Head of the General Social Care Council sacked - catalogue of failings by the watchdog.

[EldonAve]

Social workers governing body allowed SWs to carry on working despite serious complaints

Heroin-addicted social worker struck off over cover-up of own child's abuse

To be fair this is an improvement. On a different thread I made the point that abuse by practitioners (in small numbers) still occurred.

At least some action is now being taken before the children concerned become adults - even if the body responsible was initially turning a blind eye.

I agree. Dreadful that budget constraints were placed above all else previously

quel surprise. There are systemic failings in child protection practice, causing harm by leaving children with dangerous parents and at the other end snatching children from decent families. Anyone who dares to raise this is shouted down by people who claim everything must be fine because look, social work is a regulated profession!

Yeah, right.

edam that is complete bullshit - i have pretty much stopped posting on these threads as i feel it is pointless, but i have to respond to your post.

yes the system has many faults. nobody denies that - and i am sick of reading bullshit accusations levelled at the social workers who post on this forum. we know there are problems, we work with them every single sodding day.

i have not seen ONE social worker posting on here who claims that there are not problems with the system. in fact quite the opposite - from what i have seen all the social workers posting on mn agree there are MANY problems.

well one name springs to mind but would be a bit unfair to mention her.

Anyway, what do you think about the GSCC?

ceres "there are MANY problems"

What are they? ... and
What would you propose to do about them?

Another social worker bashing thread? Oh good, I can play hate bingo and cross off all the names as they turn up to dig the knife in.

StewieGriffinsMom I am not being disingenous. I am simply asking what people think needs to be changed.

I did in 2008 have a discussion with a group of social workers organised with Rachel Bramble.

We had some commonality particularly relating to performance indicators and the ICS.

Personally I do not think a college of social work will make any difference at all, for example.

I think it is becoming obvious that the historic lack of accountability in child protection (particularly for judgment) has developed a large number of problems.

Rathwr than getting mired down in the past, don't you agree that there is a current high level of accountability for child protection work, John? From where I sit, it feels very much that way. There's a huge amount of scrutiny both internal and external, let alone from parties' legal reps. That's fine by me, although sometimes it can bog us down in responding to questioners rather that putting all our energies into moving forward.

If MPs had a mere fraction of the scrutiny we operate under then their unethical and criminal expenses claims might have never arisen...

Well said Ceres and Edam I am sure that you mean me as the sw who in YOUR opinion thinks there is nothing wrong with the system. I have never ever said that there aren't problems in SSDs and in child protection - and no social worker in the land or in their right mind would say that, as Ceres says in front line practice they work with the problems every sodding day!

I have never said or implied that there are no problems in the system because it is regulated. I suspected from the beginning that the GCSCC would not be able to perform the variety of tasks that fell within it's remit. It's like many other things that the govt set up - they are inefficient and under resourced and can't cope with the volume of work. OFSTED is a case in point.

JH wants to know what we think are the problems and what do we intend to do about it. Well here are some of the problems:

1. SSDs are under resourced in terms of social workers and financial resources.

1. Case loads are too large and unworkable

1. Newly qualified social workers are not subject to a probationary year as newly qualified teachers are and are given complex cases that they are too inexperienced to handle.

1. There are 30% plus vacany rates in some of the SSD especially in the inner cities. This produces added stress on the ones that remain.

1. There is of necessity an over reliance on agency workers because of staff vacancies and staff sickness (because of depression/anxiety/stress)and thus no continuity in the handling of cases

1. The computerised system is totally onerous and sws spend something like 70% of their time in front of a computer, and the system does nothing to protect children.

1. Because of 6 above social workers don't have sufficient time to spend with the families they are trying to support and with children who need protection.

1. Social workers are leaving the profession in sginificant numbers because of the way they are treated in the media and by a feeling of low morale. They know that they can't do right for doing wrong. In Edam's so WISE words (oh I hate to resort to sarcasm but that is all her views are worth in my view) "They are either leaving children with dangerous parents or snatching children from decent families."

1. This sadly is a view shared by many who know absolutely nothing of the way the system works and this quite rightly angers social workers who know this is patent nonsense and work tirelessly every day to support and protect children.

10. The problems that involve CP social workers are becoming more and more difficult and complex with increased drink and drug abuse, domestic violence, mental health problems, financial problems, parents too young and immature to parent, parents too badly damaged by their own childhood experiences to parent.

I could go on.

What are we going to do about it. Well how about JH and Edam tell us because they are so wise about the system and how it works, so I'm sure they will have some answers for us.

I share your analysis, Nananina and your frustration.

Thanks Wahwah - like you and Ceres i don't really know why we are bothering because it is a waste of our time and energy. It is clear that some people have far more invested in believing their own warped notions about child protection and social workers in general. I cannot believe the arrogance of these people. I applaud your determination to try to explain what really happens and in such a measured tone. I'm afraid I don't have your level of patience but my "ranty" posts are borne out of a sense of anger and frustration with some posters on here.

I'm not sure why I bother actually, feels a bit like the same impulse that has us slowing down at an accident on the other side of the motorway...Not sure how measured I am either.

In a weird way I am a bit grateful to them as well, because I have got another role off the front line (a great job) and my misguided sense of loyalty to my colleagues and the service could have prevented me from going for it, but some of the bile on Mumsnet about social workers just made me want to get as far away from the possibility of being involved in something awful as possible. I'd never really felt the sword hanging over my head before, but with Ofsted inspections and everything else, you know you're going to get fucked over because an IA wasn't authorised for ages...

