Children taken to Ireland by parents must return to UK

[Oscy]

Link here
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0322/1224266805630.html

I am surprised there was no mention of this here, as I know of one MP on this site advising parent/s that Ireland is more "friendly" to families facing care proceedings in the UK.
Looks like the Irish courts are well aware of what is being attempted.

thanks, JH. I looked but can't see actual figures on the notifications of deaths?

btw isn't this a very reasonable thread by all concerned, given that most posters are usually so gutsy, shall we say!

The notifications are lists of deaths of children.

They have counts as well. Eg in 2009 there were 75 notifications of deaths of babies, 27 1-5, 13 6-10 and 35 11-15. They do include suicide.

I looked again, the excel function which adds up the count total at the end of each column is not working, perhaps it did not transfer over to Google docs?

That may be true, but I suggest that if people want to have the counts they convert the data into their own spreadsheet.

These are the summary counts (I know it is untidy)
Age
Year pre 2007 Apr-Dec 2008 2009
Under 1 7 29 47 75 158
1-5 yrs 4 25 25 27 81
6-10 yrs 2 9 15 13 39
11-15 yrs 12 25 35 72
16+ 19 31 35 85
Multiple 2 1 3
Uknown 1 1
13 96 144 186 439

Thanks, didn't realise i could do that

Jh, when you say the Spanish system has fewer deaths due to higher threshold intervention, how do you think this works?

Btw, I think you're right about the reporting being better now and I think it's much more likely that abuse is recognised and named as such in these circumstances.

Because the Spaniards do not waste their time in situations where on aggregate basis their intervention is likely to be damaging.

Really? How brilliant of them.

"Strangly I think that the Spanish system has fewer deaths in part because they have a higher threshold for intervention."

"Because the Spaniards do not waste their time in situations where on aggregate basis their intervention is likely to be damaging."

Slightly curious about the logic here...

Given a child in a fairly suboptimal situation.

In Spain, this would not merit intervention, as Spanish SW decide their intervention "on aggregate basis" would be damaging.

In the UK, this triggers Child Social Services involvement.

Overall, this indicates UK Social Services are more interventionist than Spanish.

The bit I have difficulty with is the implication that, for a proportion of the UK cases, intervention results in the death of a child, who would not have died with a more hands off Spanish-style approach.

How does intervention cause child death? How does the presence of a social worker increase the likelihood that a given child will be killed? Is this a causative influence, or merely a correlation? And if it is a causative influence, what is the mechanism?

With reference to the statistics you are relying on, the international comparability of child abuse stats was queried by UNICEF in 2003. There's a similar quote in the report card you cite.

On a purely personal level I also have difficulty believing that a nation (Spain) that is apparently so relaxed about the high death rate among its women from domestic violence is going to unduly exercise itself keeping tabs on the numbers of deaths among its children from similar causes.

How does intervention cause child death?
There are two issues.

One is that there is a limit on resources. There always will be. Resources will be tighter in the future. (Both in terms of the attention of practitioners and also in terms of the costs of placements.) If resources are dissipated then that means that people end up allocating resources to unnecessary cases missing out the key ones.

Secondly we have a further problem in that the interests of parents and practitioners should be aligned, but are not. That arises from the way the system treats families.

On the first point Haringey failed to take Baby P into care because they had hit their target numbers in care. At the same time I know of other children who were unnecessarily in care in Haringey.

QED.

"On the first point Haringey failed to take Baby P into care because they had hit their target numbers in care."

Can you cite me a source for that conclusion? Thanks.

An update on the I started the thread on:
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0326/1224267098770.html

The children are to be returned to the UK within 21 days, Irish Supreme court rules.

I can upload the source financial documents from Haringey, but that will take some time.

Haringey, like many authorities, has a target for the number of children in care which is kept for budgetary purposes. The target for March 2007 was 365 and for March 2008 352. In part the objective of reducing numbers in care is laudable as well of that of trying to reduce the weekly costs which have run at higher than £800 per child per week. On 3rd October 2006 it was noted that the deficit forecast for Haringey Local Council was £4.6 million which included a forecast overspend for Childrens Services of £2.3m ? including a figure of £500K for Looked After Children. The Executive Member for Finance said ?I will be working closely with the services concerned and I will be looking to them to identify ways to bring the budget back on target?. It was recognised at that time that the placements budget was running at 381 children and was very tight. The figure then crept up to 392 by November 2006.

By March 31st 2007 the financial situation had improved although there had still been an overspend of £500K on legal fees. The numbers of children in care had reduced and a new target was set of 352. In March at the end of the 2007-8 financial year, however, the numbers of children in care had increased back up to 373 (21 more than budget). It appears that controls on the number of care proceedings were tightened up in November 2006 with the 12 month rolling number from November 2006 going below 40 for the first time they were released in August 2007 and the number then went back up above 50 (where historically it has been in recent years) in September 2007.

"On the first point Haringey failed to take Baby P into care because they had hit their target numbers in care."

I'd queried this because of the unusual use of the word 'target'. I'd read this as meaning 'desired goal', implying that SWs were removing kids in order to fulfill a quota of LACs.

From what you've said above, I think the word 'limit' more suited to your purposes.

If you read the serious case review, the reason for not initiating proceedings was because the legal advice was that the threshold had not been met, I cannot see that any financial issues impacted on this decision. Every LA reviews the need for LAC rigorously, but this has never ime been a reason for not initiating proceedings where needed, but if you have material which confirms your assertion, then obviously I'll accept what you say,

Jh, your answers to Kevlarhead's well thought out response I think at this stage you merely confirm your prejudices rather than offer any support for your social work theorising. All systems have limited resources, ours are clear about the types of allegations and circumstances to prioritise and it would be a crazy duty manager who didn't follow this.

