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"

The law says we have the right to a 'fair ' trial in this country, that right covers the family courts and yet that right is not being upheld.

There is nothing fair about the system in place at the moment, the bases are loaded in favour of ss, not only do they have the finances and power of the LA in their corner but they also have the unpresidented (in law) status of being 'right'. One judge sits in judgement over the family, who if they are lucky get representation who can be bothered to challenge evidence and statements, that representation is legally aided and have usually worked for the LA at some point and as such do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

'Evidence' provided by the LA will usually be comprised of a psychological report that is done by a shrink on the LA's payroll, (the shrink does not have to have any contact with the accused parents or child/ren involved)and is a direct result of the sw's report on the family.

The Guardian (pmsl icon)for the child/ren usually comes from cafcass (the 'not fit for purpose' organisation that has been discribed by ofsted as 'a danger to children') and is an ex sw who reads the sw's report and basically rubber stamps it (herd mentality) it is very rare a Guardian will actually be the 'voice of the child' and take any notice of the child/ren's point of view or wishes and feelings unless they can manage to twist what the child has said into agreement.

Parents are not allowed any expert witnesses without the leave of the court, ruled by the ECHR to be illegal and are rarely granted leave until the case reaches the appeal stage, by then the children have usually been seperated from the parents for so long that ss deem it inappropriate to reunite the family as the child is 'settled' and has 'bonded' with it's new carer/s and is awaiting adoption.

During this time the parents contact with the child has been whittled down to nothing so any parental bonding can not possibly happen or any continued family ties are broken.

It is extremely rare that other members of the family are looked at to care for the child/ren as this would continue the family ties and ss do not want the status quo to continue.

Parents are continually harrassed by the ss, interviewed and blackmailed into giving up their rights with lies of contact/ returning the children. Family members who want to care for the children are told that they will be 'scrutinised' by the ss and if they have small children they run the risk of having them taken into care also on trumped up 'evidence'.

If that is this governments idea of a 'fair' trial and the ss idea of the best interests of the child and being child centred then we live in a very sad and decaying society.

Rant over. Apologies for the length of the post.

Well lets clear up the children who are taken into care for 'at risk of emotional harm' due to domestic violence (which run into the thousands of children).
Would everyone here agree that the proper course of action if there is no other child protection concerns eg drugs,neglect etc..
would be that the courts make it mandatory to give a barring order in favour of the DV victim to keep the DV abuser away from the home/kids instead of wasting tax payers money,putting them into care which leads to all sorts of problems including attachment disorders and forced adoption?

If nobody agrees with this i would like to know why?
To those that agree with barring orders i think would also agree that this course of action would free up a massive amount of time for cases of child abuse for social workers to concentrate on.

Obviously if the DV victim broke the barring order then maybe the children should be removed in extreme repeatedly DV situations (and i dont mean shouting /pushing and shoving!)
For the moment i am trying to campaign and get the general public aswell as social workers to agree that this should be the FIRST course of action. As we know social workers are always saying taking the children away is a 'last resort'.
In my case it wasnt a last resort was it? I wasnt given the opportunity to have an ICO at home with barring order (not that there should be ICO needed for that) however maybe an ICO should be the second course of action coupled with barring order and the last resort of taking children should be step 3 if steps 1 and 2 fail.
I really cant see anyone disagreeing with this inwhich case why cant it be written into the childrens act and save lots of children and parents heartache, including those post adoptors who find out their adopted child had a perfectly good mother who loved and could have protected with the help of social services and lived their lives together.

AWR,

I'll wholeheartedly agree with that, but someone should tell cafcass that parents who commit D.V should not be allowed access to their children or their ex.

I spent four years fighting against cafcass in the courts to keep an abusive ex away from his daughter at her request. Cafcass spent four years bullying, harrassing, threatening us and making my child's life a complete misery trying to get contact agreed.

They called for s7 and s37 reports from the ss as they stamped their feet, not on the abusive ex, but on me, what a waste of public funds and ss time.

We refused to budge and my daughter won her case, but that was four years that should not have happened as there was firm proof he had committed abuse against myself and my daughter.

As I was giving birth to my first daughter two thoughts ran through my head:

1. My poor aunt who went through childbirth and was forced to adopt because it was the 50s and she was 17 and unmarried.

2. A woman who was forced to give up her baby at birth by SS

As I was in labour I realised that to take a newborn away from its mother without taking every other measure first (this includes monitoring the mother with her child to see how they interact, etc) was inhumane. I have not read the article but, sorry, if its a man, he has no idea of the misery he will cause by pushing for babies to be taken away.

