Protecting our children - is there a thread for this week yet?

[OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere]

Just wondering

Seeker - castration would have been the right word.

Yep- that's going to make sure they are safe and responsible members of society........

iirc there was a case somewhere else (not in the UK) where a paedophile had been chemically castrated as part of his rehabilitation back into society. afaik this was his choice not enforced. The argument behind it is that if chemical castration is applied this inhibits the production of testosterone which in turn inhibits the male sex drive. This is one of the reasons why the male contraceptive pill was not deemed successful.

The issue with it though in practice is that while this might be an option, the public reaction would still be based around what he had done rather than what he might be capable of doing - regardless of whether he might no longer be a danger..

I'mglad to see some posters praising the social workers, but curious about someone Crashdoll I think, saying that she didn't like the way the sw was talking to the mother, and that they were being taught something different on a sw degree course?? I thought the sw was fine, down to earth and not fudging the issue but not in a nice way. You have to be straight - it isn't fair to the parents if you are not able to do this.

Also (again) can't remember name Eurika or something like that. You say you are working with LAC and are going to do a Masters so that you can do cp work. I don't understand this. I thought the 3 year social degree was now compulsory for qualification. Is it still possible to do a 3 year degree and then a Masters for qualification. I know this used to be the case, but I thought this had been stopped since the introduction of the 3 year degree. In my day it was a 2yr CQSW, but my niece is looking at ways of moving into social work.

Some one asked what a guardian is and I don't think anyone answered. She is a social worker and has the same qualification as any sw. The only difference is, she is independent of the LA SSD as she is employed by CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory Service. When the LA institute care proceedings a guardian is always appointed. She finds a solicitor to act for the child in court, and she will investigate all of the circumstances and make a recommendation to the court.

Re the legal situation of the removal of the child in the programme. If a child has to be removed in an emergency, the only legislation available is a Police Protection Order (PPO) which lasts for 72 hours. This is what happened in the TV programme. This gives the LA time to get before the court to apply for an Emergency Protection Order (which lasts 7 days) and the parents are encouraged to attend this hearing with magistrates, so that they can hear both sides and decide whether they will make an EPO. If they do, then the LA make application for an Interim Care Order, which lasts for 28 days and usually the ICO is re-applied for every 28 days, right up to the final hearing when the Judge makes the final decision about the child's future.

I think this should have been better explained as so many people think that social workers have the power to remove children and they do not.

Another issue that has cropped up quite a bit in this is attachment theory. This is of great importance in cp cases. If a child is loved and cared for from his earliest days, weeks and months and years and has parent(s) who are attuned to his needs and are able to meet those needs in all respects, there will be a secure attachment pattern between child and carer/parent, and this will be a protective factor to him throughout the lifespan. The first 3 years of a child's life are the most important in his life, as it is during this time that the foundation for life is laid. It is also the time when pathways in the brain form. Someone mentioned Sue Gerhadt's book Why Love Matters and she explains why love is essential to brain development in the early years of life, and how early interactions between parents and their baby have lasting and serious consequences.

In cases where children are removed from parents they are by defintion insecurely attached to their parents. This means that the baby/child has not had his needs met - crying has not brought a soothing parent, he learns not to cry sometimes. In essence he is abused or neglected and the child "learns" that adults are not to be trusted. There are degrees of insecure attachment - children (unconsciously) make a decision on how to stay safe with abusive parents. Some keep very quiet, hoping not to attract harmful attention. Others cry and do their best to get close to the parent. Some babies/children live in situations that are so harmful that they cannot find a way to keep themselves safe and these children are seen as children with an attachment disorder, and are the most damaged children of all.

Sorry I'mm sure you have all heard enough from me, just a word about the baby going to gran. The LA have a duty to find out if there are any members of the extended family who can care for a child removed from parents. In this case it was the grandmother. I know we couldn't see her face, but she didn't look particularly young and she was caring for the baby and her sister.

In these situations, a very thorough assessment has to be made of kinship care. They are tricky assessments because you are asking mothers/fathers to choose between their own son/ daughter and their grandchild/ren. It is of vital importance in this assessment that youensure that the relative will protect the child from their parents if necessary. If there is any doubt about this, then it is not safe to place with a relative. Kinship carers canot allow their son/daughter to take the child out on their own, or have the child to stay with them unsupervised, and this is a big ask for kinship carers, but it is the single most important issue in these assessments.

Someone mentioned the granny would apply for a Residence Order, which means that they share Parental Responsibility with the birth parents though with the holder of the RO in the driving seat. There is a much better way of securing a child's future and that is by way of a Special Guardianship Order, which gives the kinship carer more or less full PR for the child.

