UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

December 8, 2012

CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE !

December 4, 2012

After nearly 7 years of hell at the hands of this local authority

They are now being sued never ever give up x

EXPECT ME !

May 25, 2012

Anyone with feedback on Staffordshire Social Services Family workers

My child nearly suffered injury three times by a family worker who works in care and court planning team.

1. She failed to strap child into buggy causing child to fall out .

2. She failed to remove tray from highchair and pulled child out of chair causing child extreme pain and sctaches on her legs.

3. She places hot drinks on floor where child is playing .

4. She used contact time to get her own personal photographs .

5. all she does in contact is plays SODOKU

And these idiots are meant to supervide us and they don’t know even the basics of safety and wellbeing for our children ?

October 9, 2011

The Adoption Target and its effect today

The Adoption Target and its effect today

The Sunday Express today has a story about how over a thousand children each year
continue to be wrongly adopted as a result in part of an error in calculating
the adoption target.

Christopher
Booker today in the Sunday Telegraph
looks at an additional two case
studies.

There is a lot of misinformation spread by civil servants (and parroted by ministers) about the adoption targets.

Each English Council with childrens services responsibility had a specific local target known as BV
PI 163 or PAF C23. (Those are “Best Value Performance Indicator” or “Performance
Assessment Framework”.)

This was calculated as the number of children adopted from care each year by that local authority as a percentage of the total
number of children that had been in care for at least 6 months as at the 31st of
March of the same year. (The years go from 1st April to 31st March same as the
financial years).

All local authorities had specific funding to encourage adoption and some also had financial rewards from the government for hitting
their local target.

From April 2006 the adoption target was redefined to be a permanence target which included Adoption, Residency Orders and Special
Guardianship orders.

This was scrapped from 1st April 2008.

The target, therefore, had the effect of skewing local authority decision-making up
to and including the year that ended in 31st March 2008 (which is called in the
stats 2008).

The first government lie is to pretend the target only lasted until 2006. It was redefined in 2006, but lasted until 2008.

Some local authorities (eg Merton) still have such a target. These targets, however,
are not nationally agreed.

The mathematical error is to have as the numerator (children per year) and the denominator (children). This does not give
a percentage. A percentage is a dimensionless number. This gives a dimension of
(per year).

The problem is that it was generally thought that the proportion of children being adopted was in fact relatively low when it was far
more common.

An example of this error of thinking can be seen in Ofsted’s
APA of 2008 or Alan Rushton’s paper from 2007.

Outcomes of adoption
from public care: research and practice issues
written by Alan Rushton
includes the following:

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that any wholesale moving of children from birth families into adoptive families is
taking place. Adoption from care concerns just a small proportion (6%) of all
looked after children in England (Department for Education and Skills, 2005) and
so remains a relatively uncommon solution to the needs of these young
people.

The problem is that the proportion is not a
“proportion”.

If we take all the children that left care aged under 5 in 2005 (4,200) we find that 2,100 were adopted. That is 50%.

Realistically as children get older they are less likely to be adopted. Those children that go
into care above 10 are often those that do so because their parents cannot cope
with their behaviour. It is, therefore, unlikely that they will be
adopted.

In 1997 2,000 under 5s left care, but only 640 did so through adoption. That is a lower percentage (because a higher proportion went home to
their parents). However, it is still 32% which is a lot more than the 6% figure
that is quoted.

The argument that was put by the government is that they were dealing with children “languishing in care”. Superficially you could say
that there was an increase in the number of children leaving care and those were
those which ceased languishing in care (again looking at those aged under 5).
However, you find in fact that the difference between the number taken into care
and that leave care still remains at about 2,000 per year (although 2010 was in
fact 2,800).

What you find, in fact, is that when the pressure for adoptions started (which was actually earlier than the adoption target) that the
numbers taken into care also increased. There are anecdotal reports of local
authorities looking for potential adoptees (called by some practitioners
adoptible commodities).

Hence what was a laudable objective was based upon a misunderstanding of the statistical picture. Furthermore there is a
continuing problem.

Practice has not substantially changed although there has been a relatively small drop of in permanence numbers (which includes a
higher reduction in adoption numbers, but still to a much higher position than
pre the adoption target).

As far as the under 5s are concerned the 2010
figure was 2,000 compared to the 2005 figure of 2,100.

Furthermore we now have the nonsense from Martin Narey who compares the historic numbers of
theoretically voluntary adoptions (in an era before better contraception,
abortion and changing social attitudes led to large numbers of babies being born
inconveniently and being adopted) to those forcibly removed from families
through the use of some corrupt experts and a legal environment which is biased
against non-institutional parties.

The Government Minister is also calling for more adoption from care without having any evidence base to identify
which children it is that need to be adopted.

There is undoubtedly a big problem with reactive attachment disorder. This appears to be caused at times by
babies being removed at a very early age and then getting insufficient personal
attention.

Whether this policy will be shifted before enough of the people who have been through it create an outcry is unclear. A lot of damage is
being done – particularly to the children – by a policy based on mathematical
errors and a lack of intellectual rigour in policy setting.

The real flaws in the decisionmaking remain hidden, however, by the secrecy in the system
and desire to protect the backs of those people who earn money from the system.

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/

September 3, 2011

BLOWING THE WHISTLE – CHILD STEALING BY THE STATE

BLOWING THE WHISTLE – CHILD STEALING BY THE STATE

( Sunday 23rd October 2011) – Part of a 2 day event on 22/23 October 2011

Conference – Kings Hall – Glebe Street – Stoke On Trent

This is not a conference to discuss ‘issues’ and ‘concerns’ with children. and to set out a way to ‘help reform the system’ as some MPs suggest

This is a conference to expose and bring to trial those helping the State to Steal and Abuse Children. We will Name Name’s, Departments, Authorities, Organisations, Judges, MPs, Police, Psychiatrists and more. With help of those attending, we will expose the real evidence for:

MASSIVE STATE SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE AND TRAFFICKING AND COVER-UPS BY THE STATE AND ITS AGENTS

Have you experienced any of the following:

Children taken under false pretences ?

Bullying by Children’s Services, Cafcass, Local Authority ?

False verbal and documentary evidence in Court ?

Collusion behind your back by your Legal Team with the Local Authority legal team ?

MPs ignoring you and your plight ?

Child(ren) being abused in the ‘care’ of Children’s Services ?

Mental breakdown because of the attack on your family ?

Do you hold information and evidence concerning:

State trafficking of children ?

Falsifying of Family Court Documents ?

Children disappearing into the care system ?

Police deliberately blocking investigations into child abuse rings ?

Misinformation by the BBC and mainstream media ?

False help and support groups, charities and people ?

We need you and your evidence. We need you in numbers, because the State hides the evidence by isolating victims or controlling the support to whom you turn. By making out that only a few isolated families are affected the State can control national media to hide the truth.

Have you attended meetings in Westminster that ‘pat you on the head’ and achieve nothing ? – then you need to attend and be an active participant in Blowing the Whistle – Child Stealing by the State.

Please provide a 2 page summary of the basic facts of your case and indicate evidence that you hold. We will provide a pro-forma to help you do this. Active participants will be asked to provide evidence for use at the conference. Real evidence is vital to stopping the unlawful abuse of families and children.

PLEASE CONTACT THE UK COLUMN – TEL: 01752 478050 – EMAIL: childstealingbythestate@ukcolumn.org

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 .

May 29, 2011

Mother tries to kill herself in court during care proceedings.

Noone actually gives a damn about the living nightmare that family court proceedings bring. The aftermath leaves families destroyed . So cruel is the system that parents are tossed by the roadside after being devoured in proceedings . During proceedings they are sent for psycholgical assessments where many are given diagnoses they never had before , none of the experts assessing them comment that their current mental state may well be as a result of losing their children. If the parent breaks down or is emotional during proceedings this is seen as a sign of their instability rather than a normal reaction to the abnormal stressors and should a parent kill themselves after losing their  children you will hear the social workers saying ‘ see that proves our point told you she was unstable.

There is absolutely no help provided for these parents or no recognition of their pain . The lucky ones find support from fellow parents who have been through the same on social networking sites and forums.

As for the children , well i guess we will see the impact of this on them over the coming years …….

Mum tried to kill herself in court during care review

Mum tried to kill herself in court during care review

A DESPERATE mother tried to kill herself in court in the middle of a losing battle to stop her two-year-old daughter being taken into care.

Two barristers scrambled to stop the woman swallowing a handful of paracetamol pills, as she fought to prove herself a competent mother at Derby County Court.

She was taken to hospital and was still there the following day when Judge James Orrell ordered her little girl to be taken into care.

In his ruling last year, he said Derbyshire County Council had been concerned about the “unhygienic and unsafe” condition of the family home.

The woman yesterday mounted a last-ditch bid at London’s Civil Appeal Court to overturn the ruling, arguing it had been unfair to reach the decision in her absence.

But, while recognising the woman’s “huge love” for her daughter, Lord Justice Thorpe said there could be “only one possible outcome” to the case and rejected her appeal.

Ruling that the mother’s appeal had no real prospect of success, he said: “Sad as it is for the mother, I have no alternative but to reject her application for permission to appeal.”

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Mum-tried-kill-court-care-review/article-3581449-detail/article.html

Suicide watch would have saved patient
By Paul Jenkins

A REPORT into the death of a woman patient at a Stafford hospital says she could have been saved had staff checked on her overnight.

An internal investigation is being carried out into the death of a 28-year-old Willow Simpson who was found by staff at St George’s Hospital hanging from the window in her room on February 12 this year.

A Cannock inquest into her death heard an independent report which said Miss Simpson should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts to take her own life.

It also criticised the system of checks on patients at the hospital and the lack of information on individuals given to staff after it found Miss Simpson had been told only seven days earlier that her son was being given up foradoption and she was unlikely to see him again.

The author of the report, independent case worker Julie Lloyd Roberts, said: “Miss Simpson relocated from Wales to Stafford in 2003 when a relationship broke down and she sufferered deteriorating health.

“In April 2006, she was re-admitted to St George’s’ Brocton Ward after an earlier short spell in the hospital.

“After seven months on the ward, she was coming to the end of her period there and the mental health team were looking to place her in supported accommodation.

“She had a meeting with social workers on February 7 to finalise the adoption process for her young son and was told she would have to apply for access to see him and there was nothing she could do to stop the proceedings.

“Staff on the ward didn’t notice her subsequent change of mood and there was no allowance for the possible risk to her health after the outcome of the meeting.

“She should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts and was completely irrational and very ill at the time of her death.

“Checks were not made on her overnight and I have no doubt she would still be alive if they had been. “I realise the system of checks had been relaxed because of concerns from female patients about privacy and the noise of the doors opening, but their health and wellbeing should have overcome these complaints.”

Stanley Nevin, a health care support worker who was on duty the night before Miss Simpson died, said she had seemed fine and was smiling and chatting in the lounge before going to bed at midnight.

But when he went to wake her up at 7.15am the next morning he found the door locked and had to get his colleague to open it.

They subsequently found her hanging from a window in her bathroom and were unable to revive her.

He admitted he had not checked on her overnight between midnight and 7.15am and was not aware of the meeting she had recently had with her social worker.

But he said there was no fixed system of checks on patients and when it was felt necessary to check on them, it was not every 15 miutes, but more like every hour.

Coroner Andrew Haigh, in recording an open verdict, said it was clear Miss Simpson had killed herself but she was more upset than she appeared after the meeting with social workers and it may have been a cry for help.

He said the health care trust which runs the hospital had been criticised in the report for the haphazard distribution of information and system of checks, and this was being actively investigated.

Amanda Godfrey from South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust said it took incidents of this kind very seriously.

She said: “Any untoward incident is thoroughly investigated in line with our procedures and the trust endeavours to learn from and improve services as a result of such events.

“As an organisation, we also welcome the opportunity to receive feedback from users of our services, their carers and families and take their views very seriously.”

Mother’s Death: Suicide Not Ruled Out

3:57pm UK, Saturday March 17, 2007

Suicide has not been ruled out as the cause of death of solicitor Sally Clark, who was wrongly jailed for the murder of her two sons.

180 sally clark & husband releasedMrs Clark with her husband

A Home Office pathologist is due to carry out a post mortem examination on Monday on the body of Mrs Clark, 42, who was found dead at her home in Hatfield Peverel, Essex.

She had been found guilty of the murder of her sons – eight-week-old Harry and 11-week-old Christopher – following a trial at Chester Crown Court in 1999.

But she was cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2003 following one of the most high-profile legal cases of recent times.

Essex Police have refused to speculate on the possible cause of her death. Sources said they were keeping an open mind at this stage but suicide was not being ruled out.

A spokeswoman for Essex Ambulance Service said an ambulance and rapid response vehicle were sent but nothing could be done to save Mrs Clark.

Sue Stapeley, the Clark family’s solicitor, said although Mrs Clark was not suffering from any kind of disease, she was not “in the best of health”.

A familystatement described Mrs Clark as a “loving and talented wife, mother, daughter and friend” who will be “greatly missed”.

It read: “Sally was released in 2003 having been wrongfully imprisoned for more than three years, falsely accused of the murder of her two sons.

“Sadly, she never fully recovered from the effects of this appalling miscarriage of justice.”

Angela Cannings, wrongly convicted of killing two of her babies, said she was “shocked” and “angry” by the news.

Mrs Cannings spent spent 18 months in prison before her life sentence for murder was quashed. She criticised the authorities for providing no support for women accused, then cleared, of taking the life of their child.

“I’m really speechless, I’m so angry. This lady suffered so much, now she’s died – I’m just shocked and stunned,” she told Sky News.

On appeal, Mrs Clark was found to have been wrongly convicted of the murders after new medical evidence emerged which had not been presented at her trial.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence during her trial claiming the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in the family was 73 million-to-one.

The figure was disputed by the Royal Statistical Society and other medical experts who said the odds of a second cot death in a family were around 200-to-one.

Sir Roy was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck off the medical register.

However, both of these decisions were overturned on appeal at the High Court.

Mrs Clark’s family used to live in Wilmslow, Cheshire, but moved south to Chelmsford when she was imprisoned in Essex.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641256260

 

Teenage mother found hanged days after discovering her baby had been adopted

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Last updated at 3:24 PM on 1st June 2011

 

Tragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopteTragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopted

A tragic teenage mother’s body was found hanged days after she discovered her baby had been adopted by another family.

Annabelle Lee Morris, 19, could not cope with her son being taken into care and then put up for adoption.

Her father, Thomas James Morris, found her in her bedroom on March 18 last year – nine days after she found out that her son had new adoptive parents, York Coroner’s Court was told.

The authorities had intervened as she was struggling to look after him herself.

Speaking after the inquest, her cousin, Lorna Dawber, said: ‘She adored her son and had she accepted the help when it was there her future would have been completely different. In time she would have got there.

‘That was the one thing in life that was hers, she absolutely worshipped him.’

She said Annabelle would not have put her family through that deliberately.

‘She was a good soul and she had a good heart,’ she said.

The inquest heard that the child was taken into foster care when he was less than a year old.

Annabelle, from York, was still allowed to see him a few times a week, but when a psychologist raised further serious concerns, steps were taken to have the baby adopted.

 

Although it was arranged for Annabelle to meet mental health workers in 2009, she did not attend an appointment.

She saw her son, then 15 months old, for the final time in January 2010. At the time of her death she was on a doctor’s waiting list to see a counsellor.

Prior to the adoption, her social worker, John Corden, said Annabelle was ‘ambivalent’ about accepting the support offered to her as this would involve ‘putting boundaries around her lifestyle’.

But he said that he and other colleagues had been impressed by the ‘high quality of interaction’ between mother and child and that she had been ‘dignified and honest’ in her work with social services.

Mr Corden said ‘I had frequent discussions with Annabelle about the way the case was going. She never suggested to me that if adoption were the outcome she would harm herself.

‘Annabelle was blessed with a warm and benign personality. She could present herself as a well functioning and capable young lady.

‘In the fullness of time, that may have been a considerable asset to her.’

Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded an open verdict and said the cause of her death was asphyxia due to hanging.

Noting that she had strong support from a loving family and from social services, he said: ‘Miss Morris was a 19-year-old with a number of problems relating back to childhood.

‘In recent times she had gone through the trauma of having her child adopted.

‘The final meeting with her child had been in January and that time must have been the most difficult of all.

‘It seems to me that she had time to reflect on the unhappy course of events culminating in the adoption. My best guess is that what has happened was an impulsive act, it could be described as a cry for help.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393059/Teenager-mother-hanged-just-days-discovering-baby-adopted.html#ixzz1O6V1BMx1

The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts

The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts

The walls of secrecy surrounding snatched children are creating a one-sided justice system, argues Christopher Booker.

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system Photo: PAUL GROVER
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 28 May 2011

In all the fuss about the secrecy of our courts – after MP John Hemming named a footballer in the Commons – the point where the issue began has been almost entirely lost. Mr Hemming’s concern stems from his longstanding campaign to expose the secrecy surrounding our family courts, where one of the most shocking scandals in Britain today is flourishing, out of public view. This is the increasing number of children who are seized by social workers from loving, responsible parents, thanks to a system which often defies basic principles of justice, humanity and common sense. For example, last week, a woman was warned by a judge that if she raised her case with John Hemming or with a local MP, she would be imprisoned – contrary to one of the most ancient rights of a citizen.

It is hard to convey just how one-sided this system has become, behind its wall of secrecy. Another case I have been following concerns a devoted mother who lost her daughter, some years back, after complaining to social workers that the father was abusing their child. Astonishingly, although the couple had parted, the courts gave the father custody of the girl.

Two weeks ago, when the mother yet again told social workers that the father was abusing their daughter, they did nothing – but, independently, the police were called and the father was arrested. Social workers asked the mother to sign a document giving her child into foster care. She refused, asking for the girl to be returned to her, and was told to attend court at three o’clock last Monday to hear the council’s application for an emergency care order.

She arrived to find the council officials had not turned up, and was told to return at 10 o’clock on Tuesday. Again the officials did not show. Then the mother was told that the order had been given over the telephone the previous evening, by a magistrate at home, which appeared to break all the rules laid down for the granting of an emergency care order. This was apparently confirmed by a judge on Thursday – who nevertheless granted an order according to the proper procedures (the mother not being allowed to speak) and called them all back on Friday to hear an application for an interim care order. Thanks to the complications of the case, he then ruled that the council’s application should be heard in the High Court next month.

The mother’s only wish is to be reunited with her child – who apparently says her only wish is to be with her mother. But the implacable system, having made its error, seems determined to stand between them. Thus, hidden from public view, another unhappy family drama unfolds.

May 25, 2011

John Hemming Debate Re: Injunctions

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Members will be aware that I have a long-time concern about secrecy in court processes, which was highlighted in the story in The Guardian today. We have no true freedom of speech when people can be jailed for complaining about their problems. This country seems to have a penchant for covering up problems that would be discussed openly in others.

Florence Bellone, a Belgian journalist, recorded an interview with Carol Hughes and Lucille O’Regan in Ireland, which was broadcast on RTBF in Belgium. A copy was placed on YouTube, but access in the UK is now blocked as a result of what YouTube calls a “government request”. What can be so frightening about that interview that people in the UK are not allowed to see it, but it can be broadcast in Belgium?

The policy of international websites varies. The Twitter account containing the names of lots of people subject to super-injunctions is still there, and will remain there for some time, yet newspapers in the UK are not allowed to refer to it by name. It is clear that in the UK people are now recognising the oppressive nature of court secrecy in this country. For instance, I wrote and released a song about this in 2008, the lyrics of which would have been in contempt of court had they not already been spoken in the House. Since then, however, things have got even worse, with the force of money being used to prevent women from complaining about their ex-boyfriends. One woman who received a super-injunction said to me:

“The process is terrifying…For the first 2 months I shook! And I shake now when talking about it to someone”.

Questions have been raised about whether I should have discussed the row between Ryan Giggs and Twitter yesterday. I am not a party to the privacy case. I have not been served with the injunction. I have not actually seen the injunction and cannot guarantee that it actually exists. I have read his name in the Sunday Herald, and on Wikipedia and Twitter. I could obviously stand on a soapbox in Scotland and say what I said in the House of Commons. I believe I could probably say it on Hyde park corner, because it is in the public domain. For me to have abused parliamentary privilege, I would have had to use it in the first instance, but I do not think that the case has been made that it would have been contempt of court outside the House.

I remain concerned, however, that the process of issuing contempt of court proceedings has been kicked off against users of Twitter. Someone should not be able to hide behind anonymity to take action against others. I am completely unsure what the legal position is in respect of naming Giles Coren. I do not think it would be contempt of court to name him outside the House, yet The Times was worried enough yesterday not to identify him—and he is one of its journalists. I will not identify the footballer whom, it is rumoured, would like to see him prosecuted for tweeting.

Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I fully approve of the hon. Gentleman’s campaign to ensure that injunctions and super-injunctions do not interfere with our constituents’ ability to contact us and speak to us about issues. However, will he explain to the House why he thinks he is judge and jury on whether certain people under court order should be named in this place? Why does he feel he has the right above anybody else? It seems very strange to use privilege in such a way.

John Hemming: I explained that those details were already in the public domain and accessible in Forbes Magazine, the Sunday Herald and many other places, so I do not think it would have been contempt of court outside the House. However, I accept the Speaker’s ruling on this issue.

I refer hon. Members to a story in The Guardian today relating to another injunction. I shall read out the first paragraph:

“A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.”

What we have here is true secret justice: somebody is being prosecuted in secret; they cannot be identified; and the person prosecuting them cannot be identified. As a rule, the Attorney-General does not prosecute civil cases, which the privacy cases are; one of the parties usually prosecutes.

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): That has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman did yesterday.

John Hemming: Actually, it has everything to do with what I did yesterday, because Giles Coren was subject to similar contempt proceedings. There is a great danger that a secret form of jurisprudence will develop that aims to jail people in secret and keep their identities out of the public domain for relatively trivial issues.

The law of confidentiality and privacy, as being developed by the courts, seems to be in opposition to the views of Parliament about whistleblowing. That is an important point. A number of the court orders in place act to prevent people from reporting issues, whether to the police, the General Medical Council, coastguards or whomever. The rule of law is undermined by the court orders preventing that information from being given. That is another important issue.

Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Will my hon. Friend confirm that judges have also issued court orders naming Members of Parliament as people who cannot be spoken to?

John Hemming: Indeed. The issues of freedom of speech are not just about what goes in the newspapers; they are also about who communicates with whom and how tightly controlled things are. Some of the court orders issued prevent people from complaining to friends about what has been done to them; some prevent them from complaining to Members of Parliament; and others prevent them from going to the police with information. A dangerous system is developing. It is wrong to think that there is a difference between the ZAM case reported in The Guardian today and that of Giles Coren, because he could have faced exactly the same process.

John Cryer: What about Giggs?

John Hemming: The point I was making about Giggs was that his name was in the public domain already, so it would not have been contempt of court to name him outside the House. That is quite straightforward, and it does not, therefore, involve the use of privilege.

However, there is an argument about privilege where the legal position is uncertain, as it can be at times. We do not want to be unable to debate things because working out whether we can talk about them is so complex. Privilege is important and it needs to be used responsibly—there is no question about that—but my argument is straightforward. To have abused privilege, I would have to have used the name in the first instance, yet no one has evidenced to me the basis on which it would have been contempt of court for me to say outside the House what I said yesterday in it, and if it was not contempt of court outside, it cannot be an abuse of privilege within—

Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): Why did you not say it outside then?

John Hemming: Because it would not have been reported.

Anyway, the accountability of judicial processes depends not only on there being a public judgment, but on people having the ability externally to challenge the evidence that the courts are using. The problem with secrecy is that this all breaks down. Indeed, the report in The Guardian today about the secret committal of the sister-in-law is an example of exactly that situation, where there is no possibility of checking externally the evidence for whether the assumptions are correct. There are great questions about the reliability of much of the expert evidence provided in the family courts. If we cannot rely on the expert evidence, we will have difficulty relying on the conclusions.

There are many, many problems, and I will obviously be submitting a detailed report to the Joint Committee on the difficulties with the various injunctions. We also have a difficult day today, so I will not use up all my time. The issue of secret jailing is one that we cannot drop. Obviously we cannot do much more about it over the recess, but we cannot allow a process to continue whereby attempts are made to commit more and more people in secret proceedings. This all arises from the objective of protecting relatively trivial secrets, but it is not even close to open justice. The balancing act has completely failed when we are trying to balance somebody’s liberty on one side against something relatively trivial on the other.

posted by john

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/

May 24, 2011

John Hemming Strikes Again and shows what a farce these injunctions are.

I do have to applaud Mr Hemming for naming the footballer trying to silence at least 75,000 people who have named a footballer ( name rhymes with Bryan Spriggs ) using parliamentary privalege .

Some people though will not be aware of why Mr Hemming has an interest in these injunctions.

Injunctions are being dished out on a daily basis through our secret family courts and people are being secretly imprisoned for breaking them.

John quite rightly wants an end to these injunctions that prevent people from speaking out about injustice and protects noone other than the judiciary , social workers and so called expert witnesses.

These injunctions do not protect children as many children end up having to endure a life in a failed care system or being forcibly adopted because noone has been able to speak to anyone about any injustice that may have happened during the secret family court proceedings.

Hence rather than serve to protect children an injunction can  actively promotes the abuse of children by allowing these children to be ‘ farmed out ‘ to the care system based on lies and questionable evidence with no one being able to question those procedures.

I do hope this ‘ civil disobedience ‘ continues and that more MPs start to question who these injunctions are ACTUALLY protecting .

QUENTIN LETTS: Good man John Hemming brought an end to the farce

By QUENTIN LETTS

Last updated at 8:32 AM on 24th May 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%3D2%23cb%3Df2a86f6288%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%252Ff8f8f61f4%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&colorscheme=light&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fdebate%2Farticle-1390215%2FRyan-Giggs-super-injunction-John-Hemming-brought-end-farce.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_GB&node_type=link&ref=LikeButtonTop&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=90

Maginot Line time. Our rulers huff and puff and tell us plebeians we must not even think about the identities of ‘bonking’ injunctors. We should not worry our heads with such matters. Move on, little people. Nothing for you to see here.

Then John Hemming (Lib Dem, Birmingham Yardley) rises in the Commons and with a blurt names Ryan Giggs (Manchester United association football player, m’lud) as one of those press-gaggers. Gasps. Tuts. Calls of ‘disgrace!’ from the Labour side.

Why on earth should socialist Labour rush to protect a multi-millionaire alleged womaniser? Maybe it’s because Mr Giggs is a left winger.

John Hemming names Ryan Giggs during a discussion on injunctions in the Houses of CommonsMoment of truth: John Hemming names Ryan Giggs during a discussion on injunctions in the Houses of Commons

Agent Hemming, good man, did his deed during a Commons Statement about the injunctions farce. Everyone was mincing around the identity of the footballer, even though it was all over the internet, a Scottish newspaper and assorted foreign organs (if ‘organ’ be the word).

The pomposity of the British Parliament at such moments knows few bounds. They are sent here by the populace yet they talk like semi-strangled gobblers from another era. Is it any wonder non-voters think politics is not for them?

Attorney General Dominic Grieve had spoken at length in a dry, lawyerly way. Mr Grieve gives every impression that he has just stepped from one of Mr Disraeli’s novels. His voice creaked, dust in its hinges. His words may have been scratched down by quill pen.

At one point he talked about ‘the blog-eau-sphe-ar’. Even his fellow pooh-bahs laughed at him for that. For heaven’s sake, matey, you’re a politician, not an extra from Downton Abbey.

Attorney Grieve left the distinct impression, by the by, that he regarded the Press and internet users as impertinent, malign hyenas. How dare they defy the legal establishment? Lord Prescott (gooser of Tracey) sat up in the peers’ gallery, grunting assent like an old porker.

On it went, the House stroking its big belly, lots of them laying into the Press Complaints Commission and, with greater justification, deploring newspapers’ misdeeds on phone-hacking.

Then Mr Hemming had his moment. ‘Mr Speaker,’ he said casually, ‘with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs it is obviously impractical to imprison them all.’ The House took a moment to respond and Mr Hemming was ploughing further into controversy, saying that a newspaper writer, Giles Coren, was facing the threat of imprisonment.

At this point Speaker Bercow intervened, stopping Mr Hemming mid-flow and telling him that he should not flout the protocols of injunction law ‘for whatever purpose’. Translation: we all know you’re just doing this because you’re an appalling self-publicist, Hemming.

Chris Bryant (Lab, Rhondda) was outraged by Mr Hemming’s sally. Could this be the same Mr Bryant who laid into Prince Andrew in the Commons recently in an equally blatant bid for media coverage? It sure could be, folks. Others on the Opposition benches, and one or two on the Tory side, were disgusted by Mr Hemming. Maybe there was an element of envy – a case of ‘grrr, wish I’d said it first’.

The Sunday Herald newspaper in Edinburgh printed a barely disguised picture of Ryan Giggs on its front coverBreaking ranks: The Sunday Herald newspaper in Edinburgh printed a barely disguised picture of Ryan Giggs on its front cover

Mr Hemming, mission accomplished, sat contentedly in his place, unfazed by his fellow Members’ outburst of sanctimony. In the blink of an eye the Establishment had been confounded, the elite bypassed.

For years libel lawyers have held swanky sway over the public prints. They have menaced and manipulated and, in the process, charged their clients millions of pounds.

Now, thanks to Twitter and others, including Mr Hemming, their edifice has been left looking like one of those south-coast medieval castles which were once on the coast but are now stranded inland.

Earlier in the day I attended a gruesome event at the Royal Festival Hall where Ed Miliband tried, and failed, to connect with Labour activists. Few were there. The media turnout was particularly slim. Poor Mr Miliband seems to be attracting little interest at present.

Perhaps he should hire Messrs Schillings, legal advisers to Mr Giggs. From what one can gather, they are geniuses at attracting attention for their clients.

Speaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemming in an effort to protect the Manchester United player's identitySpeaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemming in an effort to protect the Manchester United player’s identity

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1390215/Ryan-Giggs-super-injunction-John-Hemming-brought-end-farce.html#ixzz1NH7wTLuX

May 4, 2011

My friend has blogged this below asking the question below …. maybe someone would like to ask a certain Cannock social worker how she felt when i accessed her very public profile ….. I’ll tell you she said she felt stalked and harrassed which is exactly how i felt when Andrew Jenkinson who was also a Cannock social worker was following me around on the internet visiting forums id posted in even using my youtube videos in court which the judge watched despite the fact they had nothing to do with my children ! KARMA’S A BITCH CANNOCK SS and maybe next time Sarah Peace authorizes her staff to do this to parents she will be mindful of how her staff feel when it is done to them .

SOCIAL WORKERS ADMIT TO WATCHING PARENTS ONLINE ACTIVITIES, YET HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF PARENTS INTERCEPTED THEIR FACEBOOK/TWITTER ACCOUNTS???

use of facebook to investigate parents

Bookmark and Share Skip to the end
 rated by 0 users

 This post has 25 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 25 Contributor

 romeo2001Posted: 3 Oct 2010 1:26 PM

is it unethical or common sense to search for a parents facebook and peruse if not private ? (and therefore open to the general public)

there is huge amount of information that can be found out about peoples behaviour via their facebook pages – eg whetehr they are substance misusing – often what times of tge day its are taking place and general relationship dynamics etc  – am not yet practising so am keen to see whethr this is a tool that is used

note that im not saying it should be used as evidence – just another form of info gathering

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on4 Oct 2010 9:13 PM

I think it’s common sense to look at all the information that’s ‘out there’ …and SW’s should also beware as employers are increasingly using FB and the like as a tool to screen the lifestyle of potental employees.

I have cited inappropriate info via FB posted by a  parent re her child, as evidence of emotional abuse. But, I think you are right to be cautious about what can be used as evidence-I don’t think the example you have mentioned re substance misuse would be able to be evidenced in this way.

I think it is also a good tool for SW’s to trace information about parents where there is otherwise very little.

Top 200 Contributor

 gear replied on4 Oct 2010 10:46 PM

I had a huge issue with Facebook on a set of Care Proceedings – it did not however concern parents but foster carers. Basically a child’s parent googled the foster parents whom they had met at an initial placement meeting. The foster carer didn’t adopt any privacy settings on her page and had pictures of the children on her page detailing why they were in  her care, also using inappropriate language to describe the children such as ‘my little babies’ and ‘can you imagine abusing these little angels’. The mother retaliated by setting up a Facebook group referring to all foster carers as ‘child stealers’. We had to move the children to another placement and I did complain to family placement about the foster carers actions, in turn the foster carer reported the mother to the Police for harrassment and threatening behaviours . The foster carer also complained about her family placement department for never advising her on the issues surrounding social networking sites. The whole thing was a total mess and the children were extremely confused by everything that happened.

In terms of using Facebook for monitoring, I am aware that some of my colleagues have however I have not. I am aware that the Police frequently use this as a source of intelligence however I feel that caution should be excercised, it is extremely instrusive and often in the case of some of the children on my caseload – it how they wish to be viewed i.e. bravado. I personally will stick to non web based monitoring.

Top 10 Contributor

‘Pre-crime’ Comes to Children’s Services

Recorded Future
Introducing the world’s first
Temporal Analytics Engine
A new predictive analysis tool that allows you to visualize the future, past or present.

Top 25 Contributor

Question to myself… “how would you feel if someone did this to you???”

