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"

jh I'm getting increasingly baffled by your tunnel vision-like nana I notice how you disregard or fail to address any counter arguments to your sweeping generalisations.

I know you have a number of very valid criticisms of the system but I would also question your evidence base. I'd be interested to know how you would go about assessing the risk of significant harm and what factors you would consider?

Are you able to evidence that children have been subject to CP proceedures solely for example, on the fact that their parent(s) were brought up in the care system or that a parent had a mental health problem?

I've been a social worker for 12 years and worked with numerous parents with mental health problems some of whom were involved in childrens services and some not. In all cases involving CP issues the risk issues were multi dimensional and not simply because the parent had a mental health problem. For some people their mental illness has an impact on their capacity to parent and for others it doesn't.

There was research published by the DCSF that looked at the bases for care proceedings. I can find a URL for this if you don't believe this.

I have a substantial case base. In my post that you refer to I highlight a particular case from East Sussex that has been reported in the press.

This is a specific example of a case where a child has been kept in care because of a refusal to undergo a fifth assessment.

The wider test on care proceedings is one as to what should and what should not be considered as sufficient to pass the S31 threshold. I do agree that if someone has some specific mental health problems that this should be used. Not all mental health problems, however.

Furthermore I don't think DV in itself is sufficient. A case will be reported tomorrow in a national newspaper which was a DV case as is Angela Wileman's. She has posted on Mumsnet as well.

John, I don't understand why you don't think DV should be a basis for proceedings. There is a substantial research base to show the damage this does to children. The issue for Social Workers is the apparent 'punishment' of a parent for the behaviour of another and we are very clear that we do not hold the non violent party responsible. However, if they cannot use the help available to reduce the risks to the children then what other option is there to protect children from this harm?

Ime, most women are keen for us to help and support by telling the violent partner that it is HIS responsibility to change his behaviour. There is also a huge responsibility on society, police and courts to ensure men are held accountable for their violence. If they got the sentences they deserved, then we would have space to work with mothers and children on recovering from the experiences they have has and strengthening the non violent parent so that they recognise that they can have better relationships.

What 'specific' mental health problems are you referring to john?

Also are you suggesting you can evidence that care proceedings can be initiated on the basis of a single variable?

In the case that you mention of the child kept in care due to a refusal to undergo a 5th assessment, are you saying that the only factor considered was a refusal to undergo assessment? Were there no other issues of concern?

Are you also suggesting that domestic violence cannot cause a child harm? I speak as a person whose child was subject to a S47 investigation due to a single episode of dv which the child didn't witness.The reason social services were involved was due to intransigent local policy and also the fact that my child was under the age of one.I personally found this a disproportionate response which caused me a great deal of distress. Doesn't affect my opinion that dv can cause significant harm but that it depends on all sorts of other factors unique to the situation.

yes baffled is a very good word in relation to JHs's posts. I too am baffled and even when he does respond it doesn't seem to make any sense. His comments appear random and disconnected somehow to the issue under discussion. He mentions something in his last response about a case that is reported in the press and we all know how distorted press reports are. I did wonder if this is where he is getting information from and if so it is by definition one sided and most probably inaccurate in detail. He claims to have a "substantial case base" - I don't know what this means. Any attempt to try to explain matters to him as wah wah does so patiently, appear to fall on stoney ground. He is introducing the issue of DV in his last post "I don't think DV in itself is sufficent" - wah wah has tried in a recent post (as have I in past posts) that these are complex matters and it is a whole range of issues that are usually of concern in matters brought before the court and each case is different and complex. He seems to completely disregard this and makes sweeping statements that he cannot evidence. Althoughhe does say he has some evidence if we want it - YES please JH I would be delighted to see the evidence of which you speak.

JH seems to be obsessed with the Court of Appeal and what he perceives to be miscarriages of justice that he appears to believe routinely occur in the courts. I can only assume that he is reading law reports and unless he has considerably more ability to understand and assimilate the inforamtion contained inthose reports, than he does where social work activity is concerned, I think his views on these matters are highly questionable.

Is anyone interested in returning to the original debate about Martin narey's comments or maybe the moment has passed. i woul dbe interested in people's views about the judicial system in general in care matters. I often think that the adverserial system is not the right way for dealing with matters in the fmaily courts but don't really have ideas about any alternatives that would be fair and equitable to parents and would be able to keep the child's best interests at the heart of the proceedings.

Oh Staggerlee, I know that procedure. It's too 'one size fits all' and in your circumstances my LA wouldn't intervene-perhaps write a supportive letter, but that's it. Sorry to hear you were put through the mill.

Problem is that John can't give us any details, only his interpretation. In the past he's put terrifying thing out there about children being removed due to parental 'tiffs' or epilepsy, which I would wager is complete rubbish, but there you go, we'll never see the whole picture.

That is not to say that nothing ever goes horribly wrong, of course and families don't suffer, but not because of a 'tiff'.

NanaNina, I'm off out now, but it would be good to return to the original question. I've never looked in detail at any other system, but many are even more courts led than ours, yet don't seem to have the same level of concern about the power of Judges...

Thanks wahwah. I did write a very strong worded letter about it as I felt that the policy did not allow any discretion and was totally disproportionate to the circumstances.It was also totally arbitary-had my child been a week older it wouldn't have happened as she would have turned one!

