These are the latest child welfare stories that should be right on your radar:

• Committee publishes report on strategy to reform social care for children
• Frontline awarded £61 million to train child protection social workers
• Local authorities increasingly using incentive payments to attract and retain social workers

Welcome to another, shorter, week.

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

• Jersey commissioner criticises government over children in care
• Extra 10,500 children could go into care in England, say leading children’s charities
• Implementation of Children’s social care strategy unambitious and slow, says Lord’s Committee

As some of our readers will know, during the day Researching Reform works as a child rights journalist and our latest story is about a groundbreaking new project which is reuniting children in the care system with their birth families.

The project is run by Coventry City Council. The story includes the personal experiences of mothers and their children being reunited, and how this project and the social work teams inside it, work to support rather than judge families. The project is starting to be rolled out across other councils, and families can ask to be referred to the scheme.

The piece is free to read on Byline Times and can be accessed here.

For those on Twitter who feel this new initiative would benefit people in your network, you can access and tweet or share the link here.

We would like to thank the mothers and the children who spoke with us, and shared their stories with us, and the team at Coventry City Council who were open to discussing the challenges inside the system and are trying to change social work practice.

The UK government has launched a consultation which would like views on how implementing a duty to report child sexual abuse in England is likely to affect children, organisations, and affected workforces and volunteers; and how different aspects could be implemented.

In the consultation’s introduction, the government says, “Investigations undertaken by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse documented unacceptable cases of organisations and institutions failing to protect those in their care from child sexual abuse (Lambeth Council, Residential Schools, Child Sexual Exploitation in Organised Networks, and more). This must not be allowed to happen again.”

The call for evidence, which is limited to England, follows a recommendation by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to implement a duty to report suspected child abuse. Members of the public have been invited to share their evidence, along with:

1. Persons working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended).
2. Volunteers who would be undertaking regulated activity in relation to children if they were unsupervised.
3. Anyone working with children in any capacity.
4. Persons working in a position of trust (as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ).
5. Police officers.
6. Local authorities; including children’s social care workers
7. Welsh Government.
8. NHS England, Directors of Public Health and Integrated Care Boards
9. Inspectorates and regulators.
10. Education settings and workforce, including Early Years and Further Education.
11. Children’s activity settings and workforces (children’s sports, drama, arts, and music clubs)
12. Civil Society and Youth organisations (charities, voluntary, community and social enterprises).
13. Academics and research institutions such as What Works Centres
14. Professional organisations such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA etc.

The IICSA’s recommendation, which is number 13 in the IICSA’s report says:

Mandatory reporting

The Inquiry recommends that the UK government and Welsh Government introduce legislation which places certain individuals – ‘mandated reporters’ – under a statutory duty to report child sexual abuse where they:

• receive a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or
• witness a child being sexually abused; or
• observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse.

The following persons should be designated ‘mandated reporters’:

• any person working in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended);
• any person working in a position of trust (as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as amended); and
• police officers.

For the purposes of mandatory reporting, ‘child sexual abuse’ should be interpreted as any act that would be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the alleged victim is a child under the age of 18.

Where the child is aged between 13 and under 16 years old, a report need not be made where the mandated reporter reasonably believes that:

• the relationship between the parties is consensual and not intimidatory, exploitative or coercive; and
• the child has not been harmed and is not at risk of being harmed; and
• there is no material difference in capacity or maturity between the parties engaged in the sexual activity concerned, and there is a difference in age of no more than three years.

These exceptions should not, however, apply where the alleged perpetrator is in a position of trust within the meaning of the 2003 Act.

Where the child is under the age of 13, a report must always be made.

Reports should be made to either local authority children’s social care or the police as soon as is practicable.

It should be a criminal offence for mandated reporters to fail to report child sexual abuse where they:

• are in receipt of a disclosure of child sexual abuse from a child or perpetrator; or
• witness a child being sexually abused.

The survey for the consultation can be accessed here.

The consultation closes on Monday 14 August, 2023.

