• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • Guide To Making A Subject Access Request
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: August 2018

Social Worker Who Pretended To Visit Families And Children, Struck Off

30 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social services

≈ 8 Comments

A social worker who claimed he had visited a child and their parents and made up records whilst working on a serious child protection case, has been struck off by monitoring body HCPC.

The social worker’s actions put the child, who was living under very difficult domestic circumstances, at serious risk, said the HCPC. The council also noted that the social worker, who did not attend the hearing, showed no remorse for his actions.

hcpc3-672x372

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Buzz

28 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, The Buzz

≈ 2 Comments

The latest child welfare stories that should be right on your radar:

  • Home Office’s £13m scheme to help vulnerable children 
  • Nuns charged over abuse at Scottish children’s home
  • Campaigners urge Pope to deliver plan to tackle child abuse

Buzz

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Hollywood Actor Backs UK Family Court Campaign

27 Monday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, child welfare, petition, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

Hollywood actor and activist Michael Sheen, has backed a campaign started on Change.org asking the British government to address domestic abuse, children’s rights, and the need for Family Court reform in the UK. The petition has gathered over 117,000 signatures.

Michael Sheen, who has an OBE for his services to drama, is also a passionate activist who writes and speaks about social and cultural change. Sheen tweeted his support for the Change campaign on 22nd August, and has also made the campaign’s profile picture his Twitter avatar.

MS Tweet.png

Researching Reform highlighted the petition, started by Rachel Williams and Teresa Whittaker, at the beginning of August, when their campaign led to a debate in the House of Commons in which Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips, called on the government to investigate child welfare body CAFCASS over its failings to protect vulnerable children and parents inside the Family Court. Rachel Williams endured 18 years of domestic abuse, and was shot and beaten during the ordeal. Williams then lost her 16 year old son, who committed suicide shortly after the experience. She now works as an ambassador for several organisations offering support for women who have suffered domestic abuse, and has  written a book about her life. Rachel tweets about her experiences under the handle @Dontlookback198. 

You can take part in the campaign by adding the campaign’s profile picture to any of your social media accounts or websites and using the hashtag #FamilyCourtListenToUs. (Click on the image below to download it)

iFiHUBWXHcydNbe-800x450-noPad

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Researching Reform Listed In Top 15 Child Welfare Sites Around The World To Follow

25 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 13 Comments

We are humbled to announce that Researching Reform has been listed as one of 15 top child welfare websites to follow in 2018 by RSS platform, Feedspot.

Websites were selected based on social and search metrics, using the following criteria:

  • Google reputation and Google search ranking
  • Influence and popularity on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites
  • Quality and consistency of posts
  • Feedspot’s editorial team and expert review

Feedspot 2018.pngThe other sites chosen, were:

Joyful Heart Foundation
Stop Abuse Campaign
CRY – Child Rights and You
Defend Innocence
Switalskis Solicitors
Survivors UK
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Sarah Blake
National Children’s Alliance
Halifax Personal Injury Lawyer

A very big thank you to the Feedspot team for including us in this wonderful list, and many congratulations to the above sites too, we are honoured to be in such good company.

child_abuse_1000px

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Haunted Motherhood: How Britain’s Forced Adoption Policy Deepens Family Trauma And Social Inequality

24 Friday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, forced adoption, Researching Reform, social services, social work

≈ 34 Comments

New research published in The Sociological Review, claims that women who have had their children forcibly removed through child protection proceedings live in a constant and critical state of trauma, which creates further inequalities for families and society as a whole.

The study says that this unique form of trauma affects women in four ways: mothers are forever haunted by the loss of their children, forced into silence because of the stigma attached to non consensual adoption, unable to get back on their feet because support services are missing, and live in constant fear of future children being removed by the Family Court.

Researching Reform is hugely excited to see this new body of work emerging, which mirrors our own concerns exactly, as our readers will know. For clarity, we should explain that while Moriss does not explicitly call “state ordered court removal”, forced adoption, and she may have her reasons for this as the term is still considered controversial, in reality that is what court ordered removal amounts to, whether a child is placed within a care home, foster home or adoptive home.

The article, produced by Lisa Morriss, a social work academic at the University of Birmingham, was first published online in June under the title, “Haunted futures: The stigma of being a mother living apart from her child(ren) as a result of state-ordered court removal.”

Morriss explains why she chose to focus on the idea that mothers who had experienced forced adoption were haunted by the process:

“My engagement with ghosts began when the stories of the birth mothers and children began to haunt me…. but [this] enabled a transformative recognition that the mothers may also be understood as being haunted. .. women who have had their children removed exist in a state of haunted motherhood, suspended in the shadowlands where the living and the invisible coexist, and temporality is both disrupted and merged.”

