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.

I have always said there is good practise and bad practise.

I am also careful to avoid advertising that we can help people as we do not wish to have our volunteer network overwhelmed.

I had no idea as to the proportion of good vs bad practise until the Birmingham Scrutiny Report.

What is being said in Birmingham (by others not me) is that the practitioners are bad at making judgments as to when intervention is needed. The fact that the family court for all intents and purposes and notwithstanding the massive costs - essentially rubber stamps the applications of the LA for a care order - means that this is not picked up and the wrong children are in care (not all of the decisions are wrong, but a much higher proportion than 2%.)

Most importantly the children wrongly put in care are often damaged as a result.

We also have a particularly bad record as a nation in terms of preventing deaths from abuse and neglect - which is not all about care proceedings in any event.

I visited a surestart childrens centre in my constituency yesterday where we talked in detail about the interrelationships between aspects of the system. They said in their experience 75% of family problems arise substantially from housing problems. This is an issue about preventing problems by ensuring that they don't happen in the first instance rather than responding to them.

Blueshoes - I can see that unlike others on this post you are really making great efforts to understand the system and are asking questions and requesting clarification on the issues under discussion and I think that is very laudable. Oh god please don't think I am being patronising I just couldn't think of the right word. Last night I spent a long time asking Qs and seeking clarification to further my understanding of aspects of the NHS with my dil who is a nurse and was very stressed about the way in which the NHS is under funded etc. I think Litchick is giving very good explanations and raising excellent points and the fact that she is a lawyer and not a sw will I think be helpful as I suspect people don't have the same negative feelings about lawyers as they do about sws.

You say you want sws to get it right - yes that is what would happen in an ideal world but in my view you are expecting the impossible. No one in any sphere of life can be 100% "right" all of the time and never make an error of judgement or a mistake. This is just not part of the human condition. You must be aware that mistakea are made inall professions and all walks of life and social work is no exception. Yes the consequences of errors of judgement are far worse where human life is concerned and is especially emotive where children are concerned. My son and dils best friends are recently bereaved parents. Their 5 year old daughter was suffering headaches and sickness repeatedly and was being discharged fromhospital with paracetomol and it was suggested she was suffering fromstress. a Junior Reg refused on 2 occasions to undertake a brain scan on the child. The little girl was finally scanned when her symptoms worsened and was found to have a brain tumour and died a short time later. Now how horrendous is that and yes we all feel angry at what happened and as you can imagine the parents are totally devastated BUT this was a serious error of judgement and cases like this will always happen. My sister's breast lump was misdiagnosed as being "fatty tissue" when in fact it was malignant and she died earlier this year - another error of judgement. I think it has to be accepted that such errors/mistakes will always be made and unfortunately we only hear about the minority of mistakes rather than the thousands of cases where people are restored to health or inthe case of SSDS where children are appropriately protected or where parents are helped to improve their parenting, and believe me that is what happens in my experience in the vast majority of cases.

I agree with Litchick that there is too much emphasis on removal of children and in fact it is more of a problem that intervention doesn't happen soon enough because of lack of resources. Even where there is intervention,there is sometimes a tendency to close cases too early rather than keep them open to ensure that all really is well and that the child is safe at home.

Re the miscarriages of justice cases that JH refers to - PLEASE don't think I am saying that mistakes aren't made but I think the least likely place for them to be made is in relation to care proceedings in the courts because there are SO many checks and balances and several professionals involved and numerous reports and atthe end of it all a Judge makes the decision. However when parents have had a child removed they are going to be angry - that is perfectly understandable and are in some cases going to seek to change the decision and that again is how it should be. However as Litchick says many of these parents will not face up to the reality of what has happened and will continue to argue that SSD have got it "wrong" and their children have been removed without good cause. I am amazed at how some of these parents can delude themselves and distort the facts to an unbelievable degree. To give just one example (and I have many) one case in which I was involved concerned a mother and her boyfriend who were actually keeping the children at certain times during the day(under 5s) in a pen outside in the garden and throwing food at them as you would to animals. A neighbour witnessed the mother dragging the 10 month old around the kitchen by her hair and the mother later admitted this was true, but said the baby was "being a prat" - one of the children told the sw that the mother's boyfriend was hitting him with his trainer and the marks were there to prove it. All of the children were under nourished and the family were in chaos. Now the mother did have a mild learning disability and struggled with caring for 3 under 5s and this of course would test the parenting of many people. However all kinds of support was put into that family and for a time there were improvements but something happened to one of the children which I won't post on here (too awful) and the decision was made that the only way to protect these children was to remove them. Later that same mother and boyfriend told one of the foster carers that the only reason the children were taken from her was because she gave them too many sweets and didn't take them to the dentist!! Now I'm afraid that is not an isolated example of parents deluding themselves and trying to delude others about the reasons that their children are removed. I think that this is the only way that some parents in these situations can live with themselves and I canunderstand that, but far too many people are only hearing one side of these cases and making judgements without being in possession of the facts.

