Welcome to another week.
As promised, we are republishing a post we shared last week inviting parents to share their experiences of care proceedings with a focus on which stages of the process they felt were unfair.
Researching Reform will show social work staff how the framework used in care proceedings sets parents up to fail and enables unjust child removals, at an event hosted by Neath Port Talbot social services.
The Public Law Outline (PLO) is a legal framework which acts as a form of guidance for the family court about how to manage care proceedings.
It contains the order of the different stages of the process; the matters to be considered at the main case management hearings; and timescales for each stage of the process which should be followed by the family courts and social work staff in order to resolve the proceedings within 26 weeks.
Initially created to prevent children from staying too long inside the child protection system, the outline has been heavily criticised in recent years.
One of the key concerns stems from its use of time limits to try and push cases through the courts in instances where more time would have allowed parents to demonstrate their ability to care for their children, and keep them in their care.
Social workers also struggle to meet the deadlines in an increasing number of cases. Extensions are supposed to be granted in cases where additional time would resolve the case fairly, but many parents say they are simply refused more time to make the changes being asked of them.
And despite a growing number of social work experts acknowledging that the system does set parents up to fail – and even using the term, which was coined by deeply frustrated families inside the system experiencing this unfairness – the system has not done anything to address the problem.
Researching Reform decided that the best way to show social work staff the problems with this guidance and its timeframes was to collect real-life experiences of the families who have been exposed to them, and we would be so grateful for your help.
We are looking to gather experiences of families and children who have gone through care proceedings and felt that the stages and time limits set them up to fail.
This post includes questions below which you are welcome to email or post your answers to if you would like to share your experience. There is also an accessible breakdown of the PLO so that you can point to which bits of the guidance affected you, and how.
The conference takes place at the beginning of February, so we would welcome as much input as you can offer over the next two weeks. We will keep sharing this post as well, so that you can come back to it whenever you would like to.
Questions we would love the answers to:
- Did you feel you the care proceedings process/ PLO was setting you up to fail, and if so, why?
- How did the timelines in your case affect your ability to carry out tasks, courses and assessments ordered by the court?
- Did any of the courses run over any of the time limits and prevent you from showing the results to a court?
- Were any of the timelines extended?
- Which part/s of the PLO do you think should be scrapped and why?
- Which parts of the PLO do you think are useful, and why?
- Was some of the PLO ignored or not carried out at all during your case?
- Was some/ all of the PLO wrongly carried out during your case?
Breakdown of the Public Law Outline:
Stages
- Pre-proceedings Checklist – submission of documents, evidence and records to the court
- Stage 1: Issue and Allocation – On day 1, a local authority files the application form, then 24 hours later a court must consider an application and give directions
- Stage 2: Case Management Hearing – advocates meet including litigants in person, no later than 2 business days before the case management hearing. Not before day 12 and not later than day 18 is a further case management hearing to be held only if necessary, and must listed as soon as possible and in any event no later than day 25.
- Stage 3: Issues Resolution Hearing – advocates meet including litigants in person, no later than 7 business days before the issue resolutions hearing. Court identifies key issues and evidence, and gives final case management directions including the filing of the final evidence and care plan, skeleton arguments and a listing for the final hearing.
If you would like to see the PLO in full, you can access it here.
There is also a good page explaining the PLO and the documents related to it on the Family Rights Group website.
You can post your comments below (we review comments before publication to ensure we don’t publicly share any confidential information) or you can email Researching Reform at Sobk13 at gmail dot com.
Researching Reform has not accepted any payment for taking part in this conference.
Researching Reform 
A large percentage of mothers are faced with a psychologist reports which state 6-12 months are needed to complete therapy work he or she have outlined. Knowing full well adoption decisions have a time limit of 26 weeks.
A parent asking for extensions for this to take place is met by a social worker always telling the courts that even after completing the work does not mean the parent will be suitable to parent the child pushing the idea that the child will have been dangling in the system a further length of time unsure of its future thus damaging the child further.. This is contradicting behaviour by ss and one must ask why the child is not placed with extended family to lessen the damage foster care causes a child.