“State-ordered removal disrupts the expected future for both the children and their birth mothers. For the mothers, this is a unique form of loss and trauma as their child has not died but is living elsewhere, often for the entirety of their childhood.”

Moriss also explains that mothers who have experienced forced adoption feel deep shame, as they believe the world sees them as unfit mothers. These mothers are unable to address the stigma itself due to court imposed restrictions which often forbid parents from saying anything about their cases, leaving them powerless and living in an ongoing state of trauma. Lisa argues that Family Court reporting restrictions gag parents, who then cannot express or process their feelings, as a result. She calls these restrictions ‘testimonial quieting’, or a stigma which mafinests itself as a “governmental form of classification and badging with the power to silence and constrain the (m)other.”

Moriss suggests that creating narrative spaces for mothers wanting to share their stories could help parents to heal. She says these spaces could also be viewed as, “a political act, countering the stigma caused by pathologising individual mothers and making visible how structural inequalities and governmental policies impact on the lives of the most vulnerable families in the UK.”

Another issue Moriss touches on is the lack of support available to mothers who lose their children to non consensual adoption. The article sums up this terrible oversight:

“Children’s Services do not remain involved as there is no longer a child of concern, and the Court does not monitor the provision of any of the services, be these mental health or drugs related services, recommended during the proceedings. The women involved in these cases tend not to meet the stringent criteria to access mainstream Community Mental Health services. Thus, they are left to deal with the trauma and loss of a child on their own, particularly as they may be ostracised by family and friends due to the stigma and shame of state-ordered removal.”

The article goes on to mention the impact of interventions at an early stage, which could bring future removal of children to an end, where support is timely and effective. It also outlines how the policy of state ordered child removal, which is actually forced adoption, heightens social inequality and leads to a greater burden on the state. Moriss explains:

“Once their child is removed from their care, the mothers also lose any child related benefits. Furthermore, women living in social housing are at risk of losing their home once their child or children are removed due to the under-occupancy penalty (also known as the ‘bedroom tax’) which was introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. In these dire circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that the women (re)turn to drugs and alcohol, remain in violent relationships, or indeed, become pregnant again as a way to ameliorate their grief.”

Moriss also mentions the controversial Pause project, which the government has chosen to roll out nationwide, and we share her views here too. In her article, she talks about the requirement by Pause that all women engaging in its counselling programme must agree to having a Long Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) implanted inside them for the 18 months in order to take part. Of the requirement, Lisa says:

“[Mothers] cannot access the well-funded resources without consenting to the LARC as this is deemed necessary to the ‘success’ of the project, which is predicated on working with women at a time when they do not have a child in their care or are not pregnant. Here the implication is that ‘it is not deprivation and inequality which need to be “reduced”, but the poor themselves’… For Pause, success is measured in the numbers of babies not born and these calculated numbers of unborn babies are awarded a monetary value, and are used as a primary measure of the success of the programme.”

There are some deeply moving quotes, and poems from mothers who have lost their children, within the article. Moriss shares this poem from a woman who was engaged in the Mothers Living Apart from their Children project:

We aren’t classed as mothers.

We have no rights.

We don’t feel we have a job as a mum anymore.

Our homes are dead…

Being a mum never goes away in our hearts and mind.

We have feelings.

We have a heart. Shock anger, emotion, crying, powerless…

Where are they now?

We have to let them know some way we’re still here for them.

This poem, from another mother explains the deep pain forced adoption causes:

in the stillness we listen

her words splintered with tears…

they hold each other laugh cry

they use ordinary magic

to keep the room safe

strong and clever women

who understand what it is

to be broken.

And these mothers express their hopes and dreams about seeing their children :

“She told me she looks like the princess from Disney’s Tangle. She can write her own name, knows her colours, can ride a bike. Now when I’m out, I find myself searching for a little girl with blond hair. Social Services wouldn’t let me have the photo the foster carers took of her.”

“I dreamed of getting my girls back. … But in my dreams it was always my four year old and two year old I got back. Last year after letter box contact with my girls, I finally got a photograph. … They were babies and now they are beaming young mothers themselves. So, that makes me a grandma and I can only hope I will be able to play a big part in their lives as I couldn’t with my girls.”

The material for the research was gathered during an 18 month period, whilst Moriss was working as a research associate on two national projects focusing on child protection cases in the UK. She was tasked with reading legal bundles and Family Court case files. The data collected was then placed into a series of boxes and catalogued. Whilst she was not able to quote directly from the files she read, she has added thoughts from mothers engaged in a selection of programmes and also features one mother whom we suspect many of us will be familiar with, who she describes as, “‘Annie’, a birth mother who writes and presents on her experiences of being subject to the child protection and Family Court process.”

