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"

john, with due respect it is very difficult for social workers employed by the LA to make a complaint about an MP for a variety of reasons.

I accept that the concept of 'independence'is a dubious one possibly because of financial issues but one not limited to social workers.

staggerlee said "john, with due respect it is very difficult for social workers employed by the LA to make a complaint about an MP for a variety of reasons."

Give me two. I presume a variety is more than two. However, lets start with two.

The complaints can go to the party whip, party leader or indeed parliamentary commissioners for standards.

The main accountability for MPs is indeed, however, elections.

Local authorities are concerned with their corporate image and their relationship with the wider political system.
The reality is that when MP's submit complaints and/or concerns to LA's they are dealt with more expediently and are taken more seriously. There is not an equal power relationship and I would have to think very carefully of the consequences before making a complaint about an MP.

Its difficult to quantify and you are right john that there may not be anything to state definitively that a social worker would be disciplined if they complained about an MP. But you are disregarding the culture which we work in and also the power differences between social workers and politicians.

"likely harm" is inherently a poedictive crystal ball situation.

Is the LA opposed the appointment of an expert then their income is affected.

I am pleased that you do not always take the LA's side.

Please do remember that my criticisms of the system do not apply to every case. They are criticisms of the way the system operates. It is only part of the time that it goes wrong.

As a matter of legal interpretation, 'likely harm' has a predictive element which I believe is the 'crystal ball' effect that is being referred to.

I am highlighting the relevant parts of section 31, as quoted by dilemma, that support this:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied... that the child concerned is ... likely to suffer, significant harm; and ... that the ... likelihood of harm, is attributable to ... the care ... likely to be given to him if the order were not made, ... "

Presumably, all circumstances are looked into as to the likelihood. There is nothing on the face of this legislation which suggests that a parent's past history of being abused cannot be taken into account as as whether a child is likely to be given harmful care by his parents.

Nina, is a parent's history of being abused or neglected never in fact considered in the reports you do, in the investigations you conduct? In other words, you never go there?

Also, nina, do the solicitors who recommend your services act for the families or the LA? I am not familiar with how the family courts work but does the LA have any influence in the solicitors who are appointed for the family, whether directly or indirectly, particularly in the case of families who don't have the resources or mental capability to choose their own solicitors?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

On the issue of "likely harm" it is as some of you say predicitive but predicitive of what is likely to happen in the future and NOT related to the past. I will try to give an eample as you ask

It may be that a mother has a serious mental health condition of a physcotic nature for example that prevents her from properly caring for her child/ren. It may be very evident that whilst she has not harmed her child at the present time, her illness and her inability to properly parent because of this, means that there is a distinct possibility that she may well harm her child in future or in other words the child is "likely to be harmed." In such a case of course there would be colloboration with the Consultant Psychiatrist who was treating the parent, and he/she would have input as to the outlook for the way the illness may affect the parenting and the progression of the illness. As I said the reason for the application for the Care Order have to be present at the time, but the words "likely harm" have been written into the legislation to cover such situations where there is a serious worry (as in the example I gave) that the child could be harmed in the future. If those words were not in the legislation even though the medical evidence and the observation was such that the children were not being properly cared for but had not actually been harmed, there would no nothing anyone could do but sit and wait until they were harmed, and then there would be an outcry that social workers should have "done something" before it happened.

You ask about whether a person's past history is used in reports. Any assessment must contain details of a person's past history in relation to their own upbringing, medical history, education, employment etc etc. This is a requirement of the court and is meant to help others to understand more about that particular person. So yes if a person has been abused this will be included in a report but will NOT have any bearing on the decision on whether to make an Order on the child. This is almost a "plea in imitigation" if you like as it often explains why it is that a parent is unable to properly parent his/her child. PLEASE don't anyone run away with the notionthat I am saying all people who have been abused in the past will go on to abuse their own children, as this conculsion has been jumped to on this thread in the past.