If you breakdown the above
(1) betime reports are entered into courts ss have been involved 3 months or more leaving little or no time for therapy to begin.
(2) psychologist give a timeline of 6 to 12 months which is out of the timeline period for decisions to be made for adoptions.
(3) A sw will always use the 26 week timeline when addressing the courts if the child is 5years and under. This is the only time the sw will use what’s in the best interest of the child theory pointing out that foster care further damages a child.
Once ss remove a child under 5 with adoption as their plan how many get their child back ?
The system is set up to make it virtually impossible to stop an adoption with wording of “risk” being used ..risk the parent won’t parent properly..risk she will harm the child..risk she will fail the therapy needed.. all this being future not present. “Crystal ball theorist” a parent is set up to fail the bar that is impossible to reach.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Having the out of timescale card used, is horrendous.
How many parent’s were told the help and support needed, early on, only to not get that support or all of that support, only to have it used against them at the end of proceedings. It’s sadistic.
Worse still when it was/is the parent pushing for the support needed from the start, only for this to go completely ignored or to instead have it reversed and used against them in a way to punish rather than accept addressing the support the parent’s needed/needs. Surely this shows that yes, parent’s are adequate and intelligent enough to recognise this.
There should be no shame in asking for and receiving support. After all, is this not what children’s services are meant to be about.
To help address the child’s needs, the parent’s needs need addressing too with full support when the parent has stated the help needed to help them with parenting.
A parent/s will raise things like concerns with children’s developmental delays, an older child playing with a younger siblings toys, only to go ignored. But then a Foster carer or caregiver will raise those same concerns and children’s services will make a note of it then.
So if you’ve got a overheated baby and your concerns go ignored, only for this to be recognised once your baby is in care, it’s this sort of lack of safeguarding on top, which could cause said baby serious risk of harm such as neglect.
A big part of the stress for parents is not only ‘not’ been listened to and brushed aside, but been deeply concerned that where their concerns are not been listened to, then neither are the child’s needs been met.
A loving, kind, compassionate parent with maternal instinct will starve themselves to ensure their child/ren are fed if necessary. But then to have that maternal instinct minimalised and brushed aside, can cause that parent no end of emotional harm to the point of a jingle jangled mind and breakdown because it’s through the parent/s that a child’s voice gets heard.
Now where on top of this, the parent/s are met with a children’s social worker who shows no empathy, perhaps who has no first hand experience of been a parent themselves, but chooses to set the parent/s up instead, bullies them, twists things they say, plans to and carries out using mental health against the parent/s which they themselves have caused said harm against the parent/s, the biggest fear for me was realising that in turn, my child/ren’s needs were been compromised in the process. But get to meetings are realise everyone else was/in on it, through instinct is a really frightening place to be in when you were/are concerned that your child/ren are getting the right support. This cannot possibly be the case when said services are so hell bent on setting up the parent.
A parent’s instincts might be good at picking up wrongdoing and uneccassary harm caused against their family. I went on to get the strong evidence I was been set up, after been made to feel it was just me thinking it. It was such a huge relief in a way, after been made to feel like I was going mad. But I realise and recognise that I was deeply traumatised during said process.
I feel for the parents who don’t realise. The harm that must be been caused to their child/ren hidden away from them, is unthinkable. Parents ought not to be been taken advantage of for children’s services and secret family Court’s gain.
What I also find amazing is, that after parent’s who have done their thorough research, investigating their own Case deep enough sometimes for years on end, quite rightly asking the right questions in letter writing, is that once the scandal unfolds on a deeper more intense level, secret family court Judge’s can/do shout ‘no jurisdiction to investigate’ and when, like me, you discovered there was in fact, no legitimate adoption on record , after all; I find it bizarre that instead of said wrongs been put right, said parent will instead get either restricted or gagged WITHOUT said parent/s written/signed consent!
