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.

Atlantis - I didn't realise you were talking about private law. Apologies.

As for public law ie care proceedings how it works is that the LA are represented as are the parents ( seperately if there is a conflict of interest).
The court then appoint a Children's Guardian who has a social work history but is no longer employed by an LA.
The Children's Guardina also has a lawyer.
It is this teams' job to look at all the evidence, interview the childten, the parents ect and give their opinion to the courts.
Part of their remit is to tell the court what the child wants. Though obviously, what the child wants and what the Guardian thinks shuld happen may not be one and the same.

Where a child is Gillick competent ie are amture enough to understand the proceedings they are entitled to their own lawyer if they want to pursue a different case to the guardian. This happens often with teenagers.

Howver some yoing people don't actually want a lawyer as such to advise them on the law etc, they just want someone to be their voice. This is where advocates can come in.

This is why I can never understand why people take the view that courts simply rubber stamp what SS want. The court, as you can see will be packed to the rafters with lawyers and there are often several experts there too.
Care cases are complex and very time consuming.

Out of interest Atlantis why dd your daughter have a lawyer in private proceedings?

On last thing - a children's advocate is not necessarily putting forward what is 'best' for the child.
They put forward what the child wants, which may not be in its best interests, but is still valuable none the less.
Guardian's howver are charged with looking at what is in the child's interests. Yes, the child's view is a factor, but only one.

And also the GAL can get court permission not to meet the child.

I have never come across a case where that was even applied for, let alone granted.

In circumstances where it has happened I would have to know alal the facts before I gave judgement.

atlantis: "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."

Atlantis, sorry to be playing catch-up, but what cases are "private law". Is it still child care proceedings?

Also, what are MCK friends and L.I.P?

Litchick, thanks for that detailed explanation of public law proceedings.

I notice you say that a Children's Guardian is ex-LA employee with social work background.

I can see how a social work background is valuable. But could atlantis' concern come from the fact that if the guardian is ex-LA, they might be pre-disposed (consciously or unconsciously because of their former training) to protect the 'system', something which would not otherwise be present in volunteers like Voice.

I don't want to sound all-conspiracy theory and indeed I have no contact with the system.

Is the Children's Guardian essentially the 'voice of the child' and the lawyer the legal expert. If volunteers from Voice can speak for an older Gillick competent child, why can't a Voice arrangement, instead of the current CAFCASS appointed guardian, work for a younger child, together with a lawyer.

I am trying to figure out what value does a Children's Guardian add, in addition to the lawyer's input and in addition to the Voice voice.

Litchick, I just noticed your post about how the child's voice is just the child's view but the guardian looks after the best interest of the child.

What does the LA's team do then? If it is child protection proceedings, I would have thought the LA's team (social worker, lawyer etc) be looking after the interests of the child? So to my untrained eye, seems like doubling up of duties.

The guardian tends to go with the flow of the LA. Not always. Generally all the practitioners including the parents' solicitors tend to go with the flow.

That is one reason why very few care order applications are rejected.

Litchick,

The case was on-going for 3 years, we moved from the district judge to the hanging judge HHJ X, because the cafcass officer could not get me to agree contact with ex (proven child abuse)her and ex's solicitor decided to gang up and ask for Circuit judge and her as the guardian (quite a common practice now in private law ). I was LIP and they thought they could strong arm me, it didn't work, guardian kept pushing for s37, judge finally told her off ( another year and psych reports later ) and my daughter won her case (no direct contact).

Blueshoes that is the general idea, if the 'professionals' ie; ss, cafcass, psych all agree, which they tend too then the parents really don't have a leg to stand on and no matter how many people are inside the court the 'professionals' evidence (no matter how suspect or xeroxed) is taken as gosple while the parents are not (in most cases) even allowed expert witnesses of their own.

Hence the term 'done up like a kipper'.