Enquiries (including requests for the paper in an alternative format) can be sent to:

IICSA Response
Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Unit
Home Office
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Email: mr_csa@homeoffice.gov.uk

Britain’s first parent-led Truth Commission for children’s social care is holding its next monthly public Zoom meeting today, Wednesday 24 May, from 5pm to 6pm.

This meeting is for child protection experienced families only.

Children’s social care practitioners who are keen to understand what families need from the system and help to improve it will be invited to join other meetings.

As always, attendees can get involved with the work of the commission, give their advice and ask its members questions about the commission during these calls. We’d love you to join us.

We’ll also be inviting attendees to take part in a Mentimeter session: interactive software which allows guests to share their views about a topic using one word or sentence. That data is then collected by the software, so attendees can see emerging patterns and trends in real time. This month’s topic is kinship care.

During the event you can ask the commission’s lead Michele Simmons, and commission team members Simon Haworth and Natasha Phillips (Researching Reform) questions about the commission’s current projects and share your feedback and suggestions.

We regret that we can’t discuss attendees’ individual cases, as reporting restrictions currently prevent third parties like commissions from talking about cases in a public setting, but we would very much encourage those present to tell the commission how they feel and what they think about the child protection system and the family courts.

Families and children in need of immediate help can access the free support services on your “My Support” page on the commission’s website.

The call will take place today, from 5pm to 6pm on Zoom. You can email to attend any time until 5pm today.

If you would like to attend the event, please email the team at truthcommissionuk@gmail.com. The team will also give you information about how to access the conference.

Please confirm you would like to attend the event in your message, and let us know if you are a care-experienced child, parent, or extended family member.

We look forward to welcoming you.

Additional links:

• Commission website
• Current available guides (free to read)
• Free Booklet: Children and their families have rights
• Families’ testimonials

Britain’s first parent-led Truth Commission for children’s social care is holding its next monthly public Zoom meeting tomorrow, Wednesday 24 May, from 5pm to 6pm.

This meeting is for child protection experienced families only.

Children’s social care practitioners who are keen to understand what families need from the system and help to improve it will be invited to join other meetings.

As always, attendees can get involved with the work of the commission, give their advice and ask its members questions about the commission during these calls. We’d love you to join us.

We’ll also be inviting attendees to take part in a Mentimeter session: interactive software which allows guests to share their views about a topic using one word or sentence. That data is then collected by the software, so attendees can see emerging patterns and trends in real time. This month’s topic is kinship care.

During the event you can ask the commission’s lead Michele Simmons, and commission team members Simon Haworth and Natasha Phillips (Researching Reform) questions about the commission’s current projects and share your feedback and suggestions.

We regret that we can’t discuss attendees’ individual cases, as reporting restrictions currently prevent third parties like commissions from talking about cases in a public setting, but we would very much encourage those present to tell the commission how they feel and what they think about the child protection system and the family courts.

Families and children in need of immediate help can access the free support services on your “My Support” page on the commission’s website.

The call will take place on Wednesday 24 May, from 5pm to 6pm on Zoom. You can email to attend any time until 5pm on that day.

If you would like to attend the event, please email the team at truthcommissionuk@gmail.com. The team will also give you information about how to access the conference.

Please confirm you would like to attend the event in your message, and let us know if you are a care-experienced child, parent, or extended family member.

We look forward to welcoming you.

Additional links:

• Commission website
• Current available guides (free to read)
• Free Booklet: Children and their families have rights
• Families’ testimonials

Welcome to another week.

These are the latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

• Chris Law calls for apology from UK Government for forced adoptions
• Christian Brothers accused of engaging in ‘slave trade’
• Children’s home run by Action for Children, a charity Kate Middleton supports, shut down over safeguarding fears

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published the latest round of complaints submitted by parents and carers to the body, and its decisions about those complaints. They are about children’s social care and local authority handling of child protection cases.

The latest round of decisions about child welfare complaints submitted by parents feature alleged failures of support from councils in a range of contexts including financial support, homelessness, child protection support, and lack of support for foster carers.

The majority of complaints were not upheld.