JH has his own particular axe to grind and he does I think start from the premise that sws are "child snatchers" and the courts "rubber stamp" sws recommendations and then tries to make the facts fit his hypothesis. Atlantis says he has been in the family courts - sorry he is not allowed in and even being an MP does not give him access. I am not surprised he has been evicted from a family proceedings court.

Atlantis says he has been in the family courts - sorry he is not allowed in and even being an MP does not give him access. I am not surprised he has been evicted from a family proceedings court.

You are coming across as busybodyish again. Of course he knows he's not allowed in.

Just because something is 'not allowed', doesn't mean that campaigners against something have to say 'oh damn, we're not allowed to do that, never mind, let's go home'.

I have attended family hearings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Anyone can attend the Court of Appeal and now Supreme Court.

I have acted as Mackenzie Friend in such cases and attended as a visitor.

My caseworker has attended cases in the County Court even when there is a solicitor.

I tend not to attend court and the Justice for Families volunteers do this.

The example where I was thrown out was one where a mother was being bullied into accepting an Emergency Protection Order. As her advisor I was suggesting that she opposed it as the threshold was not met and it was not warranted. The court, however, waited until a solicitor could be found and forced upon her through bullying and then the solicitor conceded the case on her behalf.

"but far too many people are only hearing one side of these cases and making judgements without being in possession of the facts".

Dont you think nina that JH is in possession of the facts. Just like the mothers and fathers that have had their kids taken from them and not all are abusing them. Why would they go to the lengths they do to get them back and ask for help from JH mmmm.

So you are still dimissing folks again.

Open your eyes please and see what we are trying to say we want change and reform. We want an end of some SW thinking that they are gods. We need more good SW in every area and I mean every area.

Not to bash SW as you seem to think we are doing. Just a better set up for the one thing we are ment to hold dear the children.

Mr Hemming - you say a lawyer was forced upon this parent. How? No-ne can stop anyone being a litigant in person.No judge can force you to take legal help. You just say...no thanks.

Then you say the lawyer conceded on her behalf. Again how? As a lawyer you can only do what your client instructs.
If you give advice that they won't accept then you withdraw and a client can sack you at any time if they are not happy.
Why did this parent not just say, actually I don't concede?

Sorry, but your assertions just don't stack up. It sounds like someone has not told you the full facts.

Litchick - JH's assertions NEVER stack up and it's pretty pointless trying to debate things with him in my experience as he talks nonsense.

Tell you what DollyPs why don't you train as a social worker (there is a huge shortage so you shouldn't have any trouble getting on a course) and then you can tell us all how it should be done.

Litchick - but it does happen. In one case I read about, the court decided the parent was too thick to understand what was going on and refused to allow their own solicitor to act for them. Despite that solicitor presenting evidence - expert reports - that the parent was indeed capable of instructing a solicitor, the court disagreed, took away her own lawyer and imposed a court-approved solicitor on her. Oddly enough, the court-imposed solicitor just folded and agreed to everything the authorities wanted. Who'd have thought it?

It's all very well to say 'just stand up to them' but often parents just don't know the procedures and systems - why would you, if you aren't a lawyer or social worker? They are by definition under enormous stress, often vulnerable and it would be jolly hard for even the strongest-minded and best-connected person to stand their ground in those circumstances.

and how the hell would anyone know they can be a litigant in person in the first place? People don't know the concept exists and certainly don't understand the phraseology. It's like expecting patients who are facing a frightening diagnosis to know exactly how the NHS works and what their rights are.

I was LIP and had one judge who was as rude as sin, he didn't like the fact I didn't have a solicitor who would make 'deals' on my behalf and because I wouldn't bend over backwards and agree to anything without proper process he used to continually threaten me with contempt of court and didn't like it when I told him to go ahead and I would like the COC hearing in open court.

A lot of parents can't stand up to bullying that comes from all sides in these cases, sw's, cafcas, solicitors, barristers and judges.

And yes, I have heard of parents being deemed to thick to represent themselves, to thick to not understand the court process and being given a useless court appointed solicitor who mostly works for the la so they are only too happy to not put up a fight.

Deals being done in side rooms where the parents are being told 'if you agree to this you get that' when it's just a load of rubbish, once they agree they have lost.

I've McK for parents who's only 'crime' is putting there trust in the system.

And Nananina, us McK friends (though I don't belong to JFF) are allowed into court and are allowed to review all paperwork.

Does anyone else think it's interesting that we've moved on from discussion of concerns about a failing service and thinking about the problems and potential solutions, to parents' experience of courts?

It is a real concern for us all and I don't wish to underplay it, but this was discussed a great deal on the other thread. Perhaps the discussion will be more fruitful here and I'm delighted to see Litchick joining in, but is this really the sole issue arising from the report?

I guess my concern is that we shall have more of the same if we're not careful and as someone who is grimy from being at the coalface all week, struggling with similar issues to those identified in the report, it would be nice to have a positive debate about this. I'd love to know how people outside the LA want us to prioritise our work and what they feel is important to them in service provision and when things are tough, what gets cut?

nina: "Litchick - JH's assertions NEVER stack up and it's pretty pointless trying to debate things with him in my experience as he talks nonsense."

