Mother 'not clever enough to raise child' has baby snatched by social workers

[Heated]

story
What do we think?

Callisto, why direct your post to nananina when there are a number of other posters who are equally as critical?

And please re read your post before accusing others of personal attacks.

jh has consistently side stepped any reasonable questions asked by others. This pattern isn't limited to this thread. My view is that if you make the extraordinary claims that jh does then its not unreasonable for others to question these.

And not unreasonable to expect a reply from jh.

X posted with you eldritch but think you made a very good point.

As one of jh's usual opponents I react angrily to what I consider to be unsubstantiated and damaging statements about the 'system' or 'social workers'-of course its a cul de sac argument that stifles debate.

jh can you expand on your thoughts that there needs to be a move away from managing process towards managing judgement?

Very brief, very general.
Seriously, let's go into it in detail. You seem to have been involved in many cases so you must have had an opportunity to analyse how the system works. What would be your top 10 bullet points for change (and I don't mean to be dismissive, but I am not really helped by slightly 'jargon-y' things like "we need to move away from managing process and towards managing judgment.")

I'd be interested to hear what posters like wahwah and NanaNina and any other participants (willing or unwilling)would have as their top 10 points for change as well.

Don't worry Calisto I won't ask for your post to be deleted - I have never done so yet and see no reason to do so now. i actually think your post says far more about you than it does about me and it matters not one jot to me what you think about me. You make gross assumptions about what I think and what I expect of others, all of which are totally without foundation. If my posts annoy you so much why don't you stop reading them. I haven't actually come across JH in RL but you believe whatever you like.

Thanks to people who are supporting me.

Eldritch - I do take your point and you are right to say that the thread has degenerated into a the usual dispute between JH and his opponents. You are also right to say that the polarisation of views detracts from the
original debate. I will try very hard to stop responding to JH's posts for this reason.

The trouble is I don't think JH is capable of partaking in a reasonable debate because he holds such hard and fast views and is only really interested in anything that supports his view. Yes he mentions Denmark but without any detail. However as you say I think their the social policies in the Scandinavian countries are very different to ours - I think they are far more "welfare oriented" than here and therefore to make comparisons is not comparing "like with like" but it would still be interesting to hear how they deal with child protection issues.

Thank you for highlighting how annoying this polarisation of views is - maybe this will further the debate in a more constructive way.

The priority of management is the performance indicators. Those are all about things such as how quickly decisions are made and assessments made rather than whether the decisions are right.

The end result (IMO) is that the wrong decisions are often taken and there are all sorts of problems.

Leningrad, re the bf on demand, there was a htread th eother day re ss referal re bf twins.
Frightening thta the GP even suggested a ss referal.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/breast_and_bottle_feeding/898789-HELP-Health-Visitor-will-call-SS-if-I-don-39

NanaNina, no I have not come accross JH before, I am getting the idea. A shame as I was starting to bthink Lib Dems maybe deserve a chance, I shall now scrap that line of political enquiry.

To the poster who said about the fear at having SS involvement: I have twice had them involved in my family. Both times they were supportive, helpful people. Yes, it can be a bit scary, but if people start getting it into their heads that social workers are supposed to help rather than hinder, and let them help, perhaps some of these cases would not turn out this way.

JH quote: "The priority of management is the performance indicators".

Loving the side stepping politician caricature here!!! It would almost be funny if it weren't for the fact people are waiting for an actual answer.

Top 10 points (off top of head and without too dramatic a reorganisation as we really do have the best CP arrangements in the world)

1. Only allow front line CP work to be undertaken by the most experienced and able Social Workers. Give them small caseloads and regular supervision. Regular training and examination of practice and secondments after 3 years to ensure they do not burn out.

1. All communities and professionals to take responsibility for helping vulnerable children and challenging poor parenting, yet offer support to parents. An understanding that not all children can be kept safe all of the time and losing the blame culture.

1. Preserve confidentiality of children first and foremost, but open up the courts so that it can be seen how complex the work is and what checks and balances are in place. It would also prevent the axegrinders spouting crap, yet expose any poor practice.

1. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, this government has embarked on a transformative social agenda and I can see the difference it has made. This needs to continue and the tories need to stay out of power!

1. Performance indicators need to measure actual performance (I agree with JH partially) but the timescales make good sense and if the work was resourced would remain a good guide. So inspections to be more useful.

1. Politicians to back up their assertions or shut up.

will think on and add more when up to it, bit tired now.

Your first 5 points make good sense, wahwah. Point 6 seems somewhat unrealistic.

JH quote: "The priority of management is the performance indicators".

oh yes, when I am faced with a baby with broken limbs and a fractured skull, that's my first thought. My second is how can I have this baby forcibly adopted away from its innocent parents...I'm sure the director feels the same way too.

Cheers, Cory. I live in hope and believe people really can change! Actually, I really do! Must really go now, am knackered.

