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"

Wrong, wrong wrong dittany. Its the Courts who make the final decision about taking children into care-social workers don't as you remark 'have the final say'.

I know you've heard this many times before but you really don't want to hear anything that doesn't fit into your bigoted and distorted belief system.

Thats why its pointless having a discussion with you

nananina when you posted that there isn't anything you can do to save the baby Ps of this world it was a low blow but just your opinion.

But now you have really have continued to write in an insulting manner - and I think that your last paragraph is an absolute disgraceful and extremely damaging to your profession.

Oops hit a nerve did I dittany?

Happyandlucky. The area of DV and child protection is also quite complex. If the children are deemed to be significantly harmed by staying in the house where there is a climate of fear and violence they maybe removed, but usually agencies are put in before this happens, Womens Aid etc. But the woman does have to show that she is willing to finish the relationship or whatever is appropriate, and then not get straight into another abusive relationship.
Im just going by my own personal experience at work.
I can sympathise with women in abusive relationships that have children, it must seem like a double blow when SS are involved when their already investing most of their time avoiding being physically or mentally abused. But more than likely the SS involvement will help break out of the relationship and get other agencies in the support. If the woman shows no signs of getting out of the relationship even with support, and things are escalating (i dont want to go into details etc, but things like sexual violence being seen etc), in the worst cases children will be removed.

x post mrswills sensible and succint - hooray.

dittany can i ask why you say the responsibility is with the abuser? does the victim not have any responsibility to protect their children?

and i didnt think its was social workers sho should be getting the abusers out of the home and locked up, isnt that a job for the police?

and can i add that men are also the vitimes of dv not just women and when it comes to 'escaping' a dv relationship there is support and help for women but not necessarily for the men, what happen in these cases do the women abusers get to keep their children???

i have popped back to this thread occassionally to read what kind of things were being said and i can honestly say i do not understand why people are bothering to write no one is going to listen to other peoples points of view especially social workers points of view, which is really sad as we are genuiely here to help and support families and it can be incredibly difficult to do but unless you work within this field or a simliar one it is difficult to understand it.

Im glad that a few positive posters have started to appear. perhaps this is more of what we not not to just focus on the negative ones but also the positive ones as in these cases something has clearly gone very right for the family or person.

just a question what other occupations do we have on this thread apart from social workers?

oh and happyanlucky to answer your question you raised earlier which seems to have been ignored i do not think children should have to witness or hear any dv.

what do others think?

and im so glad you joined this thread theres a lot we can learn from postive outcomes as well as the negative outcomes

Apologies for the thread hi-jack but I did say I would respond to nananina who asked me:

• why are you taking issue because I mentioned that I have known some judges to be pro men in contact cases and also saying that I have cross examined in court and this is scrutiny of my work. I don't see your point - please explain.

In the post I referred to you used the word "some" as a prefix to social workers but did not as a prefix to your comments about judges. Your quotes follow (my uses of CAPS):

?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. "

Nananina I have taken issue with your sweeping statements and demands of evidence from others and the closest response you give to demonstrating how your work is subject to public scrutiny is a mention that you are cross examined in court. You have already said in a post:

?I have spent many years challenging poor practice and as a sw manager for many years I have been in a position to influence change in poor practice.?

IMO - it is not enough to say the what, you actually need to explain the how and why and the consequences, what happened? Stagger gave an example where she wrote in and policy was changed.

You have repeatedly inferred that people outside social work can not understand the complexities and can not really know what is going on ? but you were not aware that conduct summaries were published. However, if someone challenges you ? I think it was Dittany who asked about whether you have a line manager you respond:

?I don't have a line manager as I am self employed so it wouldn't be possible to write to one I'm afraid.?

You have stated:

?Sw?s are accountable to service users (quite rightly) and to the other professionals with whom they work. Their work is scrutinised by the courts and judges regularly make comments about the qulaity of their work.?

?Ind sws have to build up their reputation in the courts and this is how they get work. Dare I say that I have a good reputation (despite what others on here think) in the courts and am able to take complex cases and complete the investigations within short timescales to prevent delays?

?You have to build up your reputation in the courts to get your work?

I just wonder if you would be putting your income at risk if you criticised the court system? Genuine question.

Do you have a good reputation with the judges who you describe as pro-men?

