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"

"In my opinion there is no such thing as a damaged psyche, at any age, let alone at 2 years. There are problems, sure, but nothing in life is irreversible. 'Damaged psyche' makes it sound as if these kids are lost cases, while in fact, with stable, good placements in adoptive homes, and with good support from social services, they could thrive"

There's a growing body of evidence to suggest that when a child is exposed to neglectful or hostile care in the first few months and years of life, it actually affects the normal development of the neural pathways of the baby's brain. This may mean that even after they are adopted into loving families who provide responsive care, they continue to have difficulties with processing emotions throughout childhood and into adult life, particularly anger and anxiety.

I honestly think that the full rate of child benefit ought only to be paid out to people who have attended a proper parenting course, where they learn the basics of child development, and that this should happen during pregnancy. It would cost a fortune, but it would probaby save the government money in the long run. I'd also like to see babies given up for adoption before their futures are ruined by neglectful care from their birth mothers.

"It sounds liberal and modern to say that rich people abuse and neglect their kids too, but they don't do they, in such great numbers anyway"

Traditionally they've always handed them over to nannies and boarding schools to be abused by other people......

What about the middle class then. No nannies or boarding schools in my background.

I agree that abuse takes many forms and can happen anywhere, but cases like Baby P or Calum Ness do not tend to happen amongst the middle and upper class, is that a fair point?

john hemming - the reason adoptions disrupt so much is because the children are so old when they are placed with their adoptive parents. And there isn't an 'overwhelming mantra of adoption, adoption' - what a load of rot! If that was the case, there would be far, far fewer children who remain in care until they're 16 (when councils chuck them out on their ear because they no longer have any duty of care). And far fewer prospective parents who abandon the process in frustration.

I have two good friends who grew up in care. They have both told me (independently) that if they had been subject to repeated attempts to reunite them with their birth families as many of today's children are, they doubt they would be the well-adjusted and stable adults they are today.

While there are cases of children being taken away wrongfully, too often we err on the side of caution and leave children for far too long with people whose only link to the word parent is the fact that they have their names on a child's birth certificate.

And incidentally I believe it's one in 5 adoptions that disrupt

Sorry I agree. Adults who have children have to be aware that what matters most is the welfare of the child. Adult comes second. That is the choice you make when you have a child. Love (whatever definition you use) isn't enough. People say they love their dog, they love chocolate, they love Eastenders. The word in itself is meaningless. If it isn't the kind of love that will make any sacrifice, and sometimes make hard choices, then it's no good to the child.

It actually makes me angry that children are born to parents who can't cope with their own lives let along that of a dependent little person. My blood runs cold when i think of the lives some children are forced to lead.

Whether they end up somewhere better than 'home' I don't know - but pragmatism isn't good enough.

Sabire: the trouble with insisting on 'parenting classes' for everyone is that a substantial majority of perfectly good parents would have to waste their time (and the government's money) being lectured by what is unfortunately most likely to be some officious little twat with a shiny new degree in sociobiology and no kids him/herself.
ONe of the additional social dangers of cases like this is that you end up with calls for more government meddling ie insisting that people parent according to the latest theories of (childfree/superstition-addled/sociopathic themselves) experts and trying to enforce this year's one-size-fits-all model no matter what.
For instance, according to some of the stuff that's been said about 'bad' parenting I should have my DS taken away: I drink alcohol, look at pornography and think housework is a waste of time so our house is untidy.
However, there is no violence in the house, we eat a pretty good diet, there are books everywhere and should you see DS looking grubby and in torn clothes that will be because he's been playing in the park and is on his way home for a bath.

Total waste of time and resources offering parenting classes to all when the majority don't need them.

Yes SGM is right there: comfortably-off families have the resources to cover up abuse if there are abusers in the family. Also, they are less likely to suffer misdiagnoses of abuse because they are less intimidated by doctors/can affored good lawyers to fight for them. It's not that it happens less (ie cruelty, addiction and mental illness).
The thing is, (as someone said in a book, regarding a different issue) the middle classes and upwards tend to think the state should Do More because they percieve the institutions of the state as being there for their protection rather than for their control.

i take issue with "damaged psyche" sounds very fatalistic when in fact neuro-science is researching brain plasticity and propensity to adapt and react to situations. good behavioural modelling,support and reinforcement can also positively modify behaviours etc

look,certainly poor attachment,modelling and poor parenting does harm but as individuals children and adults are robust, and can and do overcome extreme psyhological trauma.

Surely it's not about having the means to protect a child from a neglectful parent, but the will?

If there's one parent who is useless for some reason, then the other parent will have to provide the care and protection.

The problem comes in cases like Baby P etc where one parent or carer is neglecting or harming the child and the other does not try to prevent that, due to their own inadequacy.

Money wouldn't have helped them would it - they wouldn't have employed a nanny etc as they weren't aware or emotionally able enough to know that the child would be better off with other people then with them.

The other thing about middle class parents is that really bad neglect is about leading chaotic lives with chronic addiction issues. People who hold down any kind of permanent job or other responsibilities don't generally have those kind of chaotic lifestyles. Middle class parents are just as likely to have addiction issues but the difference is that (as someone else said) their families tend to pick up the pieces on the whole.

The problem is that we don't have any figures as to exactly what proportion of adoptions disrupt or even what proportion of children are repeatedly put through adoption.

We really should have some idea of this.

Just consider for a moment the real proposal that Angela Wileman's son Lucas living with her in Ireland should be taken through an international equivalent to an extradition to be placed in foster care in England with a view to adoption.

Who can for a moment try to justify that in the interests of that individual child?

Let us accept for a moment the figure of 20% ddisruptions. On 3,500 adoptions that is 700 children back in care - who frankly are likely to remain there until 16.

So if the disruiption is at say age 10. Then that is over 4,000 children.

I don't think this should be simply swept under the carpet.

Spicemonster argues about the age of adoption. I don't think it is that. My experience of RAD cases is that they involve children adopted as toddlers.

There are figrues as to ages at which children are adopted: (in 2008)
under 1 120
1-4 2200
5-9 690
10-15 120
16+ 20

'but do they beat them, ignore them, and leave them in the care of drug addicts? '

Abuse certainly happens in the middle and upper classes along those lines. Neglectful parents who abuse alocohol and drugs aren't limited to the 'lower' classes you know. Drug is is prevalent amongst middle class children as is an unloving home too. Bein dressed nicely hides all sorts of things.
I think its an issue that goes across the classes the problem is the meeja are focusing on the poor. Because its easy.

I'm middle class and was dressed like a tinker due to my hippy parents. I'd be more worried by the white socks brigade, not less worried.

Of course middle class people use drugs and alcohol.

But my point is about the kids at the very margins of society - the heartbreaking cases further up the thread where the mother was too smacked up (or engaging in prostitution)to notice or care that her partner was harming her child.

Does this happen in middle class families?

Will there ever be a middle class Calum Ness or Baby P?

This thread is about SS removing babies from their parents, so I assume we're talking not about parents who have issues but can cope, but parents who pose a direct risk to their babies immediate safety.

just been poking througha few studies. A fair few seem to claim that emotional and psychological abuse is more prevalent in middle class familes than physical abuse. Sexual abuse was the same.

I just don't see how social workers, with their own prejudices are going to be able to measure what is damaging abuse and what can be changed within the family. And they will certainly be fooled by well spoken well educated parents while assuming a scruffy child in a poor family is in danger.

Why would a scruffy child be in danger? Or a well dressed one for that matter? SS will only be there anyway if somebody has raised a flag of concern.

I don't for a minute think that SS think that scruffy children are in danger and that well spoken people don't abuse children.

I'm not SS myself but I was a teacher, and most of them are in fact as intelligent, perceptive and openminded as any other professional.

Nobody can truly measure risk in the family, but we can give people training and support to make 'best practice' decisions.

I'd say the failing isn't SS prejudices, but lack of funding and lack of communication between agencies.

I had SS tell me off for dd and the boys being scruffy. It was none of their damn business.
(it was the SS disability team that are meant to be there to give you respite and services etc but some of the SW are judgemental busybodies)

I agree with the barnardo's head, although it pains me.

As others have all said.. Nearly all the foster carers I know provided wonderful long-term foster care for children who had very challenging problems, often being willing to treat that child as thier own all through thier life - what could be better?! BUT after years of wonderful care a parent would resurface and request thier child be returned, or would go through rehab. So SS returns the child into what quickly become awful circumstances and, well you can guess the rest. Not surprisingly these foster parents and thier children pay a huge emotional cost for this and decide to quit fostering. WHY???? Why not keep the child where they are happy, safe and have a good chance of a happy future, with contact with the birth parent as suitable.

Then I have cared for some children who have suffered and struggled for 5 or 6 years despite often excellent round the clock support only for SS to finally agree to remove them but finding them too damaged to be adopted. And I know they are just the tip of the iceberg. It needs to be done much sooner.

BUT I agree that there needs to be more support for parents who have had thier children removed - especially teenagers. I think more use of open adoptions, quicker adoptions and adoptions where the birth mother have greater say in the type of family her child will get would all help.

I think the idea of 'encouraging' ?undesirable? mothers to have abortions is sickening though, most of us need nine months to get our heads and lives ready for parenting, they at least need to be given that opportunity and support to do so - and have you seen the stats for repeated pregnancies in these circumstances!

so when all these babies are removed from their mothers, where will they go? do you realise the appauling state of care in this country, and the number of unwanted children languishing in it?

and then what do we do when the bereaved and unsupported mother gets pregnant again and has another baby, and then another - just keep ripping the babies away at birth and handing them over the the oh so superior rich and infertile?

mermalaid - the hope is that if the children are taken away when they are babies they can be adopted as babies and will never have to go into care homes - they will go straight to either loving foster or adoptive parents.

it's nothing to do with people being rich and infertile, what a mean sprited thing to say. Most people that foster and adopt are oridinary, everyday people.

mermalaid you make a good point about the mother - there does need to be a huge improvement in the support provided for her. I honestly do not know the answer to the mother having baby after baby in her grief, I think this is an issue that desperately needs some very serious discussion.

But I think the suggestions people are making are for the benefit of the child, not for the stereotypical american adoptive couple who are very different to the average british adoptive family.

There are quite a few cases where over 10 children have been removed from a single mother.