Welcome to another week.

Controversial S.20 Agreements, meant for placing children in local authority accommodation where child protection concerns exist but which have been illegally used to take children into care, are now on the Supreme Court’s radar.

After the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no duty on councils to get parental consent for these agreements, the family involved in this case appealed the decision, and the Justices at the Supreme Court have now granted permission to challenge the ruling.

Section 20 Agreements have been so badly abused by social workers that in April of this year an investigation was launched, which aimed to look at how and why these agreements were being used to coerce families and children into child protection proceedings.

The ruling by the Court of Appeal also contradicts the President of the Family Division’s own guidelines, released in 2015, which explicitly state that parental consent must be obtained for any S.20 Agreement.

At Researching Reform we take the view that parental consent must be a basic ingredient of any Section 20 Agreement, which is by its nature a voluntary arrangement. Failure to secure that consent, to our mind, renders the agreement null and void precisely because it is a voluntary arrangement, which expressly implies a need for consent.

Just as critically, failure to obtain consent acts as a gateway to abuse, allowing social workers to coerce families into child protection proceedings. It is this lack of transparency, and consent, that has led to councils being able to use S.20 Agreements to break the law and take children from parents.

But that’s just one view.

Our question then, is just this: do you think parental consent should be a legal requirement for S.20 Agreements?

A very big thank you to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this development.

Welcome to another week.

Australia has just announced that it is launching a full scale review into its Family Justice System.

Like the Family Justice System in England and Wales, it has been criticised for being “painstakingly slow and prohibitively expensive” with concerns raised over the way in which victims are treated and children routinely ignored by a system unable to cope with demand.

Federal Attorney-General George Brandis described the review, which will be run by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), as “necessary and long overdue”.

Brandis goes on to say:

“The review of the family law system will be broad and far reaching, focusing on key areas of importance to Australian families…

These include ensuring the family law system prioritises the best interests of children, best addresses family violence and child abuse, and supports families, including those with complex needs, to resolve their family law disputes quickly and safely while minimising the financial burden.”

Advocates of the review are concerned that it might be dominated by cost cutting issues, and are hoping that access to justice and the safety of victims and children in the family law system are prioritised.

Opposition members in Australia are calling for urgent action to improve the system immediately and cross bench senator Pauline Hanson, a vocal campaigner on improving the family law system has called on the government to abolish the Family Court altogether.

Our question to you then, is just this: would you like to see a full scale review of the Family Justice System in England and Wales?

Welcome to another week.

As child protection and child welfare stories continue to dominate the headlines, we thought that instead of raising an issue this week, we would ask a very simple question.

Our question this week then, is just this: what’s on YOUR mind in relation to child welfare?

Welcome to another week.

An article about a BBC documentary looking at what happens to children after they leave care, has suggested that 70% of prostitutes come from the care system. 

The debate around prostitution usually focuses on whether or not it should be legalised, from moral, ethical, financial and often legal standpoints. ProCon.Org offers an excellent summary of the perceived advantages and disadvantages to legalisation for what is often referred to as the world’s oldest profession.

Prostitution is legal in England and Wales, as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. Some activities surrounding prostitution, particularly those that could have exploitative qualities like managing a brothel remain illegal, however it is estimated that there are around 60,000-80,000 sex workers in the UK – the majority of them being women. An investigation by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2016* has also called for more evidence with a view to legalising currently criminal activities surrounding prostitution. 

Advocates for the legalisation of prostitution, which include a significant portion of sex workers, feel that decriminalising the activity removes the stigma from a career that is not immoral, creates freedom of choice and protects prostitutes from violence.

Those in favour of criminalising sex work believe that the activity will always carry with it an element of unreasonable duress, is a choice made purely for economic reasons usually related to poverty, encourages human trafficking and no matter what legal protections exist, will not prevent violent incidents like rape.

Advocates could also argue that most jobs are sought out for economic reasons, are morally questionable – especially when working for large corporations – and also may involve acts of violence, like sexual harassment in the workplace.

But what about the original statistic we started the post with – that 70% of prostitutes come from the care system? The implication is that most of those offering sex work have been at one time or still are, vulnerable individuals.

Our question this week, then, is this: do you think the statistic creates a compelling argument to criminalise sex work in England and Wales?

If you would like to watch the BBC documentary, you can do so here (you have 14 days left to view the programme before it is removed from the BBC’s page).

Some thought provoking items on prostitution are added below:

• Lib Dem MP: Schools Should Encourage Children To Consider Prostitution As A Career
• Should prostitution be legal? Let’s try listening to the real experts (2013)
• *House of Commons Report, 2016
• Decriminalising sex work is the only way to protect women – and New Zealand has proved that it works
• If you think decriminalisation will make prostitution safe, look at Germany’s mega brothels

Many thanks to Dana for alerting us to the article.

A scandal involving unregistered and unqualified child protection employees using informal job titles to avoid detection inside the UK’s family courts has been uncovered.

A potentially enormous loop-hole appears to exist which allows men and women to work in child protection without any kind of registration or monitoring, at all.