Well I know I would be extremelly angry if I found out, in fact to a point where I would most definitely seek legal advice with an aim to take action. However, I would obviously have to make sure my privacy settings are tight (which they are). I can see why intelligence/secret services may use this, and it has proved essential in some cases (particularly in relation to anti-terrorism) but as a student I am hoping (NAIVITY ALERT!) social work isn’t so investigative.

I personally think it is quite invasive and as I said I would be mortified if I found out someone had done that to me. But at the same time it is a good tool. I am guessing tho (bar the odd mistake) talented workers won’t need to go to these levels as either a good raport with parents/good social work skills will mean you could pick up evidence in other ways, without resporting to tactics used by services whose primary function is to investigate. But whether or not social workers should use it to confirm a hunch about something… again, i’m not sure. I question whether doing things like this is quite deceitful in some ways. Sure it could make life easier.

Anyway, ramble over. I know facebook is causing all sorts of issues amongst social work (such as above, children contacting parents they shouldnt be etc) but i dont think we need to start snooping. Im interested to see where this discussion goes, as it is quite a though provoking thread. :)

Top 10 Contributor

Social Worker contact and family visits, don’t forget:

Check fridge for adequate amounts of food
Check pets healthy and well feed
Check all family and friends latest Facebook and Twitter entries
Check wider family and environment
and
Take photographs throughout the home

“Other professionals, including school staff, health visitors, doctors and others [Police] involved with your family will be monitoring the safety and welfare of (insert names of children) and reporting any concerns.”

4722.procedure CPP visits and letter.doc

 Andy_Pandy:

Question to myself… “how would you feel if someone did this to you???”

Well I know I would be extremelly angry if I found out, in fact to a point where I would most definitely seek legal advice with an aim to take action. However, I would obviously have to make sure my privacy settings are tight (which they are). I can see why intelligence/secret services may use this, and it has proved essential in some cases (particularly in relation to anti-terrorism) but as a student I am hoping (NAIVITY ALERT!) social work isn’t so investigative.

I personally think it is quite invasive and as I said I would be mortified if I found out someone had done that to me. But at the same time it is a good tool. I am guessing tho (bar the odd mistake) talented workers won’t need to go to these levels as either a good raport with parents/good social work skills will mean you could pick up evidence in other ways, without resporting to tactics used by services whose primary function is to investigate. But whether or not social workers should use it to confirm a hunch about something… again, i’m not sure. I question whether doing things like this is quite deceitful in some ways. Sure it could make life easier.

Anyway, ramble over. I know facebook is causing all sorts of issues amongst social work (such as above, children contacting parents they shouldnt be etc) but i dont think we need to start snooping. Im interested to see where this discussion goes, as it is quite a though provoking thread. :)

Top 50 Contributor

I suppose if there was a S.47 investigation then it would be remiss of the social worker not to make investigations using facebook and the like.   But I certainly would not want anyway judging me by what I placed on my facebook page.    It all comes back to us being aware of how to make ourselves private.   But even then, large companies spend thousands+ on tracking their company image / profile through what is being said about them on social networking sites, its very big business logging everything we say and type.

So beware everyone – big brother (in some form) is watching you.

Top 75 Contributor

 hound replied on5 Oct 2010 12:54 AM

Andy, sorry, you’ve lost me on this one! You say you would be angry/mortified/seek legal advice if someone did this to you, but what activity are you thinking of when you say “did this to you”?  I know fb privacy setting can be a bit complex, but you do have a choice of what information you want to remain public.  And then you have to remember that you have chosen to put that into the public domain.  Why would someone looking at something you have chosen to put into the public domain mortify you? General rule: if you care about who knows certain things then don’t put them into the public domain.  I can understand that it would be different if someone is applying special legal powers to obtain information which is not in the public domain but I don’t think that that is what is being discussed here.

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 1:45 AM

New Facebook Privacy Complaint Filed with Trade Commission

Today, EPIC and 14 privacy and consumer protection organizations filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, charging that Facebook has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of consumer protection law. The complaint states that changes to user profile information and the disclosure of user data to third parties without consent “violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook’s own representations.” The complaint also cites widespread opposition from Facebook users, Senators, bloggers, and news organizations. In a letter to Congress, EPIC urged the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the FTC to monitor closely the Commission’s investigation. The letter noted the FTC’s failure to act on several pending consumer privacy complaints.

http://epic.org/2010/05/new-facebook-privacy-complaint.html

“The following business practices are unfair and deceptive under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act: Facebook disclosed users’ personal information to Microsoft, Yelp, and Pandora without first obtaining users’ consent; Facebook disclosed users’ information—including details concerning employment history,beducation, location, hometown, film preferences, music preferences, and reading preferences—to which users previously restricted access; and Facebook disclosed information to the public even when users elect to make that information available to friends only.”

http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC_FTC_FB_Complaint.pdf

http://www.reputationdefender.com

http://deletefacebook.com

http://www.reclaimprivacy.org

Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents


Google CEO: Secrets Are for Filthy People
Eric Schmidt suggests you alter your scandalous behavior before you complain about his company invading your privacy.

Secrets: on the ethics of concealment and revelation
Sissela Bok – 1989 – 332 pages – Snippet view
Shows how the ethical issues raised by secrets and secrecy in our careers or private lives take us to the heart of the critical questions of private and public morality.
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=sissela+bok&oq=siss

Top 150 Contributor

 copperbird replied on5 Oct 2010 4:41 AM

Guide on ways to manage your privacy on facebook. Note that even if you have all of your own privacy settings turned on, you cannot control what your friends or family might choose to post, and you cannot control whether or not they use the privacy settings.

Facebook has relied heavily on naive users disregarding their own personal privacy as part of its engine for growth. (I like to think that this is because Mark Zuckerberg is using it as a base for his own weird philosophy rather than due to active malice.)

It’s a deeply worrying trend, but ultimately whose responsibility is it if a person chooses to leave personal information in a public area? Anyone remember the MI5 guy whose wife posted a picture of her kids on her public facebook page? It has become common practice for employers to check facebook/ twitter of potential employees, and once people are actually physically at risk I’m not sure I see a good reason to ignore it. Just as always, bear in mind that things you read on the internet might not be true.

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on5 Oct 2010 10:44 AM

 Andy_Pandy:

Question to myself… “how would you feel if someone did this to you???”

Well I know I would be extremelly angry if I found out, in fact to a point where I would most definitely seek legal advice with an aim to take action. However, I would obviously have to make sure my privacy settings are tight (which they are). I can see why intelligence/secret services may use this, and it has proved essential in some cases (particularly in relation to anti-terrorism) but as a student I am hoping (NAIVITY ALERT!) social work isn’t so investigative.

I personally think it is quite invasive and as I said I would be mortified if I found out someone had done that to me. But at the same time it is a good tool. I am guessing tho (bar the odd mistake) talented workers won’t need to go to these levels as either a good raport with parents/good social work skills will mean you could pick up evidence in other ways, without resporting to tactics used by services whose primary function is to investigate. But whether or not social workers should use it to confirm a hunch about something… again, i’m not sure. I question whether doing things like this is quite deceitful in some ways. Sure it could make life easier.

Anyway, ramble over. I know facebook is causing all sorts of issues amongst social work (such as above, children contacting parents they shouldnt be etc) but i dont think we need to start snooping. Im interested to see where this discussion goes, as it is quite a though provoking thread. :)

Andy_Pandy,- children’s SW requires workers to be invasive- when you are gathering evidence for care proceedings-it is an investigative role-you are investigating child abuse and neglect. Deceitful? No different to sharing information other agencies have; quite often people think this will not get back to the SW- and become very angry that health visitors, nurseries, schools, etc have ‘betrayed them’.

No different to noting that the child’s matresses had no covers on and the child was grubby and smelly. No different to turning up unannounced to get a true picture of what is happening in the family. No different to hiring a private detective to get evidence that sexually risky person is living there-yes, that happens…..

I personally do not search out parents, other than, maybe to trace information for a child’s records about a parent-I believe the child has a right to know as much as they can in the future about absent parents.

However, I have had a child, as mentioned, where her mother posted very abusive messages about her and crowed about the child’s abuse- I was alerted to this by the child- who was being ‘protected’ in foster care from emotional abuse and neglect-but mother chose this forum to continue to emotionally abuse her. Evidence or not? Should we ignore this, thus respecting the mother’s privacy? (as there were privacy settings)

I think it is deceitful to pretend the SW role is not commonly an investigative one and I have always been clear about my role with parents.

Top 25 Contributor

errr i may be missing something but whats wrong with referring to children as “my little babies”??

the replies on the thread are interesting – does the policy vary from office to office ? or are you free to do it as is – i know the LA didnt allow facbook on their IT network during working hours

very interesting about the hiring of detectives – as it should be really

Top 25 Contributor
Female

 redana replied on5 Oct 2010 12:00 PM

I think I would be very concerned as a SW if a foster carer referred to children that they are ‘looking after for the local authority’ as “my little babies”. It suggests to me that the carer is quite unboundaried (which is already evidenced by the posting of pictures on FB). they are not their children and it’s very disrespectful to the parents, whose rights need to be respected even though they have abused or neglected their children. In my humble opinion, the language used implies ownership of the children. foster carers have a duty to build good relationships with parents.

Top 25 Contributor
 hound:

Andy, sorry, you’ve lost me on this one! You say you would be angry/mortified/seek legal advice if someone did this to you, but what activity are you thinking of when you say “did this to you”?  I know fb privacy setting can be a bit complex, but you do have a choice of what information you want to remain public.  And then you have to remember that you have chosen to put that into the public domain.  Why would someone looking at something you have chosen to put into the public domain mortify you? General rule: if you care about who knows certain things then don’t put them into the public domain.  I can understand that it would be different if someone is applying special legal powers to obtain information which is not in the public domain but I don’t think that that is what is being discussed here.

My privacy settings are all sorted… but everytime facebook upgrades or whatever, they all go back to normal, so make my information (and profile) public again. I use it for social networking, networking amongst people I choose to, and therefore I would be mad if anyone I didn’t know started looking through my information on there to try and catch me out on something. So although I may put my privacy setting on as high as I can, it doesn’t mean that when facebook changes in anyway that they wont go back to normal. If someone went through my profile for any reason, and I didn’t know them, I wouldn’t be impressed. But then that could just be me, as I am an overly private person (believe it or not). I think it also depends as to what people consider ‘public domain’, yes it’s on the internet, but I don’t consider my profile to be for the public to view as and when they like, I consider it for those people who I accept as a ‘friend’. I would just personally be angry if someone did this to me. But just reading Harrow CP thing from above…

Some people i’m sure find it alright, and if I had to do it then I guess I would. But following closely to read more about this as people comment…

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 12:36 PM

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

those posting photos of children requires the consent of parents and even when parents post photos, if done so within the Public domain if may attract the attention of PC plod.

In terms of Super Size Big Brother it is of interest that the Contact PointCyclops has been curtailed and the Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended and is under review and thankfully the UK ID Card Database State has been rolled back and this will at least stymie the ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ intentions.

Of course Social Workers are acting continually as investigators and to consider otherwise is highly problematic and the issues of care andcontrol should always be made explicit, which could be done by creating a new professional and protected job titles like Social Police or even Morality Police.

Top 10 Contributor
 romeo2001:

is it unethical or common sense to search for a parents facebook and peruse if not private ? (and therefore open to the general public)

there is huge amount of information that can be found out about peoples behaviour via their facebook pages – eg whetehr they are substance misusing – often what times of tge day its are taking place and general relationship dynamics etc  – am not yet practising so am keen to see whethr this is a tool that is used

note that im not saying it should be used as evidence – just another form of info gathering

you are assuming that anything a person puts on facebook is fact. 99% of the stuff i put on facebook between my mates and girlfriends is utter nonsense and drunk rambling. links to various nonsense etc etc. facebook for me is just a carry on so, no, you could not take facebook as anything resembling genuine.

Top 25 Contributor
 PatHew:

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

those posting photos of children requires the consent of parents and even when parents post photos, if done so within the Public domain if may attract the attention of PC plod.

In terms of Super Size Big Brother it is of interest that the Contact Point Cyclops has been curtailed and the Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended and is under review and thankfully the UK ID Card Database State has been rolled back and this will at least stymie the ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ intentions.

Of course Social Workers are acting continually as investigators and to consider otherwise is highly problematic and the issues of care and control should always be made explicit, which could be done by creating a new professional and protected job titles like Social Police or even  Morality Police.

haha like it pat – tho i actually think  we’d have a better standing in society if there was a “re-branding”

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 4:19 PM

Defendant STEELCASE moves this Court for an Order granting said Defendant access to Plaintiff’s current and historical Facebook and MySpace pages and accounts, including all deleted pages and related information upon the grounds that Plaintiff has placed certain information on these social networking sites which are believed to be inconsistent with her claims in this action concerning the extent and nature of her injuries, especially her claims for loss of enjoyment of life.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20388.htm

Facebook Page? Or Exhibit A in Court?

Top 50 Contributor

 Bulldog Allan replied on5 Oct 2010 5:17 PM

 PatHew:

Hello, this is one of my clients

Hello I am here to see my Social Worker

Some of my cases are quite complex

etc

those posting photos of children requires the consent of parents and even when parents post photos, if done so within the Public domain if may attract the attention of PC plod.

In terms of Super Size Big Brother it is of interest that the Contact Point Cyclops has been curtailed and the Vetting and Barring Scheme was suspended and is under review and thankfully the UK ID Card Database State has been rolled back and this will at least stymie the ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ intentions.

Of course Social Workers are acting continually as investigators and to consider otherwise is highly problematic and the issues of care and control should always be made explicit, which could be done by creating a new professional and protected job titles like Social Police or even  Morality Police.

On the above points I do definately agree with you.     ‘cradle-to-grave surveillance’ is something that realy does concern me and I guess we have to all understand that whatever we put in the public domain, through websites, forums, blogs, social networking etc can all be accessed by most and if you pay some money you can find out even more about people.

Top 200 Contributor

 gear replied on5 Oct 2010 7:28 PM

Thanks Redana, my point exactly – the children are in the care of the ‘Local Authority’ and absolutely nobody has the right to refer to them as their own children. It is my personal belief that foster carers should never post any information about children in their care on any social networking site.

In response to Romeo – my council does not permit any use of social networking sites however specific permission is given in certain circumstances, as in the case I have detailed above- I did personally see the posts by the foster carer.

Top 150 Contributor

tbh anyone with a smartphone could access social networking from work regardless of any IT restrictions (usual caution applies about deliberately flouting the company handbook etc.)

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on5 Oct 2010 8:12 PM

And if you are sacked and make a tribunal or discrimination claim, your telephone records will be called by the employer’s side. And if you post to a Public blog or similar then the evidence will be there for all to see. Then again many employers give free unofficial reign to staff to create a positive work space, but this then allows them to quote IT breaches as and when needed.

 copperbird:

tbh anyone with a smartphone could access social networking from work regardless of any IT restrictions (usual caution applies about deliberately flouting the company handbook etc.)

Top 10 Contributor
Female

 cb replied on6 Oct 2010 7:32 AM

Just as an aside and not completely relevant point, as a foster carer, I have made considerable efforts to refrain from mentioning my foster child on updates – that hasn’t stopped friends of mine commenting on my status updates and asking after her – not for any nefarious reasons, but on the understanding that when a child lives with us for a year, of course, they will show an interest in her and how she is getting on.

Of course, my profile is ‘private’ to the max levels but – and this is a bit but – foster carers MUST be made aware of these issues and social workers must be aware of these issues.

The ONLY guidance we had from the local authority about facebook was telling us that we could allow children over 12 to create pages (we’d actually told our foster child she would have to wait until she was 13 as that was the guidance on Facebook and to create a page at 12 would mean that she would have to tell lies about her age to register!). Of course, once she saw this letter from the local authority, she wanted a page as the local authority said it was ‘ok’.

But seriously, that is the only input that they have had. I think there needs to be a lot more training about social networks as quickly children are becoming more au fait with the ways and means to manage their own information and contacts than their carers.

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on7 Oct 2010 3:55 PM

Surveillance and Child Protection: De-mystifying the Trojan Horse. 
Surveillance
and Society 7(3/4): 304-324. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org

Evil
http://www.tomscott.com/evil/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWSy8FqKwQc

How evil is Facebook?
Think of it as your life going down the drain while you spend hours casuallly stalking other people’s lives
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/29/how-evil-is-facebook

Uploads from iPhones using the Facebook app will push all your contacts onto Facebook’s servers – where they’ll be matched against any and everyone. Worried at all?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/facebook-privacy-phone-numbers-upload

100m Facebook users collected and published
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10796584

Top 100 Contributor

 PatHew replied on7 Oct 2010 4:10 PM

 cb:

. I think there needs to be a lot more training about social networks as quickly children are becoming more au fait with the ways and means to manage their own information and contacts than their carers.

PS:

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
http://www.ceop.police.uk/

Children’s Online Privacy Protection
http://www.coppa.org/

Top 100 Contributor

 Tink63 replied on7 Oct 2010 5:44 PM

Hi I have not actually used facebook to look up families myself, however other family members and families often share information such as information on facebook with me, on one occasion this was very useful as a mother had a new partner it was alleged on facebook, who was in fact a sex offender, so therefore don’t think we can always ignore information given to us in this way!! Tink

Page 1 of 1 (26 items) | RSS

May 4, 2011

Data Protection Act 1998 Section 36 Domestic purposes. Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles.

I met with a new social worker today and the subject came up about me having recorded conversations in the past.

The lady told me i wasn’t allowed to do that without consent  until i reminded her of section 36 of the data protection act whereby you do not actually have to ask for consent if you are in your own property.

What amazes me is what social workers are so scared of ?

After all if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear , and if you adhere to your codes of conduct and work in an open and honest way whats your problem ?

As for recording in SS offices etc my advice is if there have been occasions where your social workers have lied or fabricated information then do it but hide your recording equipment on your body somewhere.

SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT POSSESS ANY POWERS TO MAKE FULL BODY SEARCHES ……… YET !!!!

Maybe the below article can demonstrate why social workers are so fearful , maybe they are scared of being exposed for lying or for being vexatious .

Believe me they can be vexatious and are so protected by the state or by using’childs best interest’ as a smokescreen for hiding their true intentions behind their decisions that I question whether some of them have psychopathic disorders .

A social worker can take a dislike to you or maybe they have got into trouble over a complaint you have made or some other exposure of their behaviour and you have had it !!!!

Whats in the best interest of the child goes out the window as the social worker is then so biased  and intent to exact her/ his revenge that the child in their eyes becomes nothing more than a useful tool in which to utilise to cause you distress in the same way as a vexatious ex partner will use a child to get back at a partner by ceasing all contact, turning the child against the absent parent etc.

There certainly does need to be an independent body to look at the conduct of some of these social workers made up partly of parents and service users like the man below who will not be blinkered by the fact that social workers are ‘ professionals ‘ and do not behave like that.

In all professions their are bad eggs look at bent police officers , crooked lawyers , etc what makes social workers any different ? On this site there is a list of social workers that have been struck off quite a long list.

IT is a very powerful role they have . If you are a victim of a vexatious social worker the odds are stacked against you.

First you have to get someone to believe that such a professional has acted vexatiously which noone will lets face it who will believe your word over a social workers ?

secondly if you make an internal complaint the local authority will back the social worker up .

thirdly if you try to take the matter to an outside agengy the process will take so long you could have ended up losing a child to adoption or foster care and had contact etc stopped . All based on the decisions and reports written by this vexatious person.

The poor child is used as a weapon to exact their twisted revenge on you.

Anyway back to the article below shows why you should record social workers and far from them saying you are not supposed to remember this judge did not have a problem with it being used as evidence !

and i say it again to social workers ‘ IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR ‘

Dictaphone saves man from prison

Secret tape recording clears him of charges brought by social services

A MAN who was cleared of all charges after secretly recording a meeting with social workers on his dictaphone, has called for an independent team to monitor social workers.

Lovel Brian Dennis was accused of affray, threat to kill, assault and criminal damage, stemming from two separate encounters with social workers from Hackney Council’s Learning and Disability department as he tried to get social services to let him take care of his brother, who has Downs Syndrome.

Dennis was accused of swearing and threatening council officials in the first encounter, while in the second he was alleged to have pushed a social worker against a wall.

However, due to evidence from his recordings and conflicting testimony from a prosecution witness, Dennis was found not guilty last month at Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London.

A relieved Dennis told The Voice: “This is the wisest £50 I’ve ever spent in my life, because if I didn’t spend this £50, as the barrister said in the court, I would’ve got three to six years. I would hope that there would be a body that can monitor social services and see that they’re conducting their duties properly.”

The problems for 46-year-old Dennis, from Hackney, started in April 2009 as he attempted to obtain responsibility for his brother Kenneth Plummer’s wellbeing, because his former foster carer could no longer be responsible for him.

Dennis had met officials during a discharge meeting at Goodmayes Hospital, as his brother had been suffering from mental illness at the time.

After the meeting, Dennis said he was accused of using abusive language and threatening a social worker. However, unbeknownst to them, Dennis had recorded the meeting on his dictaphone, which was later used in court as evidence to show he had not behaved as alleged.

After the discharge meeting, Dennis said he was banned from seeing Plummer for four months. When the ban was over, Dennis went to visit his brother but faced another accusation from the same social worker.

“…She made the allegation that I attacked her,” said Dennis, who was found not guilty of assault.

Dennis also claims that the council ‘invented’ a non-existent brother and implied he had designs on his brother’s money.

Hackney Council documents obtained by The Voice, make reference to two brothers.

A Hackney Council review on Plummer’s health when he was under his foster carer’s supervision, stated: ‘One brother, Brian, visits regularly, and Kenny enjoys these visits… However, other members visit more sporadically, which can leave Kenny feeling confused. Additional problems have developed due to the inheritance. There is concern about one brother, Lowell (sic), who is keen to manage Kenny’s money.’

Dennis later formally complained to the Ombudsman, who considers complaints of service failure and maladministration causing injustice. The Ombudsman upheld some of Dennis’ claims, ruling on January 26, that Dennis ‘was the subject of false allegations by his brother’s care manager regarding his behaviour at a meeting in a hospital.’

The Ombudsman added: ‘The foster carer has signed a statement confirming that the complainant has never asked or bothered her for his brother’s money and that she had never given the social worker the impression that he had been behaving in this manner.’

Hackney Council reportedly offered Dennis an apology and a total of £1,600 compensation, but said in a statement: ‘The Council will be making no comment due to legal reasons.’

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=19493

May 1, 2011

IS THE FORCED ADOPTION OF A CHILD ABUSIVE IN ITSELF ?

Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS)

IT’S HISTORY & RELEVANCE TODAY

Adoption secrecy is credited with fueling several types of negative outcome issues for adoptees, including the statistical possibility that siblings separated by adoption, unaware of their biological relationship, have engaged in incestuous relationships (see the story of Joel Domingues at AdoptedPrisoners.com , under GEORGIA, and “Keeping it in the Family: Incest and Inbreeding,” at http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/3436 . But it’s the apparently higher probability of criminal and sociopathic behaviors by adoptees that has been the most documented — and most disputed by pro-adoption groups and supporters of “tough on crime” legislation.

Reuben Pannor, former Director and now Consultant to California’s Vista del Mar residential center for emotionally disturbed children is quoted by Los Angeles Times writer Beverly Beyette: “I started working in adoption at Vista del Mar 30 years ago…There, I was surprised to note that every 3rd child had been adopted and had problems.” The Adopted Prisoner and Adopted Killer pages, as well as the free download for the e-book, Chosen Children, not only documents the existence of the link between adoption and emotionally disturbed to sociopathic behaviors, but also explains WHY.





That adoptees are prone to specific behaviors referred to as “Adopted Child Syndrome,” says famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, is just another “abuse excuse” to avoid reponsibility for their actions, including felony crimes. But this is the same Alan Dershowitz who, in his op-ed piece in the LA Times,suggested using “Torture Warrants” — court ordered to control what Dershowitz calls the “inevitable” use of torture by U.S. law enforcement in the “war on terrorism.” He claims torture is “constitutional,” regardless that it is also detrimental to a democratic society. He rationalizes that its sanctioning by warrant would make it more accountable and transparent. “If we are to have torture,” he argues, “it should be authorized by the law.” Notwithstanding that falsification of sealed birth records, and adoption itself, have never been deemed “constitutional” or democratic, Dershowitz seems to be missing the point of our profiling people who are victims of adoption abuse, not as an “excuse,” but as a “reason” for the prevalance of sociopathology and violent crime among those whose lives were forever manipulated by adoption politics and lawyers “in their best interests.”

In 1953, Jean Paton, MA, MSW, a social worker and adoptee, conducted the first studies on families involved in sealed adoptions under the name “The Life History Center,” in Philadelphia. In the June 1955 edition of the Western Journal of Surgery, Paton described “passive, hostile and dependent behaviors” in an adopted boy–behaviors she later defined and which would later be more widely known as “Adopted Child Syndrome.” Her studies revealed confused, damaged children and families due to this secrecy based on ever-changing social work theory and political expediency. Subsequently, terminology such as “slave psychology” was applied to the adoptee “because he feels he must submit to the will of his adopters as a reflection of what they have done for him.”

In 1978, Dr. David Kirschner coined the term “Adopted Child Syndrome” as underlying “Dissociative Disorder,” in his paper, “Son of Sam and the Adopted Child Syndrome,” Adelphi Society for Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy Newsletter, 1978)… and in the same year, the Indian Child Welfare Act (Public Law 95-608) was amended to provide adult adoptees of Native American heritage “different rights” than non-Indian adoptees.

In the 1980s, adoptees who exhibited “Attachment Disorder” were further categorized as a “sub-set spectrum” of adoptees who, to varying degrees, exhibit eight specific antisocial Adopted Child Syndrome (ACS) behaviors — according to noted psychologists, Kirschner, Sorosky, Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, Work, Goodman, Silverstein, Mandell, Menlove, Simon, Senturia, Offord, Aponti, Cross and others. However the “spectrum” is never defined, so it is argued that all adoptees are at risk due to the complexities of adoptees’ dual identities and secret pasts. Although Brazelton referred to ACS as “malarkey” in the press, psychiatrist David Cooke said “Adopted Child Syndrome is simply a new name for a phenomenon that has been observed since the 1950’s” (by Paton). The ACS behaviors most commonly referred to are:

  • conflict with authority (for example truancy);
  • preoccupation with excessive fantasy;
  • pathological lying;
  • stealing;
  • running away (from home, school, group homes, situations);
  • learning difficulties, under-achievement, over-achievement;
  • lack of impulse control (acting out, promiscuity, sex crimes);
  • fascination with fire, fire-setting

By 1982, in children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) for hyperactivity, a 17% rate of non-relative adoption was found, –or eight times the rate for non-adopted children — and it was estimated that 23% of all adopted children would have ADD;. Today that percentage is much higher. As Jean Paton pointed out, “Do you have to be truant, or drop out of school, steal, get into juvenile detention homes, in order for people to realize that you need to have someone tell you about your origins?” Apparently the answer is still YES.

Years laters Kirschner still maintained:

“In twenty-five years of practice I have seen hundreds of adoptees, most adopted in infancy. In case after case, I have observed what I have come to call the Adopted Child Syndrome, which may include pathological lying, stealing, truancy, manipulation, shallowness of attachment, provocation of parents and other authorities, threatened or actual running away, promiscuity, learning problems, fire-setting, and increasingly serious antisocial behavior, often leading to court custody. It may include an extremely negative or grandiose self-image, low frustration tolerance, and an absence of normal guilt or anxiety.” (“The Adopted Child Syndrome: What Therapists Should Know,” Psychotherapy in Private Practice, vol. 8 (3) Hayworth Press, 1990)….

Kirschner concludes his paper with “Finally, I believe that most adoptees have the same emotional vulnerabilities that are seen in dramatic form in the Adopted Child Syndrome, and that all adoptees are at risk.”

In 1992, David M Brodzinsky, Marshall D Schechter & Robin Marantz Henig, authoredBeing Adopted: The Lifelong Search For Self.” Using their combined total of 55 years experience in clinical and research work with adoptees and their families, the authors use the voices of adoptees themselves to trace how adoption is experienced over a lifetime. Studies have shown that being adopted can affect many aspects of adoptees’ lives, from relationships with adoptive parents to bonds with their own children.

On September 23, 1992, Attorney Donald Humphrey, himself an adoptee, called attention to the Syndrome as a factor in cases where children murdered their adopters in Violence in Adoption,” a talk he gave at a conference of the American Adoption Congress.

In 1993 and 1994, the Syndrome was used as a defense in two cases of juvenile adoptees who murdered their adopters. Kirschner, a child psychologist, identified the Syndrome as a contributing factor with regard to Patrick DeGellecke who was 14 when he killed his adopters by setting fire to their home.

In “Heikkila,” Courier News (NJ, front page story, 10-12-93), Laurence Arnold added that the Syndrome is further characterized by “an absence of normal guilt or anxiety about one’s deeds” and newsstories that characterize young adoptees who killed their adopters as displaying “no emotion” or having “no remorse” support this. TheNew York Times account of Matthew Heikkila’s crime, “How the Adoption System Ignites a Fire,” by Betty Jean Lifton (3-1-94, p. 27), cites Kirschner as well as psychiatrist Arthur Sorosky, who helped set the precedent in the DeGellecke case with the Adopted Child Syndrome defense.

Adoptees including Larry Swartz (Maryland), Patrick Campbell (Connecticut), and Tammy and Kathryn Tomassoni (Arizona), now adults, were tried and convicted “as juveniles” for the murders of their respective adopters but also are among the very few adoptees who, having served their sentences, were released from prison. They never killed again and were reportedly living “normal” lives. Swartz, who married and had a child, was well liked by the community who called him a caring person; he was only 37 when died unexpectedly of a heart attack in 2004. His compelling story is detailed in “The Second Life of Larry Swartz: Friends Remember Murderer as ‘God’s Gift to Life,'” by MarylandMissing, Websleuths forum at:http://websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-18711 Other adoptees, such as Heikkila and Marty Tankleff, who were juveniles when they murdered their adopters (in Connecticut and New York, respectively), were neverthless convicted “as adults” and remain in prison.

One of the most intriguing and probably the most accurate assessment of the psychological dynamics of adoptees–particularly adoptees who commit violent crimes–has been advanced by many incarcerated adoptees themselves. They suggest that adoption, whether legal or illegal, is a dysfunction of kinship, and that the adoptee perceives many people in his world as “strangers.” What is seen in many adopted children is the beginning of a cycle of violence against adopters, or strangers, or both, as supported by AmFOR’s pages athttp://www.amfor.net/prisoners/ and http://www.amfor.net/killers/. There may be a reaction experienced by the adoptee in childhood that is the most primitive wound to the psyche — a theory shared by many adoption researchers – and that this wound is re-experienced at the very essence of his/her humanity even in adulthstory which, when focused, may find its end as predatory violence.

On 12-26-00, David Kirschner posted to the Internet newsgroup, alt.adoption:

“Rather, I have repeatedly emphasized the Syndrome describes a sub-set of adoptees at the end of a spectrum–and not ALL adoptees.”

Not only does it appear that Kirschner has acquiesced under pressure to be politically correct via AdoptSpeak, but also, in that moment, he contradicted decades of his own research, beliefs and published statements. And, again, he does not define “the spectrum of adoptees,” who have ACS, a point not lost on Kay Russell, anti-adoption activist, who posted a response to Kirschner under the screen name Saxon War Lord, as follows:

“Dr. Kirschner, is the spectrum a graduation of these symptoms? Would ACS be the end of the spectrum you’re talking about, like the MPD end of the Dissociative spectrum? What I mean is, I would not expect ACS to be at the end of a spectrum of all stable unaffected people, then suddenly a sub-set of affected adoptees. So the next sub-set on your spectrum would be ‘pretty disturbed’ but not ‘as disturbed’ as those with ACS — and next to that sub-set and other sub-sets affected, but to a lesser degree, and on and on down that spectrum….clear on down to the other end of the spectrum where we’d find adoptees who ‘fair pretty well despite being adopted.'”

Kirschner never responded.

Until the 2002 book, Chosen Children, and AmFOR’s web page athttp://www.amfor.net/killers/ made this information available, free on Internet, no one work had linked the majority of serial killers and others by the abnormality of their adoptive status. Increasingly, profilers, psychologists, sociologists, educators, journalists, script writers, defense attorneys and other researchers understand and explain adoptees’ behaviors in the context of their adoptions.

Interestingly, in 2007, David Kirschner, PhD, announced his new book, “Adoption: Uncharted Waters,” resurrecting his nearly abandoned “Adopted Child Syndrome” terminology; and his new book finally acknowledges cases of adoptees who committed homicide. Kirschner even goes so far as to suggest how to treat and prevent Adopted Child Syndrome. A browse of this website more than suggests the best way to prevent Adopted Child Syndrome is to prevent adoption.


A Casey Family Programs/Harvard Medical School study finds “rates of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] among foster care alumni are up to twice as high as for U.S. war veterans!” Adoption has also produced an epidemic of disturbed kids, as hundreds of “examples” on this page beg the question: (1) WHY is the number of known Serial Killers, who are known to be adopted, disproportionate to the general population who are Serial Killers? and (2) WHY are there twice as many Adopted Killers who are known to be in the category “Adoptees Who Killed Their Adopters?”

