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 - I am quite capable of being rational in RL so don't worry - dare I say that I don't think I would have lasted for 30 plus years as a social worker, sw manager and now ind sw if I was not capable of being rational. I think these posts done in a hurry can be very different, for me at least. As for JH it is just that I am frustrated at his consistency is posting inaccurate information and misleading stuff. As I've said before it is bad enough for families to be caught up in these court proceedings without having to hear all sorts of inaccurate info from an MP.

As for "ignoring his reply" - hmm could make the same comment to you in respect of the posts I have made in response to your queries.

Just thought I would mention that I have loooked at a thread about the young woman who was imprisoned recently for stubbing out a cigarette on her baby and several posters who are understandably outraged are calling for the child to be adopted and adamant that the mother should never see the child again. Apparently (according to the Daily Mail) the child is to be cared for by the grandparents which IME is often a very good way of securing the child's future, but some posters disagree with this and are calling for the child to be adopted. Interesting isn't it given all the views totally opposed to social services intervention and adoption on this thread.

JH - I have not the time nor the inclination to plough through all the statistics that you have provided and frankly I probably wouldn't understand them as figures are not my strong point. I think I am right in saying you are a scientist of some kind or statitician? well I am nowhere in that field so because of this I would not make comments about such matters as I would only mislead others!

As for the article about the sw - yes I can agree with every word and can well imagine her frustration. She is clearly a sw in adult services rather than childrens. I have done a alot of work for BCC SSD as an ind sw and as I have said I am in no way surprised that they have been declared "unfit for purpose" - many of us have known this for some years now, but not because of ind social workers or because thr work should be done by "experienced but unqualified" workers as you claim. In fact one of the criticims was that the work is being done by people who are insufficiently experienced and under qualified. I have posted my views on all of this so won't repeat it all.

You have made that comment just after one of mine that explains

a) What performance indicators are and how they are calculated.
b) How the SSDA903 return enables me to calculate the number of 10 year olds and under who leave care in a year to adoption.
c) That KPIs have driven judgments in LAs in England.

The really sad thing is how many lives have been damaged by the error in calculating BVPI163. This also includes the practitioners Unison released some stats recently showing that something like a third of SWs in the South East were on anti-depressants.

At least you should accept that I have provided detailed references to my assertions and hence they are well evidenced.

This is harder when it comes to individual cases because of legal issues.

However, when it comes to the statistical basis I can provide references on governmental web sites. (and have done).

I would ask nananina that you justify your slaim JH it is just that I am frustrated at his "consistency is posting inaccurate information and misleading stuff." by citing what in the post immediately before yours is either inaccurate or misleading.

You have claimed that I consistently do this. Hence it is only reasonable that I ask you to do through that specific post - which is quite short - and tell me (and the forum) what is either inaccurate or misleading.

nina, there is a difference between not understanding the statistics and evidence provided at your request on one hand, and ignoring the evidence provided because you cannot understand it but then loudly accusing the provider of making inaccurate and misleading assertions that NEVER stack up (which you have done).

It is alright to admit you don't know everything, really.

As for your saying I am ignoring your replies, I have taken what you (and other social workers) said on board at face value. I prefer not to engage you in point-by-point debate as I don't have any alternative experience to judge it against. I believe I had previously said you sounded knowledgeable and the explanations of good practice sensible, which benefits me and others on the thread.

I have some rudimentary knowledge of legal procedure and therefore find it easier to discuss litchick's point of view. Don't feel ignored if I don't address your explanations.

What I don't do is having asked you a question, the answer to which I cannot assess the accuracy of, jump up and down and accuse you of ignoring me and never answering my questions.

It would be nice if NanaNina would accept that her assertion
"As for JH it is just that I am frustrated at his consistency is posting inaccurate information and misleading stuff. "
Is clearly untrue.

I am not going to hold my breath, however. She is right that my formal academic qualifications are in Physics specialising in Atomic, Nuclear and Theoretical Physics. I came to this issue from the stats noting that they demonstrated an increase in babies taken into care as a consequence of the adoption targets.

I, therefore, looked to find the associated miscarriages of justice and have found lots of them.

This will get sorted. If not soon, then by the pressure of the wrongly adopted children when they recognise what was done to them was done because of an error in calculating a statistic. (and the failings of the system)

Every day this is allowed to continue more people suffer.