I was emotionally and physically abused as a child and I have zero contact with my mother as a result of this. I believe she is has some sort of bizzare mental illenss.
But even I think women should be given a chance after they`ve given birth. At least give them a chance.

EXactly AWR, Ive just read your post and totally agree. Im going further now to say that I think its disgusting that people think the way to go is to remove babies from birth just because the "system" itself is crap.
Attachment disorders causes so many recurring problems for children as they become adults. I think an attachment disorder is a worse outcome than the results of physical abuse because it meanst the child then can possibly find emotional fulfillment in adult relationships.

I am not underplaying the devastation of abuse on a child.

What I am saying is that believing its okay to remove lots of babies from their natural mothers without there being any repercusions for society later on is naive. This should only be a very very desparate last resort, not something that "we should see more of"

sorry
means the child can never find emotional fulfillment

I am returning to this thread to try to answer some of my critics. I am very aware that I have a tendency to be direct and too outspoken for comfort and this is particularly so in this MN medium of communication. It is has it's roots in a frustration at posters who are in my view just intent on criticising sws and making all kinds of statements and allegations that are often without foundation.

In my professional life I am known as a person who is very direct with colleagues and other professionals but who always treats service users with respect. I am also known as someone who will alays admit when I am wrong and apologise if necessary. I am awar that i have been very direct and made personal comments about one or two posters (I think I said someone sounded unpleasant and bitter) and it transpired that she is a parent of a disabled child, hence a service user and so YES I have broken my code of conduct on this site and that is regrettable. I have also angered people by talking of people who are criticising SSDs from a position of "unenlightenment" I think my comments in this respect have been misinterpreted. I was in NO sense suggesting that a parent is not an expert on her child or that any sw (or any other professional) knew more about the child and the care the child needed etc.

My comment about "unenlightenment" (possibly a bad choice of word) is based on the fact that being a service user clearly means you are an expert as far as your own child/circumstances are concerned but this in my view does not mean that you are entitled to criticise any other aspect of an organisation of which you do not have knowledge.

I am a service user of the NHS but I am unenlightened about the workings of the organisation and the problems and difficuluties encountered by those within the organisation. And yes I have been upset by a GP who made an incorrect diagnosis on a close relative who later died of breast cancer, but I do not feel that this gives methe right to criticise ALL GPs. I just have to accept that it is human to err and that for all the cases where there is a misdiagnosis there are thousands of cases where lives are saved.

I am educated and had children and grandchildren in education but I am unenlightened about the workings of the education system.

I am a consumer of goods and services but I am unenlightened about the retail industry and the problems and difficulties faced by people selling their services.

I fly in aeroplanes but I am unenlightened about the aviation industry.

I have had occasion to call the police but I know nothing of the workings of the organisation.

I could go on but I am trying to illustrate my point.

WahWah - it's a shame no one had the decency to respond to your apology but I think that says a lot about some of the posters who have more invested in thinking of sws as incompetent know alls who feel they are above criticism etc.

I have also been heavily criticised and accused of saying that all people who have been abused will go on to become abusers. This is a misconception. I said that I had not KNOWN abusers who had not themselves been abused as children. This is NOT the same thing as saying all children who have been abused willbecome abusers. Clearly i don't think that and if I have giventhat impression then I did not mean to, and my "sample"of abusers I have known who have themselves been abused is relatively small. The point I was trying to make is that we are all affected by out early life experiences (be they positive or negative) and to a greater or lesser extent people who have had negative early life experiences will be less resilient in later life to cope with the stresses and strains of life (e.g. parenthood) than those who enjoyed positive early life experiences. I think it is hugely under estimated how important our early life experiences are and the effects can be apparent through the lifespan.

Posters here are giving out information to other posters who are asking questions about some aspects of social work, which is totally inaccurate. At the risk of making people angry again, I actually think it is arrogant to assume that you can explain matters to others when you do not have the correct information yourself. Someone gave an explanation about independent social workers which was far from accurate but I can't see a great deal of point in trying to set the record straight. If anyone is interested in what ind social work is I woul dbe happy to explain.