This is an astounding piece of research, both for its depth of insight and its courage. Moments like this are what have motivated us to keep campaigning for over a decade. Forcibly removing children from parents prevents closure and causes severe trauma for parents, and children. It also negatively impacts society in profound and lasting ways. It’s time the government looked at changing how it structures its adoption policy, and, crucially, replacing forced removal of children with consensual adoption, providing proper support for vulnerable parents, and where possible protecting those connections and bonds, rather than breaking them.

Many thanks to Dana for alerting us to this development.

albina-kumirova-glorious-march-of-auhorities.jpg

“Glorious March of Authorities”. Painting by Albina Kourmirova.

 

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Pilot Will Allow Reporting Of Closed Family Law Hearings

23 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in Family Law, Research, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

A new pilot coming into effect on 1st October, will give approved lawyers access to private hearings in the Family Court and the Family Division of the High Court, so that they can report on the proceedings. Selected reporters will be known as ‘legal bloggers.’

Pilot schemes inside the family courts are allowed under Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 36.2. The decision to launch a pilot for reporting inside the family courts was announced in Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD 36J, and covers all private hearings within FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 27.11, including child protection hearings and divorce proceedings.

In an update published by Lexis Nexis this morning, [link for subscribers], the scheme appears to have been set up to assess the new reporting regulations which cover lawyers attending private family law proceedings in a reporting capacity, as well as accredited reporters from “news gathering and reporting organisations”.

Lawyers who wish to take part in the pilot must belong to one of the categories below:

  1. Hold a valid practising certificate
  2. Work for a Higher Education institution, or
  3. Work for an educational charity

The pilot will run for nine months and ends on 30th June, 2019.

news-644850_960_720

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Care Experienced Fathers Needed

21 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in Research, Researching Reform

≈ 8 Comments

A study being carried out by Coventry University and the University of Warwick aims to explore what fatherhood is like for men who were in care as children, and they need care experienced fathers to take part.

The researchers are looking for fathers aged over 18 who were in local authority care as children, and who now have regular contact with at least one biological child aged 0-16 years old.

The new research study was tweeted by trainee clinical psychologist, Emma Dandy, on 19th August. Though Emma’s role in the study is not clear, her professional background might suggest that this study may assess participants’ mental health as part of its remit.

The flyer Emma shared offers the following information:

  • Willing participants will be interviewed for 60-90 minutes
  • The questions will focus on experiences around foster care, and being a father
  • Interviews are set to take place at the Rees Foundation Base in Redditch or Oxford, but can also be arranged at Coventry University, Warwick University or another venue that may be easier for the participant to get to
  • The study aims to give care experienced fathers, and father generally, a voice, develop greater understanding around the father-child relationship and help to inform support services
  • The study cannot interview fathers who are currently engaged in child protection proceedings which relate to their own children

The research could also be featured at a new event in 2019, called the “Care Experience Conference”, which is mentioned in the tweet featuring the study. The Twitter account for the event claims that the conference is “a coming together of care experienced people of all ages in Spring 2019.” No website link or further details appear to be available for this conference.

You can contact the researchers through Emma, on dandye@uni.coventry.ac.uk for further information.

If you are considering taking part in this study, do ask more questions first. In particular, we would recommend asking the following:

  • Who is funding the research?
  • Is the interview going to involve a psychological assessment?
  • What will you do with the information I share?
  • Will my details be made public or can I contribute anonymously if I want to?
  • Who else is involved in the study?
  • When will the research be published?
  • Will you be featuring the findings at conferences, within course lectures or elsewhere, and if so is the project GDPR compliant?

Good luck.

Dads Research Call

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

20 Monday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 22 Comments

Welcome to another week.

Think tank, The Social Market Foundation (SMF) examined inspection data from Ofsted, and discovered that almost 50,000 vulnerable children were being cared for in areas where council services were failing them. 

SMF offers the key stats below, inside their press release:

  •  63% of Local Authorities in England were providing services for vulnerable children which either “required improvement” or were “inadequate.”;
  • 47,085 children – 65% of all looked-after children – are looked after in Local Authorities that are deemed to be falling short of a good standard;
  • Of those children, 13,790 are receiving care services judged as “inadequate”, which is the worst possible grade. 

SMF produced a report with all their findings, which they’ve entitled, “Looked-after children: the Silent Crisis.”

The think tank is calling on the government to address the findings:

“It is remarkable that the fact that nearly two thirds of Local Authorities being judged in need of improvement or inadequate over looked-after children is scarcely discussed at Westminster. This would not be the case if such levels of failure were found in our school system, where 78% (secondary) and 90% (primary) are judged to be either good or outstanding.. 