The extract below is from one of only a couple of complaints which was upheld by the ombudsman, and includes a promise by the council to review its procedures:

London Borough of Hounslow (22 004 599)

Summary: Miss X complained about the support the Council provided to protect her son from child criminal exploitation and related violence. There was fault in how the Council arranged for Miss X to move outside of its area, failed to decide whether to assess B’s special educational needs and how it handled Miss X’s complaint. This caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy. It also agreed to review its practices.

Children and Education

Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

London Borough of Croydon (22 008 865)

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in considering whether to exercise its discretion to pay Ms X’s legal fees in connection with an immigration application, a delay in processing her housing register application and a failure to send a decision letter when it later changed her priority band. There were also failings in the complaints process. The Council should pay her £500 for the worry and frustration caused, and take action to prevent recurrence of the fault.

North Yorkshire County Council (22 016 676)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as we are unable to investigate the substantive matters that underlie the complaint.

West Sussex County Council (22 017 138)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer providing false information. Another body is better placed than us to consider the complaint.

Suffolk County Council (22 017 254)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged data protection breach. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider the complaint.

Kent County Council (22 016 529)

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had not properly considered her request for support from its Disabled Children’s team. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 179)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to stop providing adoption allowance payments to Mr X. This is because the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate event that took place that long ago.

Leeds City Council (22 017 358)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions in 2020. There are no good reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (22 002 633)

Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with an allegation about Miss B’s care of a child she was looking after. It acted in line with relevant guidance and procedure, considered Miss B’s representations in full, and explained the reasons behind its decision-making. This means we cannot question its decision on the allegation – as we have no power to question decisions made without fault.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (22 006 863)

Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s lack of assistance with his homelessness. The Council was at fault for a failure to progress the homelessness case and issue appropriate decision letters between August 2020 and February 2021. The Council also failed to make proper enquiries about Mr Y’s caring responsibilities in that period but this did not affect the outcome. The Council said it would apologise and pay Mr Y £750 to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused, which is an appropriate remedy.

Worcestershire County Council (22 009 826)

Summary: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council in failing to provide social care support for her two children, C and D since late 2018, delay in carrying out a carer’s assessment and delay in dealing with her complaint about the matter. We found the Council delayed in finding suitable support for C at different points amounting to approximately 18 months in total. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £1000 and review its commissioning service.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 393)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end his special guardianship financial support. We have not found the Council to be at fault. Mr X was not entitled to receive an allowance in accordance with the Council’s policy.

Swindon Borough Council (22 017 081)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in deciding which parent was best placed to care for Mrs X’s children and how it responded to her complaint. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been raised in court. Ms X retains a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use.

Hertfordshire County Council (22 012 585)

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council have continued to fail to properly investigate her complaint about not being provided with enough guidance and support as a new foster carer. She said the investigation was not independent and no evidence was produced to support the Council’s findings. The Ombudsman does not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Surrey County Council (22 016 605)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Ms X’s children. It relates to matters that are currently being considered in court.

Swindon Borough Council (22 017 084)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided to the police by a Council’s social worker. This is because investigation could not establish that the Council’s action in providing the information caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 000 777)

Summary: Mr F complained that the Council failed to disclose important information to them about the birth mother of their adopted daughter, which caused uncertainty about the contact arrangements he had agreed to. We found the complaints process had taken too long but was very thorough and we considered the financial remedy should be higher. The Council has agreed to increase the payment to £250 and take steps to tighten up the operation of the complaints process for the future.

Lancashire County Council (22 008 773)

Summary: Mr and Mrs P are unhappy with the Council’s response to their complaint about funding adaptations to their home. The Council suggested adaptations during Mr and Mrs P’s application for a Special Guardianship Order to create an extra bedroom. The Council has agreed to consider Mr and Mrs P’s need for adaptations again.

Lancashire County Council (22 015 012)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Lancashire County Council and Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board’s delay providing a joint care package to meet his son’s and the family’s needs. The Council has provided an appropriate remedy, which Mr X has accepted. It is unlikely an Ombudsmen investigation would achieve more.

Durham County Council (22 016 667)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation. Mr X also has a right to go to court it would b reasonable to use if he wishes to vary the contact and residence arrangements for his child.