Not giving too much power to the ranters on here, mind, I had been toying with the idea for a bit and was just finding the job harder and harder. The sad thing is this lot will never get how awful it is to remove children, even from parents who have bashed their baby's skull in and it doesn't get any easier the more you do it. They think we're snatching babies for 'forced adoptions' to meet 'adoption targets'. Fuckwits is a word.

One of the challenges is that the system is in such a state (and the country such a financial mess) that what one would do to bring things to a stable state is not necessarily the final position.

Firstly the job needs to be a doable job and vacancies need to be fillable.

Because we don't have a mass of additional funding what needs to happen is that the thresholds need to be refined to target the really serious cases.

Additionally people who have the experience need to be allowed to be employed rather than requiring more complex qualifications.

Also the Integrated Childrens System needs focussing on judgment issues rather than performance indicators. That may go as far as scrapping it. There is, however, a need for some system for case management.

The current direction from DCSF is likely to lead to more burnout.

Message withdrawn

Of course it may be that there is particular stress on the SW profession, making it more likely that problems will go unnoticed.

At the same time, I don't see that the facts in the articles quoted are much more shocking than recent scandals in, say, the medical profession. Surely one heroin abusing SW doesn't say more about the profession than one Harold Shipman? Or one teacher with serious problems?

There have certainly been ghastly scandals in the medical profession- in fact, they happen every year, but somehow people don't seem to lump doctors or nurses together in the same way. What is it about SWs that means that they all get tarred with the same brush when doctors or teachers don't?

The underlying issue is one of accountability. For many years the profession has been basically unaccountable. The family division really don't hold the practitioners to account properly and confidentiality has been allowed to prevent accountability.

With the sacking of the GSCC this situation is turning around, but slowly.

Really good supportive posts Dilemma and Cory. And yes Cory I share your feelings about why it is that scandals in the medical profession, teaching and police service go largely without comment, but as soon as there is a scandal about social workers the world and his wife are there on it, pillorying all social workers and rubbishing the entire system, aided and abbeting by the tabloid press.

There is currently a scandal about the state of NHS hospitals but I am sure the vast majority of people (quite rightly) won't take the view that this means that all doctors and nurses are incompetent halfwits who are not capable of doing their job.

The profession has NEVER been unaccountable - as JH asserts. All social workers as with other professionals have line managers to whom they are accountable and there is an established management structure with disciplinary procedures in place for dealing with poor practice/misconduct. Social workers are also held to account (quite rightly) in the court process in a way that most other professionals aren't. They are also accountable to the Social Services Committes and I would have thought JH as a politiciam would have understood this, but I am trying very hard not to get drawn into his warped thinking and blinkered view of the system that he is intent on denigrating at every twist and turn.

Message withdrawn

Why do you think dilemma that MPs should be made the exception to strict rules about confidentiality in child care matters and court proceedings. They are ordinary mortals and should not be treated as anything other. Birth parents are entitled to legal representation (quite rightly) and these lawyers obviously have access to all the court papers and mount strenuous efforts to defend their clients in court, which is how it should be.

Why do people think that the facts surrounding the innocent child at the centre of care proceedings should be made public for all and sundry to see. How would you feel about facts about YOU being made public for anyone to see and comment upon. If you've heard from JH that people are threatened with contempt of court for attempting to share their files with those they think can help then it is probably nonsense, like most of what he says. The people who can help birth parents are their lawyers and they as I have said obviously hace access to all the documentation.

MPs don't have any right to intervene in care proceedings...........WHY should they have this right? Do you know how the system works in reality or are you just guessing?

Because MPs are our democratic representatives and we should be able to turn to them if we need help dealing with officialdom. That's a basic tenet of democracy and it's shocking that the family courts have been flouting it. Correspondence with MPs is confidential and usually privileged, but the family courts seem to think the rules don't apply to them. I cannot see how it is legal or reasonable to bar parents from consulting their MP in confidence about their own child.

I think the power to remove a child from their family and sever all legal and family relationships is one of the most draconian legal sanctions that exists - far worse for most people than even prison. Sadly it is necessary in many cases every year.

But if it is to operate properly with safeguards to limit the chances of miscarriages of justice, and put them right when they do inevitably occur (because no system run by human beings will ever be perfect) then people need redress and they need their democratic right as citizens to consult their MP in confidence.

There is nothing preventing parents consulting their MP. JH claims to have significant numbers of cases of parents who feel that they are being unfairly treated by the SSD and he claims to have 70plus volunteers who help families where there is an alleged "miscarriage of justice" IF parents can't consult their MP how does he explain the work that he does in supporting these parents?

Hang on, if you are arguing that parents may consult their MPs, why are you complaining about MPs being able to access information?

And actually, parents have been told in the past that they may not contact their MPs or instruct a new solicitor on pain of being sent to prison for contempt of court. Don't know if practice has changed, would be very glad to hear it has.

One woman's medical records were sealed (she was accused of MSbP because she had an illness that was hard to diagnose - the infamous Roy 'I just invent the numbers' Meadows was the 'expert' witness). Bit of a problem as she did actually have an illness and lack of notes meant diagnosis was even more delayed. Poor woman is in a wheelchair now. But social workers still gave her 17yo dd a 'letter for life' detailing the original allegations even though by then it was proven that the mother was genuinely ill.