There is one poster on here who is clearly deeply aggrieved about social work and is now prevented by court orders from discussing her case. I would like to say that some of her comments are totally untrue and inflammatory. Social workers and other professionals are NOT allowed to use "fake" names in court to protect their identity. However I can see that this poster has had a very bad experience and is still suffering and that in itself is a hard burden to bear and so I will say no more.

I have been in court for several days and was cross examined for a total of 17 hours 30 mins over 6 days of a final hearing by counsel for all the parties involved in the proceedings. This is normal practice and I do not object to this but if this is not scrutiny of my work I don't know what is.

Posters have expressed the view that i should not be practising and am "blinkered/burned out" etc etc. The judge in his summing up of the recent case thanked me for my "astute reports" and the competent and caring manner in which I had conducted myself in relation to the service users in the case. SO yes I am still practising and shall continue to do my level best to ensure that in all my dealings with service users I shall continue to act always in the best interests of the child which is the basic tenet of all social work practice.

I do NOT feel I am above criticism inany way, shape or form but I think this needs to be constructive if it is to be helpful.

Finally I do not think MN is a good place for in depth discussions of this sort and agree with whoever said that if we were all in the same room there would be a more constructive debate. I think it is all too easy to "tap tap" our frustrations out on a laptop and know that we are anonymous and hence can be careless of others views and feelings and I know that I am guilty of this.

Probably time to leave this thread I think!

John Hemming - I continue to feel very concerned at your contributions to this discussion. I think it is one thing for members of the general public to be able to vent our concerns, frustrations and even anger on these kinds of sites, but you are in a position in public life where you can influence people. It is very clear from your posts that you have very little knowledge or understanding of the matters on which you are pronouncing and this I think is a matter of great concern. As someone else has pointed out you are "woefully misinformed" and this I think is very true.

Frankly I find your comments/allegations/assertions very odd and unconnected, almost random comments that are not only factually incorrect but are not made in any particular context and are not evidenced in any way whatsoever. Your latest comment about S.31 of the Children (no s by the way) Act 1989 is a case in point.

You continue to completely and utterly misunderstand the notion of attachment disorders and think as many others on this site do, that negelct, abuse and attachment difficulties are all separate things, when in fact they are all one and the same thing. I have tried to give some basic explanations in previous posts, all of which have fallen on stoney ground.

It seems to me that you are driven by some personal experience as your comments in my opinion bear the hall mark of someone with a personal "axe to grind" and lack any kind of clarity or evidence of understanding of the issues on which you are proclaiming.

Your allegations about social workers and courts are wholly inaccurate and distorted and are largely without substance or foundation. I think for an MP to do engaging in this kind of activity is inappropriate and irresponsible.

I am not concerned that you can influence government policy because of your views as I am sure that you would very quickly be exposed as someone who was incompetent and lacking any clear cohesive position on the matters of child care and adoption etc., but I am concerned about the effect that you could have on members of the public in your constituency and on these kind of sites.

I am in touch with colleages who share my concerns and some are in your constituency. SWs who are employed by local authorities arenot able to make their views known about MPs but ind sws are not so contstrained. Therefore a small group of ind sws have decided that it is time that Nick Clegg became aware of the kind of misleading/inaccurate statements you are making about SSDs and the Courts. We will invite him (or one of his minions to look at this site for evidence if they so wish) and I sincerely hope that this will mean that in future you confine yourself to the FACTS rather than make all kinds of unfounded allegations that you cannot evidence.

I am in touch with colleagues who share my concerns and some live within your constituency. For sws in la practice they are unable to speak out about MPs but for those of us who practice independently, we are not bound by such constraints. Therefore we have decided that it is time that Nick Clegg was made aware of your

You have a right to your views. I accept that there is good practise, but argue that there is also bad practise.

During the years since Justice for Families was created a number of changes have occurred. Firstly the adoption targets were scrapped, then there were the 2009 increases in openness in the courts and now there are further proposals for openness.

I think there is merit in me debating these issues in online fora. I was invited by both The Adolescent and Childrens Trust and Unison to debate the issues in Bournemouth in respect of the pressures on social work. In fact although they disagreed at times with my analysis as to what goes wrong, there was considerable agreement as to what changes should be made.

Social Workers in LA practise are not prevented from criticising MPs. There is noone who is prevented from critising MPs - nor should there be.

nina, you make fair points.

