'snatched' by social workers

[DuelingFanjo]

oh ffs

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

She looks good for 48 mind!

grandhigh, I accept all that. But I think you'll find everyone or almost everyone has been careful to say of course most social workers are doing their best in a very tough job.

Btw, is your name a dig at Mandelson? If so, well done that woman!

Yes, Edam, but the problem is that the good work done is never praised, not by our management, not by the media. The problem is, its a horrible job. Theres no escaping it. Morale will never be high, and the media doesn't help. I do appreciate that most on here aren't accusing all social workers. But JH jumping to the conclusion that a SW is evil on the basis of one phone call says something about his attitude to the profession.

Unfortunately name not a clever dig, have been using it for 9 months, although I wish it was.

Funding is a major problem. Clearly not the only problem. There are many of those.

It's not just one phone call though, clearly JH has been contacted by many families who have been traumatised by contact with SS. They may be a very small proportion of the whole population who have to do with SS but it's not fair to say he's jumping to conclusions from one phone call.

Your point about SWs not being supported by management is really the key issue, and certainly one that can be tackled. And no surprise to me - chief execs in local authorities should be doing everything they can to tackle recruitment problems, not ignoring them.

Grand, praise for a job well done, or lack of praise, is a inherent problem.
A credit controller sits near me, she never gets an ounce of praise for the 2billion she gets in. but lots of criticism is she only gets 2.45 million when the forecast says 2.5
Thats life, I'm afraid.
But the stories have exposed severe problems. in the system.
which counties have been shown to be under par. pretty sure that surrey, where I live was one of them.
Doesn't enspire confidence. How long will it take to repair all this damge, who knows !!

sorry million, not billion. that would be nice !!

Yes Edam, I'm not suggesting that JH is always wrong, or that he shouldn't be doing what he is doing, the one phone call I'm refering to is the example he gave about the SW being called fat, which calls his judgement into question. Actually, I think its a good thing that someone pursues cases where the family feel things have been done wrong, because sometimes, things are wrong. My concern with JH is, because he has come accross poor practice, he seems to assume that all cases where parents are not happy are poor practice, and that the blame automatically falls to the "evil" social worker. This doesn't make him appear particularly objective. And I would want any outside scruitiny to be objective.

IME, nearly all parents whose children are removed believe it to be unfair, and are very angry, even when it is clear that the children are neglected and/or abused. Its human nature. Doesn't mean the SW was wrong to remove them.

Oblomov, I know lot of people don't get praise for good work, but for most, the consequences for getting it wrong are not so high. A credit controller is unlikely to encounter death threats, physical assault and a media witch hunt. Social Workers often have to make fast descisions in dangerous situations, with incomplete information, with a child's life at stake, and will be critisized no matter what they do. And management will not back them up because that would make them accountable for the decsision.

sorry million, not billion. that would be nice !!

of course, I was not caomparing a cc to a sw.
But re your point re dangerous situations, difficult decisions, I am sorry I don't think thats refelctive of what happens.
Not to my knowledge. Limited as it is. I do know quite alot. My mum was social worker. My step dad is, and was in charge of his dept, adoptions.
I know that occassionally decisions need to be made. But not that many in life threatning situtations. More are made in a reasoned , sensible, way having examined the evidence.

You make it sound like its touch and go, your life is in danger and you need to make a decision. I can't accept that that is a large % of the decsions made.
Many decisisons are made, quietly in the office, after considerable thought, examination of the evidence, etc etc, sitting down in reviews, team reviews etc etc.
You make it sound so dramatic, life threatening. I am sure you didn't mean to do that.

I have said before that some of the cases referred to me are cases where state intervention is required.

Oblomov, you are right, I'm not meaning to make it sound so dramatic! Yes most desisions to remove children are taken in a calmer, planned way, in meetings, but when that happens, it is not the social worker who is making the descision, its the Panel in Scotland, and I presume the Court in England and Wales.

My experiences were with a duty team that dealt with emergency cases rather than the long term interventions, and IME, the only time a Social Worker would be removing a child on their own authority is on a late night emergency duty call, which in my experience could get fairly out of hand.

The death threats I'm mostly refering to are the ones recieved by SWs after certain tabloids went on a witch hunt. It doesn't do much for morale when you see that happen. You do get them as Social Worker from clients, but you tend to brush them off.

Oh, and its not that our life is at stake, its sometimes that of the child for whom we are responsible, if not facing death, then in a very dodgy situation indeed, which could lead to harm. Or in a situation which you can't tell whether it is dodgy or not.

grandhighpooba "My experiences were with a duty team that dealt with emergency cases rather than the long term interventions, and IME, the only time a Social Worker would be removing a child on their own authority is on a late night emergency duty call, which in my experience could get fairly out of hand."

But we have been told by everyone else that Social Workers do not have the authority to remove a child. How did this happen then?

