Birmingham Social Services 'not fit for purpose'

[SomeGuy]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6861732.ece

"Birmingham children's services have been described as "not fit for purpose" in an official report written by its own councillors following a spate of child deaths.

The report found the young had been left victims of a ?decade of underperformance,? with dozens of initiatives and projects being launched and then shelved with little improvement made.

A lack of strong leadership and weak senior management was a ?major risk? and the service would not improve with the current shortage of experienced staff, the study found. Absences from sickness were running at 20 per cent, it discovered.

The report committee were ?shocked and dismayed? by the standard of accommodation at some of the council?s residential homes for children. "

www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/10/05/birmingham-social-services-report-15-deaths-in-fi ve-years-97319-24856383/

"FIFTEEN children are believed to have died of abuse or neglect in the city in the past five years, with at least eight known to social workers.

Among them is Khyra Ishaq, who was allegedly starved to death.

The seven-year old was known to social services, and her mother and stepfather, Angela Gordon, 34, and Junaid Abuhamza, 30, are awaiting trial for her murder.

Other notable cases include the death of two-year-old Brandon Davies who died after drinking his parents? methadone at his family?s home in Kings Norton.

Benjamin Davies and Mary Norman failed to call an ambulance until the next day. They were jailed in May for two years and 15 months respectively after admitting causing or allowing the death of the toddler who had previously been taken into care.

Another case is that of 18-month-old Jordan McGann, who died after being violently shaken by his mum?s boyfriend.

Darren Bennett had been previously jailed for attacking a former girlfriend?s three-year-old daughter. The cases come after the social services department faced major criticism and promised changes following the death of Toni-Ann Byfield in 2003. She died when social services allowed her to visit the man she thought was her father.

He was a convicted drug dealer and both were shot and killed at his bedsit in an ex-offenders? hostel in London."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8289954.stm

"Concern was raised that child referrals were screened by "inexperienced staff" with insufficient management oversight.

The report uncovered "systematic and deeply ingrained" problems which needed urgent action as well as long-term solutions to fix.

In particular, the scrutiny committee said the time social workers spent with the children and families who needed them was severely limited.

The report blamed this on time spent writing records, a high number of case loads, a high number of vacancies and sickness absences. "

I guess social services is a difficult business, and there must be a lot of tough cases in big cities like Birmingham.

Is it really possible to fix them? Or will we hear of cases like this indefinitely.

Thanks for the link. I had a quick look and at first glance it's hard to see how it differs significantly from our model. Children here have a lawyer appointed to them and a Children's Guardian and by the look of it they are charged with similar tasks.

(it's OK, John agrees with this!)

??? John ???

Children here have a lawyer appointed to them and a Children's Guardian and by the look of it they are charged with similar tasks.

Yes but the guardian is a volunteer and not a cafcass type sw.

I am a family worker. We do visits, direct work and some of the more basic work with/ around families. We hold 'more straightforward ' cases . This doesn't always go to plan and things happen and then a sw will be involved again. In theory

in practice we do the work then spent 3x as long on ICS which then crashes and we start again.

wahwah, do you mean the Every Child Matters agenda? Think I've heard people saying children's services have been swamped thanks to ECM or Laming - something about looking so broadly at the needs of the child population that the ones with the most severe/acute needs are lost in the soup, or something like that?

Nymph, that point sounds familiar. Clearly Something Should Be Done about the amount of time people are having to devote to inputting data instead of actually doing their jobs.

Haha, that wasn't for you, but some of the more ardent posters who will not disagree with Mr Hemming!

I don't understand why trained volunteers in court are preferable to suitably trained and experienced people.

And Nymphadora, I hear you-our database was running at the speed of slugs today and kept timing out before data was saved. It's so depressing.

All the DV referrals cause a mass of problems.

DV is an important issue, but having MARACs and whatever that form number is ending in two don't help at all.

Wahwah,

" Haha, that wasn't for you, but some of the more ardent posters who will not disagree with Mr Hemming! "

No offense to Mr Hemming but he's a lib Dem i'm sure I would disagree with quite a lot he says .

" I don't understand why trained volunteers in court are preferable to suitably trained and experienced people."