City of York Council (22 016 956)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate the actions of a social worker. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (22 017 065)

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the complainant’s children. This is because it concerns matters which have been raised in court or are inextricably linked with those matters.

Leeds City Council (22 015 944)

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the withdrawal of a payment for children’s leisure activities done without an assessment. We could not add to the remedy for fault provided by the Council or achieve the remedy Ms X wants. Lawfulness is a matter for a court rather than the Ombudsman.

Britain’s first parent-led Truth Commission for children’s social care is holding its next monthly public Zoom meeting on Wednesday 24 May, from 5pm to 6pm.

This meeting is for child protection experienced families only, after the attendance of child protection professionals at the last meeting caused some upset, for which the Commission apologises.

Children’s social care workers who are keen to understand what families need from the system and help to improve it will be invited to other meetings.

As always, attendees can get involved with the work of the commission, give their advice and ask its members questions about the commission during these calls. We’d love you to join us.

We’ll also be inviting attendees to take part in a Mentimeter session: interactive software which allows guests to share their views about a topic using one word or sentence. That data is then collected by the software, so attendees can see emerging patterns and trends in real time. This month’s topic is kinship care.

During the event you can ask the commission’s lead Michele Simmons, and commission team members Simon Haworth and Natasha Phillips (Researching Reform) questions about the commission’s current projects and share your feedback and suggestions.

We regret that we can’t discuss attendees’ individual cases, as reporting restrictions currently prevent third parties like commissions from talking about cases in a public setting, but we would very much encourage those present to tell the commission how they feel and what they think about the child protection system and the family courts.

Families and children in need of immediate help can access the free support services on your “My Support” page on the commission’s website.

The call will take place on Wednesday 24 May, from 5pm to 6pm on Zoom. You can email to attend any time until 5pm on that day.

If you would like to attend the event, please email the team at truthcommissionuk@gmail.com. The team will also give you information about how to access the conference.

Please confirm you would like to attend the event in your message, and let us know if you are a care-experienced child, parent, or extended family member.

We look forward to welcoming you.

Additional links:

• Commission website
• Current available guides (free to read)
• Free Booklet: Children and their families have rights
• Families’ testimonials

A sharp rise in complaints by children against their foster carers was revealed in the latest government figures.

Children made 1,965 complaints of abuse against their foster carers from 2021 to 2022, a staggering 24 percent increase from last year’s figures (1,585 complaints.)

The increase could be down to children feeling more empowered to talk about their treatment in placements, amid growing public and sector awareness that children’s experiences in care must be heard.

The figures are still likely to be conservative, with fear of being punished by their foster carers for speaking out and being sent back to a care home possible incentives for the 70,000 children currently in foster care to keep their maltreatment hidden.

The overall number of child abuse complaints against foster carers which include complaints made by other sources also rose, with 3,010 allegations made during 2021 and 2022, an increase of 16% from the year before (2,600 allegations).

The majority of complaints (65%) were made by children in foster care. This represented an increase of 4 percent against last year’s complaints submitted by children.

However, there was a sharp decrease in the reported number of incidents of physical restraint during the same period, from 930 to 730, representing a 27 percent drop. The data held that 82 percent of incidents between 2020 and 2021 were reported in the Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) sector, against 71 percent in the same sector between 2021 and 2022.

There is an important explainer added into the data on IFAs and reported incidents which says, “Some of the differences between sectors may be affected by variations in reporting processes between IFAs and Local Authorities (LA), but this data almost certainly includes a large amount of under reporting by LAs over the years.”

As with last year, physical abuse continued to be the most complained about (51 percent) form of maltreatment. Over the same period the number of emotional abuse allegations rose from 19 percent to 24 percent.

While more than half of the allegations resulted in no further action (52 percent), there was a 4 percent increase in the number of cases which were referred to the fostering panel (30%). Complaints deemed ‘valid’ were highest within LAs (34 percent) followed by IFAs (24 percent).

The government does not currently produce annual reports on allegations of abuse against staff and carers in other placements or care home settings in England and Wales as standard practice.

Researching Reform remains deeply concerned that a significant number of placements for children in care continue to be unsafe, and we call on the government to look into the framework supporting these placements.

You can access the data in full here.