Here at Researching Reform, we are passionate advocates of the House of Lords, which continuously fights for the rights of families and children, and often shows enormous courage in the face of a disinterested and self serving Government.
The latest debate on the Children And Social Work Bill in the Lords is a powerful example of this. Despite Government refusing to take up many of the positive amendments they’ve put forward, they keep going.
The first amendment in this discussion, moved by Baroness Wheeler, looks at issuing a code of practice on whistleblowing arrangements in the context of looked after children. Amendment 52 reads:
52: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—“Whistleblowing arrangement in relation to looked after children and children at risk The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice on whistleblowing arrangements which can be taken into account by courts and tribunals when the issue of whistleblowing arises in public bodies providing social services and children’s services, and local authorities, in relation to looked after children and children at risk.”
This amendment is designed to further protect whistleblowers exposing malpractice and wrongdoing. However, the call for a statutory code was not accepted. Viscount Younger of Leckie, an Official spokesperson on Higher Education (still an odd department to be looking after child welfare matters overall), took the view that current employment legislation was sufficient to protect whistleblowers but did agree that another amendment (53B) offering protection for whistleblowers would be pursued. Amendment 53B protections apply to people seeking employment with specific public bodies in roles relating to local authorities’ children’s social care functions. These protections would apply to the whole of Great Britain in line with other employment legislation.
The next amendment discussed was 53A, and was moved by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top:
53A: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—“Post-removal counselling for parents and legal guardians After section 19 of the Children Act 1989 insert—“19A Post-removal counselling for parents and legal guardians Where a child is permanently removed from the care of a birth parent or a child’s guardian further to the powers under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders), a local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide a counselling service and commission therapeutic support for the parent or guardian of the child, in order to help them to keep any future children.””
This is a particularly compelling amendment, and shows the Lords actively pressuring the government to find ways of keeping families together. The phrase ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ will be used as an opt-out clause by local authorities to avoid this obligation, so the courts and judges will have to bear that in mind, but The Lords make a very strong argument for public agencies keeping children out of care and Baroness Armstrong’s views are very much worth a read on this.
One of our favourite judges Nicholas Crichton, also gets a mention for his pioneering work with the Family Drug And Alcohol Court, which has been phenomenally successful in reuniting children with their families. The Earl of Listowel goes on to ask Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, Lord Nash if he will write to him and confirm FDAC’s continued funding. Lord Nash confirmed during the debate that he would. (We wrote to the Earl to ask if he might share Lord Nash’s response with us once he receives it and he has very kindly agreed to share the letter with us, so we will post it on the blog in due course).
Another interesting amendment put forward by Baroness Thornton, is Amendment 53C, which prevents doctors and other health professionals from charging for evidence of domestic violence or risk of violence, for parents in need of legal aid. At the moment, if you’re a victim of domestic violence and need legal aid, you have to show evidence of that violence, such as a note from your GP, or a refuge manager – a measure which has sparked a huge backlash from child welfare campaigners and domestic violence charities. The proposed amendment reads:
53C: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—“Legal aid: families with children experiencing domestic violence In Regulation 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012, after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) A general practitioner or other health professional may not charge for the provision of evidence of domestic violence or risk of domestic violence, where the domestic violence has taken place, or is at risk of taking place, in a family which includes children.””
The Lords make a strong case for removing what is effectively yet another barrier to justice in domestic violence cases, as many victims cannot afford to pay for this evidence. Not surprisingly, the Law Society has also backed this measure, along with several MPs. The Lords present during the debate mostly backed the amendment too, though Lord Nash once again offered a dissenting opinion and cautioned that a failure to allow for discretionary costs could lead to GPs refusing to produce evidence altogether.
And as might be expected, Lord Nash’s own amendment, amendment 54, relates to the controversial clause 29 in the Bill which exempts local authorities from certain duties and responsibilities set out in children’s social care legislation.
Amendment 54 reads:
54: Clause 29, page 20, line 25, at end insert—“( ) Regulations under this section may not be used so as to remove any prohibition on a local authority in England arranging for functions to be carried out by a body whose activities are carried on for profit.”
This amendment would go in after this section:
(2)The Secretary of State may by regulations, for that purpose—
(a)exempt a local authority in England from a requirement imposed by
children’s social care legislation;
(b)modify the way in which a requirement imposed by children’s social
25care legislation applies in relation to a local authority in England.
Lord Nash defends the government’s decision to allow this clause, and outlines the usual suspects: concerns about over-regulation, the need to try a different approach to children’s services and a robust monitoring system to ensure that new ideas are not putting children at risk.