On 9-17-07, after years of political waffling on his own theory of Adopted Child Syndrome, New York Psychotherapist David Kirschner, MD, finally acknowledged “The Connection Between Adoption and Murder,” but targets sealed adoptions, athttp://www.crimemagazine.com/07/adoptionforensics,0919-7.htm. This was five years after Lori Carangelo’s revealing statistical and anecdotal research on the subject in her book, “Chosen Children,” (originally published in 2002 by scholarly book publisher, Schenkman Books, now a free download athttp://www.amfor.net/chosenchildren/). Carangelo finds that competing interests of parents, adopters and adoptee, and how the adoption itself is perceived and handled in the adoptive family, even in so-called “open” and stepparent adoptions, is crucial to the child’s outcome.


In “MY ARMENIAN GENESIS: The Last Survivor” athttp://ArmenianAncestryBook.com – author Mary L. Foess (Judith Movsisian) exemplifies the adopted individual’s dilemma of a dual existence — one that demands suppression of pain from actual or perceived rejection while accepting as “normal” the abnormal status of one whose origins are secret — and one that compels a search for normalcy of familial relationships. Mary’s book lays bare not only her own feelings and admissions, but also the complexities of those who hold the answers to family secrets and who fear the proverbial “knock on the door” from an adoptee so obsessed by her need to know and to be accepted.

In “FORBIDDEN FAMILY” at http://ForbiddenFamily.com – author Joan Wheeler (Sipple), an adoptee who is a social worker, adoption reform activist, advocate for donor offspring and a suicide prevention and crisis counselor who has, for years, suffered clinical depression and battled thoughts of suicide, reveals how being adopted by strangers as a “half orphan” created the emotional abuse that has dominated her life ever since.

Chronological List of Psychopathology Studies

1937 David M. Levy, “Primary Affect Hunger,” American Journal of Psychiatry 94 (November 1937):643-652.
1937 Sydney Tarachow, “The Disclosure of Foster-Parentage to a Boy: Behavior Disorders and Other Psychological Problems Resulting,” American Journal of Psychiatry 94 (September 1937):401-412
1938 Edwina A. Cowan, “Some Emotional Problems Besetting the Lives of Foster Children,” Mental Hygiene 22 (July 1938):454-458.
1941 Robert P. Knight, “Some Problems in Selecting and Rearing Adopted Children,” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 5 (May 1941):65-74.
1942 Elsie Stonesifer, “The Behavior Difficulties of Adopted and Own Children,”Smith College Studies in Social Work, vol 13 (November-December 1942):161.
1944 Houston McKee Mitchell, “Adopted Children as Patients of a Mental Hygiene Clinic,” Smith College Studies in Social Work 15 (1944):122-123.
1952 E. Wellisch, “Children Without Genealogy�A Problem of Adoption,” Mental Health 13 (1952):41-42.
1953 Portia Holman, “Some Factors in the Aetiology of Maladjusted Children,”Journal of Mental Science 99 (1953):654-688.
1953 Bernice T. Eiduson and Jean B. Livermore, “Complications in Therapy with Adopted Children,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 23 (October 1953):795-802
1954 National Association for Mental Health, A Survey Based on Adoption Case Records (London: National Association for Mental Health, 1954 est.).
1960 Marshall D. Schechter, “Observations on Adopted Children,” Archives of General Psychiatry 3 (July 1960):21-32.
1961 M.L. Kellmer Pringle, “The Incidence of Some Supposedly Adverse Family Conditions and of Left-Handedness in Schools for Maladjusted Children,”British Journal of Educational Psychology 31, no. 2 (June 1961):183-193.
1961 Bruce Gardner, Glenn R. Hawkes, and Lee G. Burchinal, “Noncontinuous Mothering in Infancy and Development in Later Childhood,” Child Development32 (June 1961):225-234.
1962 Betty K. Ketchum, “An Exploratory Study of the Disproportionate Number of Adopted Children Hospitalized at Columbus Children’s Psychiatric Hospital” (Masters Thesis, Ohio State University, 1962).
1962 Povl W. Toussieng, “Thoughts Regarding the Etiology of Psychological Difficulties in Adopted Children,” Child Welfare (February 1962):59-65, 71.
1962 Frances Lee Anderson Menlove, “Acting Out Behavior in Emotionally Disturbed Adopted Children” (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1962).
1963 Michael Humphrey and Christopher Ounsted, “Adoptive Families Referred for Psychiatric Advice,” British Journal of Psychiatry 109 (1963):599-608.
1963 Jerome D. Goodman, Richard M. Silberstein, and Wallace Mandell, “Adopted Children Brought to Child Psychiatric Clinic,” Archives of General Psychiatry 9, no. 5 (November 1963):451-456.
1964 Marshall D. Schechter et al., “Emotional Problems in the Adoptee,”Archives of General Psychiatry 10 (February 1964):109-118.
1964 H. J. Sants, “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents,”British Journal of Medical Psychology 37, no. 1964 (1964):133-141.
1964 H. David Kirk, Shared Fate: A Theory of Adoption and Mental Health (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).
1965 Frances Lee Menlove, “Aggressive Symptoms in Emotionally Disturbed Adopted Children,” Child Development 36, no. 2 (June 1965):519-532.
1966 Nathan M. Simon and Audrey G. Senturia, “Adoption and Psychiatric Illness,”American Journal of Psychiatry 122, no. 8 (February 1966):858-868.
1966 H. David Kirk, “Are Adopted Children Especially Vulnerable to Stress? A Critique of Some Recent Assertions,” Archives of General Psychiatry 14 (March 1966):291-298.
1966 Alfred Kadushin, “Adoptive Parenthood: A Hazardous Adventure?,” Social Work (July 1966):30-39.
1968 Shirley A. Reece and Barbara Levin, “Psychiatric Disturbances in Adopted Children: A Descriptive Study,” Social Work (January 1968):101-111.
1970 Marshall D. Schechter, “About Adoptive Parents,” in Parenthood: Its Psychology and Psychopathology, eds. E. James Anthony and Therese Benedek (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 353-371.
1975 Arthur D. Sorosky, Annette Baran, and Reuben Pannor, “Identity Conflicts in Adoptees,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45 (January 1975):18-27.
1988 David Kirschner and Linda S. Nagel, “Antisocial Behavior in Adoptees: Patterns and Dynamics,” Child and Adolescent Social Work 5, no. 4 (Winter 1988):300-314.
1990 David Kirschner, “The Adopted Child Syndrome: Considerations for Psychotherapy,” Psychotherapy in Private Practice 8, no. 3 (1990):93-100.
1990 David Brodzinsky and Marshall Schechter, eds., The Psychology of Adoption(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
1993 Nancy Newton Verrier, The Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child(Baltimore, MD: Gateway Press, 1993).
1995 Katarina Wegar, “Adoption and Mental Health: A Theoretical Critique of the Psychopathological Model,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65 (October 1995):540-548.
1998 Joyce Maguire Pavao, The Family of Adoption (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998).

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

Good luck Vicky yet another mother who has had to flee the barbaric child protection and family court system here in the UK.

And i would like to just mention a few things to the social workers and police who have subjected this lady to all this stress. I accuse you all of abusing her unborn child and what about this unborn childs human rights ?

“Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights.”…
In the matter of unborn baby M; R (on the application of X and another) v Gloucestershire County Council. Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin). Hearing Date: 15 April 2003 Court: Administrative Court. Judge: Munby J. Abstract. Published Date 16/04/2003

Babies in womb feel mothers’ anxiety at only four months

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy transmit their anxiety to their unborn child from as early as 17 weeks, research indicates.
Stress levels in foetuses only four months old — about the time the pregnancy starts to show — rise and fall in line with those of their mothers’.
The findings prompted calls for employers, family and friends to be aware of the risks and offer more help to moth-ers-to-be.
“For the first time, there’s solid evidence to show that an unborn child may be exposed to maternal stress as early as 17 weeks in development,” said Claire Friars, a midwife for Tommy’s, the baby charity.
“What is now clear is that high levels of stress in pregnancy can, in some cases, be detrimental to the health of the baby and to remain as stress-free as possible is certainly important. It is vital that pregnant women are given adequate support and reassurance from their family, friends and employers, to ensure they have a happy and healthy pregnancy.
A recent survey of 1,000 mothers-to-be conducted by Tommy’s found that pregnant women regularly felt stress at work. One in ten said that their employer was unsupportive when they announced their pregnancy and a quarter felt under pressure from employers who expected them to work just as they did before they became pregnant.
The research measured the stress hormone cortisol in the mother’s blood and in the amniotic fluid around the baby.
As the mother’s stress rose, so did that of the baby, according to Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and consultant obstetrician Pampa Sarkar, of Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire.
“We do not wish to unduly worry pregnant women. It should be remembered that one of the best ways for people to avoid general stress is to lead a healthy, balanced lifestyle,” Dr Sarker said.
“We are all a product of our developmental history. One of the times when we are most susceptible to the influences of our surrounding environment is when we are developing as a foetus in our mother’s womb. We found that the strength of this correlation became stronger with increasing gestational age. We now need to carry out further work to unravel the mechanisms by which maternal stress affects the foetus, both during foetal life and through into childhood.”
The theory behind the effect is that foetal programming is supposed to prepare babies for the life they will experience outside the womb. If the mother faced serious dangers, the baby had to be programmed to be born into a dangerous world. But these hangovers from the evolutionary past are no longer relevant, Professor Glover said.
The research is published in the May edition of Clinical Endocrinology. Professor Glover has previously shown a link between stress in pregnancy and the baby’s IQ. The greater the stress felt by the mother, measured by cortisol levels, the lower the IQ. The babies of stressed mothers were also more likely to be anxious and to show signs of attention-deficit disorder.

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy transmit their anxiety to their unborn child from as early as 17 weeks, research indicates.
Stress levels in foetuses only four months old — about the time the pregnancy starts to show — rise and fall in line with those of their mothers’.
The findings prompted calls for employers, family and friends to be aware of the risks and offer more help to moth-ers-to-be.
“For the first time, there’s solid evidence to show that an unborn child may be exposed to maternal stress as early as 17 weeks in development,” said Claire Friars, a midwife for Tommy’s, the baby charity.
“What is now clear is that high levels of stress in pregnancy can, in some cases, be detrimental to the health of the baby and to remain as stress-free as possible is certainly important. It is vital that pregnant women are given adequate support and reassurance from their family, friends and employers, to ensure they have a happy and healthy pregnancy.
A recent survey of 1,000 mothers-to-be conducted by Tommy’s found that pregnant women regularly felt stress at work. One in ten said that their employer was unsupportive when they announced their pregnancy and a quarter felt under pressure from employers who expected them to work just as they did before they became pregnant.
The research measured the stress hormone cortisol in the mother’s blood and in the amniotic fluid around the baby.
As the mother’s stress rose, so did that of the baby, according to Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and consultant obstetrician Pampa Sarkar, of Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire.
“We do not wish to unduly worry pregnant women. It should be remembered that one of the best ways for people to avoid general stress is to lead a healthy, balanced lifestyle,” Dr Sarker said.
“We are all a product of our developmental history. One of the times when we are most susceptible to the influences of our surrounding environment is when we are developing as a foetus in our mother’s womb. We found that the strength of this correlation became stronger with increasing gestational age. We now need to carry out further work to unravel the mechanisms by which maternal stress affects the foetus, both during foetal life and through into childhood.”
The theory behind the effect is that foetal programming is supposed to prepare babies for the life they will experience outside the womb. If the mother faced serious dangers, the baby had to be programmed to be born into a dangerous world. But these hangovers from the evolutionary past are no longer relevant, Professor Glover said.
The research is published in the May edition of Clinical Endocrinology. Professor Glover has previously shown a link between stress in pregnancy and the baby’s IQ. The greater the stress felt by the mother, measured by cortisol levels, the lower the IQ. The babies of stressed mothers were also more likely to be anxious and to show signs of attention-deficit disorder.

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

Using parliamentary privilege, John Hemming MP has named renowned jockey and trainer Vicky Haigh as the woman threatened with imprisonment for speaking to him, writes Christopher Booker.

VIcki Haigh is well known and respected in the world of horse racing

VIcki Haigh is well known and respected in the world of horse racing Photo: PA/GARETH COPLEY
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 30 Apr 2011

Last week brought two further startling developments in a story I reported a fortnight ago, concerning a heavily pregnant mother summoned at very short notice to the London High Court to show why she should not be imprisoned. Among the charges against her were that she had spoken at a meeting in Parliament convened by the All Party Group of MPs on family law related issues.

On Tuesday, the convenor of that meeting, John Hemming MP, who has been at the centre of the much-publicised campaign against excessive court secrecy and “super-injunctions”, used parliamentary privilege to name the mother on the floor of the House, which is why it can now be reported. On a point of order, he referred to “Vicky Haigh, a horse trainer and former jockey” as the subject of “an attempt by Doncaster council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in Parliament”.

We can still say nothing about the case which led to the increasingly controversial order Miss Haigh was alleged to have breached. But it may be added that her successes as a trainer and a jockey have made her very well-known in the racing world.

The other new twist to this story, which I can also report because it is a wholly different case, not yet the subject of legal proceedings, is that last week Miss Haigh took flight from Britain to Ireland, because she had apparently been forewarned that the social services of another local authority, Nottinghamshire, were planning to seize her baby when it is born in two weeks’ time. Her new child is by a partner with whom she has lived happily for six years, as a loved stepmother to his three children. They were all much looking forward to the new addition to the family.

It is hard to imagine the ordeals to which this prospective mother has been subjected in the final stages of her pregnancy, which, as I reported earlier, included being arrested and held for much of 65 hours in fetid police cells. Three times she had to be rushed to hospital because of complications with her pregnancy, but each time the police took her back to the cells. They finally released her, exhausted, three days after her arrest.

In escaping abroad to evade England’s “family protection” system, Miss Haigh is following the example of an increasing number of parents desperate to avoid their loved children being seized. Dozens of others have fled, often at great personal cost, to foreign jurisdictions such as Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Uganda or northern Cyprus (though councils have been known to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money trying to get the children back).

The excuse social workers increasingly favour to justify seizing newborn babies from parents is that the child might be “at risk of emotional abuse”. This is an innuendo so vague and emotive that it can be made – and too often accepted by judges – without social workers having to produce any evidence that can be proved or disproved. “Emotional abuse” is now used in more than 50 per cent of cases where children are taken into care.

Fortunately for Miss Haigh, as she prepares for her child’s birth, she has many friends in the Irish racing world who have given her a warm welcome. She is a strong woman – a quality she may have inherited from her father, the footballer Jack Haigh, much respected in his day – and she is determined to fight for the right to have her family. We have not heard the end of this disturbing story.

For legal reasons, comments are disabled on this story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

April 30, 2011

EXPERT WITNESSES WHO USE CHILDREN SUBJECTED TO FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES FOR MONETARY GAIN

I am writing this piece to raise awareness of these so called expert witnesses that are bought in by Social Services and Cafcass more often than not to write damning reports against parents so that they lose their children to permanent foster care or forced adoption.

What the media never print is how much these experts are paid through taxpayers money and how corrupt the whole system is.

These experts who write reports against the parents often do so out of pure motivation to’ get rich quick’. Were they to write a favourable report the work from Social Services and Cafcass hellbent on snatching children to win their case would diminish.

Some of these experts have their fingers in other pies take Karen Houghton Chartered psychologist who not only makes money stating children should not be with their parents but also is listed on a post adoption agency offering therapy to these children for the attachment disorders she has helped to create.

In the next couple of months another so called expert is due to be outed , this is Dr George Hibbert currently under investigation by the GMC . I am just awaiting their decision in writing so cannot say too much at the moment but should be able to in a couple of months when their legal team have given this Dr a chance to respond to their findings.

Below is an article by the independant referring to Southall.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/how-a-crusader-against-abuse-provoked-the-anger-of-accused-parents-2276845.html

April 23, 2011

The judge has forbidden anyone to tell me what he wanted me to hear

The judge has forbidden anyone to tell me what he wanted me to hear

The secrecy of the family courts system has reached a bizarre new extreme, says Christopher Booker.

Torn apart: the system of child protection is a national scandal Photo: ALAMY
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 23 Apr 2011

The attempts by judges to hide the strange activities of our family courts from public view are becoming ever more surreal. Last week they reached a bizarre new extreme, at the end of a case which I reported on last year more than once – a case that illustrates, chillingly, what has gone wrong with a system that too often allows social workers to seize children from blameless and devoted parents, on highly dubious evidence and for no apparent reason.

For some time before the final hearing of this case, there was considerable effort made to let me know that the judge wished I should attend. I knew he was irked by what I reported of the story last year, although I had been careful to observe the reporting restrictions. Naturally, I was curious to know why he now seemed so anxious for me to be present. As it happened, however, I was not able to attend. I have therefore only been able to surmise what occurred.

It seems the judge issued a very strict warning to everyone in court that they must not communicate anything of what had gone on to any outsider. Had I been present, I have no doubt that his remarks would have been particularly directed at me, and I would of course have been prohibited from reporting the case at all, on pain of contempt of court and possibly prison. If this is what happened, however, the judge overlooked one important point: there was no way that anyone in the court was allowed to communicate the judge’s warning to me.

I can only guess – on the basis of my detailed knowledge of what happened earlier – that the case ended in a way which, had I been able to report it, would have deeply shocked my readers. Had it gone otherwise, I would be free to report it in detail.

Judicial gagging orders have been much publicised of late, thanks to the determined campaign being waged to expose what is wrong with them by John Hemming MP. But almost all the media attention has focused on the power of the courts to suppress reporting on the alleged sexual activities of footballers. Less notice has been paid to the real purpose of Mr Hemming’s campaign: to expose the much worse scandal of the secrecy surrounding our family courts, and the horrible injustices too often inflicted on innocent parents who are treated like criminals without their voices being allowed to be heard.

It is this that Mr Hemming wishes to see exposed to public view – and the curious behaviour last week of a judge I cannot name, in a city I cannot name, in a case of which I cannot be allowed to know the outcome, is just a further instance of how grievously this system has been allowed to go off the rails.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8470199/The-judge-has-forbidden-anyone-to-tell-me-what-he-wanted-me-to-hear.html

Pregnant woman threatened with prison for breach of gagging order

Pregnant woman threatened with prison for breach of gagging order

By Andy McSmith

Saturday, 23 April 2011

The woman, who was eight months pregnant, drove for several hours to get to courtALAMY

The woman, who was eight months pregnant, drove for several hours to get to court

Parliament is being urged to intervene in the case of a heavily pregnant woman who was threatened with prison for naming her local council during a public meeting in the House of Commons.

The woman is subject to a sweeping family court order which makes it an offence to identify her, or the council involved, or any council staff involved, or to say what the case is about. It makes it illegal for her to seek publicity for the case, or for anyone else to approach her for information about it.

It is an example of the kind of gagging order which family courts have the power to issue, to protect the vulnerable, but there are fears that they can also be used as a convenient device for local officials who do not want controversial decisions to be subjected to public scrutiny.

They are distinct from the injunctions increasingly obtained by wealthy or famous men – and nearly all are men – who do not want the media publicising their sexual peccadilloes or information that may harm their businesses.

The increasing use of injunctions prompted David Cameron to say this week that he has become worried that judges, rather then Parliament, are creating a privacy law. John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who has been campaigning against the spread of gagging orders, said yesterday he has referred the woman’s case to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, because of the questions it raises about free speech. “I have referred this issue to Mr Speaker for a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee,” he said yesterday.

He also plans to use parliamentary privilege to reveal the name of the local authority when Parliament returns after Easter.

Three weeks ago, Mr Hemming chaired a meeting in the Commons to discuss whether there is too much secrecy around family courts and courts of protection, to which the public were invited. Guest speakers included Anthony Douglas, head of the Court and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) which protects the interests of children in family court cases.

During the meeting, the woman, who was in the audience, spoke about her own experience, referring to a council and a social worker by name. Two weeks later, she received a summons to appear at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The message implied that she faced prison, though she learnt when she arrived in court that the council was not seeking to have her locked up. In the meantime, she had consulted a solicitor and engaged a barrister, leaving her with a legal bill of around £10,000.

Although she is notallowed to talk about the case itself, the woman described to The Independent yesterday what happened after her visit to the Commons. “I had been encouraged by different people to speak to MPs after I had had no joy with the council complaints procedures, so I thought ‘there’s an MP and the head of CAFCASS in the same room’ – that’s why I went,” she said.

“When I got the summons I was shocked. I only found out at a quarter to seven on Monday that on Wednesday morning I had to appear in court in London. I live hours away by car and I’m nearly eight months pregnant, but I got there. I thought it was sensible to attend. I didn’t know what I had done wrong. I was totally shocked that it was to do with a meeting in Parliament.”

Mr Hemming, who is collecting information on injunctions to present to the Commons Justice Committee, sees the case as a striking example that the courts, rather than MPs, are making decisions about privacy and free speech.

“With the judges acting to reduce freedom of speech it becomes even more important to protect freedom of speech in Parliament,” he said yesterday. “Citizens should be allowed to raise problems with MPs. The names of the local authority and the mother have to remain unspoken because of injunctions. But it is my intention to reveal this using parliamentary privilege when Parliament reconvenes next week. People need to know what is being done in their name. The truth must come out.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pregnant-woman-threatened-with-prison-for-breach-of-gagging-order-2273736.html

April 20, 2011

fantastic article by researching reform

Researching Reform wrote an article for Only Dads this week on one of our proposals which we’ve put to the government. Essentially, it looks at the unwitting effects of the family justice system on the mental health of the families that come before it and calls on government to heed the warnings and look to the solutions being offered, not just by Researching Reform but by people who have a wealth of experience in the field and a passion for their subject.

You can read the article at Only Dads here.

(Also uploaded onto Scribd).

Pulling the Trigger: The Mailbox Monster and Martial Law

In ten year’s time, or thereabouts, it will be taken as fact that the family justice system today was responsible, in significant ways, for contributing to soaring levels of mental health disorders faced not just by parents going through the courts, but later on, by their children. I modestly suggest this will also be established in other jurisdictions in the western world, too.

Whilst it would be terribly unfair to suggest that people inside the system have colluded together with the sole purpose of trying to deteriorate the mental health of families that come before them, the heady combination of several high impact stress triggers within the system and the government’s fear of addressing the  problems without finding themselves caught in ever increasing political and financial conflicts of interest means that much like the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it is likely that intervention and reformation will not take place before we’ve paid too high a price. And it would be very easy to make the case that with one small life lost, the price is already too high.

Yet there are very real issues that need to be addressed when considering how the process affects mental health.

The family justice system is not sophisticated. Practitioners themselves, in private, often speak of it as a blunt instrument, often unable to provide the kind of detail that is required in family matters. When that metaphorical gavel comes crashing down, there’s no telling sometimes, where and on what, it will land. And the mess it makes, both physically and mentally, can be devastating.

Stress is often the catalyst for mental health deterioration and to that end we can perhaps group together a few major stimuli that cause stress levels within families to soar when they go through the family courts: these are what could be described as stress triggers. It’s important, I believe, to mention that before families come to the courts, there is an emotional background that is not taken into consideration, which adds to families’ stress levels especially when professionals inside the system don’t understand that they are not working with people at their best – they are working with people often at their worst and are therefore vulnerable and need support.

Arguably the greatest stress trigger is one related to the science in the system. Many professionals don’t seem to be aware of the high levels of stress families are already under by the time they come to it and focusing as they do on inter departmental issues like goal incentives and inter-group politics, the real focus which should be, to my mind, on trying to stabilise families first before supporting with advice, is being ignored. Mediation for divorcing couples is the latest offering in this department but it will not provide government with the solution they crave – supporting families so that they are confident and calm enough to make their own choices or feel comfortable being aided to do so, will bring about the kind of solutions good for families and good for government.

The lack of understanding about the range of emotions that families go through when they come to the courts is also confounding. Social workers often retaliate with anger when a family member shouts at them upon advising, as they sometimes have to in public family law cases that a report into the care of their child may lead to the child being removed. This is a perfectly normal reaction and yet, it remains largely misunderstood. The social worker takes it personally and before you know it, they allow their own upset to muddy the waters and retaliate by taking their hurt out on the family, sometimes through mild forms of bullying right through to court of protection orders, effectively removing decision making from the person in question and doing so without just cause in these instances.

There are unfortunately many cases where families who have perfectly good track records with their children are treated abysmally because they chose to challenge rather forceful social workers on ill-founded assumptions. Whilst physical violence should never be tolerated, there has to be a basic understanding of how family breakdown manifests in families emotionally and an inherent respect for the families in question.  The kind of miscommunication going on at present is causing stress levels to soar, not just for families but for social workers too, who really should be able to spend regular periods of time with councillors to decompress and let out their own anxieties of having to work with often very troubled families. Without that support, people inside the system become very jaded and this has a definite impact on the way services are delivered. We’re all human.

Another stress trigger related to the science in the system stems from the lack of uniform and accepted knowledge on psychiatric conditions. The confusion in the family courts on these matters and the wildly fluctuating standards across the country are also sub-triggers, leaving families feeling as if they are at the mercy of disinterested bystanders sent to fill out forms and load the families up onto processing trays, to be dissected and divided at will. The stress of being misdiagnosed is immeasurable and there are far too many examples in the news from Dr Meadows to mothers who run away from England to escape wrongful diagnosis (due to impending removal of their children from their care) for this stress trigger to be ignored. The trauma this causes to children is enormous: from the fear of losing their parents in scenarios which should never have placed families under such a microscope, to sometimes the need to relocate, whether through fear or a poorly judged court order needs no explanation. And when families are wrongfully separated, one can only imagine the psychological harm that causes, with intense trepidation.

A further factor relates to the family courts being seemingly unaware of how these flaws inside the system all compound together to create major stress triggers and unwittingly force some families to be exposed to several of them at once, for extended periods of time, without anyone trying to stabilise the families during any part of the process. These raw, vulnerable units are often left to deal with the weight of an ailing and heartless system on their own and as they struggle to cope, their deterioration is often wrongfully misinterpreted as an implicit sign of their being something wrong with the families in the first instance, when in reality they are simply responding to insurmountable pressures placed upon them by a Neolithic system.

In fact the system is so basic that even the complaints procedures seem to be a no man’s land of no response and ‘no one home’. But it is even worse than this. With the system’s growing reputation for being unreasonable and irrational, today, people are sufficiently aware that should they even contemplate attempting to complain about poor treatment in the family justice system that they will probably find themselves open to prejudice and their case compromised by irate professionals who feel angered at being singled out for bad behaviour. As a result, even more families are afraid to speak out, leaving countless children at risk of gross injustice. It is of course true that sometimes people complain unfairly about those who work in the system yet the culture of retaliation within the departments in the system is strong and clearly unprofessional. And it’s contributing to the erosion of the system and the mental health of the families that come before them.

An added and significant stress trigger relates to poor communication, not just between families and professionals mentioned above, but by legal sectors which often cross paths during family proceedings. Family matters encompass myriad legal areas, from potential domestic violence issues resulting in criminal convictions or cautions to angry spouses sometimes trying to shed responsibility for financial obligations or even just shuffling assets around to friends and family to appear financially stressed, the system finds it almost impossible, unless you happen to be a millionaire and can conduct the evidence gathering process yourself in some instances, to ‘talk’ with various sectors and find out whether there are criminal judgments or fraudulent activities taking place. So poor is it, in fact, that when a breach of the law is committed in another field, families are often advised that family lawyers can do nothing about it, because it is ‘not their area of expertise’. This is understandable, but neither are matters relating to custody or contact, which is why they farm out these issues to Cafcass officers, for instance. This lack of pro-active and creative thinking cripples the system and leaves families at the mercy of the court’s ignorance, which is particularly dangerous in matters relating to child welfare and potentially violent parents. The levels of stress for children and the vulnerable spouse here is obvious.

And the financial implications of the process, set only to become greater as the government proposes charges for things like help with child maintenance and almost all but abolishes legal aid are a massive stress trigger for families. The cost of hiring lawyers is mind bogglingly high, with customer service satisfaction at an all time low. It’s all very well saying that no one is ever happy with the outcome of a court process in family matters but that is to ignore the often very poor quality service families receive in this area. The number of times families complain that their solicitors don’t even get back to them in a timely manner and seem to be immune to picking up the phone and returning a call is just a small part of a much bigger service provision problem. In private family matters especially, the majority of people simply cannot afford to pay for the kind of service that might, at a stretch, ensure the judge has all the information they need before them to have a shot at making an informed decision and when families try, they are often vilified for spending money doing so.

And after a while, some of the stress triggers become so all embracing, that parents start to take days off work and eventually remove themselves entirely via sick leave. At that point, it’s only a matter of time, before someone loses a job and finances take a hit. With a reduced level of income, already stretched due to the separation and the less than civil treatment families feel going through the process thanks to a system that operates as if it is under martial law, removing civil liberties sometimes without due care and consideration and doling out judgments that seem completely at odds with the realities of the families that come to court, families who are already in distress find themselves on the brink.

It’s a caustic catch 22, a bitter sweet blackmail wrap, that leaves families high and dry whether they bite on the bullet and pay through the nose at the expense of their families’ income or simply forego spending on the process and hope that justice will out, usually in vain. For how can a judge possibly make an effective decision without all the information?

The last major stress trigger is arguably the adversarial nature of the system. It might be fun for lawyers to battle it out in court and I daresay even more so in the corporate world, where the playing field is better suited to the rough and tumble of semantic sparring but to the family who’s future is being held in the balance, the tension and ‘excitement’ is not enjoyable nor indeed is it appropriate by virtue of the fact that there is a definite lack of dignity to the process which sends out a subliminal message: this is about our game not your perspective. The alienation from the process is a sub-trigger in itself, making families feel as if they are not a party to their own fate and more worryingly, that their views on their fate are irrelevant. This, coupled with the tangible hostility that is encouraged in some quarters, only serves to heighten anxiety levels, which parents harbour and take home and often unable to set the angst aside, expose their children to high levels of anxiety at best or at worst, unable to control the fear at all, take it out on their children.

As the court processes in family matters take longer and longer to complete, the chance for mental health to deteriorate and become debilitating, increases. The story of the Mail Box Monster is one such example. It has become something akin to Family Law Folklore, but I’m often asked why letters from solicitors always seem to arrive on Fridays, always carrying some kind of harrowing message and more often than not, laced with passive aggressive-style blackmail usually written with a hostile bite to match and sometimes just downright rude. I have seen many of these letters for myself. None of the ones I read suggested for a moment that the parties in question had fallen foul of the law or the payment of a bill.

Yet this Mail Box Monster manifests every Friday and families have to limp on through the weekend, often trying desperately to put a brave face on for the children, sometimes not succeeding, but leaving parents feeling anxious and tired with worry. If left unchecked, the Mail Box Monster becomes a spectre in the psyche, so much so that families even come to fear their mailbox. And I have experienced this myself. After two years of receiving vitriolic rhetoric from lawyers who thought they were being terribly clever, woefully blinded by what was perhaps well meaning sentiment, I too began to fear and loathe my mailbox. It became very difficult to consider going down to check the mail and every time I saw a letter in the box, I would panic. My heart would start to beat terribly fast and although the court process had come to an end and I knew those letters were not related, I would panic nevertheless as to what might be inside the envelopes: was it good news? Was it bad news? And if it was bad news, how bad would the bad news be? The sheer level of my anxiety, heightened over such a long period of time, had worn down my resistance and my ability to take uncertainty in my stride. My only respite from the fear was the time I spent with my son. During those periods, my anxiety would melt away, lost in the heavenly haze of my motherly pursuits. But being uncomfortable with the idea of being uncomfortable in such a situation, I resolved to sort the problem out. Soon, I was receiving occasional parcels in my mailbox from Amazon, filled with books, for myself and my son. Instead of going down to my local book store to buy novels and children’s stories, I had decided to send them to myself in the post. There were two advantages to this: the books were quite a bit cheaper and my fear of the Mail Box Monster began to die-down, as my delight at finding my favourite books in the box took over. I am now no longer afraid of the mail box and have renewed my patronage at the book store, but it never ceases to surprise me, how many families I come across who are familiar with the Mail Box Monster too.

There is no doubt that we cannot blame the system for the problems  families bring to court but we can take a compassionate view and change the way the system reacts to parents and their children by invigorating the system with a renewed energy, patience and passion to problem solve. All these things are free – they just require a sifting of the system, to find lawyers, judges, social workers and doctors who genuinely care about their work and the families that come before them and who have a deep understanding of the human condition and how it is affected by inter-related processes.

Going through my own divorce, it never ceased to astound me how little empathy and genuine listening went on in the process and how determined people were to take a point of view without full consideration and run with it, often to the detriment of all of us. At the end of the process, a lawyer once turned to me and said “Now can you see that the courts are not to blame and that it really is all down to you and your husband?” He was not a family lawyer and had not been a part of my divorce. I did not want to contradict him but I did reply “I take the view, that everyone has a part to play in the process”. I learned later on that this lawyer had rather unfortunately started to go through a rather acrimonious divorce himself. I did wonder whether his sentiments changed during that period of time.

It would be a pretty bleak thing if everyone had to go through the process themselves before they fully understood the ramifications of the system on the mental health of parents and children going through the courts. But there is plenty of evidence and information out there now for us to conduct research that, I believe, would show quite clearly that the lack of communication on all levels and the sheer cost of the process is unduly harming families and to that end I have asked the government to review a proposal for that research. I don’t know who will be brave enough to take it on, but I hope very much that in ten years’ time, the system will respond to the challenges it faces – and come to life.