"From what you've said above, I think the word 'limit' more suited to your purposes."

Not to nit pick but LA's and Borough's work to 'targets' (and boy do we have a lot of them) so the correct word is target.

(there's also a nice traffic light scheme and woo be tide you if you if your 'targets' are out in the wrong direction).

I need to do more reading here but would be amazed if a child at risk of serious harm was not removed because a quota had been filled. I heard some hideous details regarding the Baby P case the other day which are so distressing I cannot write them down here. However, my understanding was that the mother feigned compliance with all agencies so that nobody was aware that the two men living in the home were there (and living in the property because although they may have been met on occasions they were not there all the time) - one used to hide in a cupboard and the other with his 15 year old girlfriend in a garden outbuilding whenever anyone visited. The other factor is that she attended appointments and even made them on some occasions with doctors, health visitors etc who were all taken in by the feigned compliance. The issue is that because of this reassuring "compliance" people were lulled into a false sense of security with regard to her actions, motives and care of her son. (I realise that is a whole other debate). However, HAD the system worked as it should have done and the abuse been detected that child would have been removed - targets and quotas or not.
Unfortunately I am not a social worker so don't understand traffic light schemes etc. Just know that there is no way that child would have been left with his mother (and I use that word loosly) and the other two men had people been fully aware of everything which was occurring.

Of course. My understanding is that the threshold was met at some stage around the January.

In relation to the original case on this thread (although the tangent everyone is on is actually fascinating and very informative to me) I don't know the details of the parents in question, but am simply amazed at the level of energy they have put into avoiding social care systems and wonder did the same energy go into caring for their kids?

My guess is no, as the fact the children in question were subject to an interim care order in Ireland (where it takes a lot of effort to get one) speaks volumes. but I am interested in more informed (in general, not with this case) opinions than my own.

I suppose I am on a bit of a tangent myself, in a non prejudicial way, as I am amazed in general about how parents will fight tooth and nail against social workers etc and then the most awful details emerge about the children in question and the abuse they suffered. How does anyone explain this approach? Or can they?

JollyPirate, the full details of that case are really awful. If they were fully known I feel the consequences would be unthinkable.
The number of people in that house was 10 at one point, maybe 11, I read in one newspaper.
It was a 3 bed house, the mind boggles.

Oscy the system in England is massively biased (procedurally) towards the local authority.

That was clear in a recent court of appeal judgment which took the view that parents have no right to any independent assessments. The question is merely that as to whether the judge feels certain about the conclusion (whatever that may be).

Can you supply a link to that court of appeal judgement? Thanks.

Oscy, JH and I have very different perspectives, but I think you have hit the nail on the head. Some parents go to great length in opposition to all in proceedings, but many (and often most) do understand the concerns and what led to the initiation of proceedings and try and work to reduce risks to their children.

JH seems to see many cases where parent's rights have been not given full attention, yet my experience has often been of great consideration of this, particularly in the appointments of independent experts and assessments. many of us professionals who work in the system feel this way and there are some archived threads which go into lots of details.

judgment re independent assessments

para 10.
I think it important to remember when one is looking either at the independent assessments by social workers or at applications under section 38(6) of the Act that one needs to be child focused. It is not a question of the mother's right to have a further assessment, it is: would the assessment assist the judge in reaching a conclusion or the right conclusion in relation to the child in question? And on this particular issue it does seem to me that the judge was exercising a discretion and doing so appropriately on all the facts available to him. He thus reached a conclusion which I cannot for myself say in any way is plainly wrong, and since he has based himself on the latest authority on the point and considered the matter carefully, I, speaking for myself, cannot say either that he has erred in law and would dismiss the appeal in relation to a further social worker assessment.

So:

-Mum has 10 kids under the age of 14.

-Mum has multiple previous assessments on file from social services, including psychologist & psychiatrist's reports regarding previous concerns for her other children wrt. her ability to provide proper care, stretching back a number of years.

-Following his birth, LJ (child the LA would like to see fostered & adopted) & Mum were taken to the Appledore centre, just outside Birmingham for a residential assessment of her parenting skills. (I think this was a six week assessment, but can't find my source now.)

-This ended with the conclusion that her parenting skills weren't up to the job, and that LJ should be taken into local authority care, with a view to adoption. This was disputed, on the grounds that the assessment took place over the Christmas period, and Mum was not given the assistance she should have been.

-Mum appealed this decision & took it to the Court of Appeal, 'parting company' with her solicitors on the way, and appointing a Mrs Haines as a Mckenzie friend.

The Children Act states that all actions taken by an LA must be in the best interests of the child at hand. With this in mind, given mother evidently has a long history of involvement with her LA, and a lengthy and involved case history, having yet another assessment would:-

a: be unlikely to come to any new conclusions regarding her ability to parent.

b: even if it did, would be outweighed by the numerous reports to the contrary.

c: would leave LJ in the care of this woman for the duration of the assessment.

I also notice Judge Justice Wall cites a report from an organisation called the FSU, "Investing in families" which "runs to a number of pages and in common with the other reports before us comes sadly to the conclusion that this mother is not in a position to properly care for her children." The FSU was a charity that collapsed in April 2006, evidence that concerns about this family have been ongoing for at least four years. This also indicates that the assessment that this woman was not capable of looking after all her children was independently arrived at by both charity and LA workers.

According to the charity profile "fsu supports 13,000 families at risk of breakdown a year, in areas of significant social and economic disadvantage across the UK. fsu enables families to raise safe, happy children through parenting skills training, counselling, education/employment support and community inclusion work."

I suspect FSU saw a lot of borderline families, and if they say you're not in a position to properly care for your children then, (after four years and the addition of several new children) you probably aren't.