Worth a read is Lord Ramsbotham’s brilliant dissection of this clause and why it’s completely pointless when it comes to encouraging innovation, which is our view exactly. Interestingly, he also says that the clause breaches basic constitutional and legal principles:
“It is not only wrong but totally unnecessary, in view of existing arrangements, to process proposed innovation because new ways of working can already be tested within the existing legal and regulatory frameworks.. Therefore I contend that, however outwardly reasonable the processes proposed by the Government may seem, they do not alter the need to leave out Clauses 29 to 33 of the Bill for reasons of constitutional and legal principle…
All legal duties and obligations placed on local authorities by children’s social care law are ultimately enforceable by the courts, meaning that if a local authority fails to meet its statutory obligations, the young person or family concerned can take legal action to ensure that the protections laid down by Parliament are put in place, but the courts will be unable to enforce the rights of the young person or family concerned if a local authority has received an exemption from acting in accordance with the law. I therefore ask the Minister how the courts are expected to respond where a young person or child in a particular local authority area is clearly disadvantaged by the arbitrary disapplication or modification of the law as it is applied in all other parts of the country.”
The full debate is worth a read if you have a thousand Digestives and three hundred tea bags to hand.
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Don’t you think that the Bill enshrines ‘corporate parenting’ as a way of avoiding all individual responsibility and accountability, Natasha?
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Sabine, I think the Bill in part, is a way of shedding massive costs, at the expense of children’s welfare and their rights.
LikeLike
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Their ‘rights’ after having been removed and hardly ever being returned…
LikeLike
Roger Crawford said:
Interesting that we are a favourable to an unelected House over an elected one! I’m not decrying it and I actually agree, but it must seem strange to some. Any intervention to help whistleblowers and keep families together is more than welcome. I’m just going out now to buy a quantity of teabags and chocolate digestives (they must be plain chocolate!) and then I’ll look at this in more detail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha said:
*Giggle fit*!!!! Hi Roger, yes, I know, it goes against certain democratic principles, but I just find the House has over the last decade been excellent to children and families and of course I’m a big fan of Lady Hale who I think intended the Children’s Act to be a complete protection of their rights and needs. Good luck with the Digestives 🙂
LikeLike
Dana said:
Any money in the government kitty should go to helping families keep their children at home. How can it be right that 200,000 kids in Scotland alone are living in poverty but foster carers get nigh on £1.000 a week to keep a couple of looked after children for example? And that’s just Scotland!
Then add the costs of the rigmarole getting them into care and specialised therapies they need once taken, mainly to try to reverse not the trauma of why the kids were taken into care but the trauma from being taken away from their families and into care.
It looks as if foster carers are being pressured to go for SGO’s and with the kind of financial incentives they are offered, they will, as it secures their mortgage repayments until the child is 18. Don’t be fooled into thinking kinship carers get the same as foster carers when going for SGO’s, they don’t! A relation looking after the child will be the poor relation in the world of looked after children! They, usually grandparents, don’t push so hard for the renumeration packages that foster carers get as they are grateful they have their own grandchildren with them, who incidently do as well if not better with the children than foster carers/special Guardians and without having all the bells and whistles! Even in “Foster World” there are injustices! That might be why they are all wanting a union but that’s another story!
The whole system has grown out of all proportion. 93,000 kids in care! As those figures rise year on year it’s testimoniy of a failng welfare system. It’s a huge growing industry making money for those who are in it but not doing so much for the children who are damaged by it but mental health services are barely a consideration. How many more social worker whistleblowers do we need to tell us the system is rotten to the core! Parents have been saying it but they are automatically ignored! What of the decent professionals, where are their voices? Drowned out by those making the money!
Expensive Family Courts should be abolished. The costs of the courts, staff, Judges and Barristers alone should justify closing them down but they should be closed for another reason, they are simply processing plants to take children “legally” from their families.
Decisions are made well before they get to the Judge, who couldn’t possibly read all the bundles and even if he did doesn’t know the families. The social workers may have gotten to know the parent/s but often doesn’t get to know extended family who may wish to care for their grandchildren but rely on what they are told by the parents, who never take responsibility of their own actions but often blame their parents for their woes, yet they don’t believe the parents on other matters. Go figure! They need to get to know the families but that would take far too long so a few hours in a meeting wil suffice! Hey ho! The Judges rubber-stamp what the Local Authorities and Barristers agree in the waiting room outside the court room.
The parents may be legally represented but extended family, who want to take care of the children pay the £1.000+ a day Barrister fees or are Litigants in Person and have no knowledge of the laws and attempt to glean information from, speaking from experience, in the main dubious and/or unreliable sources. The children’s wishes are ignored when they say anything positive but if anything is said negatively that is then touted in every sentence!
