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"

Northernlurker, yes IKWYM. Obviously someone who doesn't feed or clothe their children and/or encourages them to fight each other (as the parents in this ghastly case seem to have done) is an utterly inadequate and unfit parent, but some of the ranting about this case in the press is coming out with the same old scapegoating of the poor (How dare they smoke fags? Why do't they just go out and get a job cleaning the toilets of the middle classes?) and of single mothers (how dare they have more than one sexual partner and have children by them).
Unfortunately, while it is patently obvious that a percentage of children are being failed by the social services, the problem is actually about money more than anything else. There's not a lot of money about for looking after children, poorly parented or not (nursery workers are paid less than supermarket checkout operators, most social workers are not that well paid and hugely overworked). A lot of 'Broken Britain' wailing is really about this wierd idea women have that they are not possessions or service mechanisms. There have always been a minority of hideously violent people who seem pretty much unreachable by either charitable institutions or the law.

Haven't read whole thread but I totally agree with Barnardo's. Some parents are too damaged themselves to be able to parent without damaging their own children. The only way to stop the cycle of abuse from continuing generation after generation is to take the children away from the damaged parents before they can harm them, emotionally or physically.

But of course they then need to be placed with a loving set of parents and I have heard enough stories about children being abused whilst in care/adoption to feel that is not necessarily the end of the story.

Ideally millions if not billions needs to be poured into social services and mental health services in this country so the damaged parents can recieve the appropriate therapy themselves so that they can be good parents to their children. But this will never happen, and I am sure that children will continue to be abused and themselves grow up to be abusers.

The reality is that "in care" is an appalling option for most kids. It shouldn't be but it is.

So the reality is that awful parents are mostly still better than "in care"

We should all be ashamed of this situation.

Daisymoo, I know what you mean. Alice Miller (a well known writer about child abuse) has written loads about the roots of violence and it always starts in childhood.

An abused child will often go on to become a violent older child/adult (although it is not inevitable, sometimes the abuse suffered by the child is turned inward and causes illness or the abused child, when older, turns to drugs/alcohol etc. The effects of childhood abuse manifest themselves many years later in so many different ways, most of which are not immediately obvious as the long term consequences of childhood abuse).

Stopping the abuse by taking the child away from the parents would most definately save society a lot of money by reducing crime, druge abuse, alcohol abuse, adult mental health issues, many illnesses.

But it would take an exceptional government to take a long term view on this and invest the money needed to create a better society and I can't see it happening any time soon.

Spicemonster said something that's very true. The adoption process in the UK is appalingly long-winded & complex. Basically it's discouraging for most prospective parents who would otherwise consider it. It- supposedly- is child-centred, but actually it's anything but, putting all these obstacles in place. Rules about ethnicity. Rules about age gap between parent-adoptive child. Rules about 'parenting skills'. Rules (often implicit) about being part of a couple, or married, or heterosexual. And what's the point? Finding the 'perfect' family for a child? In the meantime, that child is waiting in foster care, often moved from home to home. It's an appalling situation. The adoption process should be MUCH quicker & efficient & flexible. That would be a truly child-centred adoption process, not the joke that currently exists.

But there's also the issue that northernlurker pointed out. It's true that there are appalling families out there. And it's sadly true that SS should be sometimes removing children far earlier. However, there's also the issue of bad family often equated with poor family. This is such a widespread problem. Most of the parenting classes (which in most cases are useless!), are aimed at poor areas. They're euphemistically (sp?) called 'high risk' areas. But poor is what they're talking about. The problems, unfortunately, are much much wider than SS can ever hope to tackle. Families need much much more support than what they're currently getting. I'm actually not talking about poor families. All families. We all know how many damaged kids can be found among upper-class families. And they actually get much less of the SS spotlight don't they. Anyway, the whole situation makes me sad. I'm not that optimistic...

This is my statement.

John Hemming MP, Chairman of Justice for Families, has struck out at Martin
Narey for his suggestion that more babies should be taken into care and that
more adoptions
is the solution to prevent situations like that in Edlington.

"Martin Narey demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the stastical realities
as to what has happening in England. The number of babies taken into care
under 1 month has jumped from 430 in 1995 to 1,140 in 2006. Of the 1,140 in
2006 670 were taken into care in the first seven days of their life
essentially "at birth".

"He also makes the assumption that once a child is adopted all is good.
Sadly the government are turning a blind eye to the number of disrupted
adoptions. In 2006 6,000 children under 10 years old were taken into care
and 3,520 children under 10 left care through adoption. That means 59% of
children leaving care through adoption.

