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.

Blueshoes - that's pretty much it.
LA are supposed to act in best intersts of child and come up with evidence of significant harm and a care plan.

Guardian supposed to act inn best interests of child and reviews all the evidence and the plan.

The Children's lawyer doesn't make a judgement call whether instructed by Guardian or directly by child. They simply put forward their client's case.

And yes, when I have repped kids directly I have put forward a case I did not think was in theor best interest. I did that because I ardently believe children must have a voiuce and because I have faith in the not perfect system.

blueshoes it does really sum up the arguments of those to defend the indefensible.

The system chews people up. It chews up chidlren, it chews up birth parents, it chews up a lot of adoptive parents, it also chews up practitioners.

I accept there is an argument about MPs expenses. I did to be fair claim a lot for food in one year, but anyone who has seen me will confirm that I ate the food. (aka who ate all the pies).

Litchick, why is there a need for the guardian to review the LA's evidence and plan? Isn't that the purview of the court?

I am sorry to keep bashing away at this point. But seeing that there is a serious bottleneck of cases due to a shortage of guardians (who being ex-social workers are also diverting vital social worker resource away from badly stretched LAs), why is there a need for guardians.

Plus there are independent social workers which I understand are appointed by the court. Quadruple check? I am perplexed.

Since the children's lawyer is their voice, which is as it should be, that is another reason to do away with guardians.

It almost sounds as if no one expects the LA to do a good job or the court to understand the issues, and so the need for all this overlapping of duties and double-checking of evidence and reports. It is almost a parody of an adversarial system.

I can see that to some it might seem the adversaral process of a case is unhelpful.
But what you have to bear in mind is that this comes at the end of the road.
The talking, negotiating, supporting, everyone working together has often been done to death.
When the LA finally issue proceedings there is nothing left but two opposing sides - the LA weho want an order and the parents who don't.

To be honest, I personally feel after so many years working with children and now fostering, that the LA ought to take action sooner in many cases. The idea of supporting birth families has been tried with poor outcomes. Ask Baby Peter and Victoria Climbie if I'm right.

Litchick, it sounds like an adversarial system gone potty, even if it the end of the road.

If we do away with the failing CAFCASS and their guardians but retain children's lawyers, the money saved and social workers it frees up could go some way to providing the desperate funding and resources LAs need to do a good job (decent training and caseload for social workers etc).

The bottlenecks due to lack of guardians would also go away and replaced by Voice and similar type voluntary organisations with truly independent voices for children, in addition or (for Gillick competent children) instead of children's lawyers.

Plus, which is the most important issue of all, there would be funds to improve the foster care system.

I don't disagree in cases like Baby P and Victoria Climbie that they should have been removed earlier. But for cases that are less egregious, I can see that theoretically some families are not fit for purpose. But I am not sure if it would actually be better for a child to enter a chaotic care system and be split from their siblings, if the care system remains as it is.

Clearly, more research needs to be done. I do admire that you foster, BTW.

Mr Hemming I can see your point but the Judges simply don't have time to visit children, parents, other relatives, foster parents etc. Attend expert meetings, case conferences etc.
And frankly, I'm not convinced they'd be good at it.

I think that Guardian's are vital to the process in that they start from a middle ground. They know social work so they know what should be happening on the ground. They can be very exacting.

I'm going to be very frank.Whilst the LA are supposed to put children firt they often have other constraints upon them. Not least time and money.
Parents in these cases are often the most marginalised - drug addicts, alcholics, violent offenders etc, and cannot always be relied upon tp put the children first.

The Guardian is there to ensure that happens whilst the case is being conducted.
I do think we have to look at ways to make care proceedings quicker but I don't think ridding ourselves of Guardians is it.

Litchick, from your description, I can see the vital role that guardians play.

But just to play devil's advocate. If LAs are constrained by time and money, why not just give them CAFCASS' budget to train and equip their social workers to do what they should be doing in the first place?

Or does the target-orientated culture in an LA actually militate against children's interests, hence the need to hive the duty off into a seemingly independent body like CAFCASS.

It seems to be like paying for 2 social workers to do the job of one though, and double-check each other whilst at it.

I think the solution is to strengthen a tier below the County Court, but not the FPC and bring in some independence (not an independent chair, but more like a jury).