Natasha Phillips, 17th March, 2011

http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/pulling-the-trigger-the-mail-box-monster-and-martial-law/

April 19, 2011

Please post your gagging orders to John Hemming MP, House of Commons, London . STOP THE SECRET FAMILY COURTS !

Quaero Injunctions and the Inquiry

John Hemming MP, who is campaigning against excessive and unlawful court secrecy, has launched an inquiry in parliament into the growing numbers of gagging orders.

“I will be collecting a range of different gagging orders,” he said, “and then analysing and sorting them into different categories. I will then produce a number of parliamentary petitions summarising the details and pass them to the Justice Select Committee for further investigation.”

“What is clear,” he said, “is that almost all of the super and hyper injunctions have no public judgment. That means that they are not compliant with the rules for a fair trial. There is also the question as to whether there should be an automatic time limit on an interim order. Many cases have an interim order and no final hearing. This is clearly wrong. We also need to know what the costs are both for the applicant and for the media in defending these orders. It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of Clause 29 of Magna Carta 1297 (which is still in force).”

“A good example of an injunction that is handled properly is that relating to ZAM and CFW/TFW. This is accompanied by a published judgment. However, what is not in the published judgment is the amount of costs awarded although the fact of the awarding of costs is in the judgment. The judgment should reveal the amount of costs as well.”

New type of injunction – the Quaeroinjunction

Mr Hemming has also revealed a new type of injunction against investigative journalism. “I have recently seen a gagging order that prevents people seeking information about a case from the parties. This goes a step further than preventing people speaking out against injustice. It also puts any investigative journalist at risk if they ask any questions of a victim of a potential miscarriage of justice.

“I call this the the Quaeroinjunction, after the latin work “to seek”. I don’t think this should be allowed in English courts. It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice.”

“Anyone who has a gagging injunction that they would like to go into this proceeding in parliament should post it to me at John Hemming MP, House of Commons, London SW1 0AA.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors
Magna Carta Clause 29 is here

Article 6 ECHR is here

April 17, 2011

A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP

A mother is threatened with imprisonment for talking to her MP

The high-handed power of social workers and the courts, working in tandem, threatens even the privileges of Parliament, writes Christopher Booker.

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system

John Hemming MP is campaigning for greater transparency in our family protection system Photo: PAUL GROVER
Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM BST 16 Apr 201148 Comments

Last week a heavily pregnant woman, whose name is known to millions but whom I am forbidden by law to identify, was summoned to the High Court at very short notice to show why she should not be imprisoned. The charges against her, brought by a local authority I cannot name, were that she might or might not have been in breach of a court order restraining her freedom to speak about a matter which, again, I am prohibited from identifying.

One of these charges was that she attended a meeting, held last month in Westminster Hall, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on family protection issues, at the invitation of John Hemming MP. He has been campaigning for greater justice and transparency in our highly secretive family protection system, on behalf of families torn apart by social workers for what appear to be no good reasons.

The main speaker at the meeting, the theme of which was transparency in the family courts, was Anthony Douglas, the chief executive of Cafcass (Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service), the state body which purports to represent the interests of children. When the woman raised concerns over the conduct of her case – which, as she understood it, was the meeting’s purpose – it was reported back to the council concerned. This contribution was listed among her alleged breaches of a court order which dictates that she must say nothing about her case to anyone outside the system.

In open court last week, it was stated that the local authority had agreed not to demand her imprisonment, providing that she also obeyed new conditions that forbid her to speak about her case to the media or to any “other persons as the parties may think fit”.

In addition, as I learned from John Hemming, a letter “agreed by all the parties” was sent to him by the woman’s solicitors, requesting him not to make any reference to her case in Parliament. By ancient parliamentary privilege, MPs are entitled to raise in Parliament cases where they believe that the conduct of authorities or the courts has been so questionable that normal rules of secrecy should not protect them from public disclosure. Mr Hemming replied to the lawyers that they were “clearly seeking to influence what I say in Parliament. The case already has aspects which are in contempt of Parliament” and their letter added a further element which “I am inclined to ask should be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee”.

It is difficult to believe, he continued, “when a mother has been threatened with imprisonment for talking to me, that an agreement come to in a court is come to willingly by all parties. It strikes me as an agreement arising as a result of duress.” Mr Hemming went on to say that, before referring to the Speaker a letter which he saw as being “in contravention of the law of Parliament”, he wished the lawyers to explain why he should “feel comfortable that this is something your client should have agreed to without having been threatened with imprisonment and/or the removal of her child at birth”.

He emphasised that he had no intention of disclosing any “information relating to the care proceedings which could be linked to your client or the child”. But from long experience of such cases, he saw the letter “as an attempt by the system to bully your client in an attempt to influence proceedings in Parliament”. He concluded that he would be entitled to “debate the constitutional issues raised simply by naming your client and raising the issues of her treatment by the police and the authorities’ attempts to punish her for her comments to the All-Party Parliamentary Group” .

The mention of the police referred, inter alia, to a recent episode where the mother, who is seven months pregnant, was arrested and held on and off in police cells over a period of 60 hours. Three times she was rushed to hospital in serious distress due to complications in her pregnancy. She was then dragged from her hospital bed after midnight to spend several more hours in a dirty cell, before finally being released.

As Mr Hemming sums the situation up: “There are many very disturbing aspects of this case, about which I cannot yet say as much as I would like. But it appears to be a very extreme example of the lengths to which the family protection system will go to hide its activities from responsible scrutiny by Parliament and the media.”

Real-time updating is enabled.

29 minutes ago
Here Here I so agree with you on that 🙂

Yesterday 11:50 PM
Recommended by
2 people
And here’s me thinking that the SS only ran Hitler’s death camps.

Yesterday 11:40 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Has anyone raised this with the relevant authorities? That is: the Head of Legal Services and the Director of Children’s Services at Doncaster Council; the Chief Constable of Doncaster Constabulary and the Chief Constable of Humberside Constabulary; and also the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority.

If not can I suggest that whomever is representing Ms Haigh do so at once?

On the face of the complaint made Ms Haigh appears to have been the victim of perjury, harassment, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. As well as police misconduct, and incompetence/dishonesty of social workers.

BTW: it is a criminal offence for someone to claim to be a solicitor when they are not.

Yesterday 11:33 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Ah, England. Destroyed from the inside. It’s enough to make me convert to Islam.

35 minutes ago
Recommended by
1 person
I love it, at least we would have more rights than we do at the moment and we would NEVER lose our children on a whim like they take brits at the moment.

Yesterday 11:14 PM
Recommended by
8 people
This is horrific.

Yesterday 10:39 PM
Recommended by
17 people
The courts and the ss’s behaviour smacks of intimidation and it is a disgusting way to behave.

Their behaviour has been building up to this for over 20 years.

Their need to have absolute control over others suggest the people who enter these professions have some sort of psychological disorders and quite frankly it is they who should be locked up.

They do it, because they can get away with it. Politicians have sat on the fence for a good 10 years, time for this appalling institutional abuse to be stopped.

I hope John Hemming MP names them (not his constituent) and discloses their behaviour in Parliament. Then it is captured in Hansard. What are they going to do try and get him arrested for doing his job?

Yesterday 10:42 PM
Recommended by
9 people
Spot on Oldmaid. I have been thinking for ages that they have psychological disorders. They seem to be sociopaths. Cartimandua is a brilliant example.

Yesterday 10:08 PM
Recommended by
19 people
Cartimandua of course says that MPs should not raise matters in Parliament if told not to by solicitors in the family courts division ! Perhaps MPs should also submit their speeches to social workers before they say anything?

Yesterday 09:59 PM
Recommended by
14 people
Why isn’t this a headline on the front page?

Yesterday 11:09 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Because editors value their liberty, perhaps?

Yesterday 09:58 PM
Recommended by
2 people
The womans solicitors who knew about all of it asked that Hemmings not bring it all up and he did anyway.

2a letter “agreed by all the parties” was sent to him by the woman’s solicitors, requesting him not to make any reference to her case in Parliament.”

Brilliant genius well no, an abuse of his position.

33 minutes ago
@ Cartmandanua, do you know something I don’t expect any other kind of comments than like this from a “Professional Troll” like yourself and all your colleges whom work with you, I mean you are one of the ones who will go to extreme lengths to keep the Courts closed so that nothing can be reported so you will never be caught out for the bull that you and the rest spout”

Yesterday 10:55 PM
Recommended by
9 people
Why should this woman not be able to speak to her MP?

What statute states a constituent cannot talk to their MP if they are involved in a civil Court case?

Kubizek
Yesterday 10:31 PM
Recommended by
17 people
What a strange comment. The MP is there to represent the public interest as he sees fit. He is accountable to his electorate, not the Courts.

Yesterday 10:29 PM
Recommended by
12 people
Carty – out for the evening or the weekend? Got your tag on?

You really are an idiot, aren’t you? I elect my MP to look after my interests and that is precisely what Hemmings was doing – what he was elected for.

Go and read the link IJ left earlier and tell me that the events and shady doings by the police in that are acceptable practice.

If our MPs are going to be gagged, and that includes the Family Courts, then that is the rest of our democracy out of the window. People like you need to be held accountable.

Guest
Yesterday 10:49 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Comment removed.

Yesterday 11:01 PM
Recommended by
9 people
cartimandua

That’s odd, an constituent can’t talk to her MP about it. A journalist cannot mention it.

But you can and in a newspaper!

I think you have just blown your purported right to secrecy.

Yesterday 09:53 PM
Recommended by
5 people
This woman should have been jailed for the rest of her life,and to all the others on here who are moaning i would have you all rounded up and shot,this is a free democratic country,you can say what you like as long as you are in the bath by yourself when doing so,we are govened by honest, good,god fearing politicians who spend their every waking hour working for us, I fell very proud and so should you be,by the way, Hugh-oxford,you will have called at a bad time,expenses fiddling now takes a lot longer,so a bit more concentration is needed,try and be a bit more thoughtful in future,yes?.

Yesterday 10:04 PM
Recommended by
3 people
My Lord Barnett (or should it be Comrade Barnett) – Presumably you’re in the Upper House and not biased about our honest, god fearing politicians?

Yesterday 10:16 PM
Recommended by
4 people
Tollie, Is he extracting the urine? I ask myself.
Real-time updating is enabled.

Yesterday 09:42 PM
Recommended by
12 people
If the link in my previous comment is to be believed it would seem that the mother in question could well be Vicky Haigh,the well known ex supermodel, also well known in the horse racing world as an ex jockey who was the first lady rider to win the military cup at Sandown and who was invited to tea with the Queen as a consequence !,She is also an ex trainer of many winners on the best courses in the land and a PR lady/ambassador for Victor Chandler,who is now widely acknowledged as the top individual bookmaker operating on British racecourses !As a confirmed ” horse racing man” I certainly know of Vicky though I have never met her.
Could such a person be the one being persecuted by the “SS” ? Well if it’s not her she can sue me,but I reckon the police did not know who they were mistreating when they dragged her out of her hospital bed after midnight so they could sling this 7 month pregnant lady into a dirty uncomfortable cell” !Maybe they were hoping to provoke a premature birth so that the “SS” could confiscate her baby?

34 minutes ago
Ian I believe it to be from what I have heard about it in the past few weeks, Its a sad state of affairs when even people like Vicky are been gagged etc.

Yesterday 09:52 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Thanks for the info.

tumper
Yesterday 09:42 PM
Recommended by
12 people
The way the police and CAFFCASS have handled this case beggars belief. (apparently) Because we are only seeing one side of the story here.
Nevertheless…if the story is accurate, there has to be a high-level inquiry into the way the police, the courts and the social care heirarchy are subverting the role of democracy.

Captain Lump Sum
Yesterday 09:38 PM
Recommended by
16 people
We are bombing Libya right now to stop this kind of persecution happening. Looks like we need to start in South Yorkshire.

Yesterday 10:17 PM
Recommended by
9 people
And the High Court Captain!.

Yesterday 09:36 PM
Recommended by
14 people
This is evil.

Yesterday 09:04 PM
Recommended by
19 people
Bout time our elected representatives reasserted the sovereignty of parliament over the family courts.

This is surely a shocking stae of affairs tha all parents should be wary of.

Blackadder2
Yesterday 09:00 PM
Recommended by
20 people
I would hope that this could be referred to the House of Commons Privileges Committee.

I see no reason why any person, be they solicitor, barrister or Judge, who is involved in attempts to restrict the right of citizens to have access to their MP ought not be imprisoned in the Tower of the House of Commons for contempt of Parliament, without limit of time.

If that were to happen, and Her Majesty had no judges left, we might find a solution to this problem.

Yesterday 08:48 PM
Recommended by
23 people
I cannot think of any justification for dragging a heavily pregnant woman FROM HER HOSPITAL BED to put her in the cells,especially as her only offence (if indeed it was an offence) was to talk to her MP !

Yesterday 08:37 PM
Recommended by
7 people
http://inquiringminds.cc/updat…

I was sent this link anonymously and I wonder if it refers to the events in Christopher’s column…….

Yesterday 09:57 PM
Recommended by
10 people
IJ, even if it isn’t, it is appalling. Why would the police knock on the door of a heavily pregnant woman at 4:00 a.m.? There is no excuse, and if the baby is harmed in any way through the stress caused by the police, then they should be made to pay. It is victimisation and says a lot about today’s police.

It is well known that Doncaster isn’t a place to bring up children, the SS mafia there are renowned for their cruelty and incompetence.

Yesterday 11:18 PM
Recommended by
3 people
“Why would the police knock on the door of a heavily pregnant woman at 4:00 a.m.?”

That’s the way the police do things under a Socialist regime.

Yesterday 11:16 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Essex SS are just as bad.

Yesterday 08:32 PM
Recommended by
16 people
Outrageous! But it should not be up to John Hemming to uphold Parliamentary privilege. That is the role of the Speaker.

What should happen is that he summons the judge and any other party to the Bar of the House, and reminds them that it is the duty of an MP to make representations to the Executive on behalf of their constituent, and anyone who interferes with this process is in contempt of Parliament.

Of course the Speaker will do no such thing, so Mr Hemming should not then feel bound by any lesser convention. He should speak out and name names. The public interest must prevail.

Yesterday 09:04 PM
Recommended by
3 people
On reflection, if the judge jails Mr Hemming and the Speaker jails the judge – who wins?

15 minutes ago
The judge should be called before the house and told to apologise on bended knee.

Yesterday 11:18 PM
Recommended by
3 people
The public.

Yesterday 08:30 PM
Recommended by
23 people
My (Labour) MP threatened to call the police because I phoned her to complain about the levels of immigration. I haven’t contacted her since.

Jackthesmilingblack
Yesterday 10:32 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Name the bitch.

AntonyUK
Yesterday 09:04 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Are you at liberty to say who she is?

Yesterday 09:46 PM
Obviously hugh_oxford isn’t. Pity!!!

Captain Lump Sum
Yesterday 09:40 PM
Recommended by
5 people
If she’s a female Labour Oxford MP there’s only one culprit, I believe.

Yesterday 10:30 PM
Recommended by
1 person
Captain, A Labour MP in Oxford? what is wrong in that city?, mind you there is a lot wrong with the other crowd also!.

Yesterday 10:21 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Of course he is, he’s in the same secure placement as Cartimandua. (But you have to humour them).

Yesterday 09:42 PM
Recommended by
5 people
Surely some part(s) of the Human Rights Law is being breached here?

And where is Cartimandua, never the same without her. She was acting quite sane in the letters area earlier.

Yesterday 11:26 PM
Recommended by
3 people
Human rights law doesn’t apply to law-abiding ethnically British tax-paying citizens.

Just try a trick like that with a black or Pakistani mother and see where it gets you, especially if they are in the country illegally or an “Asylum Seeker”.

April 12, 2011

Man gagged by secret family courts now free to speak

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:21 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Freed man in court secrecy battle

A businessman cleared of rape was told by social workers that he could not live with his young daughter and was then banned from asking his MP for help.

Andy France with his wife Qi and their daughter at his home in Birmingham: Freed man in court secrecy battle

Andy France with his wife Qi and their daughter at his home in Birmingham Photo: CLARA MOLDEN
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent 7:00AM BST 10 Apr 2011

When Andrew France was finally cleared of a rape he did not commit after a four-year ordeal he wanted only to return to the family he loved – and be a father to the daughter who was born while he was in jail.

But social workers told the innocent businessman that if he moved into the family home they would respond by taking his four-year old into care.

And astonishingly, Mr France was even forced into agreeing that he would not speak to his MP about his legal fight, after he was handed what is known as a “hyperinjunction“.

Now, finally able to speak out, he is backing his MP John Hemming’s campaign to crack down on secrecy in the courts and prevent judges from making “anti-democratic” injunctions – a campaign which comes amid rising concern over restrictions on freedom of speech being imposed by courts.

Mr France said: “It’s not right that a court can ban someone from speaking to their Member of Parliament about their problems.

“You’ve just gone through an awful experience like that, and nobody wants to take your case on because you’ve been a convicted sex offender.

“I turned to my MP and he wanted to find out what had happened.

“But then social services left me with no illusions that if I spoke publicly about the case they would knock on the door and take our daughter away.

“I told them that they were gagging me. They replied that if I continued to talk to Mr Hemming, or the media, about the case then they would put in for immediate care proceedings and take the child off us.”

Mr France, from Sheldon, Birmingham, who runs a construction company, added: “It was only when I was a free man that they decided to say they would take the child off us. We did not know what to do for the best.

“The first time I heard about the order not to speak to Mr Hemming was in a letter from my wife’s solicitor in March 2010.

“They were going for what’s known as a fact-finding hearing, where they re-run your criminal trial in a lower court and make a finding on the balance of probabilities.

“I couldn’t believe it. The secrecy in this country is unbelievable.”

Mr France, 48, was released from prison in 2008 while he awaited the appeal hearing.

While the proceedings continued, social workers at Birmingham City Council allowed him access to his baby daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, who was being cared for by his wife, Qi.

The businessman had been sentenced to seven years after being falsely accused of raping and sexually abusing a teenage boy.

In December 2009, Lord Justice Moses in the Court of Appeal described Mr France’s conviction as “unsafe” because there was “no rational explanation” why a critical piece of medical evidence was not presented to the jury by the defence team.

After his name had been cleared but when social services refused to allow him to move in with his family, Mr France spoke to a local newspaper about his dilemma.

The local authority then secured the gagging order from Judge Martin Cardinal at Birmingham County Court.

Its terms said that he had “agreed” to not speak to his MP – something Mr France says he only did because of the threat of losing his child, who still cannot be named for legal reasons.

The council eventually dropped its legal proceedings last summer and Mr France was able to finally return to his family.

Mr Hemming, who apart from being Mr France’s constituency MP also specialises in addressing miscarriages of justice in the family courts, said: “It is very clear that orders such as this undermine the inalienable right of citizens to talk to people in government.

“Members of Parliament are normally the last resort for people who have problems with the system failing. Courts which interfere with this right are behaving in an unconstitutional manner.

“Parliament used to stand up for people’s rights and it should stand up again.”

A string of celebrities, many of them prominent sporting stars, have obtained superinjunctions, which prevent the publication of details about their private lives including extra-marital affairs and the use of prostitutes.

Mr Hemming and other advocates of freedom of speech say the use of the orders represents a threat to democracy.

Mr Hemming used Parliamentary privilege to reveal that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had obtained a court order preventing the publication of information about him and even identifying that he was a banker.

Mark Newby, Mr France’s solicitor in the appeal case, said: “There is an increasing level of secrecy in the courts. This often means there are too many restrictions and too much is balanced against the defendant.”

A Birmingham City Council spokeswoman insisted that Mr France had agreed not to approach the MP and technically this was not a requirement of the injunction. However, if he had approached the MP he would have been in contempt of court.

“In March 2010, Andrew France agreed in court not to disclose any further details of the ongoing case to anyone. This was not a court order and it was not as a result of a request made by Birmingham City Council,” the spokeswoman said.

“At the conclusion of the proceedings, the judge made it very clear that Mr France was free to discuss the case as he wished, on the basis that the identity of any children were not divulged.

“The welfare of children involved in care proceedings is always the first priority of the city council but the authority does not comment on the specifics of any such case.”

A Judicial Communications Office spokeswoman said: “There is nothing novel about this form of injunction.

“In cases where injunctive relief is granted so as to prohibit the subject of the injunction from disseminating the information to anyone, the subject of the injunction is only able to discuss the order and the proceedings with their lawyer.

“Ordinarily then any injunction granted would prohibit its subject from discussing the case with anyone, including the media, their family and MPs.”

Judge Cardinal, who issued the order, is 58, was called to the Bar in 1977 and served as a district judge from 1994. He took his current role as a circuit judge in 2004.

He is also a lay reader and chancellor of the Diocese of Birmingham.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8439969/Freed-man-in-court-secrecy-battle.html

 

April 11, 2011

Miscarriages of Justice in Contemporary Child Protection:a brief history and proposals for change Dr Lynne Wrennall

Miscarriages of Justice in Contemporary Child Protection:a brief history and proposals for changeÓPresentation by Dr Lynne Wrennall to the All Party Group on Abuse InvestigationsAttlee Suite, Portcullis House2.12.2004Dedication
I dedicate this paper to Victoria Climbie, to the children we have failed and to the process of becoming civilized. By civilization, I mean the process of getting things done without harming people.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the considerable advice and guidance I received in preparing this paper. Many people contributed directly, indirectly and through the literature. I would also like to acknowledge all the sources cited in the Joint Statement.
Systemic Reform
This paper addresses the questions: what is wrong with the Child Protection system? What are the indicators of the need for change? Which changes will solve the problem?
In this paper, I intend to argue that the Child Protection system is harming children, families and communities. The failure to appropriately act on genuine reports of abuse and the pursuit of false allegations, are seen as two sides of the same coin. This is the problem of too many false positives and false negatives. The causes are inter-related and the solutions must focus on both sides of the problem.
The rapid expansion of the Child Protection discourse has resulted in a loss of focus. Too many normal, trivial and misinterpreted factors are accounted into Child Protection investigations. The general public quite rightly expects Child Protection to focus on genuine cases of child abuse and neglect, not to be involved in general issues in child rearing, health and social care. That Child Protection has been unable to retain the focus on abuse and neglect is the source of the crisis of credibility that the discourse now experiences.
This loss of focus is also linked to adverse health and social impacts. Too many families feel terrorized out of accessing services for their children and for themselves. Social exclusion is the consequence.
The misdiagnosis of abuse also means that children do not receive the appropriate health and social care to which they are legally entitled. In some cases, the result is that children are dying. Professionals are increasingly aware that referring children to Social Services may result in children and families being harmed rather than helped.
Unexplained health problems have been interpreted as abuse and the burden of proof has been reversed. Families rather than doctors have been forced to try to explain why their child was unwell. Unexplained infant death has become an area prone to miscarriages of Justice. As the number of infant and child deaths declines, the proportionate significance of commercially, financially and politically sensitive deaths is likely to increase. This matter must be squarely addressed. There is a very real danger that undisclosed and undisclosable causes of illness and death lead to miscarriages of justice involving wrongful conviction and removal of children from their families.
Wildly inaccurate markers of abuse, draw families into the Child Protection net. Yet cases of serious reported abuse are ignored. Families claim that the potential for Child Protection powers to be mis-used leaves their children unprotected against harm and exploitation. The context is one in which unvalidated models, frameworks, theories, techniques and tests are generating serious adverse health and social impacts. Within this context, Child Protection powers are detoured into purposes which are unconnected with the needs of children. A pattern of discredited approaches linked to inaccurate targeting and pervasive miscarriages of justice legitimates the claim that systemic reform is required.
Some diagnoses and tests have become almost emblematic of the distortions and distractions that have blighted Child Protection. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy/Fabricated or Induced Illness (MSbP/FII) has attained a particular status as a grab bag of myths, mystifications and superstitions. This diagnosis is particularly available for mis-use because it’s markers fall within the broad range of normalacy. Almost anyone could be conceptualized as falling within the diagnostic criteria. MSbP/FII is believed to be associated with large scale miscarriages of justice because the allegation is located in narrative spin and requires no actual evidence of abuse. It joins the long line of discredited approaches to Child Protection, though it’s ambit may be greater than all the other categories of misdiagnosis.
As a closed system, Child Protection has not been able to hear and to respond adequately, to the feedback which has been aroused over more than two decades of criticism. Violation of the privacy of service users co-exists with secrecy over the everyday practices of the discourse. There is grave concern that the secrecy of the Child Protection discourse has concealed and encouraged malpractice by professionals. There is a body of evidence demonstrating that secrecy has concealed child endangerment within the Child Protection system. So deep is the loss of trust now experienced towards the Child Protection discourse that the aphorism, everybody makes mistakes, but doctors bury theirs is increasingly being replaced with, everybody makes mistakes but fostering and adoption conceal the evidence.
The current model of Child Protection in Britain asks professionals to talk amongst themselves but has silenced service users.  This model became an article of faith in UK Child Protection though, like other features of the system, it is without an evidence base. Service users are unable to directly communicate the harm which is done, because to do so would be to risk further punitive action. The direct feedback received by the system thereby understates the harm that is occurring. Social Workers are aware that the Child Protection system is doing harm, but they do not receive the evidence of the full extent of the harm which is occurring. Service Users eventually broke the silence.
Let’s take an example of a service: Alcoholics Anonymous. It’s called Alcoholics ANONYMOUS for very good reason, because if people’s anonymity and confidentiality is not guaranteed, many people will not access the service. In Britain, the problem is that people are afraid that if they access services they will have their children taken from them. If they don’t get the help they need then social problems are not solved and we are all the poorer for that.
However, to know what is wrong with Child Protection, we must know why and I am indebted to Eileen Munro for focusing me on this. Why does the system entertain false allegations and fail to protect children who are genuinely being abused and neglected? Harker and Kendall from the Institute of Public Policy Research have acknowledged a truth that Britain has taken a long time to accept, that the role expectations of forensic investigator and social worker are mutually contradictory. Combining these roles has meant that neither is done well.
The role of forensic investigator and gatherer of intelligence has eclipsed the role of social worker to such a high degree that little actual social work takes place. British children and families have tended to receive police work performed by social workers rather than social work, recognizable by any international standards.
Britain is almost alone in adopting a model of Child Welfare in which these roles are combined. It is not the only country, but one of the few. Social workers have long been aware of the tensions and contradictions between the roles of carer and controller. The dictum, “we sometimes control because we care,” quoted in the literature, was meant to resolve the contradiction. But putting words together in the same sentence is not the same as resolving the problem of irreconcilable role expectations.
The countries which have combined the roles of forensic investigator and social worker in the same personnel, in the same agencies are the countries whose Child Protection systems face the greatest crises of credibility. In Britain, the emphasis has been on proof rather than prevention, such an emphasis is not likely to engender support for the system.
Blending of the care and control functions is also known as linking social control and service provision. Service provision has suffered in the bargain. Large expenditure on intelligence gathering, assessment and surveillance has concealed the impoverishment of expenditure on genuine service provision. Service users and social workers alike, lament the lack of investment in genuine services for families. For fundholders though, something I have termed “nombyism,” the Not On My Budget phenomena takes over. “The service is great idea, but not on my budget.” [A phenomena similar to “Nimbyism,” Not In My Back Yard.]
Forgive me for turning to accountancy, but the Child Protection discourse is strongly dominated by the disciplines of accountancy and law. It makes short term financial sense for fundholders to opt for rapid forced closed adoption, rather than to invest in supplementary services to families in difficulty and in universal provision of preventative services. Rapid forcible closed adoption is an example of financial short termism. However, a full health and social audit would probably demonstrate false economy. Cost cutting on one budget, creates expense on another. Rapid closed forced adoption is probably an example of those small rationalities that together, work against the larger rationality. Similarly, undereducated and untrained staff offered short term budgetary relief. It is time we started to count the cost.
Authoritarian practices in Child Protection centred on control, surveillance, issuing of threats and orders, and severing children’s contact with their families of origin have been counter-productive to the best interests of children. Some of the most vulnerable children of all, are double orphans and to deprive children of their families of origin, de facto creates these children as double orphans. This is what the Children’s Act 1989 aimed to prevent, but the Act has been widely subverted, due to financial conflicts of interest.
A small minority of children removed from their families of origin find loving adopting parents, but fully one quarter of adopted children are returned to the Local Authority. Many children in the “Care” system are under protected against iatrogenic abuse and suffer very adverse outcomes. False allegations of child abuse and authoritarian approaches to families harm children.
We need to face some uncomfortable truths. We need to acknowledge that the Child Protection agenda has been hijacked by interests entirely unconnected with the best interests of children. We need to acknowledge that Child Protection has become a battleground in which the professions fight for their own interests. The bodies and lives of children and families have become the terrain in which they fight their small wars out.
The claim that “the interests of the child are paramount” has become a euphemism for ulterior motives and unacknowledged sectional interests. When strategies which mis-use Child Protection powers for ulterior motives become destructive to children and families, remedy and reform are appropriately sought.
Summary: What is Wrong?Irreconcilable and unclear role expectations.Nombyism.Inaccurate markers of abuse and neglect.Unexplained health problems assumed to be evidence of abuse.Reversal of the burden of proof.Emphasis on proof rather than prevention.Children not actually receiving social work.Financial short-termism.Absence of a true health and social audit.Mis-use of powers due to conflicts of interest.
Summary: Adverse Health and Social ImpactsHealth and social consequences from mis-diagnosis; children not receiving appropriate assessment, treatment and support.Parents and carers being intimidated out of accessing necessary services.Diversion of resources from genuine life-saving courses of action.Families suffering health and social consequences from the trauma of inappropriate assessment, false allegations and false inferences.Children suffering in the “Care” system.
Systemic Reform: Out of the Silence
There is substantial support for the view that reform of the Child Protection system is necessary. The indicators of the need for reform are expressed in parliamentary debate, judicial decisions, research findings, media reports, incorporation as themes in artistic and dramatic works, discussion in professional newsletters and email lists, discussion in cyberspace and in complaints to members of parliament, professional bodies, Health Authorities, Local Authorities and Local Government Ombudsmen. The indicators may be measured numerically and in terms of population diversity.
In the Service Users’ Joint Statement, some 47 research studies were coordinated together with comment and guidance from 50 or so constituencies of children and families, service providers, academics, consultants and other colleagues as part of a research project to determine what reforms in Child Protect were necessary. The reform agenda is underpinned by that research and by an extensive body of critical literature.
Some eighty or so Child Protection service user websites are now in existence addressing the problem of miscarriages of justice in Child Protection.  It should be pointed out that the majority of Child Protection service users are the falsely accused and falsely suspected and their children.
Media reports on miscarriages of justice in Child Protection are probably in the thousands. Approximately seventy families have allegedly complained to the GMC about so called expert witnesses. The number of complaints to other agencies is not currently known, but is believed to be widespread.
Over four hundred Child Protection miscarriages of justice have been identified in the public arena in Britain and America. Yet how many of the 52,00-78,000 British “looked after children” were obtained through miscarriages of justice is not yet known. More than thirty preventable deaths have occurred among children administered by Child Protection. The implications of more than eleven legal precedents are yet be to cascaded down through the system.
Summary: Indicators of the Need for Reform
Miscarriages of Justice. Preventable injury and deaths. Under servicing. Poor outcomes in “Care”Complaints to M.P.’s.Complaints to professional bodies, Health authorities, Local Authorities and the Local government Ombudsman.Legal precedents.Research studies.Media reports: articles in broadsheets and tabloids, letters to the editor, radio & TV news.Documentaries.Internet activity: number of websites, hit rate, participants in chat rooms.Demonstrations.Discussion in professional newsletters and email lists.Artistic and dramatic expression.
Systemic Reform: Listening to Feedback
When perceived needs for reform graduate to the status of expressed needs and are reproduced on a large scale by diverse populations in diverse settings, a political claim may be regarded as having been intensively and extensively made out. Taken together, the indicators of the need for reform are strong and pervasive. The reform agenda has thereby achieved the critical mass necessary to legitimately assert that reform of the Child Protection system is essential.
In speaking to the reform agenda, I wish to stress the importance of consulting health and social care service users and listening to the insights their perspectives generate. The reform agenda has developed from consultation with children and families and those who share their perspectives.
Recommendations for change include the need for the social policing and surveillance functions which characterize Child Protection to be separated from the service provision functions which enhance the lives of children and their families. Under the current British system, contradictory role expectations result in conflicts of interests which undermine the roles that professionals are expected to perform. Families feel intimidated out of accessing services by the presence of draconian Child Protection functions. If they are to be able to access the preventative and therapeutic services which enhance the lives of children and families, then Child Protection must be quarantined, only to be called in where there is genuine evidence of abuse and neglect. To hamper service provision to children and families with destructive and failing Child Protection practices is to fail to meet the needs of children and families.
Summary: The Reform AgendaPlace the needs of children and families at the heart of policy development.Create opportunities for children and families to exert influence at all levels.Use honest language: poisoning is poisoning, suffocation is suffocation.Create role clarity:  police do police work, social workers do social work. Reconceptualise the role of Social Worker to bring it into line with international standards and requirements.Remove conflicts of interest.Locate Social Workers in an independent location to allow them to use child centred and family centred practice and to exercise professional judgment.Favour universally available services over targeted services, as this reduces stigmatisation and traumatic assessment. Divert resources wasted on assessment into service provision.The principle of self-referral to replace coercion.Respect privacy and confidentiality so that people are able to access therapeutic and preventative services.Create transparency and respond appropriately to feedback.Implement the real intention of the 1989 Children’s Act. Reform legislation and policies which are in conflict with the Act.Shared Care: adopt the principle that a child cannot be loved too much. (Abandon closed adoption).Cascade down the implications of International Law on Human Rights.
Placing Children and Families at the Heart of Public Policy
I would like to return to where we started. To Victoria Climbie and to the children we have failed, to those we have failed utterly and completely. I would like to repeat, the question Charles Pragnell asked, “What would Victoria have wanted to happen?” I think it is unlikely that she would have repeated the refrain which has been offered after every Child Protection Inquiry into a Child death that “more communication among professionals is required.”
Victoria would not have wanted us to talk more, but to listen more. Not to speak about her, but to speak to her. She may have wanted to return to the care of her parents. She may have wanted to attend Boarding School. She would have had a special and intimate knowledge of her own needs. We shall never know exactly what that knowledge was, because no one asked. We must now clear away the conflicts of interest so that children can be seen and heard, unequivocally.

http://ljmu.academia.edu/LynneWrennall/Papers/301109/Wrennall_L._2004_Miscarriages_of_Justice_in_Child_Protection_a_brief_history_and_proposals_for_change._Paper_presented_to_the_parliamentary_conference_held_by_the_All_Party_Group_on_Abuse_Investigations_Attlee_Suite_Portcullis_House_2_December

April 8, 2011

Staffordshire social worker with a smoking fetish ?