In kinship care (as the sw explained to the mother) contact is often very generous, because it isn't possible to dictate how often a son/daughter can visit his/her parents. In this case it was set at weekly. A baby of the age in the programme would have been adopted if not placed with granny and the likelihood of any direct contact would be extremely remote. The reason why it is so important to ensure the relative is going to keep the child safe is because if a RO is granted or a SGO there is no further contact from SSD.

Ok I'm signing off now - honest!

nananina but how can they be sure that the family member will stick to the visitation arrangement? How closely are these things monitored when a child goes to the grandparent for instance, and for how long?

Not that I am criticising those kinds of arrangements, after all it wasn't that long ago that it was fairly common place for grandparents to bring up the illegitimate babies of their daughters, and there certainly weren't any contact visit orders etc back then, although obviously the children weren't at risk then either but still. And I did have a friend at school (in South Africa) who was brought up by her grandmother after her father caused her to have a fractured skull when she was six weeks old. which caused brain damage. But even then the mother was still in the picture, and she believed she was her sister until she was told when she was younger...

It is cheaper for a child to be placed within the family i.e. grandparents than placing a child in foster care or having them in the care system. Most grandparents are literally left ''holding the baby'' and in many cases are expected to take any subsequent babies the mother may give birth to. Once grandparent[s] agree to take the child, they are very much left to cope without any support or financial help.

Unfortunately that is true lavender
8 years after we had to fight for support I am still hearing of kinship carers being told the same lies we were told e.g. we are not allowed to give you support because you are related to the child

"In cases where children are removed from parents they are by defintion insecurely attached to their parents"

I don't think that is correct, is it?

What an amazing job these sw's do. I have loved these show, even though I cannot get some of these children out of my mind.

Nananina you have talked so much sense on these threads. I have agreed with you on all points that you have raised and enjoyed your interesting and intelligent insight.

nananina
Also (again) can't remember name Eurika or something like that. You say you are working with LAC and are going to do a Masters so that you can do cp work. I don't understand this. I thought the 3 year social degree was now compulsory for qualification. Is it still possible to do a 3 year degree and then a Masters for qualification. I know this used to be the case, but I thought this had been stopped since the introduction of the 3 year degree. In my day it was a 2yr CQSW, but my niece is looking at ways of moving into social work.

I am a SWRO (unqualified SW essentially) the role was created to deal with shortage of SWs back in the early 00s. We do lac, cin and other stat work but not cp. I have a ba degree so I can do a 2 year MSW at university to become qualified. Others do the 3 year BA but as I already have a BA the MSW is better.

It is the dipsw that no longer exists but the MSw still does.

"Some keep very quiet, hoping not to attract harmful attention. Others cry and do their best to get close to the parent."

Nana - all babies, neglected or not, will either cry or not, surely? Pre-verbal children will do one or the other.

Please expand on that statement because it seems like a chilling Catch 22 situation for a parent who is innocent if that's the theory!

And how do you know that a child isn't autistic? Do you test for it before applying attachment theory?

My DS was BF for years, carried, slept with us and needed me desperately but he was incapable of showing it in any of the "usual" ways as an older baby / toddler.

Nananina you have talked so much sense on these threads. I have agreed with you on all points that you have raised and enjoyed your interesting and intelligent insight.

Agreed - thank you NN :)

wannabe - No, these arrangements are rarely monitored, if at all. But family members do have to have thorough assessments before taking on these children and a SW needs to be confident that arrangements will be adhered to before placing a child with them. Of course, if a grandparent seems just as unstable as the childs mother/father, their assessment wouldn't be passed.

Once they do place though, they trust that person to do what they feel is best for their grandchild. Contact is sometimes left to the holder of a residence / SGO to decide for themselves and no formal arrangements are made in court. Unless the parents are dangerous and the child cannot really see them no matter what - I doubt they'd be too concerned about grandmother having mum round - they would probably be concerned if grandmother allowed mum to take the child off alone though, in some cases. Some parents get unsupervised contact anyway and so in some cases it wouldn't do any significant harm to allow a bit of extra as and when it's agreed between them. But, the grandparent would be in the driving seat to determine what they think is best interests of the child (other than if a Court order is made). Obviously it would be on their heads should something happen to that child - I'd assume most love their grandchildren dearly and wouldn't take that risk and chance also having the child removed from their care too.

Of course there is the risk that they might do so anyway, but then should the child be at any risk or seem to be suffering any physical / sexual / emotional harm, the usual child protection procedures will apply. I've not heard of a case where this has happened before, and assume it's because the assessments are usually thorough enough (very similar to a fostering / adoption assessment depending on which order they're applying for).

