Nagalro, an organisation which trains children’s guardians, family court advisers and independent social workers, has published a tool to encourage the use of friends and family to support child contact.
The tool, which is a 12 page document featuring guidance and a checklist, offers child welfare staff a way of assessing wider family and friends to support contact.
It is not a bad tool. We would query some of the assumptions made in the guide, such as the view in Part 1 that individuals are “unlikely to be suitable” if there is a need to make detailed notes about the contact. This, surely, should be assessed on a case by case basis, without unhelpful and potentially stigmatising bias being introduced into the guidance.
Researching Reform 
I didn’t read the whole thing but just wanted to point out that in my case the social worker ordered contact to be supervised by my abuser. Since I had escaped domestic violence from this person I cannot see how enabling it to continue via contact supervision could have been in any way in my child’s best interests. It also put me in direct danger and I had no hope of truthful accounts of the contact being passed to the SS. There are many DV victims in this area of the country who are under supervision by their abusers and this has to stop. I would also like to point out that though the report recommends against foster carers supervising contact this is actually standard practice. It should never be done when the foster carer hopes to adopt the child as the bias against the true parent in these cases does not need explaining.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am more used to reading from people who hate supervised contact and don’t want a third party there. I was not previously aware that some people are supervised by their ex. Even when not an abuser, that sounds a bad idea.
The problem comes in that, if the court genuinely believes that supervised access is necessary (let’s ignore how often they are, and why, for now) who is to supervise? It can’t just be a friend of the person being supervised; the SS are not generally any more trustworthy than CAFCASS; the ex is clearly the wrong person and grandparents are only one step better. Perhaps if you were given the opportunity to interview the person who was to supervise? That puts up the costs, of course, but at least puts some measure of determination with the parent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I actually refused to be supervised by my abuser but I know many parents who do not realize they have the right to do this. Also my refusal was reported as my ‘not cooperating with professionals’ ‘making negative statements about the father’ being ‘not able to prioritize my child’s needs over my own’ and ‘being overly demanding of services’. Despite all this I still think it was the wisest and safest thing to do for my child as well as for myself, though I still ended up supervised by him once.
Generally, I found ‘contact supervisors’ to be pretty good and certainly much nicer people than social workers. My subject access request revealed that they were all truthful and honest in their records of the sessions. Funny how every contact was described as great quality other than the couple supervised by social workers – then there were lies of course. Supervised contact is horrible and must so often be completely unnecessary. It also ruins the dynamic between parent and child forever when children are old enough to understand Mum or Dad is under some mysterious suspicion. That parents go through this utterly humiliating process is testament to their love for their children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So this organisation is bigging it up, while tearing it down. This in interesting. While re: part 1, disturbingly transparent.
Families need to be pre-warned, since I’m transparent too, they may be the strongest of families with strong family connections, but I’ve also first hand witnessed that change by the time professionals connected to the child care system become involved and I’ve first hand witnessed the complete severance of some family members once family court proceedings start along the way. Surely this should not be what it’s all about 🕊️🦋 Xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Social workers destroy family relationships by telling so many lies about the parent to as many people as they can. They will try to set everyone up against you and will dismiss those who stand by you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes and this needs to change, although it is seriously concerning for the families whose lives have already been destroyed and did not deserve it 😘🕊️🦋 Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree with what you say. parents are discredited and set up to lose in the family courts by cynical social workers who are hell bent on one thing only. and thats to win their case and they will pull no punches to achieve it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Call it a tool ? More like a bureaucratic splurge that very few distressed parents would have the courage to read through or the ability to remember what was written over all those pages of woke speak.Parents with no criminal record of offences against children (a huge majority) should be allowed to bring whoever they like (with similar records) to see their children and more importantly to discuss anything they like with their children.
FREE SPEECH is crushed at present by supervisors who dare to decide what parents and children may discuss with each other !!
The so called “tool” ignores this and just blathers on creating multiple complicated conditions to baffle the majority of averagely educated parents and delight the social workers………..
LikeLiked by 2 people
The lack of free speech is very deliberate. Not allowing loving parents to tell their children they are fighting to bring them home makes it easier for social workers to work on breaking the bond between parent and child. They will tell the child lies about their family and even tell children their mummies don’t want them anymore. I will never, ever understand what kind of human being could possibly do such wicked work but surely they have sold their souls.
LikeLike
Through my legal rep, I was told I could get my son home, for who I had not even signed a section 20 contract.
I phoned my one son up to let him know in foster care, he was so excited, next thing I was been hauled over the coals by SS so to speak been told I should not have told him that when I didn’t know what would be happening. But I did know 🤔
I could not understand why this would be, until at the next (legal) meeting I learnt they were starting proceedings for adoption.
I was told I could have gone and removed him. I did what I thought was the right thing and my Solicitor wrote a letter with a care plan as advised by Counsel although I also phoned the Foster carers to let them know I was looking at collecting my son.
I was told that if I did, she would have to look at contacting SS to come down and even the police. They worked for the police where my son was staying. What choice did I have.
Turn up to remove your child, they only have to use that your causing your child distress when all you’re doing is collecting them 🤔
I suspected I was been set up all along by SS, turned out I was right when I had it confirmed to me eventually. But vital evidence like this gets left out of the hearing, even when your legal rep evidenced they had sent the evidence into court in writing and including by writing from witnesses. I will never get over that or the fact it’s happening to other families wrongly 🕊️🦋 Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again i absolutely agree.
and yes SW’s have sold their souls to the Devil.
if you would like to send me a friend req on FB you are welcome. im from Sunderland in the Northeast and lost all three of my sons to those band of Criminals they call social workers.
LikeLike