But the most worrying part of your post is your determination to close down debate amongst people who in your opinion are 'unenlightened' about social work. Of course any one on this forum (including johnhemming MP) has a right to question evidence of bad practice - that is the essence of an accountable public service funded by tax payers pockets for the benefit of services users.

If your teacher failed your child, you cannot even question why because you are unenlightened? On a public forum even. And debate how to avoid this for future or how the system can be improved.

You lose all credibility by making personal remarks against johnhemming and alluding to his circumstances. I believe that is why your earlier posts were deleted. Low blow, nice work.

You are deluded if you think you can stamp out public debate except amongst the 'enlightened' people involved in social work. I am glad for outsider champions like johnhemming and others who are there to question bad practice and agitate for reforms, not accept the whitewashed complacency that seems to suit the system.

I am returning to this thread even though I said I would not. I would just appreciate it if someone could (dare I say) "enlighten" me about how posts are deleted, by whom and on what basis. There seems to be some suggestion that this is done if personal comments are made and I do know that I have only made one such comment when I suggested someone sounded unpleasant and bitter. I actually made this comment in relation to some rather rude comments made by a poster in response to another poster who was expressing what I considered to be very measured and sensible comments. I have read far far worse comments on here so I am curious as to how posts are deleted, by whom and on what basis. Maybe someone will advise me.

I am not trying to "close down debate" in any sense whatsoever and I am really puzzled as to how people arrive at some of their conclusions. I am simply trying to say that the whole issue of childcare, SSDs, legislation, adoption (or not) removal of children (or not) is a very complicated area for discussion and in my view (for what its worth) the debate is not helped by people giving inaccurate information to others, making unfounded allegations about sws and the way courts conduct their business etc etc. In my view this just causes more confusion and only serves to "fuel" those who seem to have a lot invested in believing that sws are incompetent know alls and courts do everything in secret for some sinister reason etc.

I have friends and relatives who work for the NHS and in education and I am always interested in their viewpoints and by asking questions and listening I can further my understanding of some of the difficult issues that workers in these public services face. And I don't feel that I can never ever comment about matters about which I don't possess a full understanding but I would be extremely careful about making criticisms and value judgements about workers in these services without the any real understanding of these matters. I would be even more careful about "writing off" all doctors, or teachers or whoever on the basis of a bad personal experience with one such person, and this is what seems to be happening on this thread which seems to me to be unfair.

Anyway please can someone let me know about deleted posts...........thanks.

"I am not trying to "close down debate" in any sense whatsoever"

....except for trying to get John Hemming to stop posting by threatening to report him to Nick Clegg, of course

FWIW I agree with those who say that John Hemming brings a lot of very valuable info and experiences to this debate. You don't have to agree with everything he says, in which case, correct any errors of fact/disagree with any opinions you want. But don't pretend that threatening to report someone to their party leader isn't an attempt to limit discussion.

NanaNina - try reading the useful stuff - often a good idea before you start posting online

NanNina,

When you say you are the only 'enlightened' one in the room (so to speak) because you do the job dismisses all the combined personal experiences of the people on this board who have both lived through and worked with families going through the family courts and CP circus. When people advocate through enough cases there becomes a common theme which even a primate could figure out.

Firstly, social workers do not listen, and by that I mean really listen to what parents and children are saying (ergo, if a child says it wants to stay with it's parent/s and is desperate to do so, that will not be put in front of the court as said it will be ammended to 'but in our view... ) mostly dependent on funding.

Secondly social workers are devious, they are told to 'befriend' the client in the hopes of using all the bits of conversation against them (usually out of context) when the client is expecting help, not persecution.

Thirdly social workers are arrogant, because you hold a piece of paper that says you can practise your choosen field and have read the latest dogma on how parenting should be done ( in someones view and generally not with a consensus) you believe you know best, when lets face facts, no one knows the best way to parent a child and we are all learning, ( have you never made a mistake in parenting?, are you lucky enough not to have this dragged out in a courtroom?).

Go to any bookstore and look through the parenting section, all the books written by so called experts ( child psycologists, child psychiatrists, nannies, child care experts, and yes even ex sw's ) and you will find that, like the sw profession the dogma changes with the seasons, i'm sure we will all be wrapping our babies in swaddling and lying them out in the fresh air while mother does the housework again, so like the newspapers I guess sw's do not have to be right tomorrow, just today, but unlike the newspapers once the child is adopted their can be no retraction.