Worker sacked for search smoking children pics avoids being struck-off

Worker sacked for search smoking children pics avoids being struck-off

By Phil Corrigan Philip.Corrigan@Thesentinel.Co.Uk

A SOCIAL worker who was sacked for using his work computer to search for pictures of children smoking has avoided being struck off.

Alan Paling, who indulged his habit while working for Staffordshire County Council, was yesterday cleared of misconduct.

The General Social Care Council‘s conduct committee heard that Mr Paling had carried out nearly 200 internetsearches using terms such as “smoking fetish”, “smoking teens”, and “smoking child” between April 2008 and April 2009.

He also accessed an internet video clip of two females in school uniform, although the subjects’ ages could not be determined.

But the committee ruled that while Mr Paling’s behaviour could be considered “questionable”, it did not warrant his removal from the social care register.

The internet searches, which were in breach of the county council’s internet use policy, were discovered by a county council ICT officer in May 2009. Mr Paling, of Foxglove Lane, Clayton, was suspended from his role as an emergency duty team social worker manager, and an internal investigation took place.

GSCC presenting officer Nimi Bruce said that while Mr Paling’s activity was not illegal, it was clearly inappropriate for someone whose job involved working with children.

She said: “The police were contacted in the early stages of the investigation, but it was ascertained that the activity did not cross the threshold for police action.

“On May 18, a meeting took place in relation to the case. It was felt that the nature of the search terms used caused very significant concern.”

Mr Paling, who had worked as a social worker for 33 years without any previous concerns being raised, had his county council employment terminated in June 2009.

During the investigation it emerged Mr Paling had long-standing issues with smoking, and that he felt guilt over his own smoking.

The conduct committee found that misconduct had not been proved.

Panel chairman Ian Daines said: “The committee is conscious that, in this diverse and pluralistic society, many forms of behaviour may cause concern to some people.

“This committee is satisfied that neither the protection of the public nor the public interest calls into question the registrant’s suitability to remain on the register.”

A county council spokesman said there was no suggestion Mr Paling had any professional contact with the young people whose images he viewed.

He added: “After a thorough investigation it was concluded that Mr Paling’s actions had not directly endangered any young people during the course of his work.

“However, he had shown by his own admission, ‘appalling judgement’ which made him unsuitable to continue working with young children. He was therefore dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct.”

Mr Paling declined to comment.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Worker-s-web-search-smoking-children/article-3426345-detail/article.html

 

April 4, 2011

NOT SO INDEPENDENT REVIEWING OFFICERS

The following piece of information is intended for Gill Leather and Donna Greatorex the not so independent reviewing officers employed by Staffordshire County Council. Anyone who has attended statutory reviews about children will be well aware that these social care minions are not independent at all and generally kiss social workers backsides. Should a recommendation be made at these meetings that is not followed through these puppets do nothing about it. This is to remind these people what their role actually is as they do not seem to possess the slightest intelligence in understanding what they are supposed to do.

Social Care News: Looked-After Children – Concern as new reviewing officers’ powers not used

By Ruth Smith Tuesday, 10 May 2005

New powers enabling independent reviewing officers to safeguard the rights of children in care are not being used in practice, campaigners have warned.

An amendment to the Children Act 1989 that came into force in September 2004 obliges independent reviewing officers to review how local authorities implement the care plans of looked-after children. It also enables them to refer cases to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) so it can act on behalf of a child if a claim is made against a local authority. But Felicity Collier, chief executive of BAAF Adoption & Fostering, said that no independent reviewing officers had so far taken a case to Cafcass, despite the fact that plans had not been implemented or inappropriately changed before reviews. Her comments follow a recent meeting of BAAF’s legal group, where serious concerns were raised about how some children’s reviews were organised. Cafcass confirmed that no cases had been referred to it by the end of March. Jane Booth, its director for service delivery, said: “While it is still early days in terms of this new safeguard for children, we would be very concerned if this procedure for the protection of the rights of children in care was not being used.” Andrew Christie, chair of the Association of Directors of Social Services’ fostering group, said he was not “entirely surprised” by the finding. “The procedure is new and you’d expect independent reviewing officers to make every effort to resolve the matter internally first,” he said.   http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/474749/Social-Care-News-Looked-After-Children—Concern-new-reviewing-officers-powers-not-used

