UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

August 5, 2011

The persistent failure of social workers to protect children who are in very serious danger is made even more outrageous by the profession’s propensity to remove children from parents who are manifestly no danger at all to them.

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 6:46 pm

The horrific accounts of errors and incompetence by social services officials that we publish today will generate outrage and despair: outrage that officials could leave children with parents they know to be violent, criminal and addicted to drugs; and despair that despite the hundreds of inquiries, the hundreds of inspections, despite the repeated promises from the Government that things are getting better, nothing changes. The same mistakes are consistently repeated, with fatal consequences for children.

The persistent failure of social workers to protect children who are in very serious danger is made even more outrageous by the profession’s propensity to remove children from parents who are manifestly no danger at all to them. Of the 35,000 children who are taken into care every year on the recommendation of social workers, a large proportion are removed on grounds of “emotional abuse” – a category so broad and ill-defined that it can include both praising your children too much and not praising them enough, or feeding them too many vegetables or too little fresh fruit. It appears that social workers, aware of their inability to intervene in cases where children really are at risk, compensate for that failure by intervening in families where they are obviously safe.

There is no doubt that those two bad practices are connected. The resources of social work departments are, as directors of those departments frequently point out, strictly limited. Time spent investigating parents who do not threaten or endanger the children in their care is time not spent investigating, visiting or intervening in the cases where there is a threat. If genuinely at-risk children are to be protected, resources have to be targeted at cases where parents pose a clear and present danger.

It is, in a literal sense, true that social workers do not know what they are doing. That is not their fault. Government “advice” on what they should do is, quite correctly, centred on ensuring that children are protected from “significant harm”. But, in all the many hundreds of pages that both Labour and Conservative governments have issued on when social workers should intervene, the notion of “significant harm” has never been defined in a meaningful and precise way. The result is that it is left to officials to interpret the term as they see fit. And that means “significant harm” has as many interpretations as there are social workers: one can conclude that a child whose parents are violent drug-addicts is not at risk of “significant harm”, while another can claim that a parent who “plays too often and too long” with her is so dangerous that the child should be taken into care.

The first step the Government needs to take in order to stop this malpractice is properly to define the notion of “significant harm”. That will not prevent fatal misjudgments being made. But it will make those misjudgments less likely. It will save the lives of many children, and also prevent forcible removal from parents who love them and protect them, and who would provide them with a far better start in life than the dismal future that awaits those who are taken into state care. It will also make it possible for the inquiries and inspections that take place after a child dies to say something useful, instead of merely reporting (as they do at present) that “no one was to blame”. So long as inspectors do not work with a clear and fixed notion of “significant harm”, they are in exactly the same position as social workers: they cannot identify the kinds of practice that they ought to prevent.

Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, has insisted that he will take steps to end social services’ persistent failure to protect seriously at-risk children. He will fail unless he gives clear guidance on what social workers should be doing – and he can only do that by defining the notion of “significant harm.” We await his proposals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4214697/Telegraph-View-Child-abuse-wont-be-overcome-until-we-define-what-it-is.html

August 1, 2011

Staffordshire Local Authority

You should know by now i will not be bullied over raising legitimate concerns over your staff . I will be compiling a press release about this .

How social workers were duped by middle class doctor couple who abused their three adopted children for a decade

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 4:00 am

How social workers were duped by middle class doctor couple who abused their three adopted children for a decade

  • ‘Perceptions and assumptions’ about the couple’s social class swayed professionals, review concludes
  • One child was hit with a stiletto shoe and another with a dustbin lid
  • School friends tried to help but weren’t taken seriously
  • Social workers waited SIX MONTHS before acting after one of the children complained

By TAMARA COHEN

Last updated at 12:48 AM on 22nd July 2011

 

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=146202712090395&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df195301648%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fm.dailymail.co.uk%252Fff9011e34%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&colorscheme=light&href=http%3A%2F%2Fm.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2017183%2FHow-social-workers-duped-middle-class-child-abuse-pair.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&node_type=link&ref=LikeButtonTop&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=90

 

As high-flying research scientists, they seemed the epitome of middle-class respectability.