"The government themselves [see APA attachment - actually Ofsted] said this
year that "This does not mean that adoption is appropriate for more than a
minority of children" [see second paragraph page 1 of "notes on
interpretation"].

"The government have refused to attempt to find out how many adoptions
result in children returning to care. It is quite clear that Reactive
Attachment Disorder affects a number of children taken into care at an early
age and then adopted at or around 2-3 years old. This often results in a
disrupted adoption and a child returning to care with additional
psychological trauma.

"There are statistics about the numbers of failed adoptions where the
adoption fails in the same local authority as it occurs, but this is only a
small part of the story. Channel 4 recently identified that the number of
failed adoptions is increasing. Martin Narey, however, repeats the mantra
"More adoptions, More adoptions".

"Our policy making really should be evidence based. For that we need the
research. That is where the government are failing.

"Martin Narey should not look at adoption as a solution for the children in
Edlington. It is not in any way clear that the outcome for children aged 10
and 11 could be predicted reliably before they were born. The question
about Edlington is why there was no response at an earlier age of 5 or 6.
I think that arises from the concentration on babies and adoption that the
system now has. We need to change direction rather than go further in a direction
that is clearly failing."

ENDS

The reasons so many adoptions break down is because it's becoming increasingly harder to adopt babies and toddlers.

The whole adoption/fostering system is ridiculous and does not work as it currently stands - either for prospective parents or the children in care.

I know of a couple who fostered a baby from two days old - the child's mother was a crack addict. They applied to adopt her but were turned down because it seems that social services don't like foster parents to adopt. So the little girl, who called this couple 'mummy' and 'daddy' was removed from them when she was two and placed with another couple.

It's insane.

Northernlurker - no, I'm not sure about encouraging termination either, hence the words 'perhaps' and I totally get how it could become a slippery slope. And when I say 'encourage' I really do mean it in as benign a way as possible, such as providing much easier, earlier access to medical terminations and perhaps targeting advertising of these services in communities where there are a large number of children considered to be at risk.

The idea of babies being wrongly removed from their families terrifies me, but then the prospect of another generation of children born to totally inadequate, abusive parents terrifies me more.

I would prefer to see the government invest some serious amounts of money to try and stop these families going 'wrong' but I don't really believe that any government will really do that, nor am I convinced that projects can be successful in a large number of cases.

'There was an appalling case in Edinburgh where a baby boy was sent home with his parents who had already demonstrated that they could not adequately care for him.

He was killed by his father. '

That was 11-week-old Caleb Ness.

Caleb's mother was a heroin user who did not stop just because she was pregnant, and went back on the game to get money for drugs, leaving the baby with his father, who had brain damage from drug use.

Fast forward a few years, and you'll bee Brandon Muir's murder trial has just ended.

See, Brandon's mother was also a known, active, heroin user.

She left the child with her boyfriend one day whilst she went on the game to score money for drugs.

He killed the boy whilst she was out.

IMO, heroin use and parenting are incompatible.

any substance (alcohol/drugs) that renders you incapable of nurturing,attention,concentration is bad for parenting.

if your parents are out the game on alcohol and or drugs that is a poor show

here is another piece where the child ended up dead

If he had been taken away from the parents at least until they were off drugs, then he would still be alive.

Up here in Scotland, Derek Doran died under very similar circumstances, differentid.

And you're right, scottishmummy, I can't imagine life with a jakey being any better for a bairn than life with a junky.

young life's that should have had potential are reduced to roll call of fatalities

that really breaks my heart

Scary thing is I work in town and would often see the mum and her friends pulled over for shoplifting to fund her habit.

johnhemming - you say: 'It is quite clear that Reactive Attachment Disorder affects a number of children taken into care at an early age and then adopted at or around 2-3 years old.'

I'm sure it does. Care to let us know how many more children it affects who don't make it to adoptive parents until they're 6 or 7? A substantially higher number I expect.

Your post has made me very cross - it's typical politician bollocks - no solutions, just criticism.

Every child that has been featured in the media this year for either committing appalling abuse or being a victim of it has suffered a catalogue of neglect. Nappies that never get changed. Begging for food. Being observed scavenging. Being ignored. Being sworn and shouted at. Left wandering the streets. And yet they are left and left and left with their bio parents. Why? The parents clearly don't give a shit and if SS intervention doesn't work the first time, why on earth do we keep giving these parents chance after chance? This isn't a driving test - they are experimenting on the next generation.

And I utterly reject the idea that this is about targeting children from economically disadvantaged familes - these aren't the children of parents in poverty, they are the children of poor parents.