IRO Handbook Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers

IRO Handbook Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children IRO Handbook Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 4 Aims and audience 4 Status of the guidance 5 Definitions 5 The legal context 7 The practice context 8 Chapter 2. An overview of the IRO role and functions 9 The care planning and review context 9 Core functions, tasks and responsibilities 10 Competences and qualifications 11 Independence 12 Chapter 3. IRO responsibilities in the care planning and review process 13 The care plan 13 Planning the review meeting 13 Preparation 14 Interpreters 15 Advocacy 15 Attendance and location 16 Timing of review meetings 17 Adjournment of reviews 17 Administration 18 The review: a child centred meeting 18 Issues to consider at the review 20 Statutory requirements 20 Safeguarding 21 Child’s developmental needs 22 Permanence planning 24 Issues in relation to adoption 25 Information that must be provided to children at the review 27 Legal status 27 Outcomes from the review 28 Review record 28 Decisions and recommendations 29 Monitoring the case on an ongoing basis 30 IRO Handbook Chapter 4. Considerations for specific groups of children 33 Children receiving short breaks 33 Children with additional communication needs 34 Children within the youth justice system 34 Children subject to secure accommodation orders 35 Children admitted to hospital 36 Unaccompanied asylum seeking children 36 Chapter 5. Planning transition to adulthood 37 Eligible children 39 Young people leaving care 41 Young people with a disability 41 Chapter 6. Dispute resolution and complaints 43 Complaints 44 Provision of independent legal advice 44 Chapter 7. Strategic and management responsibilities 46 Establishing an effective IRO service 46 Appointment of the IRO 46 Administration of the review process 47 Management 47 Role and functions of the IRO manager 47 Caseloads 49 Role of the director of children’s services 50 Interagency and interdepartmental working together 50 Delay and drift 51 Emergency placements 52 Chapter 8. Cafcass 53 Family proceedings 53 Referral to Cafcass 54 Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children References 57 Annex 1. Overview of statutory framework for care planning 60 Annex 2. Overview of care planning, placement and case review process 61 Annex 3. Key changes to the IRO role and function 62 Annex 4. Involving children with additional communication needs 64 Annex 5. Children in the youth justice system 68 IRO Handbook Chapter 1. Introduction Aims and audience 1.1 This statutory document seeks to improve outcomes for looked after children by providing guidance to independent reviewing officers (IROs) about how they should discharge their distinct responsibilities to looked after children. It also provides guidance to local authorities on their strategic and managerial responsibilities in establishing an effective IRO service. The aim is to give all looked after children the support and services that each one requires to enable them to reach their potential. 1.2 The guidance draws on models of best practice already established throughout the country. It is published as a ‘handbook’ with the aim of providing a format that IROs will find easy to use and enable them to share information about their role with those with whom they work, for example: .. social workers; .. other children’s services staff; .. professionals in other agencies; .. foster carers; .. the child; and .. parents and other relevant adults. 1.3 When consulted about an early draft of this guidance, children and young people were clear what they wanted from their IRO: “When they meet the child they should do this one to one so that the child can talk freely. They must check with both the child, and other people working with the child, on whether the child is OK and happy where they are living and with their care plans. They must regularly ask each child whether they are happy with how things are being done for them, and keep checking what is happening for each child against that child’s plans and the decisions made at their reviews.” 1.4 We have aimed to keep the voices of children and young people consistently in mind as we have drawn up this guidance.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Status of the guidance 1.5 The guidance is issued under two provisions: .. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008, which created a new power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to IROs;1 and .. section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, which requires local authorities, in the exercise of their social services functions, to act under the general guidance of the Secretary of State; unless there are exceptional reasons local authorities must follow the requirements set out in this guidance. 1.6 This guidance replaces the 2004 guidance.2 It should be read in conjunction with the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 20103 (‘the Regulations’). 1.7 The guidance is issued as part of a suite of statutory guidance which, together with the Regulations, sets out how local authorities should carry out the full range of responsibilities in relation to care planning, placement and review for looked after children. Annex 1 shows how these and other documents fit together within an overall framework, the aim of which is to provide looked after children with the most appropriate placement to meet their needs and improve their outcomes. Definitions 1.8 References in this guidance to: .. ‘the 1989 Act’ are to sections of the Children Act 1989; .. ‘the 2008 Act’ are to sections of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008; .. ‘the 2004 Act’ are to sections of the Children Act 2004; .. ‘the 2002 Act’ are to sections of the Adoption and Children Act 2002; .. a numbered section of a Schedule is a reference to that section or Schedule in the 1989 Act; .. ‘the Regulations’ are to the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (where other regulations are referred to, the full title is used); and .. ‘local authority’ is the local authority that is looking after an individual child (referred to as the ‘responsible authority’ in the Regulations). IRO Handbook 1.9 The term ‘child’ is used as an inclusive term to refer to all 0 to 18 year olds. Where the context specifically relates to older children, the term ‘young person’ is used. 1.10 The term ‘looked after children’ refers, under the 1989 Act, to all children and young people being looked after by a local authority, namely: .. those subject to care orders or interim care orders (under sections 31 and 38 of the 1989 Act); .. those children who have been placed, or are authorised to be placed, with prospective adopters by a local authority (section 18(3) of the 2002 Act); .. those who are voluntarily accommodated under section 20 of the 1989 Act, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Where children are accommodated under this provision, parental responsibility remains with the parents; and .. those who are subject to court orders with residence requirements (for example, secure remand or remand to local authority accommodation), in accordance with section 21 of the 1989 Act. 1.11 An ‘eligible child’, defined in paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act, and in regulation 41 of the Regulations, is a looked after child aged 16 or 17, who has been looked after for a total of at least 13 weeks which began after s/he reached the age of 14, and ends after s/he reaches the age of 16. 1.12 A ‘relevant child’, defined in section 23A of the 1989 Act and regulation 4 of the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001, is a young person aged 16 or 17 who was an ‘eligible child’ but is no longer looked after. 1.13 A ‘former relevant child’, defined in section 23C of the 1989 Act is a young person aged 18 or above (i.e. legally adult) who was either an eligible or relevant child. The local authority has functions and duties in relation to former relevant children until they reach the age of 21 (or 25 in the case of former relevant children who are pursuing a programme of education or training). 1.14 To assist the reader in cross-referencing this text to key sections of primary legislation or to the Regulations or other sets of regulations, this is signposted in the text as follows: [Primarylegislation,e.g.1989Act] [Regulations;Part,Scheduleornumber] Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children The legal context 1.15 A House of Lords judgement4 in 2002 concluded that a local authority that failed in its duties to a looked after child could be challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998, most likely under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to family life. The judgement recognised that some children with no adult to act on their behalf may not have any effective means to initiate such a challenge. 1.16 In response, the Government made it a legal requirement for an IRO to be appointed to participate in case reviews, monitor the local authority’s performance in respect of reviews, and to consider whether it would be appropriate to refer cases to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass). This is set out in section 26 of the 1989 Act, as amended by the 2002 Act. 1.17 Later, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Reviewed Case Referral) Regulations 2004,5 made under section 26 of the 1989 Act, extended the functions of Cafcass so that on a referral from an IRO they could consider bringing proceedings for breaches of the child’s human rights, judicial review and other proceedings. 1.18 The 2008 Act extends the IRO’s responsibilities from monitoring the performance by the local authority of their functions in relation to a child’s review to monitoring the performance by the local authority of their functions in relation to a child’s case, as set out in sections 25A-25C of the 1989 Act (inserted by section 10 of the 2008 Act). The intention is that these changes will enable the IRO to have an effective independent oversight of the child’s case and ensure that the child’s interests are protected throughout the care planning process. 1.19 Together, the amended 1989 Act and the Regulations specify: .. the duties of the local authority to appoint an IRO; .. the circumstances in which the local authority must consult with the IRO; .. the functions of the IRO both in relation to the reviewing and monitoring of each child’s case; and .. the actions that the IRO must take if the local authority is failing to comply with the Regulations or is in breach of its duties to the child in any material way, including making a referral to Cafcass. IRO Handbook 1.20 Section 11 of the 2008 Act includes a power to confer the delivery of IRO services to a national body, outside the control of local authorities if, in the future, the measures to strengthen the IRO function do not contribute to a significant improvement in outcomes for looked after children. The practice context 1.21 The IRO’s primary focus is to quality assure the care planning and review process for each child and to ensure that his/her current wishes and feelings are given full consideration. To be successful, the role must be valued by senior managers and operate within a supportive service culture and environment. An effective IRO service should enable the local authority to achieve improved outcomes for children. 1.22 Every IRO should feel confident in his/her role and personal authority and understand his/her responsibilities to monitor and review the child’s case and, where necessary, challenge poor practice. This guidance recognises that it is not the responsibility of the IRO to manage the case, supervise the social worker or devise the care plan. Although it is important for the IRO to develop a consistent relationship with the child, this should not undermine or replace the relationship between the social worker and the child. 1.23 IROs were introduced on a statutory basis in 2004, and the Care Matters Green Paper consultation in 2006-07 provided an opportunity to take stock of the new role. The key concerns to emerge were: .. IROs were not sufficiently robust in challenging decisions made by local authorities even in cases where professional practice was obviously poor and not in children’s interests. .. Not every statutory review was being conducted in a way that encouraged a challenging analysis of the proposals for meeting the child’s needs. .. Insufficient weight was being given to the views of the child or to those of his/ her parents, carers, or other professionals with a role in securing his/her welfare. .. Unless care plans are rigorously examined the review is no longer an opportunity for informed reflection on the child’s progress and planning for the child’s future; instead it becomes merely a sterile ‘box ticking’ exercise. 1.24 The changes to legislation, supported by the guidance which follows, take forward the Government’s commitment to securing significant improvements in the contribution that IROs make, in order to improve care planning and secure better outcomes for looked after children.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Chapter 2. An overview of the IRO role and functions The care planning and review context 2.1 Understanding the role and functions of the IRO requires an understanding of the centrality of effective care planning and review to good social work practice, as well as the duties of the local authority in relation to care planning and review, as set out in the Regulations. 2.2 Care planning and reviews are about bringing together children who are looked after, their families, carers and professionals, in order to plan for the care of the child and to review that plan on a regular basis. Effective care planning and review is underpinned by careful assessment of the needs of a child and making the right decisions about how best to meet those needs (see Annex 2). This is a fundamental part of social work, which not only requires an understanding of the importance of planning, but also the relevant conceptual and practice frameworks. 2.3 The Regulations set out the arrangements which the local authority must make for looking after a child and the making of a care plan is central to these requirements [Part2]. The care plan will contain information about how the child’s current developmental needs will be met as well as the arrangements for the current and longer term care for the child. It ensures that there is a clear plan for the child’s future to which everyone is working, including the child, the team around the child and, where appropriate, the family. There should be clarity in the care plan, particularly about the outcomes expected from services and other actions identified. This will support effective reviews. 2.4 The care plan must be prepared before the child is first placed by the local authority, or if this is not practicable, within ten working days of the start of the first placement [regulation4]. The local authority must maintain the care plan and keep it under review and if it is of the opinion that some change is required, must revise it or make a new plan. The care plan must set out the long term plan for the child’s upbringing and the arrangements made to meet the child’s developmental needs in relation to health, education, emotional and behavioural development, identity, family and social relationships, social presentation and self care skills. 2.5 The care plan and the assessment of the child’s needs, upon which the plan rests, should inform the decision as to which placement will be most suited to meeting the child’s needs.  10 IRO Handbook 2.6 The review of the care plan is one of the key components within the core processes of working with children and families of: assessment, planning, intervention and reviewing. It is the responsibility of the IRO to chair this review at regular intervals. 2.7 The purpose of the review is to consider the quality of the child’s care plan, based on the local authority’s assessment of the child’s needs. The care plan for each individual child must specify how the authority proposes to respond to the full range of the child’s needs, taking into account his/her wishes and feelings. The review will need to monitor the progress of the plan and to make decisions to amend the plan as necessary in light of changed knowledge and circumstances. The IRO must be satisfied that the plan identifies who is responsible for achieving the plan’s objectives and clear timescales set. 2.8 IROs then are well placed to assess the quality and effectiveness of local authority planning and support for children. The IRO has a crucial role to play in ensuring that the local authority fulfils its responsibilities as a ‘corporate parent’ for all the children that it looks after. The IRO should ensure that the child is offered stable care that is sensitive and appropriate to each individual’s personal needs so that the child is able to flourish and achieve. The plan for each child must demonstrate how the services provided have fully taken account of the child’s wishes and feelings. Core functions, tasks and responsibilities 2.9 The statutory duties of the IRO are to [section25B(1),1989Act]: .. monitor the performance by the local authority of their functions in relation to the child’s case; .. participate in any review of the child’s case; .. ensure that any ascertained wishes and feelings of the child concerning the case are given due consideration by the appropriate authority; and .. perform any other function which is prescribed in regulations. 2.10 The primary task of the IRO is to ensure that the care plan for the child fully reflects the child’s current needs and that the actions set out in the plan are consistent with the local authority’s legal responsibilities towards the child. As corporate parents each local authority should act for the children they look after as a responsible and conscientious parent would act. 2.11 There are now two clear and separate aspects to the function of the IRO: i. chairing the child’s review; and  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 11 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children ii. monitoring the child’s case on an ongoing basis. 2.12 In exercising both parts of this role the IRO must ensure that the child’s current wishes and feelings have been established and taken into account, where appropriate. 2.13 As part of the monitoring function, the IRO also has a duty to monitor the performance of the local authority’s function as a corporate parent and to identify any areas of poor practice. This should include identifying patterns of concern emerging not just around individual children but also more generally in relation to the collective experience of its looked after children of the services they receive. Where IROs identify more general concerns around the quality of the authority’s services to its looked after children, the IRO should immediately alert senior managers about these. Equally important, the IRO should recognise and report on good practice. 2.14 In discharging these duties, the IRO has a number of specific responsibilities. These are discussed in more detail in the chapters which follow: .. promoting the voice of the child; .. ensuring that plans for looked after children are based on a detailed and informed assessment, are up to date, effective and provide a real and genuine response to each child’s needs; .. making sure that the child understands how an advocate could help and his/her entitlement to one (see paragraph 3.14); .. offering a safeguard to prevent any ‘drift’ in care planning for looked after children and the delivery of services to them (see paragraphs 3.39 and 7.23); and .. monitoring the activity of the local authority as a corporate parent in ensuring that care plans have given proper consideration and weight to the child’s wishes and feelings and that, where appropriate, the child fully understands the implications of any changes made to his/her care plan. Competences and qualifications 2.15 The role of the IRO is a specialist one which stands alone in the local authority. It is a role that may involve challenging senior managers and may require the IRO to seek legal remedies if the local authority fails in its duties. 2.16 The IRO must be registered as a social worker by the General Social Care Council or by the Care Council for Wales under section 56 of the Care Standards Act 2000 or in  12 IRO Handbook a corresponding register maintained under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland. The IRO should have at least five years post qualifying experience [regulation46]. 2.17 The IRO should be an authoritative professional with at least equivalent status to an experienced children’s social work team manager. To be appointed, a prospective IRO should be able to provide evidence that s/he has: .. sufficient relevant social work experience in children’s social care to undertake the required functions; .. the ability to communicate with children and young people; .. the confidence and ability to work constructively with senior managers, offering a critical perspective and appropriate challenge; .. a thorough understanding of the legal framework relating to looked after children and care leavers, including knowledge of National Minimum Standards6 and the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005;7 .. a thorough working understanding of the legal process and the issues involved when a local authority makes application for a care order; .. experience of providing social work supervision and support; and .. knowledge of the evidence about what makes for good quality practice in working with children and families to safeguard children and promote their welfare. Independence 2.18 The independence of the IRO is essential to enable him/her to effectively challenge poor practice. The Regulations do not prescribe the position of the IRO within the local authority but do prescribe minimum levels of independence [regulation46]. These are that the IRO must not be: .. a person involved in preparing the child’s care plan or the management of the child’s case; .. the representative of the local authority appointed to visit the child [Section23ZA,1989Act]; .. the child’s personal adviser; .. a person with management responsibilities for any of the above; and .. a person with control over the resources allocated to the case. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 13 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Chapter 3. IRO responsibilities in the care planning and review process 3.1 This chapter considers the specific responsibilities of the IRO in relation to chairing the child’s review meeting and monitoring the child’s case on an ongoing basis. Together, these are integral to the overall care planning and review process. Further detail about local authorities’ responsibilities for care planning are set out in Volume 2 of the Children Act 1989 guidance on care planning, placement and review.8 The care plan 3.2 As outlined in paragraph 2.10, the primary task of the IRO is to ensure that the care plan for the child fully reflects the child’s current needs and that the actions set out in the plan are consistent with the local authority’s legal responsibilities towards the child. 3.3 In order to properly consider the care plan at each review, the IRO should be satisfied that the assessments upon which the care plan is based are comprehensive and adequate, involving the appropriate people and addressing the appropriate issues, that the proposed care plan results logically from the assessments and that it is relevant, viable and achievable. 3.4 It will be important for the social worker to provide to the IRO the evidence on which the plan was formulated, for example copies of assessments or minutes of meetings. 3.5 In order for the IRO to agree any proposed changes to the care plan, s/he should inform the social worker in advance of the review. The IRO should outline his/her concerns, clarify questions that need to be answered and identify what action needs to be taken by the local authority. If necessary, following the review, the IRO will attempt to resolve the matter informally and, if this is not successful, may consider implementing the local dispute resolution process (see Chapter 6). Planning the review meeting 3.6 It is the responsibility of IROs to chair the review meetings of all looked after children. Reviewing must be understood as a flexible process that will vary in relation to each child. It may be one standalone meeting attended by all the relevant people in the child’s life, or a number of meetings, with one central  14 IRO Handbook meeting attended by the IRO, the child, the social worker and some of the relevant adults in the child’s life. It will be for the IRO and the social worker, in consultation with the child, to agree the best way to manage the process for each child before each review. 3.7 The status of review meetings is made clear in regulation 32(2): “The responsible authority must not make any significant change to [a child’s] care plan unless the proposed change has first been considered at a review of [the child’s] case, unless this is not reasonably practicable.” 3.8 In order to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child, consideration must be given at each review to the following issues in relation to the care plan: .. whether to confirm or change it; .. what actions need to be taken to implement it; .. by whom; and .. within what timescale? Preparation 3.9 In order for the meeting to be productive and sensitive to the needs of each child, time and careful preparation is necessary: .. The IRO must speak with the child before the review. .. The IRO should speak to the social worker at least 15 working days before the review. .. The IRO should be provided with or have access to any relevant reports/plans or background information, including the current care plan, the report from the social worker (which should be available at least three working days before the commencement of the review), the current health plan or medical assessment report and the current personal education plan (PEP). .. Written consultation documents should be sent out to children, parents, carers and other relevant adults at least ten working days before the review. 3.10 It is important that the review is child-centred and only involves the necessary number of professionals, alongside the child, his/her carers and his/her parents, except where this is not appropriate. A series of meetings may therefore be the best way to involve all the relevant people. The child should be consulted, subject to his/  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 15 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children her age and understanding, about who s/he wishes to attend the meeting and about the venue of the meeting. 3.11 The IRO should ensure that all those involved in the meeting(s) make a meaningful contribution to the discussion so that an informed decision can be made about the short and long term actions that will need to be taken to advance the child’s care plan. The IRO is well placed to identify any concerns about how a child’s care is being managed and to ensure that the long term objectives agreed through the assessment and care planning process are implemented within a timescale appropriate for the child. Interpreters 3.12 Every child and his/her parents should be offered the support of an interpreter, if English is not their first language. This is the responsibility of the social worker. However, as part of the initial discussion between the IRO and the social worker, in advance of the review, the IRO should establish the first language of both the child and the parents. A child may be of the view that his/her use of the language is adequate but it is important that each child can participate appropriately in the process and that his/her views are fully represented. Decisions could be made at a review that will have lifelong implications. It may therefore be helpful for an interpreter to be present, even if his/her services are used for parts of the meeting only. 3.13 In addition, the local authority should have a system in place for the translation of all written documentation produced for the review and following the review. Advocacy 3.14 When meeting with the child before every review, the IRO is responsible for making sure that the child understands how an advocate could help and his/her entitlement to one. Advocacy is an option available to children whenever they want such support and not just when they want to make a formal complaint. Some children will feel sufficiently confident or articulate to contribute or participate in the review process without additional help. Others may prefer the support of an advocate. This could be a formal appointment from a specialist organisation or might be an adult already in the child’s social network. 3.15 Every child has the right to be supported by an advocate. The local authority must have a system in place to provide written, age appropriate information to each looked after child about the function and availability of an advocate and how to request one.  16 IRO Handbook Attendance and location 3.16 The review is the child’s meeting (see paragraph 3.29) and discussion should take place between the social worker and the child at least 20 working days before the meeting about who the child would like to attend the meeting and about where the meeting will be held. This allows time for subsequent discussion about attendance and venue between the IRO and the social worker and for written invitations to be sent out. 3.17 It is expected that parents and the child (if s/he is of sufficient age and understanding) will be present at the whole of the review but this will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. In exceptional circumstances the social worker in consultation with the IRO may decide that the attendance of the child or parent, if this is not in the interests of the child, will not be appropriate or practicable for all or part of the review meeting. This may be the case if there is a clear conflict of interests which might militate against the attendance of either or both the child and parents. However, the anxieties of professionals should not be the reason for excluding a child or his/her parent from a review. Alternative arrangements should be considered. If a parent or child is excluded from a review, a written explanation or the reasons should be given. Other arrangements should be made for their involvement in the review process, and details of this should be placed on the child’s case record. 3.18 If the parents are excluded from the part of the meeting involving the child, the IRO should be satisfied that consultation documents have been sent to the parents for them to complete. If these consultation documents are returned, the views expressed in them should be included in the review record, unless the IRO is of the view that to do so would cause unnecessary distress to the child. In cases of exclusion the IRO should also contact the parents directly and offer to meet with them. IRO contact with parents, though, will require the exercise of professional judgement and some discretion in this may be used, for example where there is a no contact order or the parent has consistently indicated that s/he does not wish to meet or be consulted. 3.19 Any reason for excluding the parents from the review should be kept under regular review with the social worker and team manager and a record of the reason placed on the child’s case record. 3.20 Unless this is the first review, the date will usually have been set at the previous review, with a provisional venue. However, circumstances may have changed since that time so that the venue is no longer appropriate.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 17 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 3.21 The review should take place in a venue where the child is most likely to feel relaxed and comfortable. First consideration should be given to the review taking place in the child’s placement. It may not be appropriate for professionals to be present throughout the meeting and consideration should be given in advance to when they should make their contribution. In some circumstances it may be more appropriate for the IRO to meet separately with members of the professional network and/or with the parents. 3.22 The IRO should ensure that the views of the following are considered at the review, whether or not they attend a meeting: .. birth parents and any other adults with parental responsibility; .. other significant adults in the child life, for example extended family members; .. those caring for the child, such as foster carers; and .. relevant professionals. Timing of review meetings 3.23 The local authority is required to carry out review meetings in line with timings specified in the Regulations [regulation33]: .. the first review of a child’s case within 20 working days of the date on which the child becomes looked after; .. the second review no more than three months after the first; .. the third and subsequent reviews no more than six months after the previous one; .. a review whenever the IRO directs; and .. a review in all other circumstances as specified in the Regulations. 3.24 The date of the review meeting for recording purposes is the date of the first meeting that takes place and the review should be completed within 20 working days of the commencement of the process. Adjournment of reviews 3.25 The IRO has a new power to adjourn reviews [regulation36(2)]. Careful consideration should be given to taking such action and the wishes and feelings of the child, the carer and, where appropriate, the parents should be sought before any decision is made. The IRO should consider the effects on the child of delaying  18 IRO Handbook a meeting for which s/he has been prepared and should weigh up the relative disadvantages of proceeding with the meeting on limited information and the delay in decision making which would result from adjournment. Responsibility for deciding whether or not a review should be adjourned rests with the nominated IRO for the child concerned. In such circumstances the review may be adjourned once but should be completed within 20 working days. 3.26 Circumstances in which the IRO might wish to consider an adjournment include: .. the IRO not being satisfied that the local authority has complied adequately with all the requirements relating to reviews (e.g. the duty to consult the child, the child’s parents and others before taking decisions with respect to the child, or appropriate planning and paperwork being available) and that such omissions will adversely affect the efficacy of the review; and .. the IRO not being satisfied that the child has been properly prepared for the meeting. 3.27 Where the review is adjourned by the IRO, the date of the review for recording purposes is the date on which the review was originally scheduled to take place. Administration 3.28 The local authority should provide sufficient administrative support to facilitate the delivery of an efficient and effective review process. See paragraph 7.3 for more details. The review: a child-centred meeting 3.29 A review for a looked after child forms part of a continuing planning process for that child and is held in order to make plans to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. 3.30 Subject to the age and understanding of the child, the child should be involved in decisions about the date, time and venue of the meeting, the agenda and the invitation list. 3.31 The meeting should take place at a time convenient for the child. Meetings should not be arranged at a time that would result in the child being absent from school or college or an essential health appointment. It should take place in a setting in which the child feels comfortable and relaxed. 3.32 The review must address a specified range of issues and must take place at specified intervals. Neither of these requirements may be in line with the child’s wishes and  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 19 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children feelings. In order to ensure that the meeting remains the child’s meeting as far as is possible, the IRO should always begin from the perspective of the child, listen to his/her views and make sure that s/he is involved as much as possible in the review process. 3.33 The IRO is required to speak with the child in private prior to the first review and before every subsequent review [regulation36]. This should provide the IRO with an opportunity to discuss with the child matters to be considered at the review and for the child to raise any issues. The first review will be important and may set the tone for the longer-term relationship that will develop between the child and IRO. Time and consideration should be given to planning this and all subsequent reviews. It will be important to work with the child to discuss how s/he is likely to be able to make the most meaningful contribution to the review. 3.34 There may be some cases where a formal pre-meeting is not always necessary, for example in circumstances where the IRO and the child have already built up a relationship, the child is in an established placement and no significant changes are planned for the foreseeable future. Then it may be appropriate for the IRO to simply make phone contact with the child to establish his/her wishes and feelings about the planned review meeting. 3.35 In relation to babies and younger children, it may not be necessary or appropriate to see the child alone. Observing the child, or interacting with him/her, for example in play or by reading with him/her, may be a more appropriate way of establishing the child’s feelings and understanding. 3.36 If the main part of the review meeting takes place in a formal setting away from the placement, for example so that the parents can be included, it is important that the IRO also meets with or observes the child in the placement so that consideration is given to the suitability of the placement to meeting the child’s needs. 3.37 The IRO must, so far as reasonably practicable, attend and chair the review meeting, or the series of meetings which have been constituted to be the review for the child [regulation36]. It is hoped that for many older children and young people, especially as they begin to plan for independence, the IRO will hand over at least part of the chairing role to them so that they can take an increased ownership of the meeting.  20 IRO Handbook Issues to consider at the review Statutory requirements 3.38 As the chair of the review, the IRO should ensure that the following issues are all addressed as part of each review process [Schedule7]: .. the effect of any change in the child’s circumstances since the last review; .. whether decisions taken at the last review have been successfully implemented and if not why not; .. the legal status of the child and whether it remains appropriate – for example, where the child is looked after under section 20 of the 1989 Act, whether this status provides the basis for legal security for the child so that proper plans can be made to provide him/her with secure attachments that will meet his/her needs through to adulthood; .. whether the child’s plan includes a plan for permanence within viable timescales that are meaningful for the child – this must include plans for permanency from the second review onwards; .. the arrangements for contact in relation to the parents, siblings and other family members or significant others, whether these take into account the child’s current wishes and feelings and whether any changes are needed to these arrangements; .. whether the placement is meeting the child’s needs – this should include consideration of the attachment between the child and those who are caring for him/her, how the local authority is ensuring that the placement provides the quality of care that the child needs and whether any change to the arrangements is necessary or likely to become necessary before the next review; .. the child’s educational needs, progress and development and whether any actions need to be taken or are likely to become necessary before the next review, in order to ensure that the child’s educational needs are met and not neglected (this should include consideration of the current PEP); .. the leisure activities in which the child is engaging and whether these are meeting the child’s needs and current expressed interests; .. the report of the most recent assessment of the child’s health and whether any change to the arrangements for the child’s health are necessary or likely to become necessary before the next review, in order to ensure that the child’s health needs are met and not neglected; Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 21 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children .. the identity needs of the child, how these are being met; .. whether the arrangement to provide advice, support and assistance to the child continues to be appropriate and understood by the child; .. whether any arrangements need to be made for the time when the child will no longer be looked after, so that the child will be properly prepared and ready to make this significant move; .. whether the child’s social worker has taken steps to establish the child’s wishes and feelings, that the care plan has taken these into consideration and that the care plan demonstrates this; .. whether the child is being visited by the social worker at the minimum statutory intervals and when the child requests a visit; and .. that plans and decisions to advance the overall planning for the child’s care have been taken and acted upon in a timely way. 3.39 The IRO is responsible for setting any remedial timescales if actions have not been taken and there is a risk of drift in the delivery of a plan that will meet the child’s needs and planned outcomes within the child’s timescale. Safeguarding 3.40 In most cases where a child who is the subject of a child protection plan becomes looked after it will no longer be necessary to maintain the child protection plan. There are however a relatively few cases where safeguarding issues will remain and a looked after child should also have a child protection plan. These cases are likely to be where a local authority obtains an interim care order in family proceedings but the child who is the subject of a child protection plans remains at home, pending the outcome of the final hearing, or where a child’s behaviour is likely to result in significant harm to themselves or others. 3.41 Where a looked after child remains the subject of a child protection plan it is expected that there will be a single planning and reviewing process, led by the IRO, which meets the requirements of both the Regulations and the guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children.9 3.42 The systems and processes for reviewing child protection plans and plans for looked after children should be carefully evaluated by the local authority and consideration given to how best to ensure the child protection aspects of the care plan are reviewed as part of the overall reviewing process, leading to the development of a single plan. Given that a review is a process and not a single meeting, both reviewing systems should be aligned in an unbureaucratic way to enable the full  22 IRO Handbook range of the child’s needs to be considered in the looked after child’s care planning and reviewing processes. 3.43 It is recognised that there are different requirements for the independence of the IRO function compared to the chair of the child protection conference. In addition, it is important to note that the child protection conference is required to a be a multi-agency forum while children for the most part want as few external people as possible at a review meeting where they are present. However it will not be possible for the IRO to carry out his/her statutory function without considering the child’s safety in the context of the care planning process. In this context consideration should be given to the IRO chairing the child protection conference where a looked after child remains subject to a child protection plan. Where this is not possible it will be expected that the IRO will attend the child protection review conference. 3.44 This means that the timing of the review of the child protection aspects of the care plan should be the same as the review under Part 6 of the Regulations, to ensure that up to date information in relation to the child’s welfare and safety is considered within the review meeting and informs the overall care planning process. The looked after child’s review when reviewing the child protection aspects of the plan should also consider whether the criteria continue to be met for the child to remain the subject of a child protection plan. Significant changes to the care plan can only be made at the looked after child’s review. Child’s developmental needs 3.45 The child’s care plan should consider his/her developmental needs – including required action and planned outcomes – in relation to each of the dimensions set out in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families10 (see Figure 1).  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 23 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Figure 1: Assessment Framework domains and dimensions of need Health Basic care Child Safeguarding and promoting welfare Family and environmental factorsChild’s developmental needParentingcapacityEnsuring safety Emotional warmth Stimulation Education Emotional and behavioural development Identity Family and social relationships Guidance and boundaries Social presentation Self care skills Stability 3.46 Health and education are two key dimensions within the domain of developmental needs. The care plan will include the child’s health plan and the PEP, which in addition to being part of the overall care plan, is part of a looked after child’s official school record. There is a statutory duty on the local authority to keep these documents under review. It is important that they are available to the IRO for consideration before each review. It is helpful if the updating of these documents is completed in advance of each review. 3.47 The social worker is responsible for initiating the PEP in partnership with the child, teachers, parents, relatives and carers. The current PEP should be provided to the IRO at least three working days before the review. The PEP should be the starting point for discussion about education at the review. The IRO should be satisfied that the current PEP has been developed in consultation with the child and all the relevant adults, that targets have been identified, and that satisfactory progress is being made in implementing them. At the review, consideration should be given to the extent to which identified targets and the child’s aspirations are being met. It should also consider whether appropriate support is being provided to the child to reach the targets. There should also be a general discussion about education in the placement, including reading/being read to and structured leisure activities, for example music, dance, sport, art and drama lessons. 3.48 The health plan or report from the most recent health assessment should be provided to the IRO at least three working days before the review. Depending on the  24 IRO Handbook age and understanding of the child, it may be appropriate to discuss with the child whether s/he is happy for this to be made available at the review. Consideration should be given at the review to the physical and emotional health of the child, including an update on any significant health issues or ongoing treatment. The IRO should be satisfied that any actions identified in the health plan are being implemented within an agreed timescale that will meet the needs of the child. 3.49 The IRO should be satisfied that the local authority has a clear understanding of the individual child’s needs in relation to his/her identity, and that the care plan addresses needs, as required in the Regulations [Schedule7]. The IRO should be mindful of the fact that identity issues extend beyond race, religion and ethnicity. The IRO should be satisfied that the care plan takes account of the child’s culture (including diet, disability and personal care needs), language and spiritual/religious needs and of how these needs can practically be met within the placement, the school and the local community where the child is placed, and that any shortfalls are being addressed within the child’s timescale. Permanence planning 3.50 Permanence is the framework of emotional permanence (attachment), physical permanence (stability) and legal permanence (the carer has parental responsibility) which gives a child a sense of security, continuity, commitment and identity. The objective of planning for permanence is therefore to ensure that children have a secure, stable and loving family to support them through childhood and beyond. Permanence provides an underpinning framework for all social work with children and families from family support through to adoption. One of the key functions of the care plan is to ensure that each child has a plan for permanence by the time of the second review, as set out in the statutory guidance to the 2002 Act.11 3.51 Achieving permanence for a child will be a key consideration from the day the child becomes looked after. A range of options for permanence exist, all of which can deliver high quality outcomes for individual children. These are described in the bullets which follow: .. For many children, permanence is achieved through a successful return to their birth family, where it has been possible to address the factors in family life which led to the child becoming looked after. .. Other routes to permanence include family and friends care, particularly where such care can be supported by a legal order such as a residence order, special guardianship order or in a few cases, adoption; or long term foster care where attachments have been formed and it has been agreed through the care planning and review process that this is where the child will remain until adulthood. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 25 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children .. For children who are unable to return to their birth or wider family, adoption offers a lifelong and legally permanent new family. Twin track or parallel planning, including concurrent planning, may provide a means to securing permanence at an early stage for some children. .. The planning process, informed by multi-agency contributions, will identify which option is most likely to meet the needs of the individual child and takes account of his/her wishes and feelings. The child’s care plan will set out details of this plan and the arrangements for implementing it. 3.52 As part of permanence planning the IRO should be satisfied that: .. the local authority has explained fully to the child and the parents the implications of the permanency plan; and .. the local authority has provided information on post-adoption or special guardianship support to parents or extended family, where the plan is for adoption or a special guardianship order. 3.53 Review decisions should include timescales for the completion of: .. life story work; .. later life letter; and .. the post adoption/special guardianship plan. Issues in relation to adoption 3.54 Where the child is ‘authorised to be placed for adoption’ (that is, subject to a placement order or the parents have given formal consent to their child’s placement for adoption) or a child has been placed for adoption, the child’s review will be subject to the Adoption Agencies Regulations 2005 until an adoption order is made. In such circumstances there will be additional considerations for the IRO to undertake during the review process. It may be helpful for local authorities to provide specialist training to IROs in this area of their work. 3.55 Where the child has not yet been placed for adoption, the first review must take place no more than three months after the agency obtained authorisation to place, and thereafter not more than six months after the previous review [Adoption AgenciesRegulations36(1)]. When the child has been placed for adoption, the first review must be held no more than four weeks after placement, the second no more than three months after this, and subsequent reviews held at six-monthly intervals until an adoption order is made, or the child is no longer placed with the prospective adopter.  26 IRO Handbook 3.56 These provisions set out the maximum intervals between reviews. The agency may conduct additional reviews where it considers it appropriate, and should always be prepared to do so at the request of the IRO, the prospective adopter or the child. In addition, if the placement disrupts and the child is returned to or removed from the placement by the agency, a review must be held between four weeks and six weeks after the disruption. 3.57 The Adoption Agencies Regulations set out the matters to be considered at each review [AdoptionAgenciesRegulations36(6)] and the guidance on reviews of looked after children contained in this handbook should also be followed in respect of reviews conducted under the Adoption Agencies Regulations, in so far as it is appropriate. One major difference will be that, once the child has been placed for adoption, the prospective adopters, who have parental responsibility for the child, will always have a major role, and must be consulted, whereas the extent to which birth parents are consulted and involved will be a matter for the agency’s discretion depending on the circumstances of the case. It will, for example, rarely be appropriate for birth parents to attend a review meeting once a child has been placed with prospective adopters. 3.58 The IRO will need to be kept informed about the progress the agency is making in matching a child with prospective adopters, the process for which is set out in regulations and guidance [AdoptionAgenciesRegulationspart5;Adoption Guidancechapter4]. The IRO will also need to be satisfied that, among other things, appropriate timescales are being set and adhered to. Once a decision has been made that a child should be placed with a specific adoptive family, the agency is required to make a placement plan [AdoptionAgenciesRegulationspart6, regulation35;AdoptionGuidance,chapter5]. 3.59 If there is a delay in finding a family for the child, and s/he has not been placed by the time of the second review after the granting of a placement order, the review must specifically consider whether the child should still ‘be placed for adoption’ – that is, whether the adoption plan itself needs to be changed. If it is changed, the IRO will need to be alert to the fact that the local authority should then apply to the court for the placement order to be revoked; if the local authority fails to do so, it may be necessary for the IRO to assist the child to make the application, or to ensure that an application is made on his behalf. 3.60 Even before the child is placed with prospective adopters, once the agency is authorised to place the child, the usual duty (under section 22(4)(b) of the 1989 Act) to ascertain the parents’ wishes before making any decision does not apply and the IRO will need to consider in each case how far the parents should be involved in a review [AdoptionAgenciesRegulations45.2;AdoptionGuidancechapter7].  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 27 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 3.61 Once the child has been placed with prospective adopters, the review should consider the arrangements for adoption support, and whether there should be any reassessment of the need for those services [AdoptionAgenciesRegulations36(6)]. The IRO may wish to refer to the Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005 which set out the process for reviewing support arrangements. 3.62 Prospective adopters are entitled to lodge an adoption application at any time after the child has been living with them for ten weeks, although in most cases it is unlikely that they will wish to proceed so soon. This is a decision for them, but the review will need to consider the implications for the child of any decision about the timing of an application, and in particular whether any delay in starting proceedings is a cause for concern. Information that must be provided to children at the review 3.63 The IRO is under a duty to ensure that the child, where appropriate, has been informed of his/her right to apply, with leave, for an order under section 8 of the 1989 Act, and, where the child is in care, for the discharge of the care order and his/ her right to make a complaint and to an advocate [regulation45]. If the child wishes to take legal proceedings under the 1989 Act, the IRO must establish whether there is an appropriate adult able and willing to assist the child to obtain legal advice or bring proceedings on the child’s behalf or, if there is no such person, assist the child to obtain such advice. 3.64 Taking into account the age and understanding of the child, the IRO will need to consider carefully how best to explain to each child their right to: .. apply for an order or seek discharge of an order; .. an advocate (including an explanation of the role of the advocate); .. make a complaint and how to do this. These are all complex issues to explain to a child and the IRO will need to be able to satisfy him/herself and his/her manager that the child is aware and understands his/ her rights. Legal status 3.65 In addition to advising the child of his/her right to make applications to the courts, the review must consider whether there should be any change to the child’s legal status. The IRO should read all the assessments that have informed the current legal status, including the core assessment, and be satisfied that the child’s welfare continues to be safeguarded and promoted by this status. If the legal status of the  28 IRO Handbook child appears to be no longer appropriate, the IRO should request confirmation from the social worker and their manager that the local authority has given due consideration to the issue and if the response to this is not satisfactory s/he will need to resolve the issue through other routes or through implementation of the local dispute resolution process (see Chapter 6). Outcomes from the review Review record 3.66 The review record will be an important document to support any required changes to the care plan by the social worker. While it is likely that local authorities will have a range of recording formats, it is important that the review record: .. contains an accurate and comprehensive record of the meeting, including decisions made about the care plan; .. contains an accurate and comprehensive record of the views of all those who attended or were consulted as part of the process; .. addresses in detail all the elements of the care plan. 3.67 The IRO is responsible for completing a record of the review, evaluating the extent to which the care plan is meeting the needs of the child and identifying any changes that are necessary in the light of information presented at the review. The record should address all the issues required by the Regulations (see paragraph 3.38). 3.68 The reality of life for a looked after child means that there are likely to be many adults involved in his/her care and planning. The review record should provide a comprehensive record of the child in his/her placement, the needs of that child and the actions that the adults are taking to meet these needs. 3.69 Following the review: .. The IRO should produce a written record of the decisions or recommendations made within five working days of the completion of the review and a full record of the review within 15 working days of the completion of the review. .. The full written record of the review, including the decisions, should be distributed within 20 working days of the completion of the review. .. All those who attend the review should receive a copy of the record and the decisions, with any identifying details removed as necessary, for example, exceptionally, the address of the placement. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 29 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children .. Where parents do not attend the review part of the meeting with the child and contribute their views in some other manner, a discussion should take place between the social worker and the IRO as to whether it is in the child’s interest for the parents to receive a full record of the review and, if not, what written information should be sent to them. Examples of where this should be a consideration are where there is a no contact order or supervised contact only. .. Within ten working days, following the completion of the review, the social worker should update the care plan in relation to any changes to the care plan agreed at the review. Decisions and recommendations 3.70 There has been much discussion and debate over many years about the status of decisions made at reviews and an acknowledgement that the review cannot tie the hands of a local authority in relation to some issues, particularly where there are resource implications. 3.71 In order to remove these difficulties, the local authority should have a system in place for a designated senior member of staff, for example a team manager, to consider the decisions made at each review within five working days of receiving them and to advise the IRO and all those who attended the review if they are unable to agree them. If no response is received the decisions should be considered agreed by the local authority and should be implemented within the timescales set out in them. If the senior member of staff disagrees with any of the decisions within that initial five working day period, this should be notified in writing to the IRO and all those who attended the review. In the first instance the IRO should attempt to resolve the issue informally. If this is not successful the IRO can consider activating the local dispute resolution process (see Chapter 6). In this way the child and all adults involved in the care and planning for the child can be confident that the local authority has made a commitment to implementing the decisions made at a review and within an agreed timescale. 3.72 The decisions should be framed in such a way that the identified needs and planned outcomes are clear. The person responsible for implementing the decision and the timescale for implementation should be recorded. 3.73 The IRO must identify the person responsible for implementing the decisions and the IRO must alert the accountable manager to any failure to take proper steps to implement decisions [regulation36].  30 IRO Handbook Monitoring the case on an ongoing basis 3.74 The monitoring role of the IRO is set out in the 1989 Act [section25B,1989Act]. Between reviews, if the care plan continues to meet the needs of the child there may be no need for any communication between the IRO and the social worker or the child. However, in the event of a change/event in the child’s life that is significant, the social worker must inform the IRO. This includes: .. proposed change of care plan for example arising at short notice in the course of proceedings following on directions from the court; .. where agreed decisions from review are not carried out within the specified timescale; .. major change to contact arrangements; .. changes of allocated social worker; .. any safeguarding concerns involving the child, which may lead to enquiries being made under section 47 of the 1989 Act (‘child protection enquiries’) and outcomes of child protection conferences, or other meetings not attended by the IRO; .. complaints from or on behalf of child, parent or carer; .. unexpected changes in the child’s placement provision which may significantly impact on placement stability or safeguarding arrangements; .. significant changes in birth family circumstances for example births, marriages or deaths which may have a particular impact on the child; .. where the child is charged with any offence leading to referral to youth offending services, pending criminal proceedings and any convictions or sentences as a result of such proceedings; .. where the child is excluded from school; .. where the child is running away or missing from the approved placement; .. significant health, medical events, diagnoses, illnesses, hospitalisations, serious accidents; and .. panel decisions in relation to permanence. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 31 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 3.75 A review will not be required for every change and the IRO will determine whether the change requires a review to be convened. The IRO should consult with the child, where appropriate, and the child’s wishes and feelings about the impact of the proposed change on his/her life should be taken into consideration in reaching a decision as to whether a review is necessary. 3.76 If, following communication with the social worker, the IRO is satisfied that the arrangements in the care plan continue to meet the child’s needs or that the change does not have significant implications for the care plan and that a review is not necessary, a record of this agreement and the reasons for it should be placed on the child’s file. The child and other relevant adults, both within the family and the professional network should be advised of this decision where appropriate. 3.77 However, a review must be convened in the following circumstances, prior to any of the following changes being implemented: .. whenever there is a proposal for a child to leave care before the age of 18, i.e. for the child to become a relevant child, rather than an eligible child [respectively section23AandSchedule2,paragraph19Bof1989Act] (see Annex 3); .. wherever there is a proposal for the child to move from foster care, a children’s home or other placement, to supported lodgings, or to other kinds of ‘semi-independent’ or ‘independent living’ before the age of 18 (i.e. from accommodation regulated under the Care Standards Act to unregulated accommodation); .. prior to children subject to care orders being discharged from custody; .. wherever any unplanned change is proposed to a child’s accommodation that would have the effect of disrupting his/her education or training; .. where a change of placement is proposed that would interrupt the arrangements for the education of a child in Key Stage 4; and .. where a change of placement is proposed for a child who has remained settled and established with the same carer for a significant period of time. 3.78 In all circumstances (other than in an emergency) when a move is proposed for a child, the child’s care plan should be up to date and based on a thorough assessment of the child’s needs. The IRO should be satisfied that the child understands what is being proposed and, if this is not the case, ensure that arrangements are put in place for this to be achieved. However, the child’s wishes and feelings, while being extremely important, will not be the sole factor in deciding whether any move is right for him/her and in his/her interests.12  32 IRO Handbook 3.79 The IRO should ensure that the plan for the move has been subjected to detailed scrutiny in order to establish that it meets the child’s needs and is in his/her interests. The plan should be viable and sustainable. If the IRO concludes that the plan is not likely to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, the IRO should request that the local authority freeze the placement move. At the same time the IRO should initiate the local dispute resolution procedures to ensure that the move is reconsidered and alternative arrangements are made. The child should be advised about his/her entitlement to advocacy and representation and be informed about the right to complain about how his/her care is being planned. 3.80 For children who have experienced multiple placement breakdowns, or have persistently run away or gone missing, the IRO should be satisfied that the new care plan addresses the risks to the child and that the search for and selection of the new placement and the provision of appropriate support to the child and the new carers identifies how the placement will offer stability to the child and/or minimise the likelihood of him/her running away or going missing. 3.81 As part of the monitoring function, the IRO also has a duty to monitor the performance of the local authority’s function as a corporate parent and to identify any patterns of poor practice. Where these more general concerns around service delivery are identified, the IRO should immediately alert senior managers to these concerns. 3.82 It is equally important that the IRO recognises and reports on good practice demonstrated by individual social workers or groups of social workers.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 33 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Chapter 4. Considerations for specific groups of children Children receiving short breaks 4.1 The planning and reviewing requirements have been modified for children in a series of short breaks. The plans for children in short breaks are reviewed less frequently than plans for other looked after children. This recognises that the child is placed for relatively short periods in each episode of short break care. The first review for children in short breaks must take place within three months of the first placement day or as soon as practicable thereafter. Subsequent reviews must be at intervals of no more than six months [regulation48]. Local authorities may decide to convene earlier reviews in specific circumstances, for example at the request of the child, parent or carer, or in cases where the child is particularly vulnerable or where a child is provided with a high level of short breaks. The local authority should not make any significant change to the care plan unless the change has first been considered at a review. Each review should consider whether the legal provisions under which short breaks are provided are the most appropriate to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. 4.2 The role of the IRO for children looked after in a series of short breaks is likely to be more limited than for children looked after longer term. When working with children in short breaks, it is important that IROs are sensitive to the close and active involvement of parents. Given this sensitivity, parents as well as children and young people can highly value their contribution and independent perspective, especially in helping to resolve any difficulties with the placement. IROs have a responsibility to alert the local authority if the placement is not meeting the child’s needs. 4.3 The review therefore should focus on a consideration of those matters that will ensure that the child’s needs are fully met while the child is away from his/her parents. This will include consideration of the child’s emotional and behavioural development and how carers are meeting the disability and communication needs of the child, the leisure interests and activities of the child and the child’s educational needs, if the child attends school on the day of or the day after the overnight stay. Consideration, as for all looked after children, should be given to the child’s wishes and feelings and to ensuring that the placement is promoting the child’s welfare. Further details are set out the statutory guidance on short breaks.13  34 IRO Handbook Children with additional communication needs 4.4 Children with additional communication needs14 have the same rights as all looked after children in the care planning process to have their wishes and feelings ascertained and given due consideration by the local authority. The principles underpinning the involvement of children with communication needs are the same as for all children. However, this group of children require additional action by IROs. 4.5 If a child has additional communication needs the IRO service should be informed and the child’s preferred communication method should be recorded in his/her care plan. 4.6 The IRO manager should consider the child’s preferred method of communication when allocating the referral. This means allocating such a referral to a specialist IRO with knowledge and experience of children with communication needs or an IRO with experience of the child’s specific communication method. 4.7 Where specialist expertise is not available within the IRO team a presumption should be made that a child with communication needs will be supported by an independent advocate who has the appropriate expertise, with the child having the right to opt out or choose someone else to support him/her if s/he wishes. The allocated IRO should ensure from the outset that the child has access to this specialist support so that his/her wishes and feelings can be elicited effectively. This support should be made available throughout the care planning and review process including when any significant changes are proposed. 4.8 Further information on the practical steps IROs should follow in working with children with additional communication needs is set out in Annex 4, along with a flow chart and supporting case studies. Children within the youth justice system 4.9 The looked after status of children within the youth justice system is complex. Some children who were not previously looked after acquire this status, while others lose it when they are in custody. (For further details see Annex 5.) 4.10 IROs have an important role in ensuring that the local authority fulfils their duties to looked after children who are at risk of offending or involved in the youth justice system. This will include making sure that the child’s care plan addresses any unmet needs that may lead to offending and that, if appropriate, targeted services designed to prevent offending are provided. It is also important to consider the suitability of the placement in managing any behavioural problems.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 35 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 4.11 If a court decides to remand or sentence a young person to a custodial setting,15 his/her entitlement to support will vary according to his/her legal status but the local authority will always retain some duties. The IRO should be notified as soon as a looked after young person is placed in custody, including the details of where s/he is placed and the relevant order. 