Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

'snatched' by social workers

384 replies

DuelingFanjo · 02/12/2009 23:40

oh ffs

I know it's the Daily Mail but Social workers don't snatch children!

She looks good for 48 mind!

OP posts:
pofacedandproud · 05/12/2009 18:25

I've read the link Spero. But don't know why you're copying and pasting it. It does seem a bit incendiary. I mean no one is going to copy and paste the two links, once about the inadequacies of the GSCC and one where a list of misconducts by individual SWs is detailed.

JH may have made errors. He may also make some good points. It would be good if the debate were not so polarised but this seems increasingly impossible to achieve.

ImSoNotTelling · 05/12/2009 18:31

i don't understand why we've all got to go on about john hemmings all the time (sorry john) and what is this guff about his "supporters". John is only one person on this thread, he has strong views, there is a person with very strong views on the "other side" as well. The rest of us are somehwhere in the middle trying to work out what is going on.

Why does it keep having to come back to one person? And just because that one person says something that others disagree with, why the assumption is that the rest of us will just blindly accept whatever we are told? The "oh my god he's an MP so everyone will believe everything he says, we must stop this" stuff is nonsense, since when did people accept whetever MPs tell them without any question?

I would have thought that most on MN would realise that the vast majority on here like to know their own minds.

SolidGoldpiginablanket · 05/12/2009 18:36

John Hemmings isn't the only MP who raises questions about the behaviour of some social workers. Tim Yeo has something to say as well.

pofacedandproud · 05/12/2009 18:49

they are both 'unhinged' according to NN SGpig.

johnhemming · 05/12/2009 19:18

spero my viewpoint is simple. The evidence was provided and ignored. The issue is being taken further.

The complication is that I cannot have a judicial review of obiter dicta in a court of appeal judgment. Hence it has to first go through the complaints procedure. The OJC said that obiter dicta was not in their jurisdiction. That has been taken to the Judicial Ombudsman where it has been stuck for quite a few months.

cory · 05/12/2009 19:50

staggerlee Sat 05-Dec-09 10:58:06
"You have to remember Cory that the social workers in this thread are only human and that the posters attacking them are not their clients.

If someone was attacking your profession unfairly and making sweeping generalisations then that might make you angry. Lets not forget that nn has also contributed a lot to these discussions."

But NanaNina did attack another profession (journalists) and make sweeping generalisations about it, despite the fact that the posters attacking her were not journalists. She has not retracted this and seems to think it a perfectly unexceptional thing to say that journalists are unreliable and don't care about the truth. She was not lashing out against her attackers, but just seemed to find it natural to speak disparagingly of other professions.

As it so happens, staggerlee, I am probably influenced partly by my own profession which is that of an academic. We are taught from the start that we are always accountable and that we should always expect to be criticised in public. Not just as a profession, but in person. As one of my lectureres put it "you should feel that somebody is walking behind you ready to check up on everything you do". My PhD viva took place in public (as they all did at my university), which meant that any personal enemy I might have had/any rival/any friend could turn up and see me be torn to pieces if I'd got things wrong in the thesis (and I have known such vivas to turn very nasty). In order to keep my job I have to publish. Anything I publish will be reviewed, usually by colleagues who can further their own careers by finding fault with my work- and those reviews are available to anyone who walks into a library. You don't find academics complaining of this; it is generally recognised that peer review is a necessary quality control. Peer reviews are not necessarily very gentle affairs.

Our funding is dependent on student feedback- and without funding I won't have a job. Which means that if I cannot make my students believe that I have their best interests at heart, I will be out of a job very quickly. Naturally, students are sometimes inclined to blame lecturers for their own failings. I have to work with that and show my bosses that I take any criticism on board, as I am not allowed to ignore it.

I am also only human, but I cannot imagine responding to criticism of my work (let alone that of my colleagues or of my profession in general) with personal attacks. That would just be unprofessional.

Of course I appreciate that a SWs job is harder than mine. Probably much much harder. But so is a policeman's, and a health visitor's and a doctor's- and possibly even a journalist's . Surely doctors have to make really shitty decisions? As do policemen? Even HVs from time to time? And they certainly get criticised on MN from time to time. But noone tries to stop that. Why are HVs and journalists fair game and not SWs?

