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"

?I know there are excptions to this but in the main I believe that this is what happens. I have worked with many abusing parents over the years and I have yet to meet one who was not abused themselves as a child?.I don't think anyone knows how to break into that cycle.?

I found this statement of Nina's quite terrifying. There are more than exceptions to this Nina, in the main, most children who are abused incredibly and wonderfully, manage to recover to a greater or lesser degree and go on to become perfectly adequate (and sometimes shock horror, marvellous) parents. As for saying that no-one knows how to break into that cycle, there has been loads of research and work done by various organisations and psychologists and there are quite a few organsiations who not only know how to break the cycle but are doing sterling work to ensure that people who grew up in abusive families are supported to not repeat what is sometimes portrayed as an inevitable consequence - repeating the cycle.

You are right of course in saying that most abusers have themselves been abused as children; but that is a world away from asserting that in the main, most abused chidlren will grow up to repeat the cycle of abuse with their own children. It is simply inaccurate and not born out by research as well as being extremely offensive and stigmatising of those people who did grow up in abusive households and managed to break the cycle; they are not rare exceptions, they are the norm and I think it is very dangerous to promote this idea that an abused child will inevitably become an abusing adult with only exceptional examples managing to escape their unhappy fate. It's not true, it's disempowering and it's potentially dangerous. If the victim of abuse thinks that they are automatically going to be labelled an abuser themselves, they are not going to seek help are they?

I just wanted to apologise for any offence I've caused on this thread. I was shocked to see that I'd had a post deleted as I hadn't thought that I had made a personal attack on anyone. Apparently
someone complained that I had.

I think I made a comment about someone's comments to me making me think that they were not a nice person. If this was it, then I am very sorry, I shouldn't have said this. I think I get so het up on these threads that my usual real life good manners disappear. Sorry again and I'll try harder not to get carried away in future.

Can I thank HerBeatitude for that post. We should treat people as individuals with individual potential rather than damning them through their experiences.

HerBeatitude I so agree that the past need not equal the future.

herbeatitude

And I think Nananina demonstrates quite neatly the problem with social work. Prejudice, dogmatic statements that are not supported by evidence, a belief that she is the expert who knows best and everyone else is thick... coupled with a lack of critical thinking and reflection. Scary.

After pondering the post from HerBeatitude I went back and searched the posts from NanaNina, I was partly motivated by the deletions I referred to earlier, as they puzzled me.

I thought long and hard about posting this, but decided to proceed after consideration of Nananina's repeated claims as to her experience level and her claim that she is in court this week potentially impacting a family.

As a precursor I do not want to stop any of the fruitful discussions had, especially those recent exchanges on assessment centres and public scrutiny on child protection.

I would also add that it is not possible to prevent all harm to children, but failure to protect a child already known to be at risk is entirely different.

The following comments from Nananina were written in mid-august and are quoted in full. I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions.

"NO there isn't anything you can do to save the baby Ps of this world. This case has been given a huge amount of media attention because it is Haringay again. There have been 20 children died at the hands of their parents since the death of baby P but no one has heard about them.

Parents/step parents/others who abuse children and those who fail to protect (usually the mothers) have almost always suffered horrendous abuse themselves in childhood. I am NOT trying to excuse their behaviour but I do think it is important to understand this connection.
In the main, we can only repeat the experiences that we have had as parents and if we have been fortunate enough to have had kind nurturing parents, then we will be the same with our children. Sadly for many many people this is not the case and they end up as very damaged people who are simply not capable of parenting and their children are at risk of neglect and abuse.

I know this doesn't help with feeling upset about children who are abused but I thought it worth making the point.

People are not born evil - they are made that way by the way they are treated themselves as children and thus you have the cycle of deprivation and I don't think there is any way to stop it.

In the meantime be thankful that you are the lucky ones who know how to properly love and care for your children.

Baby P died in August 2007. The number of children that die from abuse in England is unclear because of a lack of transparency from DCSF that I am currently trying to sort out (I have won at the Information Commissioner's office, but this hasn't yet tricked through).

There are at least 80 deaths a year and more likely around 160. Hence the number of 20 is clearly wrong.

Secondly just because a high proportion of abusive parents were abuse, you should not conclude that it is inevitable that an abused person will go on to abuse.

...and the post from Nananina was posted in Aug 2009. If she is still a decision maker then I find this so very sad, jaded, defeatist and potentially damaging.

i know that me an Nananina share the same job and i am not defending her but i really feel that i must add that with all of the families i have worked with in the assessment centre i have yet to come across parents who were not subjected to some kind of abuse or neglect as a child.

I think it is fair to say that in this particular area of child protection we do encounter many damaged families, and many parents who them selves did not have their needs met as a child especially emotional needs.

After all CP S/W and the courts wouldnt be involved unless there was significant CP concerns.