Manatee, I think people don't want ss or anyone involved in their lives, if they don't think they need help.
Children need help if thye asre being neglected or abused.
But if th eparent thinks that neither of those apply, they don't want ss involved.
I think you are unrealistic in expecting people to welcome ss involvement.

Wahwah, your points sound (mostly) reasonable but John's right that the priority of senior management (chief execs and the board) will be the performance indicators. Because that's where their jobs are at risk - fuck up the indicators or fail to balance the books and your career is over.

Social workers at whatever level of the organisation, doctors and nurses and decent managers in councils or the NHS will care about actually doing a good job. But the performance indicators are crucial if you are a senior manager who wants to stay working.

And in some organisations, that means sod doing whatever it is you are actually be supposed to be doing, let's just look as if we are hitting the targets. I've seen this more in the NHS, have done less work with local government, but if (some) ambulance trusts can fiddle the figures while patients die unnecessarily, I doubt every single SS dept is immune from the same game-playing.

(And even if every single SS dept was immune from pressure to look good when the Audit Commission or CSCI or CQSC comes calling, the chief exec isn't. See Doncaster - there's a senior management team who didn't give a stuff about social services. Entirely possible there were good social workers and good managers there but those on high didn't care, people who could left, those who remained had impossible workloads and the service relied too much on agency staff .)

Thanks, wahwah. That's very informative.

I just don't know how one would go about trying to get communities to take responsibility though. In many mainland European countries 'failure to assist' in certain circumstances is a criminal offence (it's called Unterlassense Hilfeleistung in Germany, I think). Would that work? I doubt it. Still, I agree with the principle.

Unterlassene Hilfeleistung, even

Oblomov - Not welcome it! I didn't welcome it, but nor did I run away. In the second instance when it involved my children's whole school and child abuse they were really very good, they totally recognised the crap that was being spun by some to cover stuff up, and the others who were trying to help sort it out.

The quality of practise is very very variable. There are some good practitioners and some dreadful ones.

The problem is the failure of the checks and balances. It means that too many wrong judgments are made.

For example although the numbers of children taken into care rocketed after the prosecution of Baby P's murderers, (Not after his death which was over a year earlier) in fact the number of serious incidents involving a child death have gone up substantially particularly babies between 2008 and 2009.

On the test as to how well the system is protecting children it is clearly getting worse. Overall 144 in 2008 and 186 in 2009 and under 1 year old 47 in 2008 and 75 in 2009.

A positive correlation is often a product of the researcher, it does not necessarily mean both are linked to each other in any way. (numbers of children taken into care and sincidents involving a child death for example).

And you can't surely only use one performance indicator!

Yes - likewise the competence and ability of MPs is very variable - some good MPs, some dreadful.

It is true that there was an approx 40% increase in care proceedings being brought before the courts after the baby Peter details were made known in the public domain. The reason for this was because social workers became (unsurprisingly) very risk averse, and brough proceedings in families where there were concerns but were being monitored. Who could blame social workers (after the gutter press led by the SUN did their best to pour scorn on the entire child protection system) for becoming anxious about families on their caseload, and bringing care proceedings. FWIW I think this was probably a good thing, because in many cases I think children remain unprotected because of a reluctance on the part of social workers to curtail the "support mode" and realise that sufficent change is not being made in the abilities of the parents to ensure that children are kept safe. The rise in child deaths thay JH mentions rather underlines this point. If those children were known to SSD (and I think the majority of them were) if they had been removed, this would have prevented the tragedy occurring.

When JH talks about lack of "checks and balances" that he returns to again and again, this is his shorthand for his contention that applications for care orders go through on a "nod and a wink" and everyone involved in the conspiracy join forces and the judge "rubber stamps" the recommendations made by the professionals.

As far as JHs comments about "wrong judgements" being made, I believe that he includes in this, any case where children are removed and care proceedings are initiated, with which the parent disagrees. I have been involved in hundreds of cases of care proceedings and have never met yet a parent who is in agreement. I amnot of course surprised by this because if the parents were aware that the children were being significantly harmed they would be in a position with support to remedy matters, and sometimes of course this does happen.

I don't understand JHs figures about the "number of children protected" - what definition of "children being protected" is being used here. One of the problems is that he perceives there is a distinction between child protection and the numbers of the children adopted, which is of course one and the same thing.

Manatee - I see you are getting the measure of JH and his illogical stance. I think if you stick around long enough you will see that everything he posts is an attempt to support his hypothesis, the details of which I have already outlined.

Eldritch - I will accede to your request later today when I have a bit more time.

Eldritch - I can see that I have not done very well in not responding to JHs posts - woops. Mea culpa mea culpa.

nananina likes the Straw Man.

I have never said that care proceedings are wrong when the parents oppose them.

Care Proceedings should be initiated when they are necessary for the health or morals of the child.

(Article 8).

Whether or not the parents oppose them.

I think there is a big difference between measuring how many babies die from child abuse and neglect and being concerned about that as opposed to measuring how fast a core assessment is made.