You ask why if it is not the case that a person's past can be a reason for removing their children is on these threads. I am afraid there is an awful lot of inaccurate information and frankly in some cases nonsensical stuff on these threads about sw activity and this is what is making me frustrated, NOT the fact that people are disagreeing with me. I have no problem with that at all, but posting things in an important debate like this that are simply untrue does I think cause confusion and possible anxiety for some people.

This is one of my problems with JH. He clearly believes that a person who has been abused could have their child removed for that reason. Therefore it follows that someone reading this who has been abused could live in fear of their child being removed and presumably he would give this advice to someone consulting him as an MP. I think people are very likely to believe him as he is an MP and this what I am concerned about. This is just one thing where his thinking is fundamentally flawed and there are many many others.

Blueshoes - you ask about solicitors and courts. Parents in care proceedings always have a choice about who they consult to act for them. There are solicitors who are on a Childrens Panel and have expertise in child care cases and a sw may welll advise parents of these solicitors but woul not try to influence who the parents consulted. This is a matter for them. I worry about some solicitors who are not experienced in child care law and who I don't think do right by some parents and this only serves to add to the disadvantaged position in which they can find themselves.

Re appointment of an ind worker. It is the solicitor acting for the parents who requests an ind assessment of his/her clients. This happens when a la are opposing the return of a child to his parents and are asking the court for a Care Order with a plan for some kind of subsitutute care for the child. This can be with a relative, a long term foster carer or adoption. The la have to tell the court precisely what they intend to do with a child if an Order is granted. Clearly any solicitor acting for parents in this situation will want to "fight their corner" and so will request of the Judge than an ind assessor is appointed and then it is for the court to decide if they will agree. If the Judge agrees then there has be agreement between all parties on the person appointed. I am therefore approached by solicitors acting for parents or sometimes grandparents or other relatives who may have had the care of the child prior to his/her removal from their care.

Sometimes local authorities try to "cut corners" and don't for example give the parents the opportunity of a residential assessment, and if this is the case then I will dependent upon the circumstances say in my report that they should be given this opportunity. However this is complicated too because the people running these residential assessment places will only take people where they think it is feasible for them to carry out an assessment. I'm afraid that sometimes the abuse or neglect is of such an order and the child is so traumatised that it would not be safe for him/her to be cared for by the parents even in a residential setting.

Phew sorry this is long and Thank You dilemma for your few kind words. I am trying to explain some complicated issues here and my frustration and manner of posting is being caused by people distorting the facts and thinking that they know things that they clearly do not. It is worrying enough for parents caught up in these matters and the last thing they need is inaccurate information which could raise their anxieties even more.

Basically you have confirmed that aspects of someone's past life (eg mental illness) can be used currently to predict likely harm in the future (aka Crystal Ball).

john,perhaps to dispel the 'crystal ball' element we should just wait until the significant harm (or worse) has occurred? And then of course get roundly criticised for doing nothing and allowing children to be harmed.Can't win eh?

I work in mental health and similarly have to gather information from a variety of sources to identify the likelihood of harm occurring and act accordingly.To suggest that assessments centre only on previous history is ridiculous and frankly ignorant ( and I mean that in the true sense of the word and not as an insult).

I wasn't aware that either myself or nana claimed to represent our profession only our experiences as being a professional in the field. some people will always retain jaundiced views of the profession and offer sweeping judgements but no positive suggestions about how things could improve-sad but true

I've just pulled out some of the huge amount of paperwork my case generated. We had made very serious (and documented) threats of legal action against the social workers because of the appalling way they had behaved towards us. A very interesting statement is made in the team managers notes which I have replicated below:

"Each professional was asked to consider carefully the grounds for registration by XXX Legal services. This does not happen in 'normal' CP conferences and as such raises practice issues for the whole department. If this was to happen in all cases brought to conference a large proportion of the children I have dealt with in my social work career would not be on the child protection register"

In other words - where parents don't have the strength of character and knowledge of the law we were fortunate enough to possess professionals are not asked to carefully consider whether a child should go on the child protection register. A lot of went on my file was appalling and defamatory but this was almost the most worrying statement of the lot because it has implications for so many other families.