This issue clearly needs to receive more attention from politicians and policymakers, and with improvements in the data available, we now have the ability to see where we are going wrong, and how we might improve the situation of looked after children.”

Today, Ofsted launched a beta site where members of the public can search for and access inspection reports for a wide range of bodies and child welfare practices.

Our question this week then, is this: why do you think the government continues to overlook the quality of care councils offer vulnerable children? 

face_question_mark

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Human Rights Committee Asks Government For Details About Its Child Spies

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

After it was revealed in July that the Home Office was using children to spy on behalf of the government, and had pushed for legislation to extend the amount of time child spies could work without review, a prominent Human Rights Committee has now requested detailed information about the scheme.

The legislation, which came into force on 20th July, increases the amount of time children can work as spies without review from one, to four months. The proposed legislation raised eyebrows in the House of Lords, which led to a report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The dossier set down Committee members’ concerns about the extension and how it might affect the wellbeing of children involved in the scheme.

The news that the government was using children as spies was met with anger online. Several Child welfare organisations and MPs were left disgusted by the practice, with some calling the government’s scheme a form of child abuse, and others suggesting that it was tantamount to recruiting child soldiers.

Chair of The Joint Committee on Human Rights, Harriet Harman MP, has now written to Ben Wallace MP, Minister for Security and Economic Crime, asking him to explain how the new regime complies with Article 3 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Article 3 demands that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration in situations which include children working with adults in a position of power.

Harman has also asked for information about the number of children used, data on gaps in the level of care across public authorities using child spies, and reasons behind the decision to increase the time period, specifically:

  • Details on how the regime adheres to Article 3 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration. MPs and Peers are pressing for more information on what assessments are made in considering both the risks to and the welfare of the children, and what support and advice they are given before, during and after the process.
  • The number of public authorities that have used juvenile CHIS since the legislation was introduced and whether there is a consistent approach across these authorities with regards to assessment, safeguarding and consultation with the child.
  • The number of juvenile CHIS used since the legislation was introduced, disaggregated by age range of child (under 16, and 16 and over), type of crime, and year.
  • Further details on the rationale behind changes to the duration of assignments for children engaging as CHIS.

We will let you know once the Home Office produces its response.

child spy

 

 

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Section 20: Councils Bypassing Parents, Targeting Children To Secure Agreements

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work, Voice of the Child

≈ 23 Comments

Alarming reports of councils sidestepping parental consent for Section 20 living arrangements have surfaced this week on Facebook, after the highest court in the land ruled that failing to get parents’ consent could lead to local authorities being sued for breaches under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private and family life.

Section 20 agreements allow councils to house children in temporary accommodation when parents are unable to care for their children. The agreements are intended to be short term, and voluntary, meaning that children can leave local authority accommodation under these arrangements at any time and without notice.

Children who are considered Fraser Competent, or mature enough to make decisions, can arrange accommodation under Section 20 agreements without parental involvement. The original thinking behind the policy was to ensure that children who felt unsafe or vulnerable in their home environments could reach out to councils for protection or respite.

This caveat now appears to be being abused by local authorities, who are turning to children to secure these agreements when parents refuse to accept the arrangements offered.

Whilst the Supreme Court made it clear last month that parents must be informed about their rights under Section 20, the judges did not cover the need to fully inform children who personally seek out temporary council accommodation, or are approached by councils looking to create such an agreement, and ensure that they fully understand the terms of the agreement, too.

Comments across closed Facebook groups, and text messages this site received, suggest that the practice of targeting children when parents object to a Section 20 arrangement is not new. Several children also posted about their experiences of being coerced into council accommodation, and adoption proceedings. One child told Researching Reform:

“I wish the court had made sure I understood first what was being asked.. which I didn’t at the time. I have grown up to realise as a young adult that I have missed out on so much. I have lost touch with family members as a result, and this concerns me for my health because I lost one of my parents when they were very young. I would like to be able to understand their medical history to see if I can alleviate my own health worries but have nowhere to start.” 

Section 20 arrangements came to the mainstream media’s attention last year after it was revealed that the agreements were being used by councils to remove children from their parents with a view to putting them up for adoption, which is illegal.

More on Section 20:

  • Section 20: You CAN Remove Your Child From Local Authority Accommodation
  • Investigation into S.20 Agreements
  • Section 20 Consent Forms For Parents and Children 

Many thanks to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this development.

Section 20.png

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 8,468 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

August 2018
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Jul   Sep »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

  • Follow Following
    • Researching Reform
    • Join 813 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Researching Reform
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: