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"

thank you Maria, very interesting.

Odd, isn't it, that social work (and medicine, to a degree) falls so completely under the spell of the latest theory? Which is taken to explain life, the universe and everything. Attachment theory may be helpful, but it is not an absolute truth applied to every single case. Neither was Munchausen's Syndrome, rebranded FII in an attempt to evade criticism. There are plenty of other examples

Medical treatments and surgery equally go in and out of fashion, but I do get the impression that social work and child protection generally sometimes suffers more from group-think. Certainly from a couple of examples I've come across.

Yes of course social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

So are doctors: damned if they operate when they shouldn't have and the patient dies, and damned if they don't operate when they should have and the patient dies. Any diagnosis comes with the risk of misdiagnosis.

That comes with having a responsible job.

To look on the bright side, noone damns the doctor when he makes the right decision and cures the patient, and noone writes damning articles about social workers who have have made placements with happy outcomes or let a non-abused child stay in a caring family.

DollyPS - I agree that the care system often exacerbates the problems for children who are often waiting for a decision to be made about their lives for inordinately long periods of time. However you talk of a lack of "proper" foster carers. The problem is really that many of the children coming into the care system are so damaged by their parents that they are exhibiting very difficult behaviours (we are seeing this in younger and younger children) and foster carers unsurprisingly find it very difficult to cope. Foster carers are very well motivated in their wish to care for children but they are not perfect and have their own families and stresses and strains like the rest of us. Most of them do their absolute utmost to persevere with children who are causing a great deal of disruption to their lives. However there does sometimes come a breaking point and the child has to be moved on. This is of course horrendous for the child as it merely reinforces the view that adults are not to be trusted and hence the problems in the next placement are worsened for obvious reasons. This isn't anyone's fault, it's just the way it is. I have seen foster carers who have had marriage break downs and their own children traumatised by trying to cope with difficult children. At the risk of repeating myself, this all comes about because of the experiences of neglect and or abuse that the child has suffered at the hands of the parents.

The issue of attachment difficulties and attachment disorder is a huge topic and not one that can be properly addressed here. Looking it up on wikipedia is not really very helpful in my view, but there are many good book on the topic if anyone is interested. It is simply not the case that attachment difficulties don't "come into play" until 6months or older. Babies can be adversely affected whilst in the womb if there is say domestic violence or other kinds of problems. If a baby is not properly nurtured from the moment of birth, that is when the damage begins ..........the difficulties may well not be noticeable until the child is older and can in any event only be observed by the child's behaviour. Children who are not given the love and attention they need as babies will grow up with an insecure attachment pattern with the parents or caregivers and that is a fact. By definition all children coming into the care system will have an insecure attachment. Children who are properly loved and cared for grow up with a secure attachment to the parent and do not obviously come into the care system.

I am not trying to score points here and sorry if this sounds a bit "preachy" but it is a very complex issue though an interesting one. Many foster carers and prospective adoptors have found the courses on this topic very enlightening and have found that it explains a lot for them in the child's behaviour. It is a topic which interest me greatly but not room here to expand. If anyone is interested I can recommend some good books on the subject, or google British Agencies for Fostering & Adoption (BAAF) and there will info on that site I am sure.

Maria, there is significant evidence for the impact of early deprivation (and privation) on children. Fortunately nothing is set in stone, but some children will never make a full recovery.

Obviously docs are involve in child protection work, too, and may equally take part in group-think. Look at the Royal College of Paeds' defence of Meadows and Southall...

Nana - thing is, children who have been wrongly taken from their families did have a secure attachment to their parents, which social services has broken.

Your posts could be read as 'attachment disorder happens before SS gets involved and any problems from then on are not our fault, even though children are moved with no notice, often repeatedly'. You probably don't mean it as crudely as that, but it sounds like a bit of a get out of jail free card.

Any child would suffer from knowing a social worker might turn up at any point and whisk them away from their current home - yet this happens again and again for some of our most vulnerable children. Hard to imagine a worse system, tbh.

If foster care is so impossible for children who are very disturbed, shouldn't we be thinking about something else, rather than trying to force children into a form of care that just isn't right for them and leaves them, for instance, at the mercy of 40 different carers in just a few years? Maybe the Danish model is worth a look. Can't be any worse.

Is anyone involving care leavers in coming up with ideas for redesigning the system? Is anyone asking for their views? Or those of children actually in care at the moment?

Edam - glad to hear some appreciate John Hemmings's posts!

Re your comments about attachment theory not being an absolute truth and applicable to every case. Do you then believe that for some babies who are not properly cared for from birth,in a physical sense (inadequate feeding, left in dirty soiled nappies, inadequately clothing etc etc) and emotionally neglected (left to cry for prolonged periods, ignored, shouted at, handled roughly etc etc) that those babies will NOT suffer physical and emotional harm?

I cannot really believe that anyone on MN would think that was the case. But if you think attachment theory does not apply to all babies and children this is what you must believe.

Really attachment theory is not new, it's just the name that's new. We have always known that children who are abused and neglected as babies and young children (at a crucial stage in their development) will grow up with all sorts of problems. The formative years (and in particular the frist 3 years) are of immense importance in the dvelopment of a child and form the foundation for the rest of the child's life. Damage done in those years can never be wholly rectified, though with understanding, patience and stability the worst effects can be modified as the child learns that adults can in fact be trusted.

Conversely babies who are loved and cared for will grow up to thrive and become well adjusted children and adults.

SO it actually does "apply" to all humankind.

Re nurturing and its effect on infants: dh went to a conference this week and heard a very interesting presentation on some work done in rats. It seems that the amount of time that mother rats spent grooming their young actually had an effect on the genomic imprinting in the baby rats (genomic imprinting regulates how genes are expressed iirc). Further work in humans has suggested a causal relationship between this imprinting and suicide. (Hope I got that right, I'm sure dh can explain further if anyone's interested!)

Yes of course children need to be loved and cared for, no-one has ever said any different.

But turn that into a theory and somehow it starts to be understood and applied in a very clunky, dogmatic fashion.

nana, you say: ''Children who are not given the love and attention they need as babies will grow up with an insecure attachment pattern with the parents or caregivers and that is a fact''. That is NOT a fact. That is what one theory concludes: attachment theory. Even the term 'insecure attachment' is part & parcel of attachment theory, which has been contested. There is a variety of theories in child psychology. Attachment theory is by far the most reductionistic that focuses hugely on the very very early stages of the mother-infant bond & disregards other aspects which (as other psychologists believe) may play an equally big role. I really don't like how attachment theory has become so widespread & accepted in the UK. I really believe it doesn't help children to view them as 'damaged' especially when this damage is assumed to follow them all through life! I'm sure children taken into care show disturbed behaviours, but the idea of these behaviours being entrenched- to the point of view of following them through their life- is a highly contested one. And as I said, doesn't help children.

And I also want to add that there's a huge huge difference between not feeding children, leaving them dirty, clothing them inadequately (all the examples of neglect / abuse you mentioned) & the much much wider model of attachment between mother-child that the theory assumes. I don't think any of us would disagree with the absolute need for those basic essential things (food, safety from harm, cleanliness, warmth etc). But there's a huge leap between that & saying that if the mother is tense while pregnant there might be the start of attachment disorders in the womb. Huge difference.

Edam - I think our posts crossed. I am certainly not trying to defend the fact that children's difficulties are worsened by the care system. I have spent 30 year plus very very aware of that believe me. I am simply saying that the damage is done before coming into care and it is then too late for many children to put things right and for reasons already stated, the care system makes things worse for them, for reasons already outlined.

I am unclear about your comment that "children are wrongly taken from their parents" - I don't actually have any evidence of this to be honest, other than I think there have been some cases in the past in Cleveland and the Shetland Isles where children were removed because of suspected sexual abuse that was not proven and children were returned. I think another problem is that the media often reports cases of children "wrongly" removed from parents and SSD can never give their side of the story because of confidentiality. As I have said on other posts, all cases of removal of a child from home are scrutinised by a judge and believe me there has to be a cast iron case before judges will agree that a child cannot be returned home.

I think there has to be a balanced view about foster care. For many children they have very positive experiences in foster care but it is true that for some, there are far too many moves though 40 sounds most exceptional and I have never heard of such a case. However I absolutely agree that moves for a child are horrendous and emotionally damaging. You mention the Danish model ?? I don't know what it is but as I said to JH, the scandinavians are way ahead of us with their social policies and successive govts in the UK have failed to properly resource SSDs. Tobe honest I don't know what the answer is and I don't think anyone else does either.

Maria - I think we will have to agree to disagree about attachment theory. I don't understand what you mean by "far the most reductionistic" and that it disregards other aspects which play an equally big part" - what other aspects were you thinking of. I think the problem is that trying to discuss such a big topic by this method isn't very saitsfactory. I am guilty of using shorthand for speed and talking of "tension" in the womb causing attachment disorders is really not what I meant but I can see how I gave that impression.

There is relatively new evidence that babies can be adversely affected in their life if they are traumatised in the womb by soemthing like domestic violence or other kind of trauma. I think we are becoming much more aware of the fact that babies can react to these pre birth experiences.

i don't want to be dogmatic about this and of course there are many things that affect a child'slife but I still believe that early neglect and abuse will have a very damaging affect on a child and there is evidence to suggest that this can indeed cause difficulties for a child through the life span. This is not always the case of course but that possibility remains but will vary with individual cases. Sad but true.

My point, as nobody does seem to be interested in the science is that there is emerging biological evidence supporting attachment theory.

MARIA - some more thoughts. You say the fact that attachment theory holds that children can be affected throughout their life does not help them. I actually believe that the more we learn about the effects of early abuse and neglect on children, the more children can be helped. Many of us thought in the past that "love was enough" and that if an abused/neglected child was removed from parents and placed with carers who would love and care for him, all would be well. We now know that this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes a child will thrive in such a situation if the damage done in his early life was relatively minor (for want of a better word). However many children with attachment difficulties (or if you like those who have learned that adults are not to be trusted) will present allkinds of disturbed and disturbing behaviour . In the past we didn't really know what to do about this. Now we know that we can teach carers about why a child might be behaving in such a way. We can call upon clinical pyschologists to help foster carers and adoptors to understand why their children are behaving like this and more importantly how they might help the child to modify or even overcome the difficulties.

I have seen many foster carers and adoptors who have been greatly helped by learning why their child is behaving in such a way and getting more and more confident as they learn what the child needs to restore their trust in adults. This has to be a good thing and is ultimately helping children to have a second chance despite their early experiences of abuse and neglect.

Daisymoo - yes I'm interested and I agree there is an enormous amount of evidence that supports the notion of attachment theory. I suppose I am struggling to understand why people seem so opposed to the idea, as it makes perfect sense to me.

I think Nananina's posts make a lot of sense and I post as someone who has been raising my severely attachment disordered DS-12 (not by birth) since he was seven months old after he had a very traumatic and neglectful early infancy.

It remains that it is a complex issue that requires a subtle approach well away from performance indicators.

I see quite a few cases where it is absolutely clear that the actions of the practitioners cause problems rather than resolve them.

On the other hand I am aware that there is good practise where I am unlikely to be contacted.

All I am asking is for people to recognise that the system in England is not perfect and does need detailed attention.

In particular we need to sort out the whole interface between local authorities and judicial processes.

Stands behind John Hemming who has given his constituents (and non constituents) representation and support during some very difficult times.

Johnhemming, I appreciate that you rarely get to hear about good practice as success is hardly going to come to the attention of your organisation. Previously on here I have gained the impression from your posts that you do not acknowledge the immense force for positive change for children that social work can represent.

I think that the system in England and Wales is not perfect and we can all strive for improvements, but I do not think it is broken. The idea that the care system cannot be 'any worse' is completely untrue for many children and young people and you only have to hear their voices to understand this. The 'Care Matters' agenda is to improve the exerience and life chances of these children, but you would be foolish to ignore Nanananina's thoughts here. The other models around 'Social paedagogy' seem promising, but not radically different, the research has always supported fostering attachments to skilled and capable helpers to transform children's lives.

I note John Hemming that you are sticking to the "rules" of a politician and not responding to specific issues that I have raised, nor giving explanations for some of your contradictory statements.

I don't think it's "ignorant" to ask a politician to "stick to what he knows" although that wasn't the comment I made. This debate is about children's lives and specifically children who are amongst the most deprived section of society and there is nothing of greater importance in my view. The issues are complex and there are no easy answers to this social problem of child protection. Yes I agree that you cannot divorce social policy from politics and maybe I should have made that clear in earlier posts. However my objection to JH is that he makes contradictory statements and assertions that demonstrate that he does not understand the issues on which he is pronouncing. I think it is irresponsible for a politician to behave in such a way and I have not observed any other MPs doing this.

I think if politicians are going to get involved in these kind of debates then they should be better informed and be prepared to respond to specific issues raised when asked for explanations about their pronouncements.

BytheSea - no one will know better than people like yourself who have been living with the effects of early abuse/neglect which has produced an insecure attachment pattern in your child. As you say this all happened in the first 7 months of life, proof positive that the abuse doesn't have to be of very lengthy duration for it to have caused a great deal of emotional harm to the child. It's tough isn't it - I've never been in your position but have worked with foster carers and adoptors over many years who have been struggling to cope with children with attachment problems. Maybe you could give a bit more detail of your experiences with your child to help people gain a better understanding f this issue?

Nana, I suppose as you say it's very hard to discuss such a huge issue on an internet forum. But some very brief ideas.

First, I don't doubt for a second that early difficulties / neglect / abuse play a role.

Second, I also don't doubt that security, stability of carers, love, 'normal' behaviour towards children, all play a huge role. Lets call that attachment if we must, it doesn't matter. Of course all these things play a positive role.

Third though, I think that attachment theory's biological / neurological evidence basis is not convincing. They take some good, common sense ideas (that Winnicott, among others, took for granted too) & make them into a Grand Theory, talking about brain development, effect on later life etc. That is where my problem lies, that's why I talk of reductionism. Children have problems; they also have resilience. There are many many factors that play a role in a child's life. I resent the idea (and disagree theoretically, but lets not go in the details of that here) that the brain changes so early on & that's that. If we're talking about letting carers / prospective adopters know about the difficulties children have, I completely agree. If we're talking though of 'damaged' children, and what's more, in a brain-damaged kind of way (because that's what this leads to) I disagree, I think lots can be done, and children can surprise us.

I know Nana that in essence we agree though, there is nothing in what you say (the main points you make) that I find strange or offensive. On the contrary! It's just that I don't like this emphasis on attachment theory in the UK, I think it's wrong theoretically & problematic politically.

'Attachment difficulties arise either prior to birth or immediately after for the reasons stated and NOT as a result of being in care'

research links?
and
'There is relatively new evidence that babies can be adversely affected in their life if they are traumatised in the womb by soemthing like domestic violence or other kind of trauma. I think we are becoming much more aware of the fact that babies can react to these pre birth experiences.'

research links please.

I am not convinced by attatchment theory at alll (former psychologist) let along a neurological basis for it.

I believe there's a huge prejudice towards poorer families by SS.

I know a child (at private school) who is the daughter of 2 very middle class alcoholics and social services have never lifted a finger towards that family. There seems to be an assumption that money will buy them out of the SS radar and they have been heard to say that if anyone tried to intervene, they'd just shove the child in boarding school.