I'm still waiting patiently for john to give some specific details as I'm quite willing to change my opinions.Unfortunately I suspect I may be waiting a long time

Am stuck in traffic so here goes. I have some sympathy for Martin Narey's views, but am not in agreement. I do wonder if in cases of repeated removals if at the conclusion of any set of proceedings where childen are removed whether this issue should be specifically addressed.

Perhaps parents should be given actions for change that they should complete prior to any further pregnancy and this could reduce delays in commissioning further assessments.

We have gone down a number of different threads. I cannot guarantee to answer all the points, but will try.

The DCSF research looked at a number of sets of care proceedings and what the issues were that based the decision to have a care order.

That is a good starting position. Issues that I do not think are sufficient for care proceedings which appear in that research include:

a) Mother in care at some stage
b) DV (not involving the children)
c) Not co-operating with professionals.

I have seen cases which are based upon these points in isolation as well.

As far as mental health is concerned it covers a massive range of potential issues. Depression, Bi-polar, Schizophrenia.

When a parent is psychotic then that is a good basis for care proceedings, for example.

However, when you start looking at too wide a range of situations then you can miss the more important ones.

I am unhappy with the over use use of borderline personality disorders as the basis for care proceedings.

Often a mother's depression is accentuated by care proceedings. However, there are some situations where depression is so severe that care proceedings (although they should be more supportive) are worthwhile.

I spoke to a social worker on Thursday night who felt that we frequently fail to assist mothers who face difficulties, but then hit them on the head with the hammer of care proceedings. That is actually a more expensive route.

I accept that living in an environment which which there is strife between parents is not good for children. However, there are two questions here
a) Does taking the children into care improve the situation for the chidren?
b) Does the state really have the authority to intervene in these situations where matters are suboptimal.

Birmingham CSS have a major problem with the mass of DV referrals. This makes it difficult to give sufficient attention to cases which are referred because people believe that a child is at risk.

We also face the difficulty that mothers then avoid going to the authorities as the authroities are more likely to punish them than protect them.

Oh please do not even go there with the issue of DV.

SS needs to get it's act together on this as in public law you will fight to take the child into care but in private law you support cafcass in trying to get contact between the child and violent parent.

I have the personal experience of fighting against cafcass and the ss in private law for 4 years to keep a violent parent away from his daughter, I was investigated not him I was accused of emotionally harming my child by keeping him away, I was threatened with s37 and s47 orders for not agreeing to contact with a man who admitted both physical and mental abuse of the child.

I won the case, but the emotional damage that has been done to my child is irreversable.

But the real shocker here is he now has two other babies and noone is looking out for them.

So I would say ss need to get their ducks in order before taking a child into care in public law under DV.

I have read how wahwah and nananina at this late stage wish to try address the original question and debate on this thread, and I am reminded of the following Chinese proverb
"Man who waits for roast duck to fly into mouth must wait very, very long time."

... and after reading the most recent posts, I think the same quote could apply to ss getting their act together.

In my case dittany I was given a lot of advice/information by the social worker about domestic violence and agencies that help women in these situations.I was lucky I had the resources to leave and I know not all women are necessarily in this position.

Are you denying that domestic violence harms children?

Social workers also have to assess a parents capacity to protect their children. You may wish to reduce it to simple 'misogyny' as you are prone to do. But yet again you ignore the complexities involved in order to bang home whatever point it is you hope to make.

jh people with psychosis can provide very good parenting as much as some people with bpd can't. It all depends on the manifestation of the disorder and the impact on a persons ability to parent. To suggest that a particular diagnosis should indicate whether care proceedings should be instigated is ridiculous. Again it demonstrates how little you consider that every situation is unique and how assessments consider a multiplicity of factors

No, I agree taking children into care should always be the last resort and that this in itself can be harmful.

Unfortunately you are not very clued up about social services responses to domestic violence.

Social services do not automatically get involved in every case of domestic violence reported to them routinely by the police where children are in the household.

They did in my case as it was the Local Authority's policy and because my child was under the age of one. If you have taken the trouble to read mine and wahwah's posts you would realise that neither of us agreed this was the right response and was disproportionate to the situation.

Of course women should receive support not punishment.However the effect of dv on the children also needs to be considered-or do you disagree?

My sympathies to anyone who has experienced difficulties and found themselves at odds with the system.

Dittany, you seem to be furious with he Social Workers posting here and despite our explanations you persist in a rather blinkered view. If you look at the London Child Protection Procedures in relation to domestic violence I hope you will be able to see how woman-focused they are and that Social Services only intervenes in the more serious circumstances.

Are you involved in working with peoplein some capacity? Earlier comments seem to suggest that you are. If so, how do you square your issues with social workers with your duty to protect children? If you're not in the wrok, then please ignore this.

Actually ignore my post, I cross posted.

dittany - are you serious?! this is you being objective?

ok then.

Nananina - I am not sure why you do not understand my post. Perhaps its complexities are beyond you or perhaps you simply choose not to.

This statement was made by the TEAM MANAGER on MY FILE. I merely replicated it word for word. I've reposted it below to save you going back.

"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"

It seems that this team manager and yourself have been attending totally different types of child protection conferences. It also sounds as if you've been attending properly run ones where all the professionals are properly asked as standard.

As the good social worker you're trying to pass yourself off as you should be jumping up and down in rage that someone who is a senior member of your profession should write this. Registration on the child protection register should be according to whether the child is in need of protection NOT the parents ability to access the law and make legal threats against the local authority.

Read it again Nananina, inwardly digest it and then tell us what you think. If you still don't understand my point then I'm very worried to think of you dealing with vunerable people who may have difficulty expressing themselves.