My proposal was to one of the first posts when we were speaking of LA's not being able to recruit sw's etc and the fact that;

a) cafcass seem to think that sw's are there at their beck and call to strong arm mothers and call them in for no good reason thus increasing caseloads when CP is not an issue

and

b) if cafcass were staffed under the american system of volunteers to be the voice of the child then that would free up all the cafcass sw and the la's would be swapped with cafcass sw's looking for employment.

Message withdrawn

The thing that worries me about social workers are the lack of common sense which seems to be applied

At the same time in the same area the following actions are being taken

SW supervising the fitting of stairgates in a house with a 2.5yo against the request of the parents

SW investigating the diet of a 6 yo because she was underweight (she was on 25 centile as she had been since birth & ate well)

SW not concerned with 10yo who hitched 20 miles as a parent was drunk

SW not concerned by a child (primary age) attaching a teacher with a blade

Now obviously I don't understand the whole of the system/thinking behind these decisions but they do seem odd to me

I have recently been sent on a CAF training course which appears to be requiring me as a childminder to act as an untrained/unqualified SW in order to 'solve' families problems as they are under the threshold for SW to deal with - TBH I don't have time to do any more for my parents

I do not know what the solution is but I do know that locally the current system is not working

The ECM agenda is fine as far as I can see.

It's one part of achieving ECM outcomes using the common assessment that gets other people jumping. They think that this basic piece of general assessment and planning is social work (although done well it can be very skilled and helpful) and get rather defensive about it.

So rather than try and get behind only putting a family through one assessment and pulling all agencies in toe deliver co-ordnated services around a plan, they feel they're being asked to step outside their role and instead refer the child to us, because they're 'IN NEED'. Then the poor families panic and think we're coming for their kids!

Katymac, your sweeping comment about social workers and common sense is unpleasant. How would you feel if I gave examples of all the shit child minders I've come across and made a comment about it being no surprise because all they do is plonk kids in front of the tv...I'm making the point not to get at you, but as an example of how used we are to seeing this sort of comment about Social Workers and I would like to change that.I to se

wahwah SW will get slated though as any other profession will just the same so that isnt fair saying Katys sweeping comment and common sense are unpleasant she is making a point and its her's. Its not sweeping its her experiences of this. Of how the system isnt working in her mind.

It isnt though is it or we wouldnt be seeing these cases would we.

Oh another thing they are damned if they do and damned if the dont.

In my area I have seen a SW say to a child of 12 to stay home alone as his mother was taken into hospital overnight. There was nowhere for him to go by the way she said. A neighbour took him in. Did the SW care no but she did get hauled over the coals for it though where was her common sense.

Or the time I was talking to a SW and her saying that we wont let the kids go back to their bio mother as she was neglecting them and she was true to her word thankfully. In fact this same SW keeps in contact to see how we are doing even if she has left the field.

See good and bad and they are my experiences as one I was the neighbour and the kids are my steppies.

wahwah, katymac is saying is that locally the current system is not working.

If it is possible to identify those boroughs whose child protection services are badly managed with low morale (I believe Birmingham, Haringey, Doncaster, Nottingham were mentioned here), why is it so difficult to believe katy's experience that she came across a spate of social workers who failed to exercise common sense in her area?

If you were a parent in any of these boroughs facing child care proceedings, do you have confidence that you will be treated fairly and your voice heard by the caseload social worker(s)? Would you confidently submit you and your family to scrutiny in those boroughs?

I said that I didn't understand the thinking behind the decisions or the rules which is one of the reasons why I think we are not the best people to action/initiate CAF's - this is quite clearly work that professionals should do

The decisions I make are not the same as those a SW would make

I am sorry if I expressed myself badly but at the course it was obvious that 'our' priorities were not the same as those of the SW. The SW priorities must have been created at a higher level (management) but that they made no sense to us.

I was told it was unacceptable to leave 2 11yo's playing in the garden while I went to the local shop but that the 10yo hitching was not concerning.

I feel confused by it

Not surprised, Katy.

So in one way, all this get mothers back to work early, insistence on people having to use professional childcare because apparently parents are crap at looking after their own kids, is quite a sinister agenda - because they are turning childminders into a branch of social services who will judge our ability as parents?