We surely have criminals then, working against our children and us as parents people ⚒️🤔🕊️🦋
Is this something which deeply concerns you too? Xx
LikeLike
If, as they so often claim, the SS really do try to keep families together, why is no help for parents ever sought in the period of intervention prior to court hearings? In my experience, the social workers will do everything in their power to make parents believe they have ‘no concerns’ but ‘just have to go through the investigation process’ and ‘ we have no intention of removing your child’ them bam – court, and ‘the mother didn’t seek counselling / DV support’ or what ever else the social worker never suggested.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies for my few spelling mistakes Xxxx
LikeLike
No need to apologise xxxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
If parents love their children enough to fight through nerve wracking court appearances in order to try and keep them at home,they should benefit from a “presumption of innocence” After all most cruel or neglectful parents would give courts of any kind a very wide berth ! At the very least when hearsay (evidence from persons not attending court) conflicts with live evidence from parents actually in court then surely there should be at least a presumption that the direct evidence should prevail instead of the contrary as now seems to be the case.
At present these and other practices must lead parents to believe that they are indeed set up to fail.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Totally set up they had 0 JURSIDICTION tgey had 0 evidence. I was a visitor thry used phycological warfare tactics, bulling and more. It’s discusting there was no Facts or findings yet they get to lie and do whatever they want say what ever they want in couet and you are silenced and threatened if you try and defend your self and when you do they shut you down by saying this isn’t a criminal case. Bs I got treated like a criminal and I did nothing wrong. It’s Henious.
LikeLike
I don’t recall having a fact finding hearing either Xx
LikeLike
It becomes rather like dealing with a playground full of bullies then, leaving you scared wondering whose really looking out for your child/ren besides you Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I certainly felt bullied by the social worker – she relished her power over me and enjoyed playing little games too – one minute giving me hope the next saying the most horrendous things designed to tear open my soul. I wish I had been wise enough to record her. Almost everything she wrote was a complete lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Social workers are completely free to lie in family court. I have asked at the highest level whether there is anything in place to ensure that social workers are truthful in their ‘evidence’ and the response was that these ‘professionals’ are ‘expected’ to be honest.
LikeLike
I really can relate to that Xx
LikeLike
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
‘The conference takes place at the beginning of February, so we would welcome as much input as you can offer over the next two weeks. We will keep sharing this post as well, so that you can come back to it whenever you would like to.’ Xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sent mine by e-mail so as not to make public anything that could identify me or my child – hope you received it OK?
LikeLike
Nothing received by email, VNE.
LikeLike
Have just re-sent. Hope you receive it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did, thank you x
LikeLiked by 2 people
mother maintained her new daughter was suffering from a undiagnosed condition. No one believed her. The SS said it was neglect as her daughter did not feed correctly and did not put on the expected weight. 10 months later her daughter was diagnosed with Oseogenisis Imperfecta (brital bones) (OI) the main misdiagnosis is “failure to thrive” children with OI don’t feed properly and don’t gain weight.
The SS and the court refused to consider the DNA evidence and also subsequent evidence from a police investigation regarding a SS false accusation proving the mother was totally innocent.
12 years later the mother is still fighting to even get her contact listed in the court order reinstated. Her daughter is in a SGO, The SGO stopped contact without going back to court supported by the LA, cafcass and the SS.
There are also numerous other perjured statements in the Threshold statement and APP meeting minutes. All this was presented in court by the mother but ignored by the judge, who even admits in her final summation “I have not read all the court bundle but feel I have read enough”!!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diabolical. Shame on that a judge! These things should be put right immediately Xx
LikeLike
All parents are set up to fail from the second social services contact us i have ask for support for my children to have safe contact with father after iv fled domestic abuse and yet im now on plo being made out to be some trampy child beating risk to my kids when realy im just a normal mother trying to have a normal life with my children to be honest the system stinks and its always the full time parent thats in the wrong
LikeLike
We have had a police investigation which found no neglect or harm so why is our little boy still in care and why was our daughter snatched at birth for social workers to lie and have us in court facing forced adoption against our children based on their lies. Myself and my partner have cctv evidence of social worker stressing me into premature labour and birth to get their hands on our daughter trying to cover their lying backsides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SW removed my daughter just because of my learning disabilities and mental I didn’t have family support they said my learning disabilities makes it harder for me to be a good parent they only did half of my parent assessment they used the fact my partner was in prison they didn’t do a parent assessment on him atoll that is all they used on us now our daughter is with adtopotion parents
LikeLike