Makes you wonder what the point of sec offenders register is ... If someone is on it it often does sweet f a. The odd check in but still allowed access to kids albeit with the odd condition.

Wannabee I think Tigerlilly has answered your query. Just to add that the only way in which kinship carers are monitored is if they are approved as foster carers - the positive side of this is that fostering allowances are mandatory and the downside is the child becomes a LAC and all that goes with that, maybe never really feeling part of the family.

You are quite right about kinship care being cheaper. IF the LA are willing for relatives to be approved as foster carers (and mostly they aren't because ROs and SGOs are very cheap because the case is closed and any allowances paid are discretionary and usually just for 2 years) people usually get the fosterng allowance but not the reward element that foster carers (who aren't relatives) get on top of the allowances. Mind all LAs have different methods of payments. Not sure about expecting subsequent children to be placed with relatives - LA will certainly look at this as the first option!

Amaretti - well think of it like this. A child who is loved unconditionally by their parent(s) and is nurtured and protected and all of his needs are met. The parent is responsive to him and can soothe him when upset and do all the other things good parents do, will be securely attached to his parent(s).

WHY then would there be any reason to remove such a child...........he is not at risk of significant harm, quite the reverse.

I say by definition that any child removed is going to be insecurely attached because he is the polar opposite to the securely attached child. His needs are not met by his parent(s) they are unresponsive and may attend to his needs on an ad hoc basis (when the feel like it) and the baby/child is anxious and his attachment pattern with his parents is insecure. These are the babies/children at risk of significant harm and may need to be removed.

Does that make sense?

Idonotlikefun really!? I am not at all surprised that you are querying my post. Attachment theory is quite complex the more you delve into it and I was giving a very clumsy shorthand by giving examples like I did. Sorry.

If you are interested there a lot of book on attachment theory that you can get for a small price from "British Agencies for Fostering & Adoption" (BAAF) just google and I think you will find them on Amazon too.

What I was trying to explain is that all babies/children "learn" subconsciously whether parent(s) can be trusted to meet their needs. Those children who are securely attached (I'v just posted above) because the parent(s) love and care for the child and meet all of his needs, will grow up in the main to be well balanced adults with a good sense of their own worth.

If however the opposite is true, these children will become insecurely attached . Babies and children who are brought up by parents who don't see the child's needs as a priority (or only when they feel like it) which of course creates confusion for the child, or at worst are abusive or neglectful will of course make a child very anxious. Children in these circumstances adapt different ways of surviving and this can be observed in a pre-verbal child. I have seen it in a 4 month baby with an abusive stepfather and a mother who is too scared of the man to protect the child. This is a child who lies still in the pram and makes as little movement as possible and does not cry so as not to attract the attention of the abusive father. It is known as "frozen awareness" and the baby is indeed "frozen" and it is very chilling to see.

I have seen children who are abused move in a robotic fashion, stiff, with their eyes on the abuser to ensure they are not displeasing him. Another case is an 18 month old child who sat still in the chair for 45 minutes!

Children will unconsciously adapt a mode of survival with abusive parents, and some children do keep quiet and become very self reliant as they know that no one is going to look after them. I know this sounds strange but it's all unconscious. Other children will be quiet when the abuser is present but once out of his/her "care" will be noisy and bounce about and become more "normal" I think most children being abused are unsurprisingly afraid of the abuser and this will show in their behaviour in one way or the other.

Don't know if you saw the first episode with Toby. It was clear that his parents had no idea how to parent him but it could be seen that he was not being abused (even though his dad did get him a very firm grip at one point) because he showed no fear of the parents.

You mention a child with autism and when the theory is applied - it isn't applied in any way shape or form. It is something that happens between all babies/children and their parent(s) Of course being loving and caring isn't going to cure autism, but it will mean that the child is securely attached to his parent(s) if he is loved unconditionally and his needs are met.

I'm sorry cus I could go on for ever about attachment but it is far too big a subject to be honest. If you are interested I suggest you get some reading material.

I think there is a difference between a well attached child who of course cries for attention (and is soothed by getting needs met) and one who cries to get get attention and only gets it occasionally. The behaviour is different of both child and carer.
Autism and attachment disorder spectrums can look similar in the very young.
I suppose the skill is knowing the difference. I know of several adopted children with ASD who were diagnosed late due to confusion and misdiagnosis. I wonder if disabilities that affect communication and relationships can also cause attachment difficulties.

Eireikur can I PM you about sw qualifications in this day and age?

Go for it!

Did anyone notice how loose the straps on the car seat were when the male SW brought that little boy back to the office? How dangerous??!

Yep - also wondered how old boy was. Seemed small for forward facing.

He was about 13 months I think.