Monthly Archives: March 2016

Social Worker Speaks Out About Local Authority Cover Ups in Child Protection Cases

31 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 36 Comments

In a video posted by the UK Column, Carol Woods, a social worker talks about her experiences working at Lancashire County Council on child protection cases, and how the council altered files and removed evidence which showed families had suffered directly because of the council.

Carol talks about serious breaches relating to a high profile child protection case and other serious child cases, including the alteration of children’s files, unchecked details of lawyers in the case who may not have been qualified at the time, and in-house pressure to provide ‘ordered babies’ by removing babies from vulnerable parents for adoption, rather than providing these families with support.

A significant concern appears to be the practice of encouraging social workers to alter children’s files and remove evidence in highly contentious cases with a view to creating persuasive documentation that would lend itself to removing children from parents and placing them with adoptive families.

Another very worrying element to this practice outlined by Ms Woods is the assertion that much of the evidence that was edited or taken out proved without a doubt that the local authority, and not the parents involved in these cases, had been responsible for causing the children in question serious harm.

You can watch the interview, below.

Many thanks to Andy Peacher for sharing this item with us.

 

The Buzz

30 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Researching Reform, The Buzz

≈ 8 Comments

The latest items on child welfare we feel should be right on the radar:

Big thank you to Maggie for sharing the last two news items with us.

Buzz

Question It!

29 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 21 Comments

Welcome to another week.

The government has just unveiled new plans to speed up adoption in a bid to channel more vulnerable children into permanent placements, rather than temporary foster homes with a view to returning them to their parents where possible.

The move is an attempt at placing more children with adoptive parents, within a quicker time frame.

Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, described the new strategy as a “watershed moment” which would provide vulnerable children with the support and security they need. However social workers have expressed concern at the new policy, claiming it is a money saving scheme, and suggesting that the research used to push this new policy is questionable and does not provide evidence that the policy itself would even encourage more people to adopt.

Our question then, is just this: do you think the government’s latest policy on adoption is right?

You can read the new measures in full, here. 

Questions

Parliament Sets Date For Meningitis B Debate

23 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in petition, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

As promised in our earlier posts about the Meningitis B petition which asked the government to give the vaccine to all children, we’re sharing the date for the Parliamentary debate about the vaccine and surrounding issues, which has just been confirmed.

The debate has been scheduled for 25th April, 2016 and can be watched on Parliament TV. 

You can watch it live or catch it after it’s aired, as the very clever comms team over at the Parliament Website will be providing a video of the debate and a transcript, once it has taken place (which we will share with you once they email it over).

Petition Logo

 

Abuse Victims Should Be Believed, Says College of Policing

22 Tuesday Mar 2016

Posted by in child abuse, Researching Reform

≈ 12 Comments

Weighing in on the recent row over how police chose to treat allegations of child abuse (the controversial policy advised detectives to automatically believe people who alleged they had been raped or sexually abused but was later dropped) is the College of Policing’s chief executive, Alex Marshall, who has said this week that abuse victims should be believed in order to encourage victims to come forward.

This policy creates an awkward paradox. If the police are to believe that all allegations are true, then the UK’s current presumption of innocence rule (which tells us that anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty) could be perceived to be under threat. In contrast, the persisting view that those who allege abuse are narcissistic fantasists and make up the majority of those bringing allegations, is also unhelpful and not based in any concrete data.

There is no doubt, however, that more should be done to encourage victims to report abuse, and a working philosophy which is respectful, rather than cynical or doubting of allegations, must be put in place. It is perfectly possible to listen without prejudice whilst ensuring that those who have been genuinely wronged are protected, but this requires a sophisticated approach which may well not be instilled in policing culture, or practice at this point. The latest research suggests that the police are no better at sifting through allegations than the general public, something which would need to be addressed before any meaningful policies could be implemented.

What do you think? Does belief in an allegation automatically presume the accused party is guilty, or can we put into place working policies which allow us to ‘believe’ but at the same time process information without bias?

Police

Question It!

21 Monday Mar 2016

Posted by in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 9 Comments

Welcome to another week.

The Australian press reports that a parent with an extensive history of threatening behaviour, assessed as at high risk of killing his children and himself, has been granted access to his children by a judge in court.