Sorry, but I would keep out the lawyers at this stage, but have some form of advocate other than a lawyer.

It would be an extended FGC, case conference which would look for solutions and in the case of contention come to conclusions.

This could be appealed to an adversarial system.

Also, at the end of the day, I am reading from this thread that families don't tend to win. So despite all the checks and balances from guardians, the LA still tend to get what they apply for from the courts in spite of the circus.

Atlantis - you say that JH cannot produce evidence and neither can anyone else. I accept this but in the absence of evidence it is highly irresponsible to be making assertions which cannot be backed up with evidence. I am very aware that JH cannot possibly know what happens in care proceedings in courts and whether Guardians agree with local authorities as he asserts and that all lawyers "go with the flow" - as Litchick has said, this is simply not the case and he has no right in my view to be making these false and misleading statements.
Litchick says she gets the feeling that JH is not "au fait" with the system and for those of us that are it is absolutely clear that he is not. It seems to me that all his assertions are based on anecdotes, the aggrieved parents who consult him and what he reads in the press. Talking of aggrieved parents he tells us about Angela

JH - in a previous post (and possibly on another thread) you claimed that you had "given facts and figures" to support your assertion about more under 10s being adopted than being returned home. You didn't give any facts or figures just some garbled post about how the figures were collated from returns and how you disagreed with this and were initiating a judicial review. Given your ability to get most things "round your neck" I suspect this was the case in relation to these returns.

Re your comment "there are stats about outcomes from the family courts. As usual the stats back up my assertions" - would you care to explain exactly what stats you are talking about and HOW precisely they back up your assertions..........

Blueshoes - you mention that the la tend to get what they apply for in the courts - maybe just maybe this is because the Judge agrees with the la that the making of a Care Order is the only way in which a child/ren can be protected. Have you considered this as a possibility and I'm sorry but I disagree that care proceedings are conducted in a "circus" - a huge amount of time and thought goes into all care proceedings and as Chitlick says this is the "end of the road" after everything else has been tried and failed and the only way left to protect children is to remove them from their parents. I really wonder why people who are so concerned about parent's rights are seemingly not concerned about children's rights who are being subjected to serious neglect and or abuse.

I have asked the question several times and never got a response so I will try again. How do those on these posts who are so concerned with parent's rights and so convinced that they are treated harshly and unfairly by SSDs and the courts, reconcile the fact that there is such an outcry when there is a child tragedy. I strongly suspect that some of these posters will be the ones who will be shouting from the roof tops when there is a child tragedy. You can't have it both ways. Can anyone offer any thoughts on this fundamental issue in relation to child protection.

There is an incomplete sentence in the above post about Angela Wilkeman who JH refers to and tells us what he "post name" is - hope she doesn't mind him giving this info out.

Nananina,

"Atlantis - you say that JH cannot produce evidence and neither can anyone else. I accept this but in the absence of evidence it is highly irresponsible to be making assertions which cannot be backed up with evidence. I am very aware that JH cannot possibly know what happens in care proceedings in courts and whether Guardians agree with local authorities as he asserts and that all lawyers "go with the flow" - as Litchick has said, this is simply not the case and he has no right in my view to be making these false and misleading statements.

How unlike you to twist someones words nananina, oh wait, silly me you seem to make a past time of doing just that.

He can not produce the evidence from the court proceedings as that would be contempt of court, not because he has not been inside the courts during proceedings, not because he has not seen documentation, I'm sure Mr Hemming will answer for himself in due course but do not twist my words to try to make someone look stupid.

I am sure in his position he has been able to procure many facts and statistics and spoken to a wealth of 'professionals' from all sides in the courts, including families that have been caught up in the scandals that have rocked the country in the last few years.

You on the other hand have a polarised version of how the ss and family courts operate from your side of the fence, it would be logical to assume therefore that if anyone were lacking in knowledge and was biased with their opinion it would be you.

There is no 'ARW' poster on mumsnet. John Hemming may have got things confused in this respect.

Its AWR Someguy you just spelt it wrong she is on the other thread about barnados head wanting to take babies.

JH is an MP right so he might have access to files we cant unlike the SW or could it be he has inside information because of the work he does for the families. You know personal experience of them if you like.