That is not to say that people cant change as they can but they do need to want to change and be motivated. It can be very hard for some of these parents.

A book i read recently which really got me thinking more about this 'cycle' which sadly i do see alot of and i would never want to pigeon hole anybody is 'building the bonds of attachement, awakening love in deeply troubled children' by dan hughes, i have also been on courses recently whereby neuroscience has not got evidence through brain scans that children who are neglected and do not have their needs met as a small child will have less developed brains.

Now i am only a S/W not a scientist or brian specialist but it was very obvious that the brain was very underdeveloped in these children even when they were teenagers it had never quite developed to the same capacity as a child who had had their needs met.

This does open up thoughts, for me anyway, esp with the parents i work with. That if their brain growth has been 'stunted' when they them selves were a child what impact does this have on them in terms of their ability to relearn, reason, or engage with professsionals who do want to help and support them.

just re read my post and meant to say brain specialist, then again im not a brian specialist either

thanks for the info Kentmumtj. I thought that Nananina was a new poster as well not someone that has been before but I am new as well so go figure.

I have to say I am Scotland not England and the centres you speak of sound great but as far as I know we dont have many of them here or the placements of teens that are pregnant within the famuly home this seem to be a new thing in England the now or it might be getting of the ground there.

I broke the cycle of abuse from my mother and father and later my step father, but this was the 70's and the 80's where there was a fine line between abuse and chastizement as I reported my own mother for the beatings hence the spell in a home and then she requested me back and back I had to go sad really as I should of never of been returned to her. I have other siblings in the mix and their lives have turned out a lot different to mine I have to say, but in the main we broke that chain and made a different life for ourselves so not all abused kids are a lost cause not by a long chalk. We rarely have anything to do with my mother as she still tries to berate us at any given time.

HerBeatitude thanks for your post as it is so true

Funny how so many people leap to the conclusion that one assertion: "Many abusive parents were themselves abused" stretches to include the thought: "Abused children always become abusers themselves". Yet it is clear that while the first may be true, the second is not.

It's like a Venn diagram or something. Big circle of abused people, an equivalent big circle of victims/survivors, and a smaller overlap between the two where a minority of survivors go on to abuse others.

must say i havent read all the posts but dont think ive heard anyone say

"Abused children always become abusers themselves".

No but Nana did say "in the main" abused children become abusers.

TBH I'm hoping that that was a throwaway remark not properly qualified, as we all sometimes make if posting in a hurry, and that she doesn't really believe that. Because IMO a practising SW ought to be far more familiar with the research out there that contradicts that and which far outweighs any notion that it is the majority of abuse victims who go on to repeat the cycle.

Thank you Ceres, Kentmunj and DollyPS for explaining about assessment centres and placements and how they work.

Just reading this thread, I feel the key is early intervention, not by way of adoption (as Barnados man suggests) but in offering support to struggling families. Better funding and resources are needed. With the range of tools available such as placements, assessments, families could be persuaded to improve their parenting.

But with a cut-off date. Not everyone is motivated or perhaps even has the ability to improve, and children cannot be expected to live indefinitely in seriously deprived circumstances.

I am not sure what to think of the attachment theory, particularly the reference to permanent changes in the brain which would seem to suggest that early abuse would lead to permanent damage, whereas we know the human spirit is stronger than that. There are people who will break the cycle of abuse, even if some do not.

I am still deeply uncomfortable that current procedures and the secrecy and culture of the family courts do not in some instances act as effective checks and balances on abuse of power or errant judgment. This needs to change.

Attachment is moreso about neglect than abuse not that both cannot happen simultaneously.

I still have do not have an understanding as to just how the checks and balances apply if things go wrong, i.e. either a child is not correctly recognised as at risk or a parent is wrongly accused, and what public redress is out there and understanding the various roles of influence of sw, hcp's police in matters, and so on and so on.

The resiliance shown by Dollyp is so important in helping others and breaking cycles.

As has been more aptly said by others, what concerned me with some of Nananina's posts was that focusing on those who survive abuse as tending to be damaged individuals may only further add to a sense of humiliation and shame that those individuals may hold.

I think survivors should be approached as individuals and those who show the capacity for strength need to be employed in a lessons learnt or role model capacity.

Errors also need to be discussed in an open manner, without breaching confidentiality.

Anyhow enough said by me.

The concentration on the probabilities of an abused person becoming an abuser are driven by the crystal ball aspects of S31 of the 1989 Childrens Act in the phrase "risk of significant harm" which is the test for a care order.

'The concentration on the probabilities of an abused person becoming an abuser are driven by the crystal ball aspects of S31 of the 1989 Childrens Act in the phrase "risk of significant harm" which is the test for a care order'.

Johnhemming, if I can respond, the link you make between childhood abuse of parents and s.31 does not make sense. Risk of significant harm is important in that it is clear that we should not wait for a child to be abused, but if harm is likely, then we should protect. Eg, if a parent has abused one child and shown they are unable to change their behaviours, then it would be sensible to protect the other children in the family.

