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"

Oh dear here we go again with Dittany, Atlantis and Snapple coming back with their dramatic rants against social workers and making totally inaccurate statements masquerading as "facts."

Why or why are people jumping to the conclusion that ANY domestic violence to which a child is exposed will result in care proceedings. This is simply NOT the case and NO (whichever one of you said it) NOT all cases of DV are investigated by SSD. The police routinely send in reports of incidents where they attend on an issue of DV and I can tell you that if sws visited and investigated on all of these they would do little else. DV is as you all know mainly perpetrated against women (although women can be the perpetrators)and of course if someone (lets say a woman) is subjected to DV she will NOT be "punished" by having her children removed. She will often be helped to separate from her violent partner, sometimes to a womens refuge where she will get support and help with re-housing. "blaming a victim of DV is appalling" says Dittany - well I actually agree with you for once but the fact is sws do not "blame" victims of DV though I can see that you would prefer to believe this as it shores up your belief that all sws are rotten to the core.

As with all other issues that have been raised about reasons for application for Care Orders, it all depends on the severity of whatever is happening and in terms of DV, there are sadly a few cases where the DV is so bad that children are being emotionally harmed and sometimes physically harmed as they get caught in the crossfire. Of course the first option is to assist the parents to separate byt There are sadly parents who are unwilling to separate and have more invested in "fighting to the death" regardless of the trauma caused to their children. Again this will almost always be just one reason for sufficient concern to go to court, with several other worrying factors present which is putting the children at risk of significant harm. There is a great deal of research on the effects of extreme DV on children and the way in which it effects them throughout their life.

And "care will emotionally damage a child" well Dittany I would be very interested in your evidence for this but as usual it won't be forthcoming. I think there are a few thousand foster carers in the country and res sws who might find this comment extremely insulting, given the dedication of these carers to children who cannot for whatever reason live with their parents. There are also many many children who have been through the care system who have had positive experiences, though of course this is not always the case, but then of course you know better don't you.

Someone raises the point about CAFCASS and the business of them recommending contact with a parent (usually a father) who has violent tendencies. I too am concerned about this and I often get commissioned to investiage and report to court about contact issues. I do actually believe there is a tendency for the violence of men towards their partners to be under estimated by some CAFCASS sws and I have been involved in a few cases where in my view this has been the case. However I have to say that Judges seem to be very pro men having contact regardless of any history of previous violence, and can be punitive towards mothers if they suspect that they are objecting to contact without good reason. It is another very difficult area as children do have a right of contact with their fathers. In one case I was involved in I felt very very strongly that CAFCASS had got it wrong and made this clear in my report and the mother felt supported and relieved BUT the Judge was opposed to my view and made a Contact Order, so there are no easy answers.

As for JH - yet another post that says nothing that makes any sense. I have given up trying to explain things to him - it just isn't worth it - he clearly lacks any ability to understand the issues. VERY worrying for someone in his position who has thrown himself into this debate.

I honestly believe that for some people on here they will not be satisfied until there is absolute and complete agreement that sws are incompetent idiots who merely want to "snatch" children away and "punish" parents. I suspect these are the very people who will be shouting the loudest when the next Baby P case hits the headlines.

There has been posts about the need for the family courts to be made open to the public and I am totally opposed to this as I think any family going through care proceedings and related matters has a right to confidentiality. However on the other hand I really do wish some of these people who are making these pronouncements could witness for themselves the way in which matters are actually dealt with in court as opposed to their fantasy of what happens, which I can tell you is as far removed from reality as it is possible to be.

Ah changed for this - you have me rumbled - I'm just thick that's my problem and I can't digest what it says on your file. Happy now?

Yup - I can categorise you as thick like the majority of those I've met/communicated with to date you seem to fit nicely into my general experience of CP social workers.

I have to say though that you're more communicative and willing to defend your view than most who simply think their word is law and they do not need to explain. That dosen't mean I agree with what you say on everything though.

I can't decide which social workers I dislike more - the thick and nasty ones or the clever and nasty ones - probably the latter.

I agree that DV referrals by the police do not always result in even an initial assessment by social workers. The developing good practice is for social workers to work directly in the police stations assessing all the DV cases that come in to decide whether further action should be taken. This has the important side affect that the same SWs are able to quickly pick up if there is a pattern whereas if regulary changing duty social workers are receiving endless Form 395s they cant pick that pattern up so easily. The Laming report recommended that all DV cases where children were present in the household should be reported and it has resulted in a deluge of work for local authorities.

Good to see you disagreeing with CAFCASS - they don't get inadequate ofsteds for nothing. There are certainly some cases where no access by the violent partner or only heavily supervised access is more than appropriate.

Dittany, I appreciate you don't want to spend a lot of time researching, but to understand the complexities of the work, it would be helpful to do so. This [http://www.londonscb.gov.uk/files/procedures/dv/dv_risk_assessment_matrix__final.pdf]] is helpful.

I have had experience in working with these procedures. They are endorsed by Women's Aid and supported by all the survivors of DV I have spoken to. They're not perfect, but they're something to work on and keep improving.

I am surprised by the account you give and saddened that you report you were supportive of Social Workers until you came across some real ones. It's a shame you're not in an allied profession in my locality or I could invite you to spend time with my team and see things for yourself. I think your challenges would be good for us to think about and I'm convinced that you would be relieved by the professionalism and respect we bring to the work and our motivation to help families.

I have always said there are good social workers who do a good job. What I find surprising is the unwillingness to accept that not all social workers do a good job.

