I don't want to split hairs but I honestly don't think it realistic to expect that just because someone is a sw they will have an abiding memory of cases in the headlines in the past.........but there you go. It's enough for most sws to have to cope with 20/30 heavy end cases and allthat that entails!

Excellent post about this rubbish that no-one should criticise social workers because they are in trouble when they get it wrong, ceres.

Well, duh, getting it wrong one way is just as bad as getting it wrong the other way...

And Riven's right that some SWs (I am not saying all) are downright prejudiced against people with disabilities. Especially learning difficulties. I know of one case where SWs insisted on a mother with LDs going into a mother and baby home and admitted at a case conference this was intended to make her break up with the father - because he was 'over-involved' i.e. visited his wife and new baby every day in hospital. Mother was told if she didn't give in and go to the home, baby would be removed.

But of course, we shouldn't criticise them because harassing decent parents is OK...

And Nana, you are right that SWs sometimes bow down to the doctor's opinion because s/he must be an expert. I can see how that happens and that the SW may not be to blame for that - although a bit of critical thinking would not go amiss. Just because someone is a doc does not make them perfect 100% of the time.

There have been cases where doctors have jumped to the conclusion that sick children must be victims of abuse, when actually they have been damaged by procedures carried out in hospital - and it is known full well that those procedures have that effect (i.e. breaking someone's ribs by resuscitation - entirely valid thing to do but ridiculous to then claim the parents are abusers).

I couldnt agree with martin narey more.

When i did my training, keeping families together was the rage, and the idea that throwing enough resources and services at dysfunctional families would solve all their problems. I agree that the families referred to us need help and support, but also its a two way system that the parent needs to take responsibility for.
Professionally i am sick of seeing children shunted back and forth between foster placements and their families, on the premise of giving the parents one more chance. The ending being, a very damaged child put up for a adoption. The very system set up to protect vulnerable children is also harming them, and it needs to be changed.

I have seen first hand what the SS do sadly and not all are good uns and I have met good uns as well.

I have met SW that want to remove children for daft reasons. The said SW would lie to the courts over this and I have been there for a fair few of my friends.

SW need to be trained and should be chaperoned for at least a year before let loose out there also if not from this country they should learn the ruddy language and that we have a sense of humour.

These are our personal experiences so we will tell about them and wonder why the hell SW have got it so wrong in so many cases. Well they have got it wrong because they are overworked and underpaid.

SW should only be set with so many cases they can handle not lumped with more.

Attachment disorder is caused in early life. That can be by birth parents or by care. If a foster carer has three young babies to deal with that is not easy.

The system is far from perfect. Trying to pretend that it is means that we avoid correcting the problems.

john hemming - who is saying the system is perfect? i have never met a social worker who thinks the system is perfect.

edam - i'm really not sure what you are talking about. i have never said that social workers should not be criticised - i repeat, i DO NOT have a problem with social work being questionned. as a social worker i am accountable for my work - and that is just as it should be.

ceres, I don't understand the procedure in which social workers are accountable for their work.

You haven't answered my earlier post, so I shall repeat it, in case you missed it:

"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."

I regularly work with SW. I am horrified at the "care plans" that are put in place despite the urgent need for the child to be removed. I'm working with a child who is prostituting herself, 2 family members are/were prostitutes.
When I started working with the child (not in a SW capacity), I discovered about the prostitution and immediately rang the SW who was at pains to reassure me that it was "low level prostitution" that usually took place in exchange for "a pint or two". So that's ok then
The child has now released a sexually explicit DVD and distributed it. She frequents men's houses, men who are known to the police and whom the police have spoken to. She has had her stomach pumped. She remains in the "care" of her mother.
Damn bloody right, Barnardos!

sobloodystupid in your experience are sw's accountable?

Actually is there a SW out there that can answer the question that Blueshoes directed to Ceres?

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

The point is that social work is not open to public scrutiny even with identities concealed. If you can get a case to the court of appeal then there is a bit of anonymous scrutiny, but that takes some work.

Parents are generally gagged from talking about their cases as are children.

OK I know this thread has moved on & I know attachment theory is not the main issue we're discussing here. I do believe though that it plays a real role in the underlying assumptions / agendas social workers (and other front line professionals) have in mind when dealing with children / families, and I find it worrying that ideas such as 'inter-generational abuse' (a classic attachment theory idea) are presented as 'facts' when they're nothing but! What I see happening is a pathologizing / psychologizing of problems that very often have to do with systemic poverty, cultural misunderstandings, cultural biases (and of course real- all too real & depressing sometimes- problems which are not always- although they sometimes are- helped by an attachment framework). I would really love it if alternative theories were considered too, inter-generational abuse is a very very specific idea, not proven- it's just an idea- and contested by other theories. It's quite a heavy burden to throw on someone, to say that if they're abused (that term too is very vague and...abused) they will probably abuse their children too. In my opinion I think this has to be proven very carefully in every different case, and it shouldn't be an easy thing to just take for granted (particularly in cases where children have been adopted very early on, but even in other cases). Again, this model is hugely reductionistic & 'colours' social workers' expectations & views when they deal with real families & children.