DollyPS · 05/12/2009 19:58

"I have enjoyed excellent relationships over 30 years with "all" with whom I have come into contact in my profession and have always, always treated service users with respect."

I had to highlight this for you "Nananina". What of the parents in all of this or even the ones you are meant to be helping the children. Service users means others in authority doesnt it or am I missing the point here.

Spero · 05/12/2009 20:16

JH - you provided absolutely no evidence. That is the issue.

this debate is becoming polarised to my mind. Perhaps I am wrong, or oversensitive or whatever, but it does seem that there is a definite flavour to these threads; I or someone else experienced in the field gives our view, is told we are 'smug' 'bullying' then some arrant nonsense about social workers is trotted out.

My point is simple. JH describes the child protection system as 'evil'. he gives, as an example, that someone has told him their child was taken into care because a social worker was called 'fat'. This is precisely the rubbish that is printed in newspapers. Far too many people are ready to believe it and when an MP repeats it, the situation is made worse.

I have not ever said, nor ever will, that social workers don't make mistakes, or misjudge or act in a stupid way. I've met many in court who have got my back right up against the wall, so god knows how my clients must have felt.

But DO NOT call an entire system 'evil' unless you are prepared to back this up with something rather more substantial than JH seems to find.

And all you free thinkers on mumsnet who don't just follow what JH says, why not take up my invitation to come to court and find out what really happens? Its still on offer.

Spero · 05/12/2009 20:19

BTW JH don't obfuscate with talking about 'obiter dicta'. I am not saying that Wall LJ was giving judgement on you that is binding in all other courts.

he made a judgment on you about your behaviour in front of him, behaviour which he thought was appalling and destroyed your credibility as self appointed critic of the family justice system.

Do you accept any of his comments or do you stand by your actions in this case as appropriate and honourable?

pofacedandproud · 05/12/2009 20:21

But Spero I believe you completely when you say what happens in court in your cases. I believe completely that most of the time SWs are protecting children in very difficult circumstances. But is it not also equally possible that there are some bad ones out there - just as there are some bad people in the police force thought the vast majority of police women and men are good people - and that those people can abuse their positions?

Spero · 05/12/2009 20:27

Yes pofaced. I do agree. In any profession, in any walk of life there are good people, bad people, indifferent people. some social workers make wrong decisions.

but where i part company very abruptly with JH and others is when they seem to argue that the ENTIRE system is simply 'evil' and that I will 'roll over' in the face of manifest injustice because all i care about is getting my mortgage paid.

this diverts attention from the real issues; that bad decisions are being made more often due to enormous pressure of overwork and lack of resources. Look at Lisa Arthurworrey in the Victoria Climbie case. If her case load had been half of what it was i bet she could have intervened effectively.

Senior social work practitioners are leaving and not coming back. no one wants to train as a social worker any more. Can you blame them? StarlightMcKenzie opined earlier that social workers make a negative net contribution to society. Sadly, in only a few years i suspect she will have the chance to test that hypothesis as i don't think there will be any social workers left given the unfair villification of their profession.

I do think it is really concerning that an MP can spout such rubbish and it should perhaps concern his consituents that within five minutes of these threads starting he is up and posting. Suggests rather an obessive mindset.

Grandhighpoohba · 05/12/2009 20:29

DollyPS, Service users is the current term for clients in Social Work. So it means the children, and the parents.

Spero · 05/12/2009 20:30

I was heartened by an earlier thread on precisely these lines because a number of people said they had found it instructive and felt they had learned something...

not so sure I am heartened anymore. But it is still better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

I'd better give it a few weeks until the next one however, to give my blood pressure a chance to go back down.

johnhemming · 05/12/2009 20:34

spero I have the transcript of the hearing, not just the judgment of that case.

I provided evidence for both allegations.

Hence I do not agree that I provided "no evidence".

The words in the judgment were "obiter dicta" in that they were not specifically about the case. Hence they cannot be appealed.

They were not subject to judicial review so I have taken through the complaints process. I have been told that the complaints process has no jurisdiction so I have taken them to the judicial ombudsman.

They are currently stuck there.