Many parents who abuse children were themselves abused, but one is not diagnostic of the other. Many abused children grow up to be perfectly able adults and a number work as MPs or Social Workers, trying to assist others. No one who has experienced abuse should think that any Social Worker thinks they will abuse children, I think Nananina was trying to make a very different point about abuse and damage being perpetuated.

In relation to your comment about attchament, that is also incorrect. Neglect is abuse and other forms of abuse disrupt attachments.

I hope that this clarifies the reality for anyone reading this thread.

However, what the system does is look at probabilities to determine actions. For instance all mothers who have been in care are assessed. (at least in some areas).

When the government categorise the reasons that children are on the registers they distinguish between neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse.

Shouldnt there be a but John as I think you have missed something out there.

Can I have a link to this s.31 please as I cant seem to find. well its confusing trawling through loads of pages looking, as I can see both sides here if its what I think it is.

I've namechanged.

I had the misfortune of being assessed by social services a few years ago. I am a surivor of childhood rape. One of the grounds on which the social worker suggested my baby should go on the child protection register at birth was that such experiences are a predictor of future behaviour (I forget the exact wording but that was the sentiment). In other words she assumed that because I was abused I would become an abuser. My little girl is not on the register and never has been as thankfully other professionals (police, health visitor and midwife) disagreed with Social Services. We have a very happy, healthy and much loved 3 year old.

I've read this thread with immense interest. The views that nananina expressed are horribly familiar. Sorry but people like her should be weeded out of social work.

Dolly here's a link to s. 31 of the childrens act 1989

changedforthis, I am horrified that your past of which you were a victim, was used by social services against you to victimise you a second time. Was it only because of your past that you were assessed?

I am so glad that the police etc took the only sensible approach. It is reading about stories like yours that make me more determined that social services (and child protection in general) desperately needs more transparency and accountability. At the very least, family courts should not sit in secret.

Sounds familiar changedforthis.

I have never met a social worker who was not convinced they knew better than any parent what a child needs all because they have a degree in social work, shame that the so called experts who write the degree coursework can't agree on best course of action for children, and because they have 'experience', shame that most time social services intervene they make matters worse for the child.

In my local authority sw's will openly tell you that instead of supporting parents to keep their children it is a matter of finances that make the decisions of whether to take children into care (obviously not the best solution if their first choice would have been to support the family instead)and where the targets (that blears announced would end but actually just changed designation instead) babies are taken into care from perfectly good parents by using their own past against them so as to cash in on the government pot for their departments.

I would actually like social workers children to have to undergo close scrutiny because if the attitude of social workers in general is anything to go by their own children must be extremely unhappy and ill-ajusted children and so they in turn (according to sw doctrine) would make extremely bad parents themselves.

Opening the court to scrutiny and making social workers and guardians accountable for their reports and actions would go a long way to making sure that the children's voice will be heard and that the best interests of the child are actually served. The courts make a big thing about being child centred but in fact the child is the last to be considered over ego, finances and bad judgement.

i really feel that comment was really uncalled for and unecessary

'I would actually like social workers children to have to undergo close scrutiny because if the attitude of social workers in general is anything to go by their own children must be extremely unhappy and ill-ajusted children and so they in turn (according to sw doctrine) would make extremely bad parents themselves.'

you can not simply generalise because as human beings we are all different therefore all S/W are different, you are making a judgement about S/W's children with no actual evidence. Now what would you say if a S/W did that without treating people as individuals and generalised.

As for S/W and Guardians reports being scrutinised, they are by all the legal parties, be parents and everyone else who is part of the proceedings and then as a professional you are crossed examined. I cant speak for other S/W but i am accountable for all my reports and work openly and honestly with all of my families. However i do not share my reports with the general public for confidentiality reasons and i am sure many of the families i work with would not like there lives openly scrutinised by the public. That is not to say some might.

Its not S/W that make the decision about the courts being closed to the genral public so why blame them for it. Its the systems in place if you want to make a postivie change then do so through the correct channels rather than slating and putting down people who do an incredibly hard job.

I can only speak for myself here and i shudder to think what borough you live in but i would actually prefer children to stay with their parents or within the family. it is most certainly not a pleasant experience to have to make a recommendation that the child/ren should be removed.

And i would never say i know more about a parents child as they are more of an expert what i would say is some actions or behaviours that a parent does will have this effect on the child even if they dont belive me. For example a child witnessing parents arguing and fighting, if a parent told me they knew their child better than me and it didnt affect them i would disagree and not because i know their child better but because it does have an impact on their emotional well being. I have spoke with many many adults who have been damaged by witnessing their paretns constant arguments. That is only an example to try to attempt how i would work with someone.

im open and transparent, its the best way to be and im certainly not egotistical.