So social workers were thrilled when Dr Nicholas Newcombe and his wife Dr Jill Newcombe-Buley, who appeared to live a picture-perfect lifestyle, chose to adopt three children.

But yesterday a damning Serious Case Review accused officials of failing to prevent the two brothers and their sister suffering a decade of abuse and neglect at the couple’s hands.

Dr Jill Newcombe-Buley (left) hit one of the children with a stiletto and her husband Nicholas Newcombe (right) received a suspended prison sentence for neglect after failing to report the abuseDr Jill Newcombe-Buley (left) hit one of the children with a stiletto and her husband Nicholas Newcombe (right) received a suspended prison sentence for neglect after failing to report the abuse

Professionals were condemned for missing ‘many opportunities’ to help the youngsters because they were swayed by the scientists’ social class and status.

Behind the door of the couple’s £450,000 home in leafy Cheshire, the two boys  and a girl – referred to as B, C, and D for legal reasons – were punched, slapped and smothered.

 

More…

 

Newcombe-Buley, a 45-year-old chemist, stamped on one child with a stiletto heel and hit another over the head with a dustbin lid.

She was jailed for four years in October after admitting 15 counts of assault and child neglect.

Jailed: Research scientist Dr Jill Newcombe-Buley was sent to prison for four years for the abuse of the children she adoptedResearch scientist Dr Newcombe-Buley was sent to prison for four years for the abuse of the children she adopted

Her 43-year-old husband, who pleaded guilty to neglect by not reporting his wife, was given a 12-month suspended sentence.

The review concluded that Stoke-on-Trent Social Services should have prevented the abuse, and did not act when Child B desperately tried to expose it.

Tragically, the vulnerable children had been ‘rescued’ from drug-addicted parents.

However, social workers failed to look into important aspects of their adoptive parents’ lives – including work pressures, lack of experience with children and the fact that they had never lived together – according to the review by Cheshire East Local Safeguarding Children Board.

Report author Chris Brabbs said the youngsters were failed by social services, teachers and the police.

‘They went from being ‘rescued’ from the exposure to significant harm within their birth family only to end up being placed in another abusive situation where they  were subjected to repeated and systematic physical abuse, emotional harm and neglect,’ he wrote.

‘The conclusion of this Serious Case Review was that at various stages over the ten years, the  abuse was both predictable and preventable.’

He added: ‘The adoption panel allowed itself to be sucked into the attractiveness of the fact that these applicants were offering a rare and highly sought-after commodity – a willingness to take a sibling group of three.

‘Their approach was affected by perceptions and assumptions made regarding the parents’ social class, professional status, and high academic qualifications, and the attitude of M and F (Mr and Mrs Newcombe) towards them.’

After a placement in November 1999, there was no re-evaluation until the children were formally adopted in June 2001, and little agency involvement afterwards. Four schools they attended also failed to report evidence of abuse.

THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THREE CHILDREN

  • Cheshire Constabulary
  • Cheshire East Community Health
  • Cheshire East Council
  • Cheshire East PCT
  • Cheshire and Wirral NHS Trust
  • East Cheshire NHS Trust
  • Staffordshire County Council
  • Stoke City Council

Social workers missed ten opportunities to investigate, and Child B was often taken home against his wishes and without being interviewed, the report found.

This may have led to the children believing it would be better to endure the abuse in silence.

Their ordeal was revealed only in September 2009 when Child B was taken to hospital after being assaulted by another youngster.

He did not want to go home and the intervention of a consultant paediatrician exposed the abuse.

Dr Newcombe, associate director of global pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, wrote that the couple and children were ‘badly let down’ by Stoke-on-Trent Social Services.

David Mellor, the board’s chairman, apologised to the children.

‘One of the children repeatedly tried to report the abuse, which all the siblings suffered, to social workers and police,’ he said. ‘Time and time again they were let down.’

He added: ‘I would stress that the children are now safe, being protected and helped to recover from their terrible ordeal. We want all children … to be reassured that when anyone comes to us for help in the future, they will be listened to and appropriate action will be taken.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017183/How-social-workers-duped-middle-class-child-abuse-pair.html#ixzz1TkL1JxCg

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.