Spero · 05/12/2009 20:37

Please do post the transcript. i'd love to read it.

Again, you evade the issue. I'm not interested in whether you think what Wall LJ said can be appealed or complained about.

do you think he had a wee bit of a point?

do you think I maybe have a scintilla of sense to make about the dangers of you dismissing an entire system as 'evil' on apparently no evidence whatsoever?

(and note to self, do i really think I am ever going to acheive anything, reminding myself that you cannot reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into...)

Spero · 05/12/2009 20:42

Adios thread, see you next month no doubt for more of the same.

johnhemming · 05/12/2009 21:50

spero do you think he had a wee bit of a point?

No. (here is part of the transcript of the hearing relating to the falsified letter)

The point about the falsified letter is that it neither had a received stamp nor did it have a sensible date. It also had a different address format (I had an expert witness case in the 1980s on a matter like that).

(SUBMISSION BY MR HEMMING)
MR HEMMING: If it is acceptable, I would like to respond to this. I have come under
a whip for over an hour now, but I do not want to take that long, to be honest.
May I point your Lordships to page 226 in bundle A? That is the letter from the Official Solicitor. There is a stamp saying it was received on 12 December. It was sent by the document exchange and was dated 11 December. In fact, the vast majority of documents purported to be received by John Rosney(?) & Co have a stamp on them indicating that they were received. Document 230, which was purported to be written by the Official Solicitor on 11 December 2006, has no stamp. Document 232, also purported to be written on 11 December, has no stamp.
Moving to file note 243, this purports to be a file note indicating that RP was sent a copy of the letter from the Official Solicitor. That file note is dated 11 December. The letter written by the Official Solicitor was dated 11 December. I am not aware of the document exchange being that fast. It is impressive for the solicitor to move so quickly that on the day something was posted to him, it was purported to have been sent to the client.
It is also interesting to note document 243 and compare it to almost any other file note within the file. If you take out document 243 and compare it to any of the other file notes, the structure of the file note is very distinctive. It does not have ?file note? with an underline. It has the fee earner down as a reference because within the firm the fee earner is JM (obviously the initials of the solicitor dealing with the case). If we look at file note 244, for instance, there is a standard format for file notes at this particular firm of solicitors. That standard format is used for all the file notes generally, apart from file note 243, which purports to be a file note.
I would therefore submit to the court that there is some doubt about the provenance of some of the documents in these files. I have only seen these files today. To some extent, I would wish to go through them and identify what other documents I would argue have some questions over them. That is quite an important point.
A MEMBER OF THE BENCH: I do believe in calling a spade a spade in this court.
MR HEMMING: It is fraud.
A MEMBER OF THE BENCH: Do you think this is a put-up?
MR HEMMING: I think this is a put-up job. I have some experience in looking for and in finding fraud.
A MEMBER OF THE BENCH: Has the solicitor deliberately falsified the file?
MR HEMMING: No. Somebody has put this document, file note 243, and some other associated documents in the file in retrospect. That is what I am alleging.

dittany · 05/12/2009 22:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

justaboutisfatandtired · 06/12/2009 07:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Oblomov · 06/12/2009 08:03

Well, I totally agree with Spero's post of underlying problem being underfunding. And I do worry, that as , I think it was actually NanaN said, if we are not careful, with no new sw's coming into the profession, the whole system could disintergrate, and then where will we be - what will Mp's do then ?

mahwah, I didn't feel the need to take NN or Spero up on the offer, of finding out about the system. I have read NN post before of what goes on. And it just compounded what I thought.

Saying that, mistakes, do happen. In every profession.

I might have to re-read all my posts and hope that I haven't made generalising sweeping comments about sw'ers. I don't think I have .

I am a bit saddened to see the development of this thread. Wondering how we could have stopped it from transpiring this way.

For the record, and I do think I have always maintained this, I do know that sw'ers do good work. I also know that mistakes happen and that there is severe underfunding. Come on, how namby-pamby a comment is that. How can anyone disagree with that ?

justaboutisfatandtired · 06/12/2009 08:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

blueshoes · 06/12/2009 08:52

Whilst there is underfunding, throwing money at the problem per se is not necessarily the solution, if there are wider issues that need to be addressed, such as whether there is a culture or prevailing philosophy prevents intervention in the way that is the most beneficial way for the family and/or child.