As you say cross examination is normal practice - you have repeatedly been asked as to how your work is publicly scrutinised and you bring up that cross examination is a common court process.

Once again, I have not discredited social workers ? yes I have discredited your posts due to your distasteful remarks to me and others, and you are maintaining that you are a social worker, but this does not mean I have ever discredited ALL social workers.

happyandlucky, on domestic violence, I believe AWR has a very good point which she made earlier in the thread:

"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?"

Interestingly, Alan Johnson recently announced new powers to ban violent husbands and partners (I presume this will include women who are abusers) from their own homes for up to a fortnight to allow their victims "breathing space": here

I agree with AWR that the first course of action should be to bar the abuser from the home rather than victimise the abused partner even further through care proceedings, however well-intentioned. Whilst the powers lie with the police, the social worker should refer this matter to the police and co-ordinate action and advise the victim accordingly.

You had a happy foster experience, for which we are universally glad. Sadly, this is not the case with other children in care who are frequently moved from pillar to post and have pretty terrible worst outcomes. It is by no means cut-and-dried that it would be better for a child to be put in care than to be in a DV situation with a mother who is trying her best but needs. more time.

blueshoes, i think most would agree with the response you've suggested.

i would think that the cases of dv where children may consequently be subject to care proceedings are those where the abusive relationship continues despite support offered to the victim to leave the relationship, police action against the abuser etc.

blueshoes and AWR it certainly seems like a positive initiative so long as the funding and training is in place.

I agree that immediate police action can be very effective if victims also receive help and support from services such as womens aid.

I think I read that there are 200,000 arrests due to dv each year so given the scale of the problem it certainly seems a very positive step.

I agree that abusers should be barred from the home.

I would go a step further and say they should also be barred from seeing the children, even under supervision.

We all know that when the abuser is allowed his 'day in court' to gain contact he uses that to spite the mother and put fear into her and the children and this practice should not be allowed to continue.

I would also like to put the matter of msbp under the spotlight again (sorry).

MSBP was indeed discredited and not before time but that did not stop children being taken into care under the repackaged FII, fabricated or induced illness was then rolled out across the CP genre, in one form or another it is still being used today.

The Social Workers on this thread need to ask themselves a question.

Why is it that Justice for Families has 70 volunteers willing to spend their time helping people facing care proceedings.

All of the JFF people are opposed to child abuse. Indeed they work to protect children.

If it were not the case that there are massive injustices, why would anyone waste their time on alleged child abusers?

nananina has still not answered my question.

'MrsWill, the responsibility for abusive relationships is with the abuser. Women are most in danger when they leave abusive relationships, two women are killed every week in this country by their male partners, yet you'd put a woman in the position of Hobson's choice between her safety and her children. Utterly terrible'

Think your getting the wrong end of the stick here Dittany.

I do agree with your point that abusers of women should have way harsher punishments than they do, right from when the abuse starts. But portraying women as helpless victims who have no choice in anything and that 'things' just happen to does them a huge disservice. We need to be empowering women.

nina, despite what you say about johnhemming, whilst he can make categorical statements, he does provide more details if you ask, as I have in past to which he responded.

As for Justice for Families, I am glad it exists. If I find myself on the sharp end of the child protection system, it is where I will take myself.

I know social workers here believe there are checks and balances. I am still sceptical in certain cases. There is no greater miscarriage of justice than to be wrongly separated from one's children and then gagged. Running away to another country is small beer. I would not even consider it worth living.

In fact, if I ever do get involved in this area (ideally when my children are grown up), I hope Justice for Families no longer needs to be around. But if it does, I think I will volunteer for it, rather than be a social worker.

Firstly..I quote NANANINA
'AWR - phew you are clever - you can make diagnoses over the internet - cognitive distortion ?? Can I get treated on the NHS do you think. I am not going to try to respond other than to say that I think you have clearly had a very distressing time but will not have been helped by the involvement of JH - indeed I strongly suspect that he will have made matters far worse for you'.

I feel sorry for anyone who has you as their social worker,you are a blantant bully who cannnot see 'over the other side of the fence' jump to conclusions and attack people because they have an opinion which doesnt live up to your 'superiority'. As for John Hemmings he saved me and my children ,we were stuck in Sweden with no money and no place to stay,he helped us get to Ireland aslong as i would fight the system..which i did.Although you have these 'wild' ideas going on oh isnt that called 'presumption and jumping to conclusions', terrible social worker..Goodbye!