By using the word 'NEVER', it is clear your mind is utterly closed to johnhemming. Which is supported by the fact that when john tries to reply with evidence, you blithely ignore it.

I am cutting and pasting this reply from john in the other Barnadoes thread:

"nananina "For instance a recent assertion of his says "most children under 10 are adopted rather than returned home." You simply cannot make a statement like this unless you have Obtained figures from specific local authorities for a specified period about how many children under 10 entered the care system, how many were reunited with their birth family, how many were placed in the care of relatives, how many in short term or long term foster care and how many adopted. "

All local authorities submit an annual SSDA903 return to now DCSF. This is an electronic return of changes in care status. I worked out how the data was collated and therefore was able to make specific requests to find out this information. (the year is the financial year that ends in March).

Anyone who would like copies of the spreadsheets (prepared by DCSF) can email me at [email protected] and will send them copies.

The point is that when the government calculated BVPI163 or PAF C23 they used as the denominator the number of children in care (over 6 months) rather than the number of children that went into care.

Hence they have pressed practitioners to adopt more children from care than was their intent.

Madness. I have initiated a judicial review (pre action protocol) of Ed Balls about this."

Hopefully, you will now reconsider your injudicious use of the word 'NEVER'.

Wahwah,

Firstly I think the reason these debates always end up with 'personnal' references is because a ceratin (cough, cough)poster is always attacking people telling them things 'don't' or 'can't' happen, or poster 'don't know what they are talking about' when quite obviously, they do.

Secondly what should be the first things to get 'cut' when times are tough, this was a point I was trying to make at the start (which is also why we ended up on the court issue) Unless their is a CP issue cafcass should not be requesting of the court that s7 reports are done on children to strong arm mothers inside the courts, I have lost court of the number of mothers who have said to me that cafcass have requested a s7, the sw turns up and says " why am I here?".

This is not only time wasting for sw's who have high case loads but is another reason for parents to fear sw intervention ( a threat by cafcass that ss will remove the child).

So that's the first thing that should be cut.

Thanks Nina thought about it but I have went into psychology and you sound so jaded and pissed off with whatever is said because we are in your thinking attacking your profession.

wahwah I would cut out the automatic DV referrals and only have referrals if a child is thought to be at risk.

Agree! Actually, JH I think the DV reports should be risk assessed to the Brnardo's model, so that it only comes to the attention of SS if Level 3 or 4. prior to that other supportve agencies should be notified so that they can assist with support, info and advice at a much earlier stage.
This is starting to happen already, but may take a bit of time to become fully embedded. In my area they seem to be much stronger about arresting he violent partner.

S.7s - agree, too many being passed to the LA.

For me, embedding CAf would make a huge difference too.

wahwah and JH agreeing! (This is probably A Good Thing am just astonished at the progress being made on this thread.)

Tis surely the End of Days...

I think what is positive is that we are all passionate about improving how we work with children and their families. We may not always agree or think we even have a clue, but if we're not spouting nonsense or slagging each other off, then we can do business!

I would like to know what you mean by embedding CAF. I am looking at proposals with one of my local surestarts and would be interested in what you mean by this.

Message withdrawn

My experience, however, is that families have formal support without a CAF in place.

Some families get referred to Childrens Services and are then given a CAF.

Given that Homestart and Surestart have both now said to me that most problems start with difficulties in housing (Homestart said 50% and Surestart 755) I wonder if this is making any progress.

Message withdrawn

Blueshoes - sorry but I don't think the post of JHs that you cut and pasted demonstrates any kind of evidence whatsoever and I have already made reference to it in an earlier post. Yes he ay be able to give the serial number of the forms/returns to which he is referring but if you can decipher what he means you are far more intelligent that I am!

Maybe you can explain to me what he means by "they used the denominator the number of children in care (over 6 months) rather than the children who went into care" ???

His assertion "Hence they have pressed practitioners to adopt more children from care than was their intent.........madness"

What on earth does this mean? Maybe you can eexplain? for what it's worth no practitioner can be "pressed" to get a chid adopted if this is what he is getting at. BUT I am weary of trying to explain. I thought BS that you genuinely wanted explanations and have taken a lot of time to try to answer your posts which you have disregarded and chosen to pick me up on pointing out that JH's assertions never stack up and that is still my belief.

II realise that this is not furthering the debate but when called upon to reconsider my position I feel that this is what I must do and give reasons as to why I maintain my original position.

Thank you, nina. If you felt as a practitioner that you did not understand JH's response, then say so in a rational manner. Responding directly to JH's attempt to provide evidence furthers the debate. Ignoring his reply and just blindly attacking JH all the time in the most sweeping manner does not.

I hope you don't use that sweeping language in the family courts. You would not come out well at all in cross-examination which you must be used to.

This is all about key performance indicators BVPI 163 aka PAF C23.

Here is something about it
www.performance.doh.gov.uk/pssratings/faq.htm

this is something about the SSDA903 return

Here is an article with a social worker complaining about KPIs