For example, the foster care system is widely recognised to have very poor outcomes. Is foster care the only solution? What about at home support or residential units for families. Or if removal is the only option, residential homes or therapeutic units for groups of children which can provide more stability and structure for children, than a foster care system.

I would not want money to be poured into foster care without also investigation of why foster care is so poor, how it can be improved (is it just money??) and what the alternatives are, which could complement foster care.

ImSoNotTelling · 06/12/2009 08:55

Got to agree with you blueshoes. The outcomes of children who end up "in the system" are generally terribly poor, and that is a scandal in itself.

Grandhighpoohba · 06/12/2009 09:42

Hi, I have lurked (mostly) through this thread, and have followed it with interest. I have experience of working within Children and Families Social Work, although in Scotland, where the system seems to be somewhat different, in that the decision to remove a child from parents is not made by the Court but by a panel of three independant volunteers.

I think that some interesting points have been made, and that unfortunately some Social Workers have been less that professional in expressing their views. OK, so its an internet forum, not the work enviroment, but if you identify yourself as a Social Worker, you have a duty to uphold the values of the profession. This is enshrined in the codes of conduct which we sign up to (in Scotland at least, I assume the same is true in England and Wales)

However, there are a couple of points I would like to make.

I think that part of the reason that things got so heated here is that JH's description of a Social Worker as evil for removing children because she was called fat is so completely unbelievable to anyone working in the field. Not because all Social Workers are perfect (because they are not, not by a long shot) or because we cannot accept that there are bad practitioners out there (there are, far too many of them) but because when you work in C+F, being called fat is a good day. In the course of the average day of work, SWs are called far worse on a regular basis, face threats of physical violence and on occasion are actually assaulted. This is part of the job and you learn in the first week to brush it off. If you took a child into care on that basis, then you would never stop. It's completely rediculous. It is understandable however, that a frightened and desperate mother would contact JH and tell him this, as she is unlikely to be able to admit to the real reasons why her children are being removed (I make no judgement as to whether they are fair or not). I am not, by the way, arguing that children are never removed who should not be, it does happen, just that this particular example is mad, and the fact that JH not only accepts it without question and then describes the worker as evil calls his credability into question for those who work in the system. Which is a shame, as the system undoubtably needs outside scrutiny.

As for why SWs on this thread became defensive, try and picture yourself in a job where, as mentioned before, your safety is a threat. You are not highly paid, but are expected to work very late whenever required, in highly stressful situations. You have enough paperwork to constitute a full time job in its own right, but you must fit this in with the actual time needed to spend with families, but the paperwork must get done, on time. Your work is underfunded, so that you cannot actually do even a fraction of the work that you can see needs done. You are dealing with the most heartbreaking situations, day in day out, and there is rarely a happy ending. If you make a mistake, or even just fail to accurately predict the future, a vulnerable child could die or be abused, and this will be on your conscience forever. And as recent events have shown, the media may chase you, you may recieve death threats from the public. Despite spending quite a long time qualifying for your job, and working hard, you find you have to lie to new aquaintances or risk their judgement, as the profession is hated so much. Your team has 40% less staff than they need as a minimum, but no one applies for new posts, as the image the job has is so poor. But the job needs done, so you do that extra 40%. But there is no relief on the horizon. And then you come online, and there is yet another "child snatcher" thread, in which nothing but critisism is dealt out. So, yes, you might become a bit defensive. No excuse for the insults though.

Yes there are bad workers, yes mistakes are made, but the vast majority of work done by SW is never publicised, never seen, and is in the best interests of the children. For every baby P, there are hundreds of children whose lives are saved who you will never hear about. The bad workers should be weeded out, but while such a persecutary attitute towards SW continues, there is no one coming forward to replace them. As NN says, the system will completely disolve without workers, and children will be left at risk.

Sorry for the long post, and the spelling.

johnhemming · 06/12/2009 09:43

However, the outcomes in Denmark are not as bad and the costs are cheaper. Hence I would argue it is not a money thing, but a question as to what is done.