I stepped away from this thread as it was becoming just too horrible, but I'm glad to see that it has become a bit more civil than it was.

I can only applaud NanaNina for coming back to explain herself actually what she means, as well as trying to correct some of the inaccuracies on this thread. I can also see that some posters I felt were only interested in having the opportunity to bash a social worker are actually genuinely interested in finding out more and I am really pleased to see this.

I do think that it's a real shame we can't do this in real life as I'm becoming clearer that this complex area of discussion is not well represented when people are coming from such different starting points.

Anyway, to answer another point about social workers and complaints against MPs. Some of use are appointed in politically sensitive posts and as such are prohibited from forms of political activity (it's not very clear and we all take advice to ensure we are not in conflict with the this directive).

Being in a party politically sensitive position does not prevent you from complaining about an MP.

Noone and I mean noone is prevented from complaining about an MP.

If anyone thinks they are I will work to ensure that their right to complain about MPs are protected.

MPs are accountable primarily to the electorate. There are some other subtle accountabilities, but they pale into insignificance compared to the electorate.

As far as wahwah's post is concerned. The argument was about whether or not the crystal ball is used. There is a role for estimating risk. That is true, but that involves predicting the future at least on a probabilistic basis.

That's good to hear, John. The directive in my LA is rather broad, but when I have sought advice it has been reasonably applied. I didn't think I was prohibited from complaining, but it could be another reason why some LA employees might have cause to pause before they do so.

I think the 'crystal ball' metaphor is unfortunate as it is linked to rather unsavoury and inaccurate attempts to 'predict' the future. However, in assessing risk there has to be an understanding of whether it is probable or likely and the degree of this. The crucial thing as has been explained here is not to wait until the harm is certain -that is it has happened.

Some scenarios that spring to mind are failure to thrive in young babies and a pattern of observed parenting that appears to account for this, medical assessment ruling out other factors and the parent's inability or unwillingness to address the concerns and make the necessary changes to their care of the baby to enable it to survive, let alone thrive. Clearly this baby is at risk of significant harm.

Other examples might be where parents (usually mothers) are living with or allowing significant contact with a partner/ relative etc who represents a substantial risk of sexual abuse to children and the parent is unable to see this risk in this contact and take appropriate protective action...I could go on.

Would someone like to explain how a child who is still in the womb with no previous symptoms can be flagged up for investigation because the mother was previously in care, or annorexic, or dyslexic etc, etc.

I have had a mother who's interest in wicca was a problem for ss.

A mother who caused 'concern' because she liked rock music.

This all comes under the heading that they may cause harm to their child at some point in the future.

Mothers who have never seen the ss shrink but that shrink wholeheartedly agree's with the sw from looking at the sw's notes that the child may be at risk at some point.

And when the mother can not believe what is happening and get upset they are then caused emotional and irrational, when they speak out or refuse to accept something written about them or something they are accused off they are called uncooperative because they disagree.

It's akin to putting a sane person in a mental hospital and telling them over and over again they are mad and need to get better if only they would stop protesting their insanity and take drugs for the 'illness' they do not have.

That is an abuse of power. That is an abuse of the human rights of the mother and child, and i'm sorry that is a pre-cognative crime with no hope of reprieve because the deck is stacked against them.

Atlantis,are you seriously suggesting that social services would investigate a pregnant mother because she was dyslexic or because she liked rock music?

I think whatever the criticisms the processes are a bit more robust than that.

I can't explain everything, Atlantis, but there are often good reasons for actions that appear odd. For example it is is requirement in some areas that an initial pre birth assessment is made where a parent is a care leaver (although the parent can always refuse). This is not to punish, but because this group of young people are recognised to be very vulnerable and often without helpful family or friendship networks, so it makes sense to look at what support they may need -or very occasionally the risk they may present to their unborn child in terms of being unlikely to parent the child safely.