See personal experience will crop up all the time on any given thread regardless what the subject is about and to be dismissed by the people you expect to help isnt help us or them now is it.

I think the Social Workers on this thread should open their eyes to the real world for once and not say things like how would you know that or this and dismiss them out of hand.

There is one SW that is twisting words why I havent a clue but wont be open with us here or on the other thread. She/He seems to have their own agenda.

SW and their departments are failing the people they are ment to be helping the children. It isnt just one department is it. Its across the board.

These threads will get heated and arguments do break out but isnt that the way of it even if we were round a table discussing this. Would it be different I wonder cos I think not some want change and will welcome it but others dont and have the rose tinted glasses on. Or so up their own arses they cant see the mistakes that are being made or chose not to.

Oh and these are my opinions on this.

I was just copying what John wrote.

Anyway, Nananina has a bit of a habit of making posts along the lines of "hope she doesn't mind him giving this info out.", a habit I find rather patronising TBH.

Clearly from this original thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk?topicid=in_the_news&threadid=670551-Domestic-Abuse-and-Care-Proceedings-the-AWR -case-another-mum she doesn't mind.

I admit sometimes making typing errors. I have offered a copy of the government statistics on adoptions from care which demonstrate the figures I have given.

I have been in the Family Court. I have also been thrown out of the Family Court (Strictly security were called to remove me from the FPC in Birmingham).

With Justice for Families we now have 753 cases (figures from yesterday) where people have approached us for help.

nina: "How do those on these posts who are so concerned with parent's rights and so convinced that they are treated harshly and unfairly by SSDs and the courts, reconcile the fact that there is such an outcry when there is a child tragedy. I strongly suspect that some of these posters will be the ones who will be shouting from the roof tops when there is a child tragedy. You can't have it both ways. Can anyone offer any thoughts on this fundamental issue in relation to child protection."

I am concerned about BOTH parents' rights and children's rights and the complex way in which they hang together or apart.

I want social workers and all parties in child protection agencies to get it right as far as is possible without so many instances of bad practice, even if you think it is inevitable that there will always be Baby Ps.

And I want this to be done in a way that:

(1) more effectively supportive of families in the first instance and

(2) less wasteful of resources in the last resort of courts.

I was trying to open a discussion about why there is a need at the final adversarial stage for double, triple and quadruple checks by the guardian, courts and independent social workers in the family courts to ensure that the interests of the child who is being upheld.

I have no quarrel with the goal, which is to uphold children's interests. But it seems to me to be an expensive way of covering for the inadequacies of the LA's work, money and resources which could better diverted resources in get (1) and (2) right in the first place.

What do I know, after all I am an outsider. I suppose there are vested interests in the system that keeps a lot of people busy, so no one really wants to seriously discuss this. Oh well, perhaps I shouldn't even be speaking as part of the unenlightened public.

in england there are around 60000 children in the care system at any one time, 30% (18000) voluntarily accommodated and 63% (37800) on care orders.

so 753 cases is just under 2% of the number of children on care orders. obviously some families will have more than one child in care and this figure does not account for families where the child has been adopted or released for adoption - if this were taken into account then the figure would be lower still.

i should point out that maths is not my srong point - hopefully i have calculated the percentages correctly!

the figures are taken from the following link
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchilsch/111/11106.htm

johnhemming - i do not question that mistakes are sometimes made - and of course people should be helped and supported where they believe their children have been wrongly removed. but i think we do need to have some perspective. mass generalisations about social workers are being made and i really can't see much evidence for it. yes, soemtimes we get it wrong - but even if all the 753 cases you speak of have had children wrongfully removed (which i think even you will agree is doubtful) then that is a tiny percentage when considered in the context of children in the care system. to use these 'miscarriages of justice' (as yet unproven) as evidence that social workers are evil child snatchers is misleading.

Blueshoes - I accept entirely the point that something needs to change in the system.
Cases need to come to court much quicker and be dealt with quicker.

However as I have said, I don't think getting rid of GALs is the way forward.

Without them we would be left with the polarised opposites of parents v LA. And if I were a parent I would want to double check of the GAL. I would want someone to visit my children and make sure they were okay. I would want someone other than ss to have the foster carers number to check on the kids.
From a parents' pov I think they are essential.