Researching Reform was contacted by a service user who recently wrote to The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), which regulates child welfare professionals, to raise concerns about a social worker at Staffordshire County Council.

The council is no stranger to controversy.  Branded a ‘shambles’ after accidentally leaking personal information about children in its care,  one of its social workers was also banned from working in child protection altogether after advising a vulnerable child to self harm. The local authority is fielding several more complaints and is currently under investigation.

The service user in this case needed the social worker’s full title and registration number to make a complaint, so she contacted Staffordshire County Council to get those details. The council replied that the social worker was a Senior Practitioner for Families First, a programme which aims to support vulnerable families, particularly those suffering from acute poverty.

As the service user was not able to find any registration details for the social worker, she went back to the council and asked if the social worker should be registered as a matter of course. The council said, yes, so the service user tried looking online again to confirm she was in fact registered.

It soon became apparent that she was not.

Frustrated at not being able to make a formal complaint without the social worker’s registration number, the service user then contacted the HCPC to complain not only about the social worker’s conduct but about the missing registration information.

The HCPC’s response is alarming:

Researching Reform then decided to reach out to the HCPC on Twitter. We asked them for policy information on unregistered users and which bodies if any monitored their activities. They sent us a series of tweets and Direct Messages, none of which answered our questions.

Protected titles are job titles which fall under the jurisdiction of a regulation body, allowing the body to keep tabs on professionals and ensure they are held accountable in the event of wrongdoing. If a person chooses to represent themselves using a title which is not recognised as protected, they are then effectively able to practice unregulated.

The title of Senior Practitioner is not a protected title, so the social worker in the case above is not required by law to be registered. This means she can practice as a social worker without any kind of regulation. It also leaves service users unable to file a formal complaint with an independent reviewing body, should there be concerns about the social worker’s conduct.

This loophole is already well known in the context of practicing psychologists, where unqualified individuals roam free, dispensing advice completely unwatched by any regulation authority – advice which is often accepted by Family Courts, without any legitimate confirmation of qualifications or experience.

The dangers of allowing this kind of unregulated activity are huge. The case of the social worker above, who has been able to avoid registration and regulation just by calling herself a Senior Practitioner, is one such example.

Families First work is highly sophisticated work, and the role of a senior practitioner is hugely demanding, requiring a high level of experience as a social worker, so any poor decision making or incompetence could change the life of a child forever.

It could lead to that child’s death.

So what can service users do if they’re concerned about a child protection officer?

Some relief exists in the Health And Social Work Professions Order 2001, under article 39(1) which reads:

Offences 39.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person commits an offence if with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication)— (a) he falsely represents himself to be registered in the register, or a particular part of it or to be the subject of any entry in the register; (b) he uses a title referred to in article 6(2) to which he is not entitled; (c) he falsely represents himself to possess qualifications in a relevant profession.  

But what happens if the person you want to complain about hasn’t lied about their position or qualifications? In the case of negligent care and advice, the options seem bleak. The HCPC suggests complaining to that person’s superiors, however an internal review is unlikely to be impartial. With no independent body to call on and little information about the individual on offer, the room for wrongdoing to occur and go undetected is vast.

It’s time the government closed this loophole.

Very many thanks to Jane Doe for alerting us to this development.

Welcome to another week.

As a report detailing findings in relation to allegations that former Prime Minister Edward Heath was a paedophile is set to be published, confirmation that the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual abuse will be considering the report as part of its work, has emerged.

Operation Conifer, which was led by Wiltshire Police, was set up to look into the allegations and to explore ways to safeguard children and vulnerable adults who could be at risk of abuse today and, where possible, bring living offenders to justice.

Wiltshire Police’s statement reads:

“The operation commenced in August 2015, following an IPCC press release naming Sir Edward Heath as a suspect in an investigation into non-recent child sex abuse.

“Operation Conifer is investigating a number of separate allegations made by persons who have come forward. Two arrests have taken place in relation to Operation Conifer and, at this time, both remain on police bail. Due to the fact that this remains a live investigation it would not be appropriate for us to comment any further at this stage.

“A panel of independent experts outside of policing are providing ongoing scrutiny of the investigation to ensure its proportionality and justification. Furthermore, in line with recognised best practice, Wiltshire Police recently commissioned Operation Hydrant to undertake an independent review of the investigation to ensure its ongoing proportionality and justification.

“Further to the release of the Henriques review Wiltshire Police, in conjunction with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council, will consider where relevant any national guidance and policy recommendations that may impact upon the ongoing Operation Conifer investigation.”

The Inquiry’s role in examining the report has, however, upset some survivors of abuse. The Inquiry has said that it will only be looking at how law enforcement agencies responding to allegations of sexual abuse. Survivors have expressed disappointment at this position, preferring to see the Inquiry use its powers to uncover new evidence rather than assess the appropriateness of government bodies’ responses to claims of abuse, based on the current evidence before them.

One of the great difficulties in examining periods in history where alleged abuses took place is being able to find evidence relating to alleged crimes, with much vital data either lost or purposely destroyed.