There is a huge difference.

DP and I were both see by SS, as well as my parents, because of my age and because of my history of mental health problems. They were actually really lovely about it all, and the social worker, bless her, said to me that she thought I was going to make a fantatsic mother, which really comforted me They've passed my case on to Family Support, as its easier to keep it open than close it and reopen it if I decide at any point I want / need extra support.

My midwife got them involved, because she had to. Is it just teenage midwives that make referals to SS?

But then you also have the other side of the coin from the Sunday Times.

Of course what social services should be doing is focusing on the children who do need help and protection.

And shouting loudly for whatever help they need to avoid so many children in foster care being moved repeatedly - up to 40 times, for heaven's sake.

Children in care are much more likely to end up becoming teenage mothers/drug addicts/homeless/criminals. It's shocking that those who are most vulnerable are so badly failed by us - all of us. Why isn't the profession shouting from the rooftops about this? Telling the public what the hell needs to happen to change all this and asking for our support?

I knew the teenage mother thing would come up at some point...

Agree with him completely.

He also made the point that if Baby P had survived, grown up, had children and mistreated them, all would be baying for his blood. Which is also true.

Its very easy to spot the 'bad' parents. they prioritise drink/drugs over children, they are violent to children and to others, they live in filth and they reject all attempts from social workers/health visitors etc to offer help and support.

For any parent in these categories, I would offer them six months of support and encouragement, if no change, children are removed. Any subsequent children removed at birth.

Sorry Erika! But YKWIM - in general when you get a high rate of teenage pregnancy, it is not a good thing, however happy and sorted some individual teenage mothers may be.

And it's really not a good thing when the other popular options for the same kids include prison/mental health in-patient/homelessness/substance abuse.

I agree with Martin Narey. I completely disagree with John Hemming.

Of course our society must do more to tackle the causes of dysfunctional families. But part of that is breaking the cycle by giving children a chance to get the hell away from people who are abusing them.

I think it is absolutely inexcusable that, even when babies are taken into care at birth, they are over a year old before they get into permanent families. Anybody who knows anything about child development can see what a tragedy that is.

I just take it very personally, I guess I'm probably being over sensative and hormonal - there was a bitch woman on the bus today who was absolutely foul to me.

I will agree that some of the young people at my recent antenatal class were discussing "scoring crack" and who was brining the weed and the booze to a gethering, and I was absolutely disgusted. But I don't think this has anything to do with their ages, I think it just means... I don't even know. It makes me so angry.

On the other hand, however, some of the young mums-to-be, including myself, simply made a "mistake". I wouldn't change things now. If anything, preparing for my sons arrival has forced me to deal with my mental health problems more than I ever have before.

And for what its worth, I loved my physc. unit, was a laugh a day, in all honesty!!

Sorry, slight diversion... And as I've said, am probably being over sensative. Just wanted to prove that not all of "us" are irresponsible

'Children in care are much more likely to end up becoming teenage mothers/drug addicts/homeless/criminals. It's shocking that those who are most vulnerable are so badly failed by us - all of us. Why isn't the profession shouting from the rooftops about this? Telling the public what the hell needs to happen to change all this and asking for our support?'

And why isn't the money being made avaialble. Is it because if it was half the country and media would be complaining of 'bloated' public spending.
SS and adoptions services etc are public spending. Clearly public spending needs to go up. Therefore taxes need to go up and this should not be a vote loser because the money must be avialble.
But no, cuts are currently being made in public cpending. Another 400,000 elderly poeple are having their meals on wheels and care at home removed in the next year or so.
Starving elderly people don't make news do they?
More public spending is needed, tageted properly for at-risk children (and that isn't HE kids Mister Govt), elderly and disabled. But funding is being lost from all 3 areas

There have also been cases of children who have died because they were taken into care away from parents who were desperately trying to get health problems diagnosed. Because the problem was misdiagnosed as abuse, the foster parents were told not to look for a medical cause.

These things happen and it is easy for me to feel strongly about them, as my own dd's medical problems were misdiagnosed as abuse, and I know that this is quite common with her condition.

At the same time I am sure these cases are far fewer and further between than the cases of genuine abuse. For every case of over-intervention there is likely to be a number of cases of under-intervention.

I think what we have to accept is that no system is ever going to get it 100% right. There will always be children who slip through the system, there will be other children who get taken away when they shouldn't. Either way, children will suffer and sometimes die. But we have to do the best we can as a society and not be complacent about it.

The best we can hope for is that better resources and better training will cut either of those incidents to an absolute minimum. And that can't be done without spending money.