Sorry JH but I am still totally and utterly convinced that you post inaccurate information and this is misleading. You have this hypothesis that more babies are placed for adoption to meet adoption targets and I'm sorry but this is patent nonsense. You are now saying that this can be proven by the statisitics. I am quite happy to say in which areas I have no knowedge BUT I do know (as will any social worker, children's lawyer and judge) that it is is simply NOT the case that children are being removed from parents and placed for adoption to meet the adoption targets. I have tried and tried in other posts to explain why this cannot happen and to be honest I am weary now of trying to do so and knowing that it is not going to make the slightest difference to your fundamentally flawed thinking on this issue.

I do not intend to post here ALL of your misleading comments - it would take far too long, but to name a few: you demonstrated very cleary in this debate (or maybe another thread about Martin Narey's comments) that you had a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of attachment issues but this did not stop you from making all sorts of nonsensical comments about this issue. I don't know a thing about nuclear physics and wouldn't dream of even trying to understand it let alone comment on it BUT I do know a lot about attachment theory and train other social workers on this important issue and and am "brought in" by local authorities to train social workers, managers and prospective foster carers and adoptors on this issue. In collaboration with a clinical psychologist I am running a seris of training courses onthis issue this autumn for a local authority. To hear you talking nonsense about this important issue just causes me frustration.

You have also made inaccurate statements about all sorts of things related to care proceedings and what happens in the courts (the most recent one being about the parent who was "strong armed" to be represented by a certain solicitor in an application for an EPO) and which Litchick took issue with you about but of course you did not respond to her claim that your assertion did not "stack up". Other social workers onthis thread have taken issue with you as have I on many many occasions to which you have not responded. It is only social workers, lawyers and those involved with the care proeedings and related matters who will know that you post nonsense. It is interesting that your supporters appear to be (unsurprisingy) those who are angry about SSDs and courts because of their own personal experiences (of which we only hear one side of the story of course) but this does not prevent them from condemning the entire system.

Ok so you have posted some stats - so what - this does nothing, absolutely nothing to convince me that you know what you are talking about in these matters. Even if more children under 10 are adopted than returned home in a given period, so what?? Maybe just maybe these children could be being PROTECTED and given the chance of a childhood free from harm rather than being "snatched" from parents without justification and placed for adoption to "meet targets" which would of course support your hypothesis.

I have asked you again and again what is driving you in your quest to prove that children are being adopted unnecessarily to meet targets and that there are routinely gross miscarriages of justice in all aspects of SSD activity but you have failed to give any response whatsoever. Indeed I have stopped expecting any response from you so I find it ironical now that you are insisting I respond to you because you have posted some stats and know the serial numbers of a few forms. This convinces some of your supporters that you are providing evidence for your assertions but it doesn't convince meone iota, and again I think that for an MP to misleading the public so much is wholly irresponsible.

nananina "I have asked you again and again what is driving you"

I don't think you have asked me "again and again" what is driving me. However, I will answer.

I think the system is massively destructive of people's lives. Although there is good practise there is a lot of bad practise and that children and parents get their lives completely disrupted as a result.

In the mean time the country's record in terms of protecting chidlren from neglect and abuse is particularly bad (and in part concealed.)

The reason for this that the focus of the system has shifted to adoption rather than child protection.

It remains, however, that you argue that I am always misleading, but are unable to show what in the post I highlight is misleading.

JH what particular post are you talking about that you want me to highlight where you are printing inaccurate info. I suspect it is the one where you have given all the numbers of the forms and stats etc. and if so all I can say is that I am not going to plough through all those stats as I wouldn't understand them and in any event I don't know WHAT point you are trying to prove. However if you will be specific about what you want me to highlight I will do so.

You have given incredibly misleading info about how the courts operate e.g. "guardians alwats agree with socia workers" "solicitors for parents "go with the flow" "judges rubber stamp sw recommendations" - all nonsence. These are just the ones that comes tomind at the moment, there are many many more.

And why oh why do you persist in this crazy notion of yours that child protection and adoption are DIFFERENT? In a minority of cases the only way a child can be protected is by removal from the parents and placing for adoption. Do you understand anything about child development. Do you not agree that children do not have the time to sit around and wait for their parents to cope with their alcohol/drug abuse whatever. Children only have ONE childhood and what sort it is will affect them for the rest of their lives. Children deserve permanence and stability and to live in an environment in which they are loved and cared for and all their needs met.

Are you honestly trying to say that social workers, guardians, pyschologists and judges think that a child should be returned to the parents but they somehow decide to "turn a blind eye" so that the adoption targets can be met. Sadly I think that is exactly what you do think. I wonder what judges would think of an MP making these kind of allegations?

I see that the few social workers and the lawyer appear to have left the thread and I will be doing likewise very soon.