4.12 Where children are subjects of a care order they will remain looked after during their time in custody. The local authority therefore continues to share parental responsibility and the IRO will have an ongoing role in care planning and review. Going into custody is a significant change requires that if a review will not already be due to take place then one should be scheduled during the period that the young person is in custody [regulation33(3)(d)]. Where a sentenced or remanded child ceases to be looked after because s/he is no longer accommodated by the local authority under section 20 of the 1989 Act, the local authority should ensure that the relevant Youth Offending Team (YOT) case manager is made aware that the child had been looked after up until sentence. The local authority should also discuss with the YOT and the child any arrangements for remaining in touch whilst in custody and for assessing whether the child may need to become looked after again on release. Children subject to secure accommodation orders 4.13 When children are placed in secure accommodation, subject to a secure accommodation order under section 25 of the 1989 Act, the local authority is required under the Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 199116 to appoint a panel of at least three persons to review the keeping of a child in such accommodation for the purposes of securing the child’s welfare. The persons appointed to the panel, in reviewing the child’s case and having regard to the welfare of the child, must satisfy themselves as to whether: .. the criteria for keeping the child in secure accommodation continue to apply; .. the placement in secure accommodation continues to be necessary; and .. any other type of accommodation would be more appropriate. 4.14 At least one member of the panel must be independent and cannot be a member or an officer of the local authority by or on behalf of which the child is being looked after. The independent panel member cannot therefore be an IRO. However, an IRO may sit as one of the other two panel members (not as part of the prescribed IRO function), so long as s/he is not the allocated IRO for that child. If the panel concludes that the criteria for restricted liberty no longer apply, the placement is no longer necessary or another type of placement would be more appropriate, the local authority must immediately review the child’s placement.  36 IRO Handbook 4.15 A ‘secure accommodation panel’ review is not the same as a review of the child’s overall care plan and is restricted to the specific question about the necessity of a placement in secure accommodation for an individual child. Children admitted to hospital 4.16 An admission to hospital, whether planned or unplanned, is a significant change for the child and the IRO should be kept informed. In relation to medical admissions, the IRO should be satisfied that there is a plan in place to ensure that the needs of the child are being met. If the hospital stay is likely to be for some considerable time it may be appropriate to hold a review in the hospital. 4.17 In relation to children admitted to a psychiatric unit, whether as a voluntary patient or as a result of a compulsory admission under the Mental Health Act 1983 the IRO will need to be satisfied that the local authority is fulfilling its responsibilities and that appropriate plans to meet the child’s needs and planned outcomes are in place before discharge. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children 4.18 This group of children or young people, mostly accommodated under section 20 of the 1989 Act, have the same entitlements to support as all other looked after children. They are less likely than other children to have any parental figure available to them, may not have English as their first language and will have specific identity needs. The assessment of age may be difficult. They will also have an immigration and asylum status. 4.19 The IRO should help the child to be aware of the implications of all these issues when they meet for the first time before the initial review. At the first and subsequent reviews, the IRO will need to be satisfied that the local authority’s planning takes into account cultural, language and religious issues alongside wider asylum and immigration considerations as part of its plan to meet the child’s needs, in addition to all the other needs the child has as a looked after child.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 37 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Chapter 5. Planning transition to adulthood 5.1 There are a number of significant transitions for all children during their childhood and the local authority should, like any good parent, prepare the child for these in a manner that will support the child to manage the transitions and to reach his/her potential. The first significant transitions experienced by most children will be within the education system and will include the moves from home to nursery, from nursery to full time junior school and then on to secondary school. Looked after children may require extra help and support to manage these transitions and the IRO should be satisfied that the local authority is making appropriate arrangements to meet the child’s needs at such times. 5.2 More specifically, transition planning for all looked after children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs should start at the age of 14 and the IRO should be satisfied that such planning is actively being undertaken and is linked to the child’s care plan. 5.3 At the point at which a young person becomes an eligible child their pathway plan must include their care plan. It should continue to be reviewed with the same frequency for as long as the young person remains looked after. 5.4 The pathway plan should be a comprehensive document that identifies the actions and services required to meet the needs and outcomes of the young person during his/her transition into adulthood and independence. The pathway plan must address: .. health and development; .. education, training and employment – the PEP should continue to be maintained while the young person remains in full or part-time education and information within the PEP should feed directly into the pathway plan; it should also have an explicit focus on career planning, taking into account the young person’s aspirations, skills, and educational potential; .. contact with the young person’s parents, wider family and friends and the capacity of this network to encourage the young person and enable them to make a positive transition to adulthood; and .. the young person’s financial capabilities and money management capacity, along with strategies to develop skills in this area. 38 IRO Handbook 5.5 The planning process should include a meaningful contribution from the young person as the voice of the young person should be at the centre of the pathway planning process. However, the weight given to his/her views will depend on the assessment of need by those professionals who are responsible for providing the young person with care and support. By themselves, these views will not be determinative. 5.6 The IRO should be satisfied that the proposed pathway plan includes the care plan and has been informed by a good quality assessment in which the young person, his/her family and professional agencies have been appropriately involved. 5.7 In a series of cases, the High Court has emphasised the rigour and detail required of a local authority in the pathway planning process. The local authority is required to demonstrate in the pathway plan [regulation43]: .. the manner in which the authority proposes to meet the young person’s needs; and .. the date by which and by whom any action required to implement any aspect of the plan will be carried out. 5.8 The IRO should be satisfied that the pathway plan is aspirational, that it will assist the young person with the transition and that it has contingency plans in respect of health and education. In the event that the IRO is not satisfied that the pathway plan will meet the child’s identified needs s/he should seek to resolve the issue through informal routes or if this is not successful, through the local dispute resolution process (see Chapter 6). 5.9 If a review is not due as the young person approaches his/her 18th birthday, consideration should be given to convening an additional review. This is a matter that should be canvassed in the first place at the final scheduled review before the young person’s 18th birthday. 5.10 The IRO should be provided with an updated copy of the final pathway plan 20 working days before the young person’s 18th birthday, whether or not a review is due to take place and should communicate directly with the young person in relation to the arrangements set out in the pathway plan. In the event that the young person or the IRO are not satisfied with the arrangements, consideration should be given to convening an additional review and/or taking other remedial action.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 39 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Eligible children 5.11 All young people who are aged 16 or 17 who have been looked after by a local authority for a total of at least 13 weeks which began after s/he reached the age of 14 and ends after s/he reaches the age of 16, and who are still looked after, will be entitled to services to enable them to make a successful transition to the responsibilities of adulthood under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Young people who continue to be looked after are known as ‘eligible children’ and the IRO has the same duties for these as for all other looked after children. Those who cease to be looked after from the age of 16, who were previously ‘eligible’ are known as ‘relevant’. 5.12 Too often young people who have been looked after have experienced accelerated and compressed transitions as a result of which they are expected to assume adult responsibilities before they have been adequately prepared and are ready to do so. While the average age for young people to leave home is significantly higher, some looked after young people are expected to move to more independent accommodation from the age of 16. Furthermore, past evidence has suggested that it was the most vulnerable looked after young people who were expected to make the move to semi-independence at the earliest age.17 5.13 This is inappropriate, as very few 16-year-olds will have the resilience, emotional maturity and practical skills necessary to make a successful move to independent living. Good practice should involve working with young people to take a long term view and providing them with the necessary support so that they are enabled to reach their potential and have some understanding about how they might be able to achieve their aspirations and ambitions. 5.14 The IRO will have a key role to play in making sure that a young person only moves to other arrangements if this move is planned and in the young person’s best interests. The overriding principles are: .. A young person should not be expected to move from his/her care placement at least before legal adulthood, until they have been sufficiently prepared and are ready to take this significant step. .. In any case where the local authority proposes that a young person should move from his/her care placement before legal adulthood, a review must be held so that the young person, local authority staff involved in his/her care, his/her carers, other professionals and any other significant people have the opportunity to consider the implications of the move and, if the move is agreed to be in the young person’s best interests, how the move is to be managed. 40 IRO Handbook .. Where the plan is to move a young person to accommodation that is not regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000, the potential future housing providers (who could be hosts offering supported lodgings, staff from local authority housing services, or staff from a registered social landlord’s supported housing scheme) should be actively engaged in the review process. This should ensure that there is absolute clarity about the young person’s housing needs and what services will be necessary to support him/her when the time is right to leave the placement. .. Before a review is convened for this purpose, the young person should have been made aware of the housing options available and be offered the opportunity to visit any prospective accommodation beforehand. 5.15 In addition to considering all the key areas in the care plan the IRO should ensure that consideration is given to the following: .. how the proposed move will meet the young person’s needs in such a way that the young person can progress in his/her gradual journey to assuming the responsibilities of adulthood; .. that reports provided for the review, discussion with the young person by the IRO prior to review and information provided by others during the review meeting are able to demonstrate that the young person has been properly prepared to make the move and will be able to manage in the new accommodation; and .. that the proposed move will maintain as much stability as possible for the young person, including family contact and links with the community in which s/he has been living. In particular, a young person must not be expected to make a move that will disrupt his/her plans to continue in education, participate in training or gain employment. 5.16 Where a review concludes that it is appropriate for a looked after young person to make the move to independent living arrangements, and such a move takes place, this does not automatically result in the young person ceasing to be looked after. 5.17 It is likely that given their vulnerability most young people will benefit from the support that results from being looked after (including having a pathway plan that is kept up to date and reviewed by an IRO) until the age of 18. However, where there is consideration that it might be in a young person’s interests to no longer be looked after and become a ‘relevant child’ (see paragraph 1.12), then this entirely separate issue must be considered by a properly constituted statutory review of the pathway plan chaired by the IRO. The proposed pathway plan for the young person  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 41 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children concerned must be available for scrutiny at this review. The review should also stipulate how in future the pathway plan is to be reviewed and whether there would be any benefits in these meetings being chaired by an independent person, with an established competence in the provision of leaving care, housing support and other services to care leavers. Young people leaving care 5.18 Unless they return to the care of their parents or wider family, the needs of most looked after children will be best met by their remaining looked after until they reach legal adulthood at age 18. However, in order to maintain safeguards for looked after young people who do leave care before adulthood, ensure equity and enable all care leavers to have the benefit of an independent perspective, local authorities should consider the advantages of IROs continuing to maintain an overview of pathway plan reviews for relevant children. The IRO could oversee this process though s/he may not always be the most appropriate person to chair the review of a relevant child. It will often be good practice for these young people to chair their own review though, at least initially, their former IRO may wish to support them to do this. Young people with a disability 5.19 The transition to adulthood should be an exciting time for young people, when they become increasingly recognised in their own right and respond to new challenges by making important decisions that will influence the rest of their lives. Young people with disabilities will face many of the same experiences and challenges as other care leavers. However, the transition to adulthood for looked after young people with a disability may be particularly challenging as they experience different professional languages, styles, expectations and cultures during the transition from support by children’s services to support from adults’ health and social care services. 5.20 In particular, young people with a disability are able to remain in an education establishment until the end of the academic year following their 19th birthday. Following assessment by adults’ services during Year 13, a child may be financially supported by adults’ services to remain in the same placement, for example a residential school, for a further full academic year (Year 14). By this time, the IRO will cease to have a role. Subsequent arrangements made by adults’ services may be of a type or nature that the IRO would have deemed unlikely to meet the needs of the young person, had these arrangements been part of the final pathway plan reviewed shortly before the young person’s 18th birthday.  42 IRO Handbook 5.21 The IRO then, should be rigorous in scrutinising transition plans for disabled young people from the age of 14 years on and ensuring that children’s services are working closely with adults’ services to commence assessments in a timely manner and identify an adult placement at the earliest possible opportunity. Demand for adult placements for disabled young people is high and it is likely that there will be waiting lists for the most desirable placements. The earlier the assessment is completed and an appropriate placement identified, the more likely it is that the young person will be able to move to it at a time that will ensure a smooth transition. 5.22 The local authority should have agreed and published a protocol with adult heath and social care services in respect of transition arrangements.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 43 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Chapter 6. Dispute resolution and complaints 6.1 One of the key functions of the IRO is to resolve problems arising out of the care planning process. It is expected that IROs establish positive working relationships with the social workers of the children for whom they are responsible. Where problems are identified in relation to a child’s case, for example in relation to care planning, the implementation of the care plan or decisions relating to it, resources or poor practice, the IRO will, in the first instance, seek to resolve the issue informally with the social worker or the social worker’s managers. The IRO should place a record of this initial informal resolution process on the child’s file. If the matter is not resolved in a timescale that is appropriate to the child’s needs, the IRO should consider taking formal action. 6.2 It is the task of each local authority to put in place a formal process for the IRO to raise concerns and to ensure that this process is respected and prioritised by managers. The process is referred to in the guidance as the local dispute resolution process. Taking into account different management structures within each local authority there are likely to be some variations in the process, but it will involve escalating the matter in dispute through a number of levels of seniority within the department with identified timescales for a response at each stage. The IRO may bypass any stage and progress the dispute to the level s/he considers most appropriate. The formal dispute resolution process within each local authority should have timescales in total of no more than 20 working days. 6.3 The IRO has the power to refer the matter to Cafcass at any point in the dispute resolution process [regulation45] and may consider it necessary to make a concurrent referral to Cafcass at the same time that s/he instigates the dispute resolution process. 6.4 The individual IRO is personally responsible for activating the dispute resolution process, even if this step may not be in accordance with the child’s wishes and feelings, but may, in the IRO’s view, be in accordance with the best interest and welfare of the child, as well as his/her human rights. 6.5 There will be times when the IRO may be advised that obstacles in the way of resolving the issue are outside or beyond the control of the local authority, for example in relation to staffing, interagency or resources issues. However, if these are impacting on the ability of the department to meet the needs of a child as identified in the child’s care plan, the IRO should continue to escalate the issue.  44 IRO Handbook 6.6 The resolution of disputes is a time consuming activity and can create tensions between the IRO and the local authority. The managers of IRO services and senior managers in the local authority responsible for corporate parenting, will need to ensure that IROs have sufficient time and support in order to carry out this function of their work effectively. 6.7 The IRO should ensure that all actions s/he takes in an attempt to resolve a dispute are recorded on the child’s case record. Complaints 6.8 The IRO has a responsibility to ensure, where appropriate, that the child understands his/her right to make a complaint to the local authority and to have an advocate to provide support with the complaint, should the child so wish. 6.9 In circumstances where the child does not have the ability or understanding to instigate a complaint, consideration will need to be given to who is best able to do so on behalf of the child. The right to make a complaint extends to parents, those with parental responsibility, local authority foster carers and anyone else that the local authority considers has sufficient interest in the child’s welfare. This could include the IRO [section26(3),1989Act]. 6.10 An outstanding complaint being addressed within the local authority’s complaints procedure should not prevent the IRO from continuing to work to resolve the matter, either informally or by using the local dispute resolution process. 6.11 The local authority’s complaints manager should advise the IRO of any complaint brought by or on behalf of the child and may enlist the help of the IRO to resolve the problem. 6.12 In all cases the welfare of the child is the primary concern. The IRO will need to make a judgement about whether a problem raised as a complaint is sufficiently serious to make a referral to Cafcass appropriate. Alternatively, the IRO may consider that it would be reasonable to await a resolution through the formal complaints procedure, and/or use of the local dispute resolution process. Provision of independent legal advice 6.13 Each local authority should have a system in place that provides its IROs with access to independent legal advice. The reason for this is that the IRO works within a complex legal framework, with a number of other professionals and adults who have access to their own legal advice. The IRO may feel isolated and vulnerable in this position. It is essential that the IRO too can access independent legal advice,  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 45 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children in addition to seeking the advice and support of the IRO manager. In the past some local authorities have been of the view that Cafcass duty lawyers provide this service. However, Cafcass duty lawyers can only provide guidance, not legal advice. Other local authorities have considered it sufficient for an IRO to seek advice from its own legal department. This is clearly not independent. 6.14 It is important that this service is easily accessible by individual IROs and that IROs do not have to struggle to access it.  46 IRO Handbook Chapter 7. Strategic and management responsibilities Establishing an effective IRO service Appointment of the IRO 7.1 If a local authority is looking after a child (whether or not the child is in their care – see paragraph 1.10) they must appoint an individual as the IRO for that child’s case [section25A(1),1989Act]. 7.2 The local authority has a number of duties in relation to this appointment: .. It should have a system in place to ensure that the manager of the IRO service is advised that a child has become looked after within two working days. .. The IRO must be appointed to the child’s case before the first review and, as a matter of good practice, should be appointed within the first five working days [section25A(2),1989Act]. .. Sibling groups, whether or not placed together, should have the same IRO, except where conflict of interest between siblings makes this inappropriate or the size of the sibling group makes this unmanageable. .. The child should be given notification of his/her IRO, along with details about how to make contact with him/her. This could be by email or text. If the child is only informed verbally, then the date that s/he was given this information must be placed on the case record. .. The IRO should be allocated for the duration that the child is looked after and should continue as the IRO if a child returns to care of the same local authority at a later date, if reasonably practicable. .. Where a mother and/or father and their child are looked after, the child should have a different IRO. .. Each local authority must have a written policy regarding the manner in which the child’s case will be reviewed and provide the child, the parents and any other person whose views the authority consider to be relevant (e.g. the child’s foster carer) with a copy. This should include information on the role of the IRO and action that can be taken in the event that decisions made at a review are not implemented. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 47 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children .. If the IRO leaves the employment of the local authority, or for any other reason stops being the IRO for a particular child, s/he should introduce the new IRO to the child in person. .. At no time, apart from in the first five working days, should a looked after child be without a named IRO. .. The name of the IRO and his/her contact details must be recorded on the child’s case record. .. The IRO should meet the child before the first review. Administration of the review process 7.3 The local authority should provide sufficient administrative support to facilitate the delivery of an efficient and effective review process, enabling review meetings to take place in accordance with the Regulations and good practice. Invitations to reviews and consultation documents should be sent out to all those participating in the review at least ten working days before the meeting and the record of the review should be distributed within the required timescales. The manager of the IRO service should inform the local authority of any shortfalls in the provision of this aspect of the service. Management Role and functions of the IRO manager 7.4 Each IRO should be managed by a designated manager who will be accountable for the quality of the service that is offered to each individual looked after child. The role will include providing oversight, professional advice and management support to each IRO. 7.5 The manager will be a qualified social worker who should be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of the legal framework and care planning process governing how the local authority meets its responsibilities towards looked after children. 7.6 The manager should have the independence, ability and confidence to support the IRO through the dispute resolution process and to ensure that the IRO’s employment is not put at risk, should the IRO progress a matter to a more senior level and/or outside to Cafcass. 7.7 The manager in each local authority should ensure that there are policies in place to ensure the quality of service delivery. This should include regular and routine  48 IRO Handbook feedback from parents, children and social workers and an audit of the records and direct observation of the IRO. 7.8 Alongside other colleagues in children’s services, the IRO manager should be responsible for establishing effective arrangements for looked after children to communicate with senior managers in children’s services and across the local authority and other agencies. 7.9 The manager should ensure that the size of the caseloads enables each IRO to comply with primary legislation, the Regulations and relevant guidance in order to achieve the outcomes for every looked after child that a conscientious and caring parent would seek for their own children. This may include having the authority to limit requests made by the local authority for the IRO to undertake additional tasks, which are not part of the IRO role. 7.10 The manager should be responsible for ensuring that IROs receive appropriate training on a regular basis. 7.11 The manager should be responsible for the production of an annual report for the scrutiny of the members of the corporate parenting board. This report should identify good practice but should also highlight issues for further development, including where urgent action is needed. It should make reference to: .. procedures for resolving concerns, including the local dispute resolution process and it should include an analysis of the issues raised in dispute and the outcomes; .. the development of the IRO service including information on caseloads, continuity of employment and the make up of the team and how it reflects the identity of the children it is serving; .. extent of participation of children and their parents; .. the number of reviews that are held on time, the number that are held out of time and the reasons for the ones that are out of time; .. outcomes of quality assurance audits in relation to the organisation, conduct and recording of reviews; and .. whether any resource issues are putting at risk the delivery of a quality service to all looked after children. 7.12 The report should be available as a public document from the local authority. It would be good practice to publish this on the local authority’s website so that  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 49 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children looked after children can easily access their corporate parent’s assessment of the quality of its parenting. Caseloads 7.13 The IRO manager should take into account the following in relation to the size of caseloads: .. anticipated requirements set out in primary legislation, Regulations and guidance; .. caseloads in comparable boroughs; .. outcomes of quality assurance audits; and .. capacity to support developments within the service, especially in relation to increasing the active participation of children in the review process. 7.14 The provision of a quality service to each looked after child requires the IRO to have sufficient time to: .. consult with all the relevant adults, including foster carers, before each review; .. read all the relevant documentation before each review; .. meet with the child in a meaningful way before the review (this may involve meeting with the child on a different day in advance of the review); .. chair all meetings that make up the review; .. provide a full record of the review; .. complete quality assurance documentation; .. undertake any follow up work after the review; .. monitor drift; .. alert the local authority in writing of areas of poor practice; .. consult with the social worker and the child, following a significant change; .. resolve concerns informally, implementing the local dispute resolution process where necessary; .. travel to meetings; and .. undertake training and attend meetings for the purpose of consultation and professional development. 50 IRO Handbook 7.15 It is estimated that a caseload of 50 to 70 looked after children for a full time equivalent IRO, would represent good practice in the delivery of a quality service, including the full range of functions set out in this handbook. This range should reflect the diversity and complexity of cases across different local authorities. Role of the director of children’s services 7.16 IROs are in the front line of ensuring that the local authority acts as a responsible and conscientious corporate parent for the children that it looks after. For this reason it is essential that the director of children’s services (usually through his/her delegated senior manager responsible for corporate parenting, whose responsibilities will include quality of care, rather than operational or resource management) is accountable for the effective performance of the IRO function. 7.17 It will be important that the director is able to demonstrate that the child’s voice has been placed at the heart of the authority’s strategic planning for looked after children. His/her behaviour will provide real evidence that the local authority is committed to providing high quality personal services to every child looked after by them, which strive to be excellent in everything they aim to achieve and are good enough for any child in the community. 7.18 The director of children’s services will need to: .. understand the rationale and statutory functions of IROs and have the capacity to appreciate and support IROs in their role and in the execution of their duties; .. have a sound understanding of the legal framework and care planning process governing how the authority meets its responsibilities towards looked after children; and .. be satisfied that policies and procedures are in place to ensure direct communication between senior managers across the departments and partner agencies. Interagency and interdepartmental working together 7.19 The framework for interagency working between local authorities, health and housing departments is set out in section 27 of the 1989 Act. 7.20 This is further expanded in relation to education and the role of the IRO in statutory guidance on promoting the educational achievement of looked after children,18 which is issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 51 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 7.21 It is not unusual for the social worker, who is often the most junior in the hierarchy, to be left to attempt to implement a review decision that requires the co-operation of other departments or agencies. It is therefore important that the local authority ensures that partner agencies (government and non-government agencies that work with the local authority) are clear about the role of the IRO. Reliable systems should be established that ensure that partner agencies comply with the objectives and demands of the local dispute resolution process. This should allow social work managers to obtain updates, responses and clarification to the local dispute resolution process. In the event that the intervention of the head of service is required, s/he should be able to call in his/her counterparts in partner agencies to seek a resolution within the child’s timescale and to address wider organisational issues that may be creating the obstacles. 7.22 Adult social care services, as well as agencies working with children, should be involved in these arrangements. Delay and drift 7.23 Children and young people are particularly concerned about delay and drift in the care planning for their lives and a lack of communication with them about progress in relation to the implementation of their care plans. In the words of the children consulted by the Children’s Rights Director for England, Roger Morgan, the job of the IRO is to: “make sure that everyone does what they are meant to, make sure the child gets their say and make sure things get done”. 7.24 There is a duty on the IRO to make sure that the person responsible for implementing decisions made at a review is identified [regulation36]. As part of this process the IRO should also identify a timescale for the implementation of the decision. If the decision is not implemented within that timescale, or only partially implemented, the IRO may consider activating the local dispute resolution process. Where the delay is having a negative impact on the child’s welfare, the IRO should not be deflected from fulfilling core IRO functions by issues relating to staffing or budget limitations that are given by others as reasons for delay. The timescale for the child must be the deciding factor. 7.25 IROs have a key role to play in preventing drift for looked after children. They will need to ensure that the local authority adheres to national guidance in relation to planning for and achieving permanency for all looked after children. As part of this role they should request tangible evidence of actions that the local authority has taken.  52 IRO Handbook 7.26 In relation to services required for the child from other agencies or departments, the IRO should expect to receive information about when the referral was made, to whom it was sent and the date by which a response was requested. In this way it should be possible to identify at an early stage any likely drift so that consideration can be given to the timely use of the local dispute resolution process. Emergency placements 7.27 Children are frequently moved to a placement on an emergency basis. This can be for a number of reasons but most often is a result of an unplanned entry into the care system or because of the breakdown of a placement. It will be important for the IRO to ensure that placements secured in these circumstances do not become longer term placements by default. The IRO will need to be provided with evidence to confirm that the needs of the child can be met in the placement and, particularly if the child is placed out of area, that all necessary services will be provided from partner agencies, within the child’s timescale. A series of placement moves for a child is not desirable but, equally, neither is retaining a child in a placement that does not adequately meet his/her needs.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 53 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Chapter 8. Cafcass 8.1 There are two distinct areas in which the IRO will work in conjunction with Cafcass: .. as part of family proceedings when a child is looked after; and .. when an IRO makes a referral to Cafcass. Family proceedings 8.2 In relation to family proceedings, all children who are subject to care proceedings will have a children’s guardian, appointed by the court and an IRO, appointed by the local authority. The Public Law Outline refers to the ‘timetable for the child’. The IRO should feel confident that s/he is being kept fully informed of the progress of the child’s case, during and at the conclusion of the proceedings. This will involve: .. close liaison with the children’s guardian; and .. the legal department for the local authority providing the IRO with all relevant court documents and having a system in place to do so in a timely manner. 8.3 The IRO will need to consider together with the children’s guardian what communication is necessary in order to promote the best possible care planning process for each child. As soon as the IRO has been appointed to a child subject to proceedings: .. the IRO service should provide the legal department for the local authority with the name of the IRO and with his/her contact details; and .. the legal department for the local authority should advise the court of the name of the IRO and of his/her contact details. 8.4 The legal department of the local authority should have a system in place to: .. pass on the name and contact details of the children’s guardian, once appointed, to the IRO; and .. provide copies of all relevant court documents to the IRO, including court orders and directions, the reports of experts and the reports of the children’s guardian, within five working days of receipt of them. 8.5 Once the children’s guardian has been appointed, the IRO and children’s guardian should establish communication with each other. In the event that the children’s guardian has been appointed and is able to attend the first review, this may be an  54 IRO Handbook opportunity to establish the contact. However, if the appointment is not made until after the first review, it will be important for the communication to be established as soon as possible following the appointment. In addition: .. The children’s guardian should be advised of each review meeting and invited, where appropriate. .. Each local authority should have a system in place to ensure that the legal department of the local authority and the children’s guardian receive a copy of each review record. .. The record of each review that takes place during the proceedings should be submitted to court. .. The IRO should ensure that s/he is in discussion with the children’s guardian at intervals, as is appropriate for each child’s case and that the topics of discussion include: – the wishes and feelings of the child; – the current care plan; – whether details of the care plan are subject to a formal dispute resolution process and if so details of this; – any complaints that have been received about the case; and – any issues raised in court in relation to the implementation of the current care plan. 8.6 Prior to the Issues Resolution Hearing, the local authority should inform the court of any dispute between the local authority and the IRO about the plan for the child and of any issues subject to the local dispute resolution process. 8.7 In all cases where the child is to remain looked after, following the completion of the proceedings, the IRO and children’s guardian should have a final discussion about the child’s case with a view to identifying any outstanding issues or particular matters that should be kept under review. 8.8 The content of discussions between the children’s guardian and IRO should be recorded on the child’s case record. Referral to Cafcass 8.9 Since 2002 IROs have had the authority to refer the case of any looked after child to Cafcass [underSection118,2002Act] if they are of the view that the child’s human rights have been breached and all attempts to resolve the matter have been exhausted. The scope for such referrals is now extended.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 55 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 8.10 The IRO now has the authority to refer a case to Cafcass ‘if the IRO considers it appropriate to do so’ [section25B(3),1989Act]. The IRO will encounter a wide range of situations in which there are concerns about the plan for the child or the service that is being provided. In most cases it will be possible to address these through: .. dialogue with the local authority, including access to the dispute resolution procedure; .. use of the complaints procedure, either by the child directly or by an adult who is authorised to act on the child’s behalf; and/or .. application to the court for an order under the 1989 Act, either by the child or by an appropriate adult who is able and willing to act. 8.11 When considering whether to make a referral to Cafcass, the IRO should consider the impact that a referral would have for the child. In some cases, there will be time available first to pursue the full dispute resolution procedure within the local authority (for example where the dispute relates to educational provision for the next academic year and it is currently still the autumn term). In other situations, the matter will be of sufficient urgency that the dispute resolution process needs to be curtailed (for example where there is a plan to change the child’s residential placement within a matter of weeks). It is the responsibility of the IRO to make the decision about whether and when a referral is necessary, based on the timetable for the child. 8.12 As part of any dispute resolution procedure and prior to making a referral, the IRO should notify a nominated local authority senior officer (to be identified in the local authority dispute resolution protocol) that a referral to Cafcass is being considered. Where the IRO has reached a decision to curtail the dispute resolution process to meet the needs of the child, the IRO should explain the reasons for this to the senior officer. 8.13 When considering whether to make a referral, the IRO should have access to management advice and support in addition to independent legal advice where necessary. Cafcass Legal operates a duty helpline which is available to IROs for the discussion of possible referrals. The lawyers at Cafcass Legal cannot give IROs legal advice, but will discuss with the IRO whether any other steps can be taken before a referral is made. 8.14 The IRO can make a referral to Cafcass by contacting Cafcass Legal initially by telephone but the referral should always be confirmed in writing to the duty lawyer who will provide contact details to the IRO. The Cafcass Legal duty helpline telephone number is available from the Cafcass National Office, the contact details for which can be found on http://www.cafcass.gov.uk  56 IRO Handbook 8.15 The information listed below should accompany a referral to Cafcass. .. copies of any final care order and the final care plan filed in proceedings; .. the report of the children’s guardian immediately preceding the making of any care order; .. the review records from the preceding 12 months; .. a report by the IRO explaining why the matter is being referred at this stage and setting out what steps the IRO has taken to resolve the position with the local authority; .. where the child is of sufficient age and understanding, a report by the IRO on the child’s wishes and feelings, including the child’s views in relation to any potential court proceedings; .. names and contact details for relevant professionals in relation to children’s social care and any other agencies involved, for example another local authority or an NHS Trust; .. any other relevant documentation including a chronology and statement of issues, a list of important people in the child’s life and their relationship and involvement with the child; and information about diversity issues for the child and family including whether the child or family members will need additional assistance to aid communication; and .. the most recent care plan. 8.16 Once a referral has been made, Cafcass will enter into final dispute resolution with the local authority before proceedings are instituted. While Cafcass cannot refuse to accept any referral, it is the responsibility of Cafcass and not the IRO to determine whether a legal remedy should be sought. If the problem is not resolved to the benefit of the child and within the child’s timeframe, Cafcass has the power to initiate the following types of action (under regulation 3 of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service [Reviewed Case Referral] Regulations 2004). .. proceedings under section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998; .. claim for judicial review; and .. other proceedings (for example under the 1989 Act). Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 57 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children References 1. See section 25B(2)(b) of the Children Act 1989. 2. Department for Education and Skills (2004) Independent Reviewing Officers Guidance: Adoption and Children Act 2002. London: DfES. 3. S.I. 2010/959. 4. In March 2002 the House of Lords delivered its judgement on two conjoined appeals, Re S and Re W (previously known as Re W, W and B). These concerned the powers of the court to monitor the discharge of the local authority’s obligations (including implementation of the care plan) once a care order had been made. The judgement concluded that the courts have no general power to monitor the discharge of the local authority’s functions, but a local authority that failed in its duties to a child could be challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998. The most likely challenge would be under article 8 of the ECHR, relating to family life. However, the judgement also expressed concern that some children with no adult to act on their behalf may not have any effective means to initiate such a challenge. 5. S.I. 2004/2187 amended by S.I. 2005/605. 6. Published under the Care Standards Act 2000. 7. S.I. 2005/389. 8. HM Government (2010) The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations. Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Care Review. Nottingham: DCSF Publications. 9. HM Government (2006) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to interagency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London: TSO. 10. Department of Health et al. (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families. London: The Stationery Office. 11. Department for Education and Skills (2005) Adoption Guidance: Adoption Act 2002.  58 IRO Handbook 12. See Liverpool City Council v Hillingdon case [(2009) EWCA Civ 43 ]. In his judgement LJ Dyson said: …But the position in relation to subsection (6) {of s.20 CA 1989} is different. It does not provide that the child’s wishes and feelings are determinative. In view of the emphasis of the CA on the child’s welfare (replicated in subsection (6) itself) this is hardly surprising. Children are often not good judges of what is in their best interests. Subsection (6) is carefully drafted. The local authority is required “so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare” to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the provision of accommodation and give “due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings….as they have been able to ascertain… The child’s wishes are given due consideration in the assessment process, no more and no less. There may be a case when the child’s wishes are decisive. But in my view a local authority should reach the conclusion that the child’s wishes are decisive only as part of an overall judgement including an assessment of the child’s welfare needs and the type and location of accommodation that will meet those needs. 13. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) Short Breaks: Statutory guidance on how to safeguard and promote the welfare of disabled children using short breaks. Nottingham: DCSF Publications. 14. For the purposes of this document children with additional communication needs includes those who use non-verbal means of communication as well as a wider group of children who have difficulties in communicating with others. It may be that they cannot express themselves effectively or they may have difficulties in understanding what is being said to them. Equally those who support them may not understand their way of communicating. This is drawn from The Communication Trust (2009) Explaining Speech, Language and Communication Needs. Available to download from http://www.ican.org.uk/communication%20trust/ downloads.aspx 15. This could be a secure children’s home, secure training centre or young offender institution depending on the child’s age, gender and particular needs. 16. S.I.1991/1505. 17. Dixon J, Wade J, Byford S, Weatherly H and Lee J (2006) Young People Leaving Care: A study of costs and outcomes. York: University of York Social Work Research and Development Unit. 18. Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) Promoting the Educational Achievement of Looked after Children: Statutory guidance for local authorities. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 59 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 19. Previous guidance suggested the power should be used “…if all other methods of resolving an identified problem [in relation to the child’s case] have proved or are proving unsuccessful and there is a danger of the child’s human rights being breached … so that legal proceedings can be brought to achieve a remedy.” Independent Reviewing Officers Guidance, DFES (2004), paragraph 5.4.  Existing guidance and regulations -Promotingthe healthand wellbeing of lookedafterchildren (statutory guidance,2009) -Personaleducational allowances forlooked after children statutory guidance,2008 -DesignatedTeacherRegulations2009and supporting statutoryguidance -Fostering ServicesRegulations2002-SpecialGuardianshipRegulations2005 -Children (LeavingCare)Regulations2001-HigherEducation BursaryRegulations2009 CareplanningPlacementsAdoptionFosteringChildrenshomesCasereviewCeasingtobelookedafterShort breaksCaserecordsArrangementsinyouthjusticesystem OverarchingframeworkCarePlanning,PlacementandCaseReviewRegulationsandstatutoryguidance:Guidance,regulations and national minimumstandards coming into forceby April 2011 -Promotingthe educationalachievementof lookedafterchildren (statutoryguidance) -Securing sufficiency (statutoryguidance)-Family andfriends (statutoryguidance)-Nationalminimum standardson adoption -Nationalminimum standardson fostering services -Nationalminimum standardson children’shomes -Visitingchildren in longterm care (statutoryguidance) -IROhandbook:statutoryguidance -Transition to adulthood(amendmentregulations and statutoryguidance) -Shortbreaks (statutoryguidance)-Dutytoprovideshortbreaksfordisabledchildren (regulations) -Visitingchildren in custody (regulationsand statutoryguidance) Keysupportinglegislation: Children Act1989,Children(Leaving Care) Act2000,AdoptionandChildrenAct2002, Children Act2004 60 IRO Handbook Annex 1. Overview of statutory framework for care planning Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 61 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Annex 2. Overview of the care planning, placement and case review process Coreassessment Child needs to be looked after Legal processes to become looked after (S31 or S20) Short breaks under S20) (4) Careplanning– formulate care plan (Regs 5–7) No Does Reg 48 apply? Yes Careplanning– formulatemodiedcareplan (the shortbreakcareplan) Arrange health assessment Careplanincluding: -health plan -personal educational plan -placement plan -provision of services and interventions for child family and carer Placement -initiateappropriate placement (Regs 9–14) Permanence plan: – rehabilitation with family – adoption – other long term placement Visitstochild(Regs 28–31) IRO role (Regs 45/46) Child ceases to be looked after (Reg 39) Review – of care plan (Regs 32–38) Looked afterchild caserecord (Regs 49/50) At last review before age 16, preparation begins for pathway planning. Careplan becomes pathway plan (Regs 41–43) Last review before a child is 18? Transition to adulthood for looked after young people  62 IRO Handbook Annex 3: Key changes to the IRO role and function This annex summarises the key changes to the role and function of the IRO, as introduced by the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Statutory provision Key change Rationale Section 25A(1) 1989 Act When a child first becomes looked after, a named individual must be appointed by the local authority as the IRO for the child. The intention is that each looked after child should have a named IRO to provide continuity in the oversight of the case and to enable the IRO to develop a consistent relationship with the child. Section IRO to monitor the This duty extends the IRO’s monitoring 25B(1)(a) local authority’s role, which was previously confined to the 1989 Act performance of its functions in relation to the child’s case. authority’s functions in respect of the review. The intention is to give the IRO a more effective independent oversight of the child’s case and ensure that the child’s interests are protected. Section IRO to ensure that the This requirement is intended to reinforce the 25B(1)(c) local authority give local authority’s duty under section 22(4) and 1989 Act due consideration to any views expressed by the child. (5) of the 1989 Act to ascertain and give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of the child when making any decision with respect to the child. Regulation IROs have the This new flexibility is meant to prevent the 36(2) of the authority to adjourn meeting becoming a ‘tick box’, exercise. So, Regulations review meetings if they feel that the process would be unproductive. for example the IRO might use this flexibility because there is a lack of key documentation or because the child has not been consulted about the purpose of the review. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 63 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Statutory provision Key change Rationale Regulation IROs must speak in This requirement is intended to ensure that 36(1)(b) private with each the child is properly consulted on matters of the child prior to each relating to his/her care and is given the time Regulations review so that the IRO personally establishes the child’s wishes and feelings about the issues to be covered at the care planning meeting. to contribute to the content of the meeting. Section 25B Referral by an IRO The intention of this change is to reinforce the (3) 1989 Act of a case to Cafcass should no longer seen a last resort,19 but can be considered at any time. authority of the IRO to challenge poor practice around the child’s case. 64 IRO Handbook Annex 4: Involving children with additional communication needs 1. Children with additional communication needs14 have the same rights as all looked after children in the care planning process to have their wishes and feelings ascertained and given due consideration by the local authority. The principles underpinning the involvement of children with complex communication needs are the same as for all children, however this group of children require additional action by IROs. 2. Children with additional communication needs may use a range of communication methods and approaches. These include signing systems such as British Sign Language, symbol systems such as picture communication symbols, and augmented communication aids. An individual approach to understanding each child’s communication method is required. Some children will communicate with only a sign or word or movement that indicates yes and another indicating no. This does not mean that the child cannot understand or is not able to communicate his/ her wishes and feelings. Some children’s involvement will need to focus on their likes and dislikes, which should be used to inform planning and decision-making. 3. If a child has additional communication needs the IRO service should be informed, prior to or immediately following the planning/placement meeting and the child’s preferred communication method should be recorded in his/her care plan. 4. The IRO manager should consider the child’s preferred method of communication when allocating the referral. This means allocating such a referral to a specialist IRO with knowledge and experience of children with communication needs or an IRO with experience of the child’s specific communication method. 5. Where specialist expertise is not available within the IRO team a presumption should be made that a child with communication needs will be supported by an independent advocate, with the child having the right to opt out or choose someone else to support him/her if s/he wishes. The allocated IRO should ensure that, from the outset, the child has access to this specialist support so that his/her wishes and feelings can be elicited effectively. This support should be made available throughout the care planning and review process including when any significant changes are proposed. 6. The IRO manager should recognise that more time will be required to elicit the wishes and feelings of a child with communication needs and adjust workloads accordingly.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 65 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children 7. Involvement should be seen as a process and not simply measured by attendance at a review meeting. Children with communication support needs should be actively encouraged to attend review meetings that are organised to best facilitate their involvement and feedback should be provided in a format that is accessible to the individual child. Figure 2: Flow chart for involving a child with communication needs At planning/placement meeting Communication support need and child’s individual means of communication identified and recorded in care plan At point of allocationIRO manager to establish if there is a specialist IRO or an IRO who understands the child’s individual means of communication If NoIf YesBy or immediately after By the first review the first review Specialist IRO or IRO who understands IRO to ensure specialist support child’s means of communication such as independent advocacy allocated and workloads adjusted is available to accommodate additional time required By the second reviewChild supported to express his/her wishes and feelings at whatever level and through whatever means works best for the individual child At every subsequent review The IRO assesses the extent and effectiveness of the child’s involvement at each review. Where independent advocacy is not already in place the IRO makes sure the child understands his/her entitlement to be supported by an advocate whenever s/he wants to express his/her wishes and feelings 66 IRO Handbook Case studies 1. IRO and an independent advocate working together Tuan lives in a residential school, over one hundred miles from his home. He has communication needs. He had never attended a review. A new IRO established that his family find the journey to visit him stressful and have requested that he be moved to a school nearer home. Tuan appears to be happy at school and has been progressing well, and the school think he should remain with them. The IRO enlisted the support of an independent advocate to shed light upon Tuan’s perceived wishes and feelings. The advocate met Tuan at school and visited him at home over a period of time. The advocate observed that Tuan was happy at school, but had made only one significant attachment with an adult worker and none with his peers. At home, Tuan had positive attachments with a wide variety of family members, and the advocate observed his joy at being with his family. The advocate was also able to establish that Tuan’s cultural needs were being met by his family but not at school. Although not able to determine what Tuan would say on the issue, the advocate’s observations, evidenced by a photo diary and log of his daily contacts and activities, gave a balanced view regarding Tuan’s life at school and at home. The IRO had a clearer picture with which to review his care plan. The independent advocate is continuing to work with Tuan to establish other important issues in Tuan’s life to feed in to future reviews particularly in the light of his future transition to adult services. 2. Specialist IRO Amy communicates through eye pointing. She has expressed her wish to attend her next review. The team’s specialist disability IRO is Amy’s IRO and her caseload is reduced to allow the extra time required to facilitate involvement of children with communication needs. Although the IRO has no direct experience of using this particular communication method, she does have an understanding of good practice concerning the involvement of children with communication needs, and has developed links with practitioners across the authority so that she can call on their expertise if needed. Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 67 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children The IRO starts with gathering information from those who know Amy well and observes her learning support assistant working with Amy. The IRO familiarises herself with Amy’s book of symbols that she uses for eye pointing and works with staff and Amy to add some particularly relevant symbols. The IRO supports Amy to identify key points she wants to raise at the review, and at Amy’s request ensures that only those professionals who really need to be there are present, in order to minimise numbers. The IRO then makes sure Amy has the chance to contribute in the meeting. The IRO maintains this case, makes sure Amy understands the outcome of the meeting and establishes a way for Amy to contact her if she needs to between reviews. 68 IRO Handbook Annex 5: Children in the youth justice system Care status 1. The looked after status of children within the youth justice system is complex. Some children who were not previously looked after acquire this status through section 21 of the 1989 Act. These are: .. children where police request a transfer of detention to the local authority pending a court hearing under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE); .. children remanded to local authority accommodation under section 23(1) of the Children and Young Person’s Act 1969, with or without a ‘secure requirement’; .. children subject to a youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with a fostering or local authority residence requirement under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Schedule 1). 2. The local authority does not have parental responsibility but must care for and plan for these children in the same way as other accommodated children, and the IRO therefore also has responsibility for them. 3. Other children lose their looked after status. Children subject to a care order cannot lose that status unless the order is revoked but those looked after under section 20 or section 21 do if they: .. are remanded to custody and placed in a young offender institution (YOI) – these will be 17 year olds, or boys aged 15 or 16 and deemed not to be vulnerable; .. receive a custodial sentence. 4. Even where a child is no longer looked after s/he may still have an entitlement to leaving care services. If a young person is an eligible or relevant care leaver this status remains unchanged while in custody and the local authority that looked after him/her retains responsibility for providing support during his/her time in custody and on release. Some young people will achieve this status while they are in custody on attaining the age of 16: that is, those who have spent 13 weeks looked after since the age of 14 and who were looked after children immediately prior to entering custody. This is set out in the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.  Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 69 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children Care planning 5. IROs have an important role in ensuring that the local authority fulfils its responsibilities to looked after children who are at risk of offending or involved in the youth justice system. Looked after children continue to be more likely than their peers to be convicted of an offence. They may be more troubled as a consequence of their history before becoming looked after, making them more likely to offend, and it is essential that their experiences in care help to prevent this rather than increasing the risk. The child’s assessment should have considered any unmet needs that may lead to offending and the care or pathway plan should set out the measures that will be taken to support the child. It may be enough to tackle the potential causes of offending but some children may also benefit from targeted preventative services provided in conjunction with the youth offending team (YOT). It is also important to consider the capacity of the placement to deal with any behavioural problems, both in relation to individual children and the dynamics within the group if several children are placed. The IRO may want to consider the level of supervision that is provided, approaches to behaviour management and whether there is a protocol about involving the police in order to ensure that children are not at risk of being unnecessarily criminalised. Where the IRO identifies any deficiencies in the service or negative trends in relation to offending behaviour, these should be reported to managers and the response monitored. 6. The IRO should be advised of any incidents where a looked after child is arrested or charged with an offence. If the IRO considers that the child’s care plan needs to be amended, s/he should request a review. This is particularly likely to be the case if the child is charged with a serious offence or his/her offending is persistent and a custodial sentence is a possibility. The IRO should seek evidence of the following: .. Is the child’s social worker working in partnership with the YOT, sharing information and actively contributing to the YOT assessment? .. Has the child been provided with expert legal representation? .. Is the social worker accompanying the child to court hearings? .. Has the social worker provided information that will assist the court in reaching an appropriate decision, including any mitigating factors, and the local authority’s plans for the child? .. Is the child’s placement able to support the child, including compliance with any bail conditions? 70 IRO Handbook Children in custodial settings 7. If a court decides to remand or sentence a child to a custodial setting,15 his/her entitlement to support will vary according to his/her legal status but the local authority retains some responsibility. Children can often feel abandoned at this point and it is particularly important that the IRO ensures that proper plans are made to support them both while they are in custody and on release. However, the nature of the IRO’s involvement will vary according to whether the child is looked after while in custody or not. Although a custodial placement does not have the same status as a local authority placement, information sharing and joint planning between establishment staff and the local authority should still take place. Children’s and human rights legislation are applicable, regardless of the child’s care status but subject to the requirements of imprisonment. The IRO should be notified as soon as a looked after child is placed in custody, including the details of where s/he is placed and the relevant order. IRO responsibilities to children who continue to be looked after in custody 8. Going into custody is a significant change in the child’s circumstances and a review should be held. The IRO is entitled to co-operation from the establishment, who should facilitate the review by providing a suitable room, enabling the IRO to have a private discussion with the child and enabling the attendance of key participants. Although the child will be the subject of remand or sentence planning meetings, and there is likely to be some overlap in attendance, it is important that the review meeting is a separate event and chaired by the IRO. It will be appropriate to invite the YOT case manager and a link worker from the establishment (such as the youth offending institution social worker or the child’s case supervisor), subject to the child’s agreement, but the child’s privacy needs to be respected. S/he may feel particularly vulnerable because of the custodial setting and a sensitive approach needs to be taken to the disclosure of personal information. This may also be the case regarding the involvement of parents. 9. The review has the same purpose as any review following a change in circumstances but there will be additional considerations as to how the child’s needs will be met during his/her time in custody. The child’s social worker should have assessed these and provided a report to the review. Specific questions to consider are: .. Is the child safe? .. Is there a risk of self harm? .. What is the child’s emotional state? .. Does the child need money, clothes, books or other practical support? Statutory guidance for independent reviewing officers and local authorities on their 71 functions in relation to case management and review for looked after children .. Are education staff aware of and able to meet the child’s educational needs, including any special needs or abilities? .. Are the health unit and wing staff aware of, and able to meet, the child’s health needs? .. Are staff aware of, and able to meet, the child’s religious and cultural needs? .. Is the child worried about anything? If so, what? .. What impact has the remand/sentence had on family relationships? .. Does there need to be help with contact arrangements? .. What action is needed to provide for the child’s accommodation on release? .. Are changes needed to the child’s care plan/pathway plan? 10. It is important to consider at this stage where the child will live on release. Wherever possible, placements that were working well should be retained so that the child can return there but if this not possible an alternative should be secured as soon as possible. A child’s ability to cope in custody can be adversely affected if s/he does not know where s/he be living on release. For remanded children, the IRO will need to be satisfied that the social worker is actively working with the YOT to develop a robust plan that would support an application for bail. 11. Although the local authority is not responsible for the placement and cannot terminate it, there may be situations where the IRO is not satisfied that everything is being done to safeguard the child or promote his/her welfare. There are steps that the local authority can take, such as approaching the YOT or YJB to initiate a transfer request, and the IRO can refer to Cafcass in the usual way if these are inadequate. 12. The IRO should establish a timescale for further reviews of the child’s plan according to his/her needs and circumstances but not less than the statutory minimum. The IRO is responsible for monitoring the implementation of plans and the effectiveness of services provided. An additional consideration that IROs should be aware of is the possibility of early release, which will be dependent on a suitable placement having been found and the child’s ability to cope with the required additional surveillance and electronic monitoring. 13. It is good practice to hold a review within the last month of the sentence to ensure that an effective plan is made for the child’s release. This must be aligned with the plans being made for the child by his/her YOT case manager, who will continue to supervise him/her on release, and it should be clear who is responsible for each aspect. Because of the high level of contact that the child is expected to have with his/her YOT case manager, there is a tendency for social workers to withdraw at this  72 IRO Handbook point and the IRO should be alert to this possibility. The IRO should be informed of the Notice of Supervision or Licence, setting out the conditions of the child’s release. IRO responsibilities to children who cease to be looked after in custody 14. Some children who cease to be looked after on entering custody will be entitled to support as care leavers: others will not have satisfied the necessary timescales. Local authorities have a duty [section23ZAofthe1989Act] to appoint a representative to visit and assess children who were looked after under section 20 of the 1989 Act and who therefore cease to be looked when they enter custody. This assessment will include whether the child will need to be accommodated again on release. 15. Depending on the length of the sentence, it may be appropriate for the representative to keep the IRO updated about the child’s circumstances and plan. This will be particularly important if the plan is to accommodate the child again, in which case the IRO should be informed of the plan before the child is released. 16. In the event that the child is re-accommodated on release the same IRO should resume his/her role for the child.  You can download this publication at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk Search using ref: DCSF-00184-2010 Copies of this publication can be obtained from: DCSF Publications PO Box 5050 Sherwood Park Annesley Nottingham NG15 0DJ Tel: 0845 60 222 60 Fax: 0845 60 333 60 Textphone: 0845 60 555 60 Please quote the ref: 00184-2010DOM-EN ISBN: 978-1-84775-673-2 D16(8675)/0310