Litchick - in my experience it doesn't matter how many times you explain to some people on these threads that the courts do NOT simply rubber stamp cases, they will not accept this. I am saddened at how people hold these enttrenched views and will not be moved. On another thread myself and other social workers have tried time and time again to explain how care proceedings work but explanations often bring further criticisms and condemnations from people who have no real knowledge of the way in which SSDs and the judiciary work. I have been condemnded for saying that the work is complex and I can't believe how arrogant some people are who think that they can pronouce about matters of which they have no knowledge.

As you rightly point out what a child says he/she wants is not necessarily what is best for the child. In my experience children will very often say what they think the parent wants to hear or will say they want to remain with their parents, sometimes because they are afraid to say anything other than that (possibly having been primed by the parent beforehand) or because they remain loyal to parents regardless of what has happened to them, and the unknown is very scary for anyone, let alone children. However there are so many people who see things in a very one dimensional way and simply will not accept the complexities of these matters. CAFCASS social workers seem to be coming in for an awful lot of stick on these threads but then so are social workers in general. It is very disheartening to hear how people seem to simply believe that sws are a bunch of incompetent know alls who just want to use "power" to snatch children and how the courts are simply there to "rubber stamp" sws recommendations. As you will know that is simply not the case but I am weary of trying to explain how things work - maybe you as a lawyer will get through to these posters and it is interesting to get a lawyer's perspective on here.

John Hemmings - I never ever thought I would agree with you but I DO actually agree that the adverserial system is not the best way of dealing the care proceedings. However you are talking nonsense again when you say that a GAL can get court permission not to see the child. This is NOT the case and why on earth would a Guardian not want to see the child. You also state Guardians "go with the flow" of the LA. This is absolutely NOT the case - on the contrary I think that Guardians very very often disagree with the la and they are very influential in the courts. As for parent's solicitors "going with the flow" this too is patent nonsense. Solicitors acting for parents "fight the corner" very rigourously in my experience and this is how it should be. All social workers in care proceedings know and expect that they will be cross examined at great length by the lawyers for the parents. Again WHERE is your evidence for your assertions. Now why am I asking you for this when I know it will not be forthcoming, silly me, will I never learn that you never produce evidence for your inaccurate information and misleading comments.

Blueshoes - I am SO glad that someone on here seems to genuinely want to know more about how these things work and is prepared to ask the questions rathert than make pronouncements.

Mr Hemming - with all due respect I have never in all my years of practice seen parents' solicitors 'going with the flow'. I have seen Social Workers cross examined for days, I have seen care plans torn to shreds, I have seen parents call numerous witnesses including their own experts.
Can I ask how manuy care cases you have actually, and I mean you yourself, sat in on? Or are you just relying on what others tell you?

True as parents' lawyers you don't often win but that doesn't mean they don't put up a fight. They do. Why not? They get paid the same win or lose and they enjoy the battle. It's their job.

Interesting that you complain that cases are too adversarial yet also that parents lawyers don't battle hard enough. Doh.

As for Guardian's, I don't agree that they are pro local authority. They are often very scathing in their views of good practice and the care plan - as they should be.
But and it's a big but, that doesn't mean they should therefore be automatically pro parent. If they feel a child should be removed they will say so and criticise the LA.

I get the sense that you are not really au fait with the system and are basing your views upon the tiny minority of cases where children have been remoived incorrectly.

And Nana - in my experience children invaraibly want to stay with their parents.
And I have on many occasions fought tooth nd nail for that to happen, even though I personally thought it would be a disaster.

I have argued that a teenager should retirn home where her mum had shacked up with a rapist. I have argued that a kid should return home even though his Mum said she didn't want him. Why? Because these kids deserved their say.
Was it right that the Guardian wouldn't agree? Of course it bloody was.

Blue Shoes, the LA are charged with looking out for the best interests of the child but the Guardian is there double check they have it right. The Judge is there to trebble check if you like.

I can see how the Guardian's might be perceived not to be independent but really a parents ;awyer should disabuse the parents of that. And frankly if a GAL shows any bias the parents ;awyer should stamp all over them.