Katmac I think your comments were just stating what you saw as a little inconsistent and confusing for you and I tink this is understandable. Wah wah is usually SO very measured and patient and I am loathe to speak for her but she (i somehow think she's a she!) has been on another thread where there has been a great deal of insulting comments about sws and people rubbishing ALL sws because of one experience or soemthing they have heard abut in the media without hearing the other side of the story etc. and she has tried again and again to patiently explain how things really work and has never ever said that mistakes aren't made or that they system is ideal. I think she maybe is feeling a little weary of it all (as I am) and this why was she reacted as she did.

It isn't really possible for sws to give explanations about comments that other sws make and they are quoted out of context and so we don't know thw full circumstances. SWs on another thread have been told they are here to "represent their profession" and this isn't the case - they are giving their opinions/advice based on the work that they do. We can't he held to account to answer for all sws any more than childminders for example can be held to account for the views/comments of other childminders. I think it is this generalising of ALL sws that is getting the sws on here so frustrated. There was someone on here (whose post has been deleted) making very insulting comments and using bad language and saying the "f........ing lot of them should be sacked" because of a personal bad experience, and in my mind this isn't fair.

I accept your point that you it seems unfair that you are expecting to be acting as a sw in some cases. Am I right in thinking that it is now OFSTED that registers and oversees childminders and so why would sws be involved with you? I was talking to a CM in the schoolplayground recently as I meet my grand daughter on some days and she was telling me how much paperwork was involved and how CMs have to demonstrate that they are teaching chd etc and give accounts of the activities in which the chd are involved etc etc. Have to say I didn't realise this -not saying it is a bad thing but onerous for the CM who also seem to have been caught up in the target driven culture.

There have been quite a few posts about CAFCASS so I thought I would give a bit of the history as it may be helpful.

Prior to CAFCASS the people who investigated matters of disputed child custody cases were Probation Officers who were called "Divorce court welfare officers." They assessed these cases and made recommendations to the court about child custody prior to Decree Absolute being granted. They worked in public and private law cases. I have to say that in my view this was not entirely satisfactory in some cases as Probation Officers were (and stil are) focussed on adult offenders and did not have expertise in child care and there was a tendency to over identy with the parents rather than keep the child's best interests at the heart of the matter. Again not in ALL cases.

Once it became the custom for separate representation orders to be made in court in care proceedings,then Guardian-Ad-Litems were appointed by the court to investigate all of the circumstances surrounding the care proceedings and interview all parties (including of course the la who were bringing the proceedings) and make a recommendation to the court based on the best interests of the child. In addition they appoint a solicitor to act for the child in court. In the early days, local authorities made reciprocal arrangements for sws to act as guardians in neighbouring authorities to give independence. Later guardians began practicing on a freelance basis giving greater independence to the matter.

With the emergence of CAFCASS this brought together the old divorce court welfare officers and freelance guardians under the umbrella of CAFCASS. I know of many guardians who did not want to work for CAFCASS and looked for some other kind of work. It is certainly true that inspections have been critical of CAFCASS as an organisation though NOT in individual social workers and their practice. I think CAFCASS is struggling for the same reason as many la's are - increasing workloads and under funding and other organisational problems. Successive governments always seem to think "bigger is better" and we have seen a lot of these massive organsiations hit huge problems (e.g, Child Support Agency) and CAFCASS is no exception. I know that since Baby P there has been a big rise (unsurprisingly) in care proceedings as sws are no longer prepared to take risks, fearing that they will be the sw in another Baby P case.........and a guardian has to be appointed in care proceedings and CAFCASS just do not have sufficient staff to cope. They are also involved in contact cases and the same is true - they cannot allocate cases. I (and other ind sws) am being asked to take on contact cases before CAFCASS have been involved because solicitors acting for parents in contact cases have been waiting months for a CAFCASS worker to be allocated and no sign of this happening. I am usually only involved after CAFCASS'S involvement in contact cases where an ind sw is needed to re-investiage and make recommendations to court. Most of those cases that come my way are private law cases.