There are also important detailed questions as to when the state should intervene.

There is a wide variety of cases, but they can be analysed usefully into more detail than occurs. Such analysis does gives rise to reliable judgments as to whether care proceedings are of benefit.

Most importantly as far as I can tell those countries that run a regime of forced adoption also have a really bad track record in terms of child protection. I think this arises because of the conflict between practitioners and birth parents.

England as a massive mess because a majority of under 10s leave care to adoption rather than to their birth parents.

The long term damage that is done by this will only become clear when the cohorts of children mangled by this system get sufficiently confident to challenge the system which is probably around age 30+. (Although some younger).

Sorry, screwed up the link!

Changedforthis, you describe an appalling experience and I am sorry that this happened to you and your child, but please stop being so unpleasant about a whole profession.

You are right about practice in relation to DV. What you describe is how my LA and Police has operated for years. It is a huge amount of work and John h is right when he worries that this diverts resources away from urgent work. However, we are mindful that the report is usually the tip of the iceberg for the victim and her children and while it may seem 'minor' it can be devastating for the family, even if it doesn't result in action.

John H, There is NO ONE here who does not accept that some social workers do a shit job. It is a profession, every profession has its share of rotten apples.

You do write some odd stuff. Are you multitasking a bit too much?

I am not being unpleasant about the whole lot of you. Infact, I've made it clear I am talking from personal experience and conceded there are good SWs out there. I've just met them

, 7op/?nt=rpoppY7879IPOP2P07-=OPOP[P]=]P=P8I9OO

The gobbledygood above is my lovely DD trying out the keyboard. she's sitting on my knee h-=ty-=j88eryojy9];]=489

should say just NOT met them

But poor social workers are often not reported and while a recent survey found that while 85% of social workers said they would report concerns over colleagues or work practices to employers ? the majority of whom are councils ? but barely half said those fears were ever acted upon.

Fifty-one percent of respondents who had reported a concern to management said it had been acted upon, with the remainder saying it had not.
Meanwhile just 55% of social workers said they were ?confident? that action would be taken if they spoke up.

... again I am yet to see how the checks and balances do apply?

That's because you've never had the joy of meeting me! . Seroiusly, you would like me!

Seriously even!

Snapple, a thought I have is that some of that may be because they will not be clear on how performance issues are being addressed. Capability / disciplinary proceedings are not broadcast. Doesn't explain the rest though...

Nananina I'm afraid I have found your posts peppered with sweeping statements and I find your tone to others patronising and insulting.

You keep picking and choosing what you respond to and refer to others as making dramatic rants against social workers ? and so on and on.

Your so called explanations are baffling and the ?I am trying to explain some complicated issues here? is wearing very thin, especially when you call on others for evidence but so often demonstrate serious short comings in terms of any reasoned back up to your arguments.

wahwah the problem I see is that when some social workers do a bad job that the checks and balances fail.

Snapple, you seem to want a fight. I recall your nasty post when NanaNina tried to return to the original debate and that you included me. Now you seem to be trying to bait her. Your comments may make sense to you, but they don't to me, because I think NanaNina has given some excellent explanations. It is a complex area and the demands for detailed explanations which are then rejected because they don't fit or because the complainant hasn't done any research are tiring.

What would help you move forward here? You seem focused on checks and balances ( I think this us a good thing, it's not a criticism) and I can't respond to everything, but us there one small area we could address in the detail required?

I know the GSCC were looking into whether councils are not reporting all of the cases they should. The chair of the GSCC had commented that there had been a number of cases where they have learned about an untoward event because of the attention it has received in the media, so reporting needs to be improved.

i see some people talking about whether a child going through the care system is better or worse and i would like to speak from very personal expereince here

i was the child in the care system, childrens homes and foster placement.
I was the lucky one as i had fantastic foster parents they are my family by all means.
I have a degree a good job, lovely children and husband.
and i thank god and the s/w that i was removed, the women who gave birth to me had 3 other children and believe me when i look at them and how their lives have turned out and even my nephew i again thank god s/w wouldnt let me go back home

oh and im a 30+ person so feel able to comment on this issue especially on a thread that is awfully attacking and unpleasent, i think there are many on here who really should be ashamed of themselves and by this i do not mean the s/w

again i will say im so grateful to the s/w who worked and invested time in me,

and there was a lot of dv between my parents and am glad i was giving the chance to live with another family so i could see and expereince that dv is NOT acceptable in front of children

it was awful witnessing some of the things i did no child should ever have to be a part of that and im glad that dv has finally been recognised as something that causes emotional damage to a child

happyandlucky it is heartening to hear that you had a positive outcome.

Thank you for your post, happyandlucky, it really is good to hear from people who have different experiences and it balances the sense on this thread that any social work intervention will bring devastation to children and their families.

I'm calling time now. Good night!

Some people do indeed have positive experiences in care. We had a good event organised in the House of Commons where a number of people who had grown up in care spoke.

Some had positive experiences. Others didn't.

The system needs to be looked at in aggregate.

wahwah you can choose to applaud nananina I certainly won't be - I have found nananina's posts to ramble on and on and be patronising.

As far as I can read I have found that she jumps on other posters without much examination as to her own reasoning.

In her most recent post she states that Judges seem to be very pro men having contact regardless of any history of previous violence, and can be punitive towards mothers ? but then mentioned in an earlier post that she has been subject to scrutiny because she has been cross examined for a number of hours in court? And this from someone who describes other posts as baffling.

Imagine her response if someone on this post had replaced the word judges with social workers.