Katymac, my apologies, I think NanaNina sums up how I had been feeling and when I read your comment I assumed more than perhaps you were saying. Must let that other thread go...

In relation to CAF, it really isn't a difficult process to contribute your knowledge of the child to and a a childminder your contribution is valuable. The lead professional role is a little bit more involved and I wouldn't think it likely that you would be given this job as could potentially lead to conflict with your employer. My worry is that the general anxiety in universal and some targeted services about this process is preventing any real engagement with improving outcomes for children in a co-ordinated way.

Re Guardians etc, I think this overlaps neatly with the plight of workers in LAs-we sometimes get snowed under by requests for s.7 reports, even when we have not had any subtantial or significant involvent. Luckily our Legal reps are good at weeding these out, but I know there is an attitude that if Cafcass can't deliver in time then we will. As you can imagine these sorts of reports add to the already burdensome workload.

Well I don't have employers I have clients but I know what you mean

The expectation is that we will identify families who will need/benefit from CAF's - initiate them and arrange the initial meeting where the lead professional will be appointed.

My main issue with that is who is going to pay for my time doing this - it seems time intensive for £3.50 an hour......especially as it would have to happen after hours

On the other hand the new 'childminders can now refer to services directly' has worked really well for us - we referred (with permission) to SALT - who visited the setting & actions have been put into place all with in 2 months

litchick, were you a children's lawyer and therefore fighting their corner against your own best personal judgment in the 2 examples you gave?

So in child care proceedings, the LA is supposed act in the interests of the child.

The guardian is supposed to act in the interests of the child and will vigorously oppose the LA if they thought different.

The children's lawyer will also act in the interests of the child and will/should stamp all over the guardian if the guardian showed LA bias.

And the children's lawyer will fight for what the child wants but the guardian will disagree if that is not in the best interests of the child.

Have I got it right?

Good point about clients, I knew I'd not found the right word for the relationship, but it just defeated me!

Nannina,

"Again WHERE is your evidence for your assertions. Now why am I asking you for this when I know it will not be forthcoming, silly me, will I never learn that you never produce evidence for your inaccurate information and misleading comments."

You know full well that neither Mr Hemming nor anyone else on here including you can show evidence of anything which is primarily the point of getting the courts opened up.

Jack Straw whinned when he was not allowed into the family courts to witness what the whole debate between the sides was going on about, which is why he partially opened up the courts, but he did not go far enough, as so often the case with Labour.

Nananina,

Forgot to say.

And as for your them and us attitude of trying to get anyone who sounds like they might agree with you attitude, that is exactly what happens inside the family courts.

There are stats about outcomes from the family courts. As usual the stats back up my assertions.

As far as Guardians not seeing kids ask Angela Wileman. She posts as ARW.

I accept that I see the bad side of the system. I did not have figures as to bad and good until the Bham report gave figures as bad just over 50% and good just under 10% otherwise middling (aka adequate).

I do not think Birmingham is the worst Childrens Services Authority.

atlantis has pointed out this from nananina silly me, will I never learn that you never produce evidence for your inaccurate information and misleading comments.

The word "never" in that is clearly untrue. I had until this point thought that nananina might have had some integrity, however, given that I gave chapter and verse about the SSDA903 return, clearly she does not.

I do have the evidence for my assertions and from time to time produce it depending upon legal constraints.

At times I am prevented by law from providing the evidence.

Flipping heck, John that comment about integrity is a bit rich. Bet NanaNina's never though it ok to claim lunch expenses for when she wasn't actually working...

But anyway, can we focus on the original question for once. I left the other thread to get away from this sort of crap and I was enjoying actually having a more civilised discussion. I really don't care who said what first, let's just focus, please.

wahwah, on the subject of this discussion, can you explain this statement directed at johnhemming:

"Flipping heck, John that comment about integrity is a bit rich. Bet NanaNina's never though it ok to claim lunch expenses for when she wasn't actually working..."

Focusing, are we?