NN said she did the same thing in the example she gave of her experiences on the other thread - that she took the children away to foster parents the night she visited the family - I am not saying that was the wrong decision I'm just saying it obviously happens then.

I see your point, John. We still didn't technically have that authority, so if parents absolutely refused, and the child was in serious risk, the police would be called to deal with the situation. Often, the police would be the ones to insist that a child could not remain in the home, if for instance an assault charge had been made against the parent. But - we would have to then defend our decision the next day in front of Court to make an emergency place of safety warrent, and then backed up by the Children's Panel. So the decision has to be justifiable. Its not ideal, but if you receive a call in the middle of the night, you cannot wait until the morning when the panel or Courts are available.

Unfortunately, sometimes I saw workers use the "if you don't agree, we will use our powers to remove the children" routine, which I agree is bad practice. However, and I'm not saying I agree with this, some workers would feel this was the quickest and therefore least traumatic way to resolve the issue for the children. And ultimately, the worker has to work in the interest of the child, not the parent, and those interests do not always correspond. I am talking here however about emergency situations, where a child is viewed to be at immediate risk - not a situation where workers threaten families into complience as part of planned work.

My experience is in Scotland, and is a few years ago, so may not be entirely up to date.

I find it very interesting that none of sw bashing posters on here who want to defend JH have made not one single comment about the content of the Judge Wall LJ's judgement about JH (posted by Spero on P.8) and his "outrageous" allegations that could not be evidenced. Oh hang on I think there was one comment asking Spero why she had given the link to this judgement AND copied and pasted it.............says it all really, if that's the only comment that can be made after such a damning judgement from a Judge about JH.

Is there no end now to JH and others trying to trip up social workers who talk about "removing children." OK I'll try once more to explain how and in what circumstances a child can be removed in an emergency (or otherwise)

1. NO child can be removed by a social worker without the consent of the parents to that removal. FACT.

1. Where there is serious concern about the safety of a child, social workers in these circumstances have a duty to ascertain whether there is a friend or member of the extended family who could care for the child on a temporary basis while further investigations/assessments aremade. Parents are often more willing to give consent to removal if the child can go to their mother, aunt etc. Any member of the extended family has to be checked out to ensure their willingness and suitability to care for the child.

1. If there is serious concern about the welfare of the children and the parents are refusing to allow removal,(be that to a relative or a foster carer outside of the family) then there are 2 options available:

a. The police can remove a child without the consent of the parents under a PPO (Police Protection Order) which lasts for 72 hours. Thereafter a decision has to be made about whether the children can be removed or whether the matter has to be presented to the court.

b. The social worker can apply to the Magistrates Court for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) and yes this can be done during unsociable hours and magistrates will make themselves available. However since the Children Act came into force it is not good practice for Magistrates to make ex party Orders(that means without the parents being present) but in extremis it can be done (usually when the parents won't attend the Magistrates hearing) Social workers have to provide evidence to the Magistrate about the exact nature of the concerns and why it is felt that the only course of action is to remove the child and the Mag.makes the decision as to whether or not to grant the Order. If the Order is not made the child CANNOT be removed.

1. All cases of removal of children whether by virtue of consent, PPO or EPO have to be case conferenced and decisions made about the next step. Sometimes it is possible for the children to be returned and support offered to the family to ensure the safety of the children and this is monitored over a period of time.

1. If it is deemed unsafe for the children to return home then the matter has to be presented to the Court - evidence has to be provided etc etc - the parents are represented and the court makes a decision based on the evidence put before it. This application is for an Interim Care Order. If the ICO is granted by the court, then further comprehensive assessments are made of the parents, children etc by a range of professionals.

I won't go on because I have posted all of this before and explained what happens right up to the final hearing when a decision is made about the child'sfuture. Interestingly there was ONE single comment about my post giving details of every step that had to be taken before a child could be permanently removed from his parents, and that was NOT a comment about the content of my post, it was a comment something like "have you never heard of summarising"! If we summarise as Grandhigh has, there are people waiting to trip us up as has happened in this case and cast doubt upon the validity of what we say.

Quite why JH is pretending not to know exactly how and in what circumstances children can be removed, given his obsession with the topic, I cannot say.

Po - in the example I gave, the mother in the end gave her consent to the removal of the children. IF she had not, and as the police were present, and given the nature of their concerns about the welfare of the children, they would have removed the children on a PPO.

BUT why am I bothering with all this because people just WANT to believe in this ridiculous notion of "child snatching" peddled by JH.