Oh dear Atlantis - more inaccurate information and distortions. I have never said nor implied that I am the only enlightend one in the room. HOW do you arrive at such a conclusion I wonder. I am not sure what you mean by advocating for families going through what you call the CP circus. Do you care to say in what way you are involved - I only ask out of interest.

Social workers have a duty to take into account the wishes and feelings of a child in care cases if the child is of an age to understand the issues. Chldren's guardians (who as you will know are also sws are indeed the "voice of the child" and they will appoint a solicitor to act for the child. Most children in my experience will state that they want to stay at home and this is very understandable, as it is difficult for a child to conceptualise living anywhere else and there is the fear of the unknonw. Children mostly remain loyal to their birth parents regardless of how they are treated and this again is very understandable. However sometimes it is unsafe for a child to remain at home and in such cases, this opinion has to be stated with of course evidence to back it up, even when a child states his/her wish to stay at home. I don't understand what you mean when you say sws try to remove children against their wishes because of funding. It is actually much much cheaper to leave a child at home than to provide some kind of substitiute care, which is always expensive.

Social workers are NOT told to "befriend" the families with whom they work - quite the reverse in fact. It is made very clear early on in training that you are not there as a friend. This is not fair on the service user as it is dishonest. There is a piece of legislation in relation to Supervision Orders that states it is the duty to "advise assist and befriend" but this is not the case in terms of child protection. Social workers are required to evidence their opinions in their reports and in cross examination in court and one of the ways of doing this is in recording the comments that have been made to them. It is not a way of trying to "trip up" people, but a way of trying to ensure that the child's best interests are served.

If you are an advocate in court, you must be familiar with the solicitors/counsel for birth parents making very very strenous endeavours (quite rightly) to put their client's case and challenge anything that does not show their clients in a good light.

As for the "piece of paper" about knowing how to parent - words fail me really. SW training is about far more than parenting and in fact there is very little of this on the training courses. Like many professions the training does not really equip you to do the job - you actually learn on the job. There is no prescribed way of parenting as you say. The bottom line is a child must be safe at home and his/her needs in all aspects of development must be met as far as is reasonably possible but there will be massive variations in parenting, all of which are acceptable. Removal of a child is a very very last resort and at the risk of repeating myself, sws cannot do right for doing wrong. They are pilloried for recommending to courts that a child is removed and condemned when they leave a child at home and the child is then seriously harmed or killed by the parents or step parents.

I can see you have a very deep seated grievance against the entire system and I am sorry about that, as it is a hard burden to bear. However I do not think it helpful to post inaccurate information which only serves to cause greater confusion into this hotly debated topic.

Have you now given up trying to stop me from commenting or indeed setting Nick Clegg's "minions" on me to stop me typing?

Message withdrawn

nina, I find it quite disturbing how you refuse to acknowledge that there could be evidence of egregious bad practice within the social work field. Instead you prefer to dismiss what such people say as their having an 'axe to grind' or are 'deeply aggrieved' or having a 'bad experience', as if that somehow negates their experiences. That attitude is eerily similar to some of the frankly appalling personal stories on this (and other) threads of families encounters with some social workers.

This idea that 'unenlightened' people should practise self-censorship is laughable. People have brains and feelings and are entitled to come to their own conclusions, whether right or wrong. Social workers are no different from any other profession and can fall into the trap of tunnel vision. If social workers as a professional cannot accept that an outsider can provide a useful and fresh perspective, then that is in itself a good reason to blow the secrecy of the family courts out of the water. The family courts and child protection work has enjoyed non-transparency and non-accountability to the general public and even to service users (your term) for so long that some of its members seem to have developed a god-complex.

Funny how you direct your greatest contempt, aspersions and outright threats at the voices on this thread who are campaigning for change and reform.

If the system is so perfect or even functional, why are there pitifully few supportive voices from families or children defending it except social workers? I ask this as a genuine question.

nina, I find it hard to reconcile how you sound so knowledgeable about social work and apparently dedicated to the cause, but then turn around and issue the most serious threats and try to gag anyone who breathes a word to the contrary, by calling them 'unenlightened' and therefore could not possibly know anything (except the sun shines out of social workers' bottoms) or having a 'deep-seated grievance' which leads them to lie apparently.

This is jekyll and hyde stuff.

Your reality and perception is not the only one. You should learn to listen and have some humility.