I can only think that you have arrived at your conclusions about miscarriages of justice because of what parents who have had children removed will tell you and what you read in the tabloids. I have yet to meet a parent who actually agrees that it was the right thing to do to remove their child. If they thought this there probably wouldn't have been a need to remove the child in the first place. Of course they are angry and this is understandable and they presumably turn to people like you. Do you consider all aspects of the case before you decide there has been a miscarriage of justice. I would think not.

Incidentally I have heard Martin Narey on TV tonight saying that 30 years ago there were aroubd 4,500 adoptions per year and last year there were 120. SO you should be very pleased at these figures.

Have you ever seen a child of 4 crouched behind his bed ( in a freezing cold bedroom with urine soaked bedding on dirty cots)and his baby sister of 18 months clinging to him, both rigid with fear at hearing their heroin addicted parents smashing up their flat............ no thought not. I have. I've seen many many other horrific situations in which children are suffering. You might feel differently if you saw this too.

Many posters on the thread about the young woman who stubbed cigarettes out on her toddler are calling for the child to be adopted..........SO where do you go from there. You need to think more about the needs of the CHILDREN rather than the needs of the ADULTS.

I don't really know where to start in that.

I can make the point that:
"Incidentally I have heard Martin Narey on TV tonight saying that 30 years ago there were aroubd 4,500 adoptions per year and last year there were 120. SO you should be very pleased at these figures. "

is factually not true.

Child protection is about removing children at risk from their carers.

As to the other issues. If you look at the stats you will find that the courts go with LA recommendations 90%+ of the time.

As far as the young woman who maltreated her toddler. Clearly she should not be caring for the toddler. However, I would like to find out why in England we have so much more of this behaviour than in other developed countries.

Well JH I notice that yet again you are not responding to the points I raise - so no change there. Of course you would know better than Martin Narey wouldn't you - goes without saying. Yes I think I have a vague idea about child protection after 35 years. Could it be conceivable in your mind that the courts go with LA recommendations 90% plus of the time because the recommendation is the right course of action to protect the child.

And HAVE you ever actually seen for yourself an abused child, seen the fear on their faces, felt their rigid bodies and heard their cries? Have you? Do you think you might be affected? Do you think this might make you believe in the rights of children rather than your pre-occupation with the rights of adults. Do you?

"clearly she should not be caring for the toddler" - so what would be your solution to this problem? She could well be someone who consults you over a miscarriage of justice and HOW would you react.

Oh why am I bothering to respond to you and ask questions when I know I won't get any sensible answers, just more odd unconnected comments that won't make any sense.

Enough is enough.

Message withdrawn

nananina has the approach of creating a large number of points, not responding to any of my points and then criticising me because I don't respond to all of her points. This structure does not make it easy to respond to all of the ports. Obviously children should not be maltreated and we should try to protect them. My argument is that the system is failing by often going for the wrong targets.

However, I would like to get to a resolution of some of the points.

Firstly, I continally ask nananina what is wrong in my first post on this page. She should accept that there is nothing wrong in it.

Secondly, let us look at the Martin Narey assertion.

nananina: "Incidentally I have heard Martin Narey on TV tonight saying that 30 years ago there were aroubd 4,500 adoptions per year and last year there were 120. SO you should be very pleased at these figures. "

nananina: "Of course you would know better than Martin Narey wouldn't you - goes without saying."

Serendiptously the statistics to March 2009 were released today here:
care stats 2009

In that it says:
?3,300 looked after children were adopted during the year ending 31 March 2009. This represents a 3 per cent increase from the previous year's figure of 3,200 and a 13 per cent decrease from the 2004-05 figure of 3,800.

I think I have proven on this point that I am right and Martin Narey and nananina are both wrong in that they have got the facts wrong.

This is from the official statistics (and yes it is in part the SSDA903 return).

As to dilemma's question. There are cases where we refuse to help for a number of reasons including that we believe the system is doing the right thing.

However, facts matter. They really do.

I think Martin Narey was talking about the number of children aged 1 and under who were adopted, not all children.

I would imagine that 30 years ago a lot more women and girls elected to give up babies for adoption if they had an unplanned pregnancy. Most people now either have an abortion or keep the baby themselves. The rights and wrongs of this are for another thread!

I'm not sure how comparable these two statistics are.

madsometimes is not mad this time. If that is what he said then for figures from care he is almost right. The figures (see my previous link for details) are from 2005-2009 210,200,150,110,80

So a figure of 120 is almost right. It is the right order of magnitude.