Our question this week then is this: do you think the Inquiry should be doing more than just assessing responses or is that all the public and survivors can hope for given the Inquiry’s scope and limited access to often decades-old evidence? 

Welcome to another week.

And the onset of our drizzly Winter.

An article published in The Nordic Page over the weekend suggests that private investment companies are increasingly investing in child welfare organisations because they may be more profitable than the oil industry.

Anti privatisation organisations are worried that this trend will lead to services eroding as investors look to make a quick return rather than improving and developing those services.

The trend is something international and UK Family Court campaigners have observed in England and Wales. A French documentary in 2016 suggested that the UK child protection system was increasingly welcoming in private sector companies often listed in the stock exchange to oversee child welfare services inside the sector. Austerity measures, which have crippled the child protection system have made it ripe ground for companies looking to profit from the impact of the budget cuts.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you think there is a trend?

Welcome to another week.

A recent article in the New Zealand Herald calls out a practice in the country’s Family Court called ‘uplifting’. (WARNING: article features highly distressing video footage).

The practice can involve physically removing a child from persons or premises in order to return them to a parent whose custodial rights have been breached.

There may be no warning that the uplift is going to take place, and police are often called in to remove children.

Uplifts occur after an aggrieved parent applies for a warrant to have their child returned. The use of ‘reasonable force’  is allowed where considered appropriate. The element of force and a sharp rise in the use of uplifts, are causing concern.

Video footage showing children in acute distress during the removal process has sparked outrage in New Zealand. New Zealand Labour Party leader Jacinda Ardern called the recordings “horrific” and observed that being forcibly removed from the home was clearly traumatic for children.

Professor Mark Henaghan, who is Dean of the faculty of Law at the University of Otago, said the Family Court had lost sight of their duty to place children’s welfare first and that the uplifts were ‘terrorising the children involved.’ He goes on to say:

“It’s become a battle of enforcement between the parents, courts, saying we’ve made an order, therefore it has to be enforced otherwise the court’s not carrying out its job…But the primary job of the [Family] Court is the welfare of the child. And I think if they saw some of the consequences of some of these warrants they may look at it differently.”

Speaking about the role of the police in uplifts, Police Association president Chris Cahill said the measure was also hard on police as officers were effectively “pawns” in the “wider games by parents”. He goes on to say:

“Often the police doing [uplifts] are the younger ones and they are only five or six years older than the children they are removing and that is tough on them.”

Cahill suggests that social workers should be tasked with carrying out uplifts.

The Labour party in New Zealand has continuously called for a review of the country’s Family Court, and more informed decision making before judges grant warrants to remove children.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you think the use of reasonable force to remove a child is ever ok?

Welcome to another week.

Well known vigilante group Dark Justice were interviewed on LBC earlier this year, claiming that their work is vital in stopping child abusers.

Another interview on LBC over the weekend featured a victim of child abuse who said vigilante groups were responsible for catching paedophiles the police had been unable to arrest.

This latest interview comes after police called on vigilante groups to take a step back, alleging that their activities were frustrating police operations. Senior officers have also expressed concern at the methods vigilantes used.

The warning comes as Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced £20 million funding in March to extend an initiative allowing undercover detectives to operate in internet chat rooms and forums used by suspected offenders. The government would not comment on how its operatives would conduct themselves within these operations.

In June this year, Angus McPherson, Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire, invited vigilantes to come and work for him. 

A ruling in April confirmed that vigilante groups could pose as children online in order to catch paedophiles. The judgment allows vigilante groups to operate without regulation.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you think vigilantes should be allowed to operate independently of the police?

Welcome to another week.

In an unusual article, a Christian publication has accused a local authority of intimidating tactics aimed at parents who refuse to agree to care plans and adoption orders.

The piece begins by detailing a case in which the council in question is now trying to send a mother to prison for speaking out about losing her children to care, even though the children are now adults and the care proceedings are over.

The story goes on to talk about a father who is currently trying to get his son back from care after complaining that the council’s actions have emotionally harmed his son.

Medway Council has repeatedly threatened the father with jail for naming child protection professionals on social media and publicly talking about his son on the internet. The judge in the case has previously stated that the only reason he has not imprisoned the father is to avoid him ‘becoming a martyr’. We’re not sure how sound that logic is, but there you are.

Interesting information is also offered in relation to a psychologist who worked on the mother’s case on behalf of the council. Her children were home schooled. Medway council argued that the mother had harmed her children by removing them from a conventional education: one child had special needs and the other was confirmed to be of above average intelligence.

Mr Graham Flatman told the court that the mother, ‘had provided (‘D’) only with a limited and possibly distorted social experience’ and had ‘missed the opportunities offered by school for extended social contacts, extra curricular activities and the benefit of experiencing how a society of children and adults can function’.

This judgment may highlight councils’ prejudices about home schooling generally which could be being bolstered or may originate from professional expert opinions, which vary considerably on the issue.  A proposed Bill in the House of Lords aiming to regulate home schooling further, could aggravate any bias that already exists.

Our question this week, then, is just this: do you think bias within child protection practice exists and if so, why?

Many thanks to the father in this piece for sharing the story with us.