I am puzzled as to why people think that CAFCASS work could be done by unqualified workers. One of the criticisms of Birmingham City Council SSD is that too much of the work is being done by inexperienced and unqualified people. social work (regardless of the fact that people think it can be done by anyone) is a very complicated and stressful occupation and just like any other profession there are some very skilled people, some less so and a minority whose practice is poor. I don't believe there is any sw that would disagree withthis. There are many unqualified workers involved in SSd as social work assistants and family support workers etc. who do an excellent job but why should they be expected to undertake complex stressful work for which they haven't been trained and for which they will not be paid at the rate of sws.

How many of you people who want untrained people to be CAFCASS workers would be happy to consult an untrained doctor or lawyer or police officer or have your children taught by untrained teachers. There is an arrogant attitude in my view that social work is simply common sense and anyone can do it. some of you will never believe anything else and I have given up trying to change the views of some on these threads.

Hope the debate can continue in a rational manner.

Cafcass or more importntly Guardians are supposed to be the voice of the child, the solicitor is supposed to act for the child but we all know that does not happen. The solicitor acts under the guardians orders no matter what the child's wishes and feelings are the solicitor will put the guardians point of view to the court and not the child's, in fact a lot of children's solicitor do not even bother making contact with the child at all.

The child's solicitor and Guardian can only be dismissed from acting on their behalf if the child can prove it is Guillick competant and then can put it's own wishes and feelings before the court, other than that the child has to suffer whatever fate the guardian decides and their views are not taken into account.

The whole idea of the family courts is to be child centred but in practice that does not happen, it starts with two sets of solicitors who hyper up their clients into 'battle' mode and drag the case out for financial reasons as long as possible, cafcass involvement does not help this it hinders it.

Hence get rid of cafcass, have the same system as they have in the states and other countries where the wishes and feelings of the child are put before the court by a voluntary 'independent' witness who does not have an agenda just the role of reporting the child's views and not slanting the facts.

The court is quite capable of deciding what information should be entered into fact and who is lying without a cafcass officer entering a badly written report with such gems as 'the child was born by forcepts', not exactly relevant to proceedings.
(And I have read some real gems in cafcass reports).

Hence cafcass is disbanded and the sw's are freed up to work for LA's.

Atlantis -I'm not sure where you get your ideas from but as a children's lawyer I can assure that in ten years I never even once worked on a case where I didn't meet the child repeatedly.

Yes, where a child is small, the lawyer acts for the guardian and takes their instructiond from them. How else could it work? But where a child is older and if the views of the child and guardian are not the same, the two can seperate and have their own lawyers.
I have repped lots of kids this way.

Also Voice are a very good organisation.
They are advocates for children in care or going through the system.
Whenever they have asked to advocate for a child I have never known a judge refuse.

I have some difficulty working out why there ever should be a GAL and also a solicitor acting for the gillick competent child.

In any event what the Birmingham report demonstrates is the failings of the family courts. If children are unnecessarily in care as Colin Tucker (IMO Rightly) says today, why was this not picked up by the family courts.

So in terms of solicitors, is it one set for the LA, one set for the parent(s) and one set for the child (I presume this is where CAFCASS/guardians/children's lawyers come in).

Litchick, why would there be a need for Voice to advocate if the child already has a lawyer/guardian in place from CAFCASS?

Hope I am not getting muddled.

Litchick,

Good for you, my daughters solicitor did not bother to meet her once in 18 months (private law) did not represent her views either only that of the guardian that matched the fathers views, even though all other professionals involved were on my child's side.

I have also worked with groups (both mothers and fathers ) where the same thing applies, they take their lead from the guardian not the child, so we advocate that if the child is Guillick competent they should then apply to discharge the guardian/ solicitor.

In private law no one should use solicitors, there are enough MCK friends around to do the job and we find that the ones who go L.I.P / use MCK friends tend to spend less time in court and have a favourable outcome.

Blueshoes Voice is an independent organisation and are @the voice of the child@ unlike cafcass they are only interested in the best outcome for the child not the parents.

should have been ;

'the voice of the child'

also they are close to the sytem america has.

Underlying this issue is the point that an adversarial judicial system is ill suited to family disputes that are best resolved through co-operation. It should not be able winning and losing, but instead finding the best way forwards ... for the children primarily, but also for the rest of the family.

I have been looking at the comparative records of the developed world in respect of child deaths from abuse and neglect. Those jurisdictions that least value the family in the judicial environment (viz UK, US, Portugal) tend to have higher death rates.