Interest in Wicca or rock music are not significant factors in parenting unless they impact on a child. They certainly wouldn't trigger any intervention from my LA. Parental beliefs /hobbies are interesting, but not a matter for social services in themselves and I am shocked that any LA has the resources to scrutinise these issues (unless, of course there is an impact on parenting and on their children's safety or development, although it is hard to see on the face of it what this could be).

wahwah the problem with the care leaving mothers issue is that
a) The failure to agree to an assessment is sometimes taken as not cooperating with professionals which hits the S31 threshold.
b) The fact that a mother has been in care should not be a concern for the S31 threshold, but often is.

JH - I can't decide whether you really do fail to grasp points made that don't accord with your own view or whether you just pretend not to. I suspect it is the former. You say I have "confirmed that aspects of someones past life e.g.mental illness is used to predict the future." It is so wearing trying to get through to you but I will try.........once again.

If a person is suffering from serious mental illness then it starts somewhere - at some point in their life and progresses. Indeed this is the case with anything and everything. This thread started at some point and progressed............ Back to the mental illness - in the example I gave it is apparent in the PRESENT and yes of course it has a history because it started somehere in the past.........and is affecting the person's ability to parent and so risk assessments have to be made about the future. If someone has had a mental illness in the past and it is no longer present then there would not be any concern.

I don't really know why I am bothering to respond to youbecause you are hell bent on believing that all social workers are incompetent "child snatchers" who ride rough shod over people's feelingsand the courts are sinister organisations that act in a smimilar way.

You are now making sweeping statements about care leaving mothers, and I would guess without a shred of evidence as usual. Incidentally where do you get all your evidence from to support your allegations/pronouncements?? Maybe from the tabloid press?

I have asked you again and again what is diriving you in your quest to discredit social workers and you have failed to respond. I wonder why.

Changed for this. Sorry but I don't understand your post. It is absolutely common practice for all professionals at a CP conference to be asked their views about whether a child should be registered on the CP register and their views are recorded. I have to say that I have sometimes been concerned that less confident members of the CP conference can I think soemtimes be swayed by the opinion of more experienced or forceful colleagues and this is unfortunate.

Atlantis - I don't know in what capacity you are involved with parents in these matters. I can only say that I agree with wahwah. Again I can only stress that care proceedings are brought before courts and there are comprehensive reports prepared by sws, guardians, physchologist, sometimes physciatrists and ind sws. and no sw could possibly make application for a Care Order on the grounds that you quote........simply not possible. BUT there is something that is diriving posters here to believe otherwise and I wish I knew what it was.

Glad to see you are back in the debate wahwah and staggerlee and you both are able to post in a more measured way than I do so that has to be a good thing!

John, I can agree with some of what you say, but the underlying reasons need to be made explicit. So in relation to:
a) The failure to agree to an assessment is sometimes taken as not cooperating with professionals which hits the S31 threshold.

In these sorts of circumstances there would usually be quite a high level of concern from the existing network, which should have been shared with the prospective parent eg chaotic lifestyle, violent relationships, poor ante natal engagement, drug use in pregnancy. Social Services would be keen to share these concerns and work out how best to reduce them and identify support-if this is not possible, then it might be that the threshold is met in terms of the unborn child, but of course this does not been that it is met forever. Often we are able to work with parents to reduce the concerns and leave it to the other professionals already working with them to offer the support.

Generally I find careleavers are quite happy to look at the support available and understanding of our wish to help - after all they are our children too, so we do have a sort of parental role in relation to them and their 'leaving care' worker can help enormously.

b) The fact that a mother has been in care should not be a concern for the S31 threshold, but often is.

Again, in any risk assessment a parent's own experience of being parented is a factor to be considered. Not all care leavers have poor parenting experiences and many who have are often very insightful and able to consider how they will do things differently-this is the same for all parents. At the risk of opening the attachment debate here, there are lots of adults who are 'earned secure' from a less than promising start and able to give their children a very good experience.

It would never be enough to simply look at one part of an assessment and extrapolate from there.

There was however a case in the court of appeal where the only reason for the child being kept in care was the refusal to do a fifth assessment. That was not quashed by the court.

I am helping this family take their case to Strasbourg.