As for DV the problem is social services and the government put a label on people.
For example 'Women' are victims' if woman doesnt get out of relationhip her children should be taken. As someone said already women need empowering.
However social workers and indeed police have these tick boxes..i fell into a very grey area which confused all the social workers,so what they did is simply came up with an accusation to say that they thought i 'might' have my husband round my new house when i moved to devon. How ridiculous! and the judge shoudl have said well lets give him a barring order, if he breaks it then we'll lock him up.If the mother breaks it then we have to look at the situation again to what we should do with the children.

Tick boxes = labelling people
This is a true account of a meeting with social worker in leicester who was actually quite a good social worker until she got a new line manager..this is when things started to go wrong.
sw; Do you feel isolated?
Me; No why?
sw; well does your husband let you go out with friends?
me; yes of course
sw;what about family,do you all see eachother often?
me; yes why what are you getting at?
sw;Ok when you go out with your friends on a girlie night out does he ring you whilst your out to check on you?
me;No i can look after myself
sw;Does he wait up for you asking where you have been or make any accusations or even in the morning?
me; Nooooooo
sw; oh does he help you round the house?
me; Yes
sw; do you do the cleaning?
me; no really he gets there first
sw;ok so he does alot of cleaning then..hmm does he help with the children change nappies etc..?
me; yes
sw; (shes looking really confused now because im not ticking her 'victim' boxes) What about money do he keep the money?
me; no i look after the money and pay the bills
sw; You say he mainly hits you when he is drunk?
me;yes
sw; has he ever hit you when he wasnt drunk or threatned you?
me; no its just when hes been drinking and i dont want him in the house so then he kicks off because he feels rejected and has no where to go.

This is where social workers go wrong..if women are not playing the victim and ticking sw's boxes then we are put in another catagory..the 'liars' catagory.This is what social services do to women and this is how they put their cases infront of a judge,the woman is a liar,she puts her man before the children so the children have to go!

P.S my husband was busy finding work and a place to live after a recieving in child protection conference 3 weeks after i moved to devon, he did not report to his probation in leicester..this is what i refer to as a 'witch hunt' against me. Social services wanted their evidence so they instructed I had a raid on my home,threats by police to take my son into care,a police report that said a neighbour saw a man tall with dark hair leave my new home (that happened to be a good friend of mine who lived in devon).
Can you see how the case unravelled, its terrible and its happening all over the country to women.

Womens aid are fully aware of what social workers practice with women and children involved with dv which is why they protect women and children against abuser and social services because the courts and social services are not using what womens aid fought for in the childrens act 'section 38 and 44' the equivalent to 'barring orders'

my youtube video's tell all and to those social workers on here no i have never lied and all this is true.

apologies for my typing/spelling its late!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH3Swo-h1wY&feature=response_watch

AWR/DollyPS, thanks for linking to that youtube video.

I don't think any loving and caring parent can failed to be moved by that.

Domestic violence is essentially a police case. I can see how social services get involved, since children get caught in the crossfire, as would the woman and anyone in that household.

But so long as domestic violence continues and is not stopped, that is surely a failure by the police to protect the victims in the household. Remove/bar the abuser, no violence, no victims, no child protection issues.

I note AWR's reference to s.38 and 44 for barring orders under the Children's Act. If that power is there and is not being used by social services, courts, police or whichever agency is responsible for applying for, granting and enforcing them, then I include all those agencies in the failure, in addition to the police.

But if the agencies having failed in their duty to protect the family, to put the onus on the woman to leave the family home and all she and her children hold dear and familiar is a macabre turning things on their head.

I do not disagree that the woman has a duty to protect her children. But to make her leaving her home to cover up for failures in the system to protect her and her children's right to live peacefully without fear or threat to their lives and physical and emotional wellbeing a condition for keeping her children, is preposterous and a travesty.

In this day and age ...

Plus the well-documented failures in the care system. And the effect on removing and splitting children who are otherwise happily bonded to their mothers, into a chaotic care system ...

If New York did the research and took the step of making it illegal to remove children due to DV, we should sit up and take notice. I can see miscarriage of justice and human rights issues writ large on this.