Ultimately if you take a child into care then you cannot discharge all your responsibilities and obligations to that child! You may as well have left the child alone in the first place. Some however think that is best and I cite NCCPR as they show the largest piece of research to find out if maltreated kids were better off in care or left at home. Turns out they were not only better off at home but better off left at home without any input from social workers!
Now just supposing that the maltreated kids in the UK were treated to what little pockets of “pioneering” family based care that exist in the UK or what is being done in other countries as well as the US, children being helped and supported to stay at home, I don’t doubt it would be better for the children and their families and society as a whole. So what is the problem? Why is it not happening?
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
Well said Dana, and so true.
“The Judges rubber-stamp what the Local Authorities and Barristers agree in the waiting room outside the court room”.
Justice Pauffley has confirmed that this is going on. parents do not get a fare Hearing and decisions are being made in secret with judges long before any evidence has been given. totally corrupt and nothing short of Organized Crime!
All parents and children who are Victims of the SS will hope that one day a massive investigation does take place and that
Local authorities, social workers, LA management, expert witnesses, child guardians, Barristers, Judges, foster carers and other parties are prosecuted for what they have perpetrated on innocent people and vulnerable children.
there is not a carpet on the planet big enough to sweep all this under.
the Hammer has to fall on these criminals and it cant come soon enough for all those broken victims who are still suffering.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rebecca gaffney said:
So true in every word immense response to the disgrace of what’s going on with the stolen children of our country and now also removing foreign children also now it’s time for a complete overhaul because these people forget they are shaping the future of our world with there actions and not for the better but filling there pockets and generally believing they are above all this is down to the fact also that the judicial system has people!e that have lived a completely dfferent world than the people they deal with most also go from uni to law school to solicitor barrister QC etc to judges and Lord Justices and have no idea of how the real world really is
LikeLike
keith said:
I have to agree Rebecca,
many of these professionals dealing with the general public in the family courts have absolutely no idea how the other half live.the poorer half. in my experience with the family courts for 18 months, most of them seem completely desensitized and seem to view parents & children as objects on a conveyor belt rather than human beings. its like a farmers market looking at a group of problem animals and wondering what to do with them without any regard to their future wellbeing what so ever. yes judges need to be strict and focused but they should also have humanity and im afraid i saw none during my court time. it was cold and lifeless.
this is not the way forward for the human race.
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
i like this line,
“Lords Pressure MPs: ‘Hold Local Authorities To Account And Keep Families Together”.
yes keeping families together should always be the main priority of any LA. it would also save the tax payer a staggering amount of money every year and in doing so save thousands of men, women & children from untold amounts of pain and suffering from being wrongly split up.
Family is the entire fabric of human existence. Local authorities seem to be totally oblivious to this, they employ staff who have no value for human life and see children as nothing more than objects on a game board to move around in the best way that serves their purpose. when parents first engage with Social workers they very quickly sense that something isnt right and as the weeks and months roll by their suspicions are realized.
Going from the scandals exposed by Justice Pauffley and Judge Mark Horton there is more than enough evidence for a full investigation into the corruption that goes on. Cash for kids is a real phenomenon.
Local authorities need to be held accountable for their actions and prosecution need to be brought at all levels.
LikeLiked by 3 people
keith said:
has anyone seen this story.
http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2016/11/09/government-supports-plans-for-social-work-organisation/
LikeLike
Dana said:
By the way. When is Carexit happening? I’ll sign up for that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
Brilliant Dana,
i like that one 🙂
LikeLike
Roger Crawford said:
So do I!
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
Reform UK Family Court, CSA and Social Services
http://www.f4joz.com/news/newspage.php?yr=16&id=182
Please sign petition below
https://community.avaaz.org/petitions/reform-uk-family-court-csa-and-social-services
LikeLiked by 1 person
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
keith said:
interesting story of a teenage girl in care wrongly denied legal rep.
http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2016/11/11/runaway-teen-in-foster-care-wrongly-denied-her-own-solicitor/#comment-1015415
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Thank you, Keith.
LikeLike
Dana said:
53A clause. Do they offer counselling? It would appear some authorities missed the memo!
LikeLike
Pingback: Hurry! Have Your Say On The Children And Social Work Bill And Make A Difference | Researching Reform
finolamoss said:
The child protection industry is now private, making billions profit- fostering adoption incentised , created and fed by gov policies and law and courts this is the major danger and why children do not remain at home.
The profit motive must be removed . Robust courts, welfare systems and properly represented families, but after 30 years of creating this money spinner this is highly unlikely.
LikeLike
Dr. Manhattan. said:
If you live in the Northwest Vote Robinson as your MEP.
He will bring change. he cares about the poor and the working class. unlike the Establishment.
LikeLike