The parent had attempted to commit suicide several times, and threatened to kill the children’s mother, her partner and himself in 2012.

Supervised contact overseen by the father’s grandparents was awarded.

This decision stems from an expert opinion in the case, in which a doctor diagnosed the father with borderline personality disorder and advised that if the father did not get contact he would most likely feel he had nothing to lose and would remain at high risk of a’suicidal, murderous rage’. When asked by the court how he would react if he did not get contact, the parent replied, “I can’t predict the future.”

There are several concerning aspects to this case. The first is a less than perfect court system which puts highly controversial questions to parents and tries to ascertain the honesty, or lack of it, in the responses it hears without any psychiatric training on the judge’s part.

The second worrying aspect of this case is the impact of those answers on how a judge might award contact: in this case, an element of blackmail seems to take control of the proceedings and the judge feels he has no choice but to award contact in this instance, as he believes not doing so could put the children’s and their mother’s lives at risk, as well as others.

This judgment puts the children in a contact situation, not only with a parent who is considered high risk, but with that parent’s own parents, relying on them to ensure that the children are safe. Given that the overseers of the contact are the high risk parent’s own family, what are the chances that at some point they may feel it’s alright to leave the room the children are in at any time, or even allow for unsupervised contact at some point? Whilst the courts and the experts assigned to a case are under a duty to measure that risk, we do not know if they have, or indeed whether such assessments in this context could provide solid reassurances.

There will also be future impact on the children once they grow up and discover the extent of the proceedings.

Our question to you then, is just this: what do you think about this judgment, and is it in the best interests of the children, after all?

Thank you to the National Child Protection Alliance for sharing this story with us.

face_question_mark

 

Macur Review Of Child Abuse In Wales Published

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in child abuse, Researching Reform

≈ 8 Comments

North Wales has been blighted with serious and ongoing allegations of child abuse since the 1970’s, and the latest in a long line of investigations into the scandal is published today.

The Macur Review, named after Lady Justice Macur, the judge in charge of producing this review, looks at allegations of abuse in children’s homes in North Wales between 1974 and 1996. This review follows several investigations that have come before it, including The Jillings Report, The Waterhouse Inquiry, also known as The Lost In Care Report, and Operation Pallial.

Macur

A statement on the review was also made today in the House of Commons.

UPDATE: The review, now published, recommends that no further investigations take place, finds no evidence of high profile child sexual abuse and suggests that correct materials be archived in future.

You can read the report in full here. 

The BBC have produced a thorough and well written summary of the history behind the uncovering of this abuse, if you’d like to find out more about the background to this review.

Jillings

 

Goddard Inquiry Appoints Neo-Conservative To Run Its Communications

16 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in child abuse inquiry, Inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

The nation’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, also known as the Goddard Inquiry after Chair Justice Lowell Goddard, has appointed a communications agency to oversee certain aspects of its work. 

Crest Advisory, which is run by Gavin Lockhart-Mirams, a former adviser to David Cameron, has been tasked with delivering a public awareness campaign to encourage victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to come forward and share their story. The contract runs for nine months.

We haven’t yet had a chance to see if there is available information on which agencies if any are currently running the Inquiry’s social media platforms, which to date has implemented a no engagement policy with the public – a move which sits completely at odds with the purpose of social media and PR generally – but we hope Crest Advisory will take a more progressive approach.

Management consultant Lockhart, comes to the Inquiry from the criminal justice sector, where he put together the current reform programme being used to revamp the system. After resigning from government in 2011 (there is no indication online as to why he resigned), he set up Crest Advisory.

Lockhart worked for the neoconservative think-tank Policy Exchange as Head of the Crime and Justice Unit from August 2006 to 2009 and then worked as Criminal Justice and Health Policy Adviser in the Conservative Policy Unit. He is also the author of the Reform Report, which looked at G4S and Serco failures over electronic tagging roll out for offenders.

It’s not clear yet what a conservative leaning management consultant operating a campaign drive to encourage survivors to come forward might look like, but there have been suspicions over Lockhart’s motivations in the past, most notably the suggestion that Lockhart developed policy on Police and Crime Commissioners so that he could eventually profit commercially from the provisions.

Good luck, Crest, the child welfare sector is much tougher than it looks.

gavin (1)

Gavin Lockhart