I have a question - a serious one. WHY do people want so much to believe that sws want to "snatch" children - most social workers would rather walk over broken glass. It is a very stressful thing to have to do and also creates an enormous amount of work on top of the usual caseload. It is so much more the case that sws are more likely to try to convince themselves that things are improving in the family and want to continue tto assess/monitor/support than take the step of removing a child. This is exactly what happened in the Baby Peter case and WHAT happened when this monitoring/supporting plan proved to be fundamentally flawed with dreqdful consequences- yes of course the cry went up "Why wasn't something done. So damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Now I know someone is going to tell me about cases in the past MSBP/Cleveland/Orkneys etc OK YES these things happened and shouldn't have done. Harold Shipman murdered dozens of his patients but this doesn't mean that GPs are still routinely enagaged in this activity.

You've just contradicted yourself there, NN. Your number one clearly isn't a 'FACT' as 3a and 3b demonstrate. And I am sure you are aware of the case - IIRC in Nottingham - where SWs removed a baby from the maternity unit without bothering to get a court order. We only know about that one because the judge who eventually heard the case chose to make his judgment public. There may well be others - must be otherwise the SWs involved would not have acted in that way in the first place.

And the point is Shipman isn't still working as a GP. The Rochdale SWs are still in business, as are the senior staff involved in the appalling case of poor Victoria Climbie. And then there's Lord Laming who refused to investigate paedophile activity in Islington care homes when he was the local inspector but is now the government's pet expert brought in to rule on failures in SW departments...

Do you not think these are all valid reasons for concern?

Edam, in fairness, NN did not cotradict herself. In 3a and 3b, the police and the magistrate hold the power to remove the child, not the social worker.

No one is saying there are no concerns about bad practice either, of course SWs are concerned. And yes, these things need investigation.

Are people on this thread really saying that no one should have the power to remove a child from serious risk, in the middle of the night, because the parents object? Because sometimes thats what it sounds like, but I assume its not the case?

Yes sometimes Social Workers overrule the choices of parents, and take them to Court. Because sometimes parents physically, sexually, or emotionally abuse their children, willfully allow others to do so, or refuse to take any steps to protect their own children.

NanaNina, why do you continue to make personal attacks on John Hemming?

Even the GSCC admits that it needs to get its own house in order before public confidence will be restored.

Starlight, every decision gets made on the basis of the information known at the time, and as NN points out, not by one worker in isolation. I don't work in mental health, but I'm fairly sure that in the example given, more than one professional needs to be in agreement for compulsory mental health treatment, and there is a strict criteria to be met before it can be done. I don't think, although I may be wrong, that a Social Worker is making that choice in an emergency, I think it needs to be a qualified medical professional. And yes, the sexual harassment would be taken into account, as would her views, but can I think be overruled if she is in immediate severe risk.

Although I do not always agree with NN, it is true that a SW who puts a child into emergency care, or planned care, takes a lot of flack from management. It costs a huge amount of money to do so, and if there were no good cause, management would be down on them like a ton of bricks. Management are very good at spotting money spent when it does not need to be.

Edam - as Grandhigh has pointed out - I did not contradict myself. The fact that you are unable to follow and understand the logical sequence of events that I posted is not something for which I can be held responsible.

Yes I am aware of the case where the baby was removed from the mother without her consent or a court order. I think actually it may have been a member of NHS staff who actually took the decision to move the baby to another ward (not out of the hospital) but whoever did it was acting unlawfully. I would have thought people woul dhave been re-assured that this unlawful action was quickly picked up and acted upon.

And how do yu know Edam that the Rochdale sws are still working - you can't possibly know this - it was so long ago that I would have thought some of them are retired or moved on to other jobs. I am not about to defen Lord Laming nor the abuse that went on in residential homes in previous decades. All appalling and thanks god things have changed.

Grandhigh - I think sadly that is what some people are saying here - that action should not be taken to protect children. Many are so obsessed with this crazy notion of "child snatching" from innocent parents that they are simply not prepared to alter their mindset. I have tried and failed to explain what really happens but people have so much more invested in believeing the "snatching" theory, it is pointless. And of course none of these people understand what it is like to deal with abused/neglected/traumatised children, nor have they seen the way in which sadly many parents are simply unable to offer children a safe and caring home. It honestly is quite pointless trying to fathom it.

Love nmydog - have you read the judgement about JH's outrageous behaviour -no thought not. I continue to challenge JH because he peddles the view that social workers are "evil child snatchers" who want to snatch children from decent parents and the courts just rubber stamp their decisions. This is not the case and for someone in public life like an MP to peddle such distorted nonsense is wholly irresponsible.

The GCSC is another matter and yes social workers have been found to have been practising when they clearly should not have been. This happens in all professions/occupations - why should social work be any diffferent.

JH's outrageous and untrue claims that he can never evidence and the GSCS are 2 separate issues.

Well anyone read the judgement yet and want to comment?

NN, I read your post. I commented that I had.
I KNOW that sw'ers do not 'snatch children'. I don't think I have ever said they did.
I was having a discussion with Grand, re decsiions being made, not snatching.
And I'm not with anyone. JH or otherwise. And not trying to 'trip' anyone up.