Ditto the child. I do think they are entitled to have someone outside LA constatntly reviewing their case. Judges don't deal with cases day to day in that way.

As for families who claim to have had their children removed unfairly...well in a justice system there will be a minority of failures.
But one must always remember that the overwhelming majority of parents whose children are removed will never, ever admit to failing their children.
I have known cases where there was systematic abuse over several years with forensic evidence and evidence from the child, yet the Mother faught all the way. When she lost she appealed. And told her MP. He got in touch with me as the child's lawyer, wanting to help this Mother. She had told him that she was innocent, that the gal and I had never visited the child, that we lied, that we were in cahoots with the LA.
What can you do? He had a job to do.
But it didn't mean there had been a miscarraige of justice.

Ceres, I'd wager that 753 cases is just the tip of the iceberg. The most vulnerable families would not know how to access justice and are the forgotton voices. Also, I don't know when Families for Justice was set up whereas these children could have been in care for much longer. And Families for Justice too would have limits on resources in terms of cases they can take up.

2% or thereabouts might seem a small figure. But 753 cases of potential miscarriage of justice is in any context a travesty.

There is a legal aphorism that it is better for 10 guilty men go free than to convict an innocent man. There must be zero tolerance for miscarriages of justice. It seems a pity that the same abhorrence for injustice that applies in wrongfully depriving a person of his/her liberty does not apply when wrongfully depriving a child of his/her parents or parents of their right to love and protect their children.

As far as I can see, johnhemming is (now) more careful to qualify that he is not referring to ALL social workers and there is good practice and bad practice. But somehow, social workers on this thread variously like to brand him (and others) guilty of sweeping generalisations and avoid the main issue which is how to improve the system to root out the 2%, 20% or 0.2% of cases where children have been wrongly removed.

And some even think it appropriate to drag his name through the dirt as well and cast aspersions.

Far more constructive is to stop bleating about oh, how all social workers are being unfairly tarred and questioning people's motives for posting stories about injustices. Instead, focus on asking why the system is imperfect and how to improve it.

blueshoes - kindly read back over my post. in fact please read back over all my posts - i am not trying to cast aspersions on anyone. i do not believe that i have posted anything insulting about anyone. i have agreed with johnhemming that families who feel they have been treated injustly should have access to help and support. all i have done is asked that we try and have a little perspective and balance.

i do focus on trying to improve the system. i do it every day.

and i can assure you i most certainly do not bleat.

I agree with you to some extent BS.
I am no apologist for SS. When they make mistakes I am the first to point it out.

However, if my years of representing children and fostering have taught me anything it is that they do not take enough action.
I don't believe they pursue lots of cases where actually the children are fine. Mostly, through lack of resources and also due to the policy of family support, I think they do the opposite. If there is any chance a family can cope they leave well alone.

Let's not forget that in cases like Birmingham and Haringuay, the LAs are being criticised for doing too little.
They are being told in no uncertain terms that they need to be more careful, review more carefully and intervene more pro actively.

I wish in many ways everyone would stop focussing on the process of removing children. It is flawed, yes, but frankly the much greater scandal is how children in care are treted and how their outcomes are the worst in society.
This is the real story.
And the answer cannot simply be - oh well, don't remove them. These children deserve something far less simplisitic than that.

ceres, if you say you didn't cast aspersions, then you didn't. The first part of my post was addressed to you. The later part refer to social workers on this thread variously. Perhaps I should have been more specific in naming and shaming ...

Litchick, it makes sense about the greater likelihood being LAs doing too little (Baby Ps, Victoria Climbies) rather than too much and the scandal of the failing care system. I presume you are doing your bit by representing children and fostering, which I take my hat off to you.

Due to some of the experiences described, the focus has been on the process of removing children and improving it. Whereas the main concern IMO is how to ensure that social workers get it right for the child, whether it is to remove or support the family. And to ensure that if removal is required, that children actually have a reasonable chance to thrive in the care system, rather than the devil and the deep blue sea.

Is it just a question of funding and resources, or are there structural obstacles, culture or entrenched attitudes within child protection which prevent the child from being the focus of efforts.