May 27, 2010

Do You Trust Social Workers ? Take a look at this lot !

Eleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swansea
Dwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlington
David Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surrey
Stanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradford
Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffield
Michael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastle
Julie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknown
Douglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesend
Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchester
Martha Wright Theft from service user Manchester
Rosalind Shaw Misconduct Waltham Forest
Christopher Hardman Conning teenage girls to pose topless Kirklees
Ms C Abuse and neglect of own child Unknown
Tricia Forbes Proffesional misconduct Waltham Forest
Joy Coles Placing children at risk Leicester
Douglas Adams Inappropriate sexual comments Barnsley
Edward Evans Deception Aberdeen http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=
Verona Reeves Failing to disclose convictions Birmingham
Richard Clasby Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire
Alan Rhodes Breach of codes of conduct Leeds
Kevin Mence Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire
Mrs X Biting own child Unknown
Catherine Watt Health,safety,financial and management failings Clydebank
Darren Macdonald Placed children at risk Fife
Karen Taylor Failed to adhere to employers abscence management procedures Glasgow
Catherine Forrest Dishonesty and plagerism Glasgow
Patricia Higgins Failed to adhere to employers reporting practices Glasgow
Kevin Glancy Possessing child porn Edinburgh
Jackie Mclhargey Ran stolen car factory Unknown
Alan Man Accused of using inappropriate and degrading language to young client Glasgow
Margeret Gribbon Accused of 12 counts of misconduct Clydebank
Derek Horrobin Running 3 licensed premises with violence and underage drinking Moray
Heather Clark failing vulnerable familes Aberdeen
Niamh Duigan Possessing class A drugs and 2 counts of offering to supply Manchester
Tracy Dawber permitting indecent images of children to be made and one charge of sexual assault on a child under 13 SEFTON
Lynda Barnes found guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. Bath and North East Somerset
Andrew Walker forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who used services. Rotherham
Jacinta Hofstetter caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brent
Stephen Dent Assaulted 12 yr old autistic child Croydon
Carole Baptiste deliberately breaching an inquiry summons Haringey
Paul Collett Misconduct after sending mother to see prophet in Nigeria Southampton
David Holder behaving inappropriately towards three women colleagues. Gloucester
Rod Ryall Charged with 13 sex offences against teenage boys Calderdale
John Donnelly Failed to provide appropriate care to vulnerable adults to their detriment Lanarkshire
Michael Wrenn lied about taking taxis to work to fraudulently claim more than £4 Oldham
Lorraine Brimelow suspended for six months after taking a child under the care of Stoke-on-Trent City Council back to her own house. Derby
Andrew Bennett allowed ‘rapist’ to slip through net in litany of failure Dundee
Thomas Ritzler slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY
Daniel Bester suspended for not reporting a colleague who slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY
Alan Carr formed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable child in care. St Helens
David Crank a string of indecent assaults against a schoolboy Tameside
Michael Carroll indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy Lambeth
Unknown seven-year campaign of sexual abuse of his partner’s young daughter unknown
Unknown abused his three-year-old son unknown
Andrew Forbes McLauchlan dishonesty Sussex
Ruth Hughes prolonged and repeated” breaches of the code of practice for social workers Nottingham
Frederick Goudy five counts of sexual assault. Reading
David Michael Kendrick assaulting two boys in his care Staffordshire
Gordon Wateridge indecently assaulting teenage children. Jersey
Unknown sexually abused a minor Unknown
Venetia Tsiaka inviting a mother and her children into her home to conclude a formal meeting. Warrington
Brian Morris involved in domestic violence Bournemouth
Tom Watt sexually assaulted women Buckinghamshire
Adesola Adeniji-Smith Dishonesty Islington
Paul Derek Girdlestone possessing and distributing indecent images of children Hampshire
Wladyslaw Piotr Kiczma carried out inappropriate physical examinations of children Birmingham
Egbert Elijah Hall pursued two vulnerable women who used services. Brent
Rawle McCarthy worked whilst temporarily excluded from the Social Care Register Haringey
Frederick Keith Stockdale physically restricted a person who used services in a way that breached official guidelines Sunderland
Eogain Gallagher breached the code of practice. West Sussex
Mr Mncedisi V. Apleni found guilty of rape Essex
Neil Gabriel convicted in 2007 of indecently assaulting a 10-year-old girl Cambridgeshire
Mark Wooldridge found to have had sexual relationships with two vulnerable women who used services and were allocated to him. Somerset
Martine Boyd forming an inappropriate personal relationship and for failing to disclose information to her employer.   Bedfordshire
Jacqueline Mullins’ failing to store and maintain records containing sensitive information. Rotherham
Virginia Leckie forming an inappropriate relationship and for dishonesty. Hounslow
Stephen Douglas formed an inappropriate personal relationship with a woman described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ Northumberland
Hilary Sampson breached the profession’s code of practice. Derbyshire
Jean Stearn breached the Code of Practice Blackpool
Geoffrey Casey Making false allegations to police, nspcc and social services about a couple Witney
Mr Andrew Atkins forming an inappropriate and personal relationship with a person who uses services Leeds
Mr Richard Watkins breached the Code of Practice London
Theresa Guy forming a personal relationship with a foster carer Colchester
Ms Rosemary Arnold. breached the Code of Practice Portsmouth
Mrs Evelyn Mnene breached the code of practice
John Bennett maintaining a grossly offensive website as well as possessing indecent photographs of children. Lincoln
Anna Orlinski. physically restraining a child on two occasions. Gateshead
Mr Steven McGarry. failing to declare previous criminal convictions Barrow-in-Furness
Eric Charlesworth inappropriate touching and physical contact with service users. Rugby
Laura Lee driving with excess of alcohol and failing to declare the conviction to Wolverhampton
Eleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swansea
Dwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlington
David Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surrey
Stanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradford
Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffield
Michael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastle
Julie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknown
Douglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesend
Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchester
Martha Wright Theft from service user Manchester

Eleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swanseahttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/27/110556/conduct-swansea-social-worker-struck-off-for-poor-judgement.htmDwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlingtonhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htmDavid Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surreyhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_offStanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradfordhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffieldhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.htmlMichael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastlehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htmJulie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknownhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/29/112705/jailed-social-worker-struck-off-after-admitting-25000-fraud.htmDouglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesendhttp://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4637776.GRAVESEND__Social_worker_struck_off_after_allegedly_sexually_abusing_two_girls/Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchesterhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Greenwood+release.htmMartha Wright Theft from service user Manchesterhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/08/111238/social-worker-struck-off-for-stealing-4000-from-service-user.htmRosalind Shaw Misconduct Waltham Foresthttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rosalind+Shaw+conduct+hearing.htmChristopher Hardman Conning teenage girls to pose topless Kirkleeshttp://www.lgcplus.com/news/social-care/social-worker-struck-off-over-porn-ruse/5004811.articleMs C Abuse and neglect of own child Unknownhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/6606365/Heroin-addicted-social-worker-struck-off-over-cover-up-of-own-childs-abuse.htmlTricia Forbes Proffesional misconduct Waltham Foresthttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/02/15/107296/Social-worker-struck-off-social-care-register.htmJoy Coles Placing children at risk Leicesterhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/09/social-worker-struck-offDouglas Adams Inappropriate sexual comments Barnsleyhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Barneley-social-worker-struck-off.5995217.jpEdward Evans Deception Aberdeen http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=Verona Reeves Failing to disclose convictions Birminghamhttp://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/01/20/birmingham-social-worker-struck-off-after-failing-to-declare-conviction-65233-25646050/Richard Clasby Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshirehttp://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Social-worker-is-struck-off.5228172.jpAlan Rhodes Breach of codes of conduct Leedshttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174210551.htmlKevin Mence Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshirehttp://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/Social-worker-struck-off-after.5468025.jpMrs X Biting own child Unknownhttp://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/social_worker_struck_off_after_biting_sonCatherine Watt Health,safety,financial and management failings Clydebankhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Darren Macdonald Placed children at risk Fifehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Karen Taylor Failed to adhere to employers abscence management procedures Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Catherine Forrest Dishonesty and plagerism Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Patricia Higgins Failed to adhere to employers reporting practices Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Kevin Glancy Possessing child porn Edinburghhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Jackie Mclhargey Ran stolen car factory Unknownhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Alan Man Accused of using inappropriate and degrading language to young client Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Margeret Gribbon Accused of 12 counts of misconduct Clydebankhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Derek Horrobin Running 3 licensed premises with violence and underage drinking Morayhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Heather Clark failing vulnerable familes Aberdeenhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Niamh Duigan Possessing class A drugs and 2 counts of offering to supply Manchesterhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2009/12/manchester-social-worker-due-i.htmlTracy Dawber permitting indecent images of children to be made and one charge of sexual assault on a child under 13 SEFTONhttp://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2009/11/20/sefton-council-social-worker-on-child-porn-and-abuse-charge-101022-25209653/Lynda Barnes found guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. Bath and North East Somersethttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6529831.eceAndrew Walker forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who used services. Rotherhamhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rotherham+social+worker+found+guilty+of+misconduct+and+removed+from+register.htmJacinta Hofstetter caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brenthttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release-14-07-09.htmStephen Dent Assaulted 12 yr old autistic child Croydonhttp://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/courts/Social-worker-guilty-assault-autistic-boy-12/article-1709299-detail/article.htmlCarole Baptiste deliberately breaching an inquiry summons Haringeyhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-135326/Social-worker-guilty-Climbie-inquiry-absence.htmlPaul Collett Misconduct after sending mother to see prophet in Nigeria Southamptonhttp://tbjfansuk.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/paul-collett-guilty-of-misconduct-after-sending-woman-to-see-tb-joshua/David Holder behaving inappropriately towards three women colleagues. Gloucesterhttp://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucester/headlines/Social-worker-guilty-misconduct/article-1636369-detail/article.htmlRod Ryall Charged with 13 sex offences against teenage boys Calderdalehttp://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Former-Calderdale-social-services-chief.5681482.jpJohn Donnelly Failed to provide appropriate care to vulnerable adults to their detriment Lanarkshirehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Michael Wrenn lied about taking taxis to work to fraudulently claim more than £4 Oldhamhttp://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?courts=5&name=misconductLorraine Brimelow suspended for six months after taking a child under the care of Stoke-on-Trent City Council back to her own house. Derbyhttp://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Social-worker-took-child-home/article-1370931-detail/article.htmlAndrew Bennett allowed ‘rapist’ to slip through net in litany of failure Dundeehttp://news.scotsman.com/dundee/Social-worker-allowed-39rapist39-to.5910966.jpThomas Ritzler slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREYhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspendedDaniel Bester suspended for not reporting a colleague who slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREYhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspendedAlan Carr formed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable child in care. St Helenshttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+barred+following+relationship+with+woman.htmDavid Crank a string of indecent assaults against a schoolboy Tamesidehttp://www.wilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/461/461764_jail_for_pervert_social_worker.htmlMichael Carroll indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy Lambethhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/care-worker-had-paedophile-record-1104540.htmlUnknown seven-year campaign of sexual abuse of his partner’s young daughter unknownhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlUnknown abused his three-year-old son unknownhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlAndrew Forbes McLauchlan dishonesty Sussexhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlRuth Hughes prolonged and repeated” breaches of the code of practice for social workers Nottinghamhttp://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Notts-social-worker-banned/article-341472-detail/article.htmlFrederick Goudy five counts of sexual assault. Readinghttp://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2029387_care_worker_pervy_fred_guilty_of_sex_assaultsDavid Michael Kendrick assaulting two boys in his care Staffordshirehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3265321.stmGordon Wateridge indecently assaulting teenage children. Jerseyhttp://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/excare-worker-abused-kids-on-uk-isle-20090821-esd9.htmlUnknown sexually abused a minor Unknownhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Mr+X+release.htmVenetia Tsiaka inviting a mother and her children into her home to conclude a formal meeting. Warringtonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news_release_260509.htmBrian Morris involved in domestic violence Bournemouthhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/New_release_31-03-09.htmTom Watt sexually assaulted women Buckinghamshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_20-03-09.htmAdesola Adeniji-Smith Dishonesty Islingtonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_18-03-09.htmPaul Derek Girdlestone possessing and distributing indecent images of children Hampshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Media_release_26-01-09.htmWladyslaw Piotr Kiczma carried out inappropriate physical examinations of children Birminghamhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/25112008news.htmEgbert Elijah Hall pursued two vulnerable women who used services. Brenthttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20081107.htmRawle McCarthy worked whilst temporarily excluded from the Social Care Register Haringeyhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080930.htmFrederick Keith Stockdale physically restricted a person who used services in a way that breached official guidelines Sunderlandhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080912.htmEogain Gallagher breached the code of practice. West Sussexhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news01092008.htmMr Mncedisi V. Apleni found guilty of rape Essexhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/18082008.htmNeil Gabriel convicted in 2007 of indecently assaulting a 10-year-old girl Cambridgeshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080813.htmMark Wooldridge found to have had sexual relationships with two vulnerable women who used services and were allocated to him. Somersethttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080710.htmMartine Boyd forming an inappropriate personal relationship and for failing to disclose information to her employer.   Bedfordshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080714.htmJacqueline Mullins’ failing to store and maintain records containing sensitive information. Rotherhamhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+cautioned+for+failing+to+maintain+and+store+records.htmVirginia Leckie forming an inappropriate relationship and for dishonesty. Hounslowhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+register+for+dishonesty+and+inappropriate+relationship.htmStephen Douglas formed an inappropriate personal relationship with a woman described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ Northumberlandhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+Register+following+relationship+with+vulnerable+client.htmHilary Sampson breached the profession’s code of practice. Derbyshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+suspended+from+register+after+inappropriate+relationship.htmJean Stearn breached the Code of Practice Blackpoolhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Blackpool.htmGeoffrey Casey Making false allegations to police, nspcc and social services about a couple Witneyhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-Dec3.htmMr Andrew Atkins forming an inappropriate and personal relationship with a person who uses services Leedshttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-nov26.htmMr Richard Watkins breached the Code of Practice Londonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+suspended+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+-+Nov2.htmTheresa Guy forming a personal relationship with a foster carer Colchesterhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+18oct.htmMs Rosemary Arnold. breached the Code of Practice Portsmouthhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+August.htmMrs Evelyn Mnene breached the code of practicehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+10.7.07.htmJohn Bennett maintaining a grossly offensive website as well as possessing indecent photographs of children. Lincolnhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htmAnna Orlinski. physically restraining a child on two occasions. Gatesheadhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Newcastle.htmMr Steven McGarry. failing to declare previous criminal convictions Barrow-in-Furnesshttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htmEric Charlesworth inappropriate touching and physical contact with service users. Rugbyhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Birmingham.htmLaura Lee driving with excess of alcohol and failing to declare the conviction to Wolverhamptonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London2.htmEleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swanseahttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/27/110556/conduct-swansea-social-worker-struck-off-for-poor-judgement.htmDwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlingtonhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htmDavid Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surreyhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_offStanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradfordhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffieldhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.htmlMichael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastlehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htmJulie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknownhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/29/112705/jailed-social-worker-struck-off-after-admitting-25000-fraud.htmDouglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesendhttp://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4637776.GRAVESEND__Social_worker_struck_off_after_allegedly_sexually_abusing_two_girls/Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchesterhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Greenwood+release.htmMartha Wright Theft from service user Manchesterhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/08/111238/social-worker-struc

May 24, 2010

Well.well,well Peter Traves vindicated again ( and yes he still will not accept any responsibility ) even after his sudden departure

Boss of Staffordshire social services defends team in Spanish murder ordeal

May 24 2010 by Emma McKinney, Birmingham Mail
Add a comment
Recommend
THE boss of Staffordshire Social Services has denied any blame over the two children found dead in a Spanish hotel room.
Court officials say Lianne Smith, 43, has confessed to suffocating her children Rebecca, five, and Daniel, 11 months, at the resort of Lloret de Mar last Tuesday.
On the same day the children were discovered dead, their father Martin Smith, who was on Britain’s Most Wanted list after skipping bail in January 2008, was extradited back to Britain to face charges of having sex with a girl under 16.
Lianne Smith is believed to be on suicide watch in jail in Girona, Spain, and to be eating and drinking very little.
A Girona police spokeswoman said: “She tried to commit suicide before police arrested her.”
Staffordshire Police have said the force had originally attempted to trace Mrs Smith and her daughter after they left their Lichfield home in 2007, but failed to do so. It is understood Staffordshire Social Services had been monitoring the family.
Peter Troves, whose staff face a police probe over the matter, quit as head of the department three weeks ago. He said: “At the time there was nothing to indicate the family would abscond.
“We believe our action was appropriate given our understanding of the case at the time. At no time was the daughter at risk here – our social workers did a good job.”
Mrs Smith has told officials she suffocated the children to prevent them from being taken into care when her husband was sent back to Britain.
Mr Smith appeared before Carlisle magistrates last Wednesday charged with 13 sexual offences and one of jumping bail.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/staffordshire-news/2010/05/24/boss-of-staffordshire-social-services-defends-team-in-spanish-murder-ordeal-97319-26505561/

May 11, 2010

Martin Narey Through Vicarious Liability Martin Narey has contributed to the destruction of vulnerable children’s lives through his negligence

PRESS RELEASE 8 SEPTEMBER 2009
“GOVERNMENT FUNDED CHILD ABUSE”

Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos, Martin Narey, employed Neville Husband: Prison officer and notorious child sex offender from Medomsley YOI.

The national press is awash with the disturbing comments from Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos. He stated: “Take more babies away from bad parents at birth”

Last year Dr Barnardos income topped £215 million. They are responsible for the care of approx 100,000 children. This equates to an income of £215,000 per child per year.

Martin Narey was Governor at both Frankland maximum-security prison and Deerbolt Borstal for young offenders (both in Co Durham), when a known paedophile ‘Neville Husband’ was employed as a senior officer at Frankland and seconded as an officer at Deerbolt. Husband had been forced to leave Medomsley Detention Centre for young offenders after torturing and abusing boys. He was subsequently convicted and is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence. Prior to his conviction Husband was also a Church Minister for the United Reformed Church. Many of the victims have not received justice yet and Husband is due to be released from prison next month.

Cravings for young boys
Statements given to police by prison officers who worked with Husband suggest suspicions were rife about his cravings for young boys, who he went on to molest in the kitchens he ran.
One statement by an officer who served at Medomsley in 1978, reads: “I don’t know why but all the governors thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”

As a Prison Governor, Martin Narey either ignored or was grossly negligent by failing to observe Husband’s employment records: That he was arrested in 1967 whilst at Portland young offenders centre for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography. That the case was silenced and Husband was moved to Medomsley Detention Centre where he continued to import pornography direct into the Centre. That he was investigated by the police on numerous occasions but without further actions. That Husband then embarked on his horrific sexual torture of countless young boys. These boys are now men and want their story told.

Victims want their stories told
The victims of Neville Husband formed themselves into a group: justice4survivors. They recently approached award winning working class film director Bill Maloney (who has himself stepped forward as a victim of abuse whilst in YOIs and Borstals back in the 1970s – his whole family were abused in care). Maloney was horrified but not surprised by their stories of abuse and injustice as the hands of the UK Establishment. He decided to work with them to make a hard-hitting gritty documentary ‘Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes’ without any funding. He stated, “We’re going to let these brave men tell their stories without sanitizing the documentary for the middle-class driven media”. The victims are currently pushing for a public enquiry.

Adam brings the horrors up to date
Whilst researching Medomsley detention centre (now Hassockfield Secure Training Centre) Maloney discovered that as recently as 2004 Adam Rickwood (14), became the youngest prisoner to commit suicide in the UK. Adam’s family and friends all believe that Adam did not kill himself and that there has been a massive cover-up; this is truthfully and emotionally displayed in the documentary. Adam was found hanging in his cell with a broken nose, broken wrist and covered in bruises.

99.9 per cent of young offenders in the UK stem from the lower working classes. As Bill Maloney states in his documentary “You can’t keep bashing our kids like this, we’re not going to allow it any more”.

Now Martin Narey wants to rip lower working class baby’s from their mothers at birth. The effects on Mothers and Fathers and their families for the loss of their babies will be devastating. The huge funds invested into Dr Barnardos each year should be put to helping these young parents, it is immoral to suggest taking these young children into care when the care system continues to abuse them and profit from them. Successful and trusted families from within these peoples’ own culture and communities should be funded to adopt a support role to help ‘bad parents’ by befriending them, gaining their trust and encouraging and motivating them forward, they would also be better placed than an overworked inexperienced graduate social worker to recognise whether a child is in danger or neglected. Further funding should also be supplied to support the education, environment and welfare of the family.

Apparently, Philippa Stroud of the thinktank Centre for Social Justice reacted cautiously to Narey’s comments. “What we recommend is the model of the mother and baby going into care, filling that hole and giving the whole family a chance. “With child protection, all the legislation is actually in place: it’s the implementation that is the issue.” – Even this recommendation would require huge bureaucratic funding. The money needs to be spent at source – at the home and within the family with trusted support and guidance.

Maloney’s outspoken and unsanitised documentaries appear to be too controversial for major broadcast networks, but the public need to know what is happening to their taxes when private security companies such as Serco are looking after our children and receiving approx £178,000 per year per child.

And Dr Barnardos? A charity that has the Queen as it’s Patron and which the majority of the population appear to respect and believe in, acquires its funding of £215,000 per child per year through, government funded fees and grants, property development, donations/gifts and fundraising, and trading.

How is this right?
Unemployed parents receiving statutory benefits receive on average an additional £3,744 per year towards the care of one child (calculating child tax credits together with Child benefit). Plus one off payments in the child’s first year totaling approx £440. Dr Barnardos receive £215,000 per year per child.

Through Vicarious Liability Martin Narey has contributed to the destruction of vulnerable children’s lives through his negligence. He should not be telling us that our children should be abducted at birth.

The trailer for Maloney’s documentary ‘Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes’ is now available for viewing at: http://www.pienmashfilms.com or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34cs…e=channel_page
Further information sources:
THE MEDOMSLEY HEROES: http://justice4survivors.com
ADAM RICKWOOD: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…stice.politics
MARTIN NAREY STATEMENT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…care-barnardos
MARTIN NAREY CV: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…ietysupplement
NEVILLE HUSBAND: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north…name_page.html
NEVILLE HUSBAND:http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north…name_page.html

For further information, or to arrange for an interview with Bill Maloney please contact: Tel: 07710 416470 Email: pieandmashfilms@hotmail.com

May 8, 2010

blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers

Panel Minutes

I had a salutary reminder recently of how useful it can be getting hold of minutes of internal meetings held within the local authority which are not routinely disclosed. Thanks to the Guardian in the case who badgered the local authority to produce the minutes of the Adoption Panel the court was able to see the natural and unvarnished attitude of the social work team towards a parent in the case. I can think of a number of other cases in which these sorts of minutes have been useful. In one instance an Adoption Team Manager gave evidence that a child could be placed for adoption within 6 months. The following day we received the minutes of the adoption needs meeting which showed that her realistic time estimate in relation to the particular child was actually that it would take at least a year to place her. In two other cases the Panel minutes revealed that blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers (for example, that a child had been injured when they had not and that the care plan approved by the court did not involve a recommendation for direct contact post adoption). Strategy meeting minutes can also be useful in identifying the approach of professionals to a case from the very outset. Running records and documents which follow the trail of internal decision making within the local authority can also be extremely helpful. There is clear case law reminding local authorities of their duties to disclose documents and in theory, according to Munby J, a suitably experienced legal practitioner from the local authority should identify any relevant records from the files and disclose them. When this case was first reported there was a flurry of requests for extensive and arguably unnecessarily burdensome automatic disclosure. Whilst things have settled down it is always worth seeking specific disclosure if you start to get a feeling in your bones that strange decisions have been made or that a social worker has formed a view that does not seem to marry up with your impression of the client.

Cafcass & fact finding

Speaking as one who is having enormous difficulties managing my own caseload I was interested to learn yesterday of a novel approach being adopted in the Stoke area to managing the deluge of cases in which domestic violence allegations are made and which would ordinarily be listed for a fact finding hearing. The pressure on the courts is such that Cafcass Officers are apparently being instructed to express an opinion on allegations and counter-allegations made by parents in order to assist the court and avoid the need for a hearing. In my view this is very dangerous territory. This is an effectively judicial function for which Cafcass Officers have no training and unless they are extremely careful they run the risk of making judgements without having the full facts or the skills to challenge the evidence being presented to them by one or other parent.

Has anyone else come across this approach in other parts of the country? The District Judge in the case in which the issue emerged expressed disapproval of the practice for reasons which will be obvious to family practitioners. He also picked up another important practice issue: the welfare checklist has been deleted from the new style analysis & recommendations pro forma with the obvious danger that the statutory criteria may end up being ignored by those charged with advising the court.

Posted by jacquig at 15:57 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: 

May 3, 2010

MESSAGE FOR STAFFORDSHIRE LOCAL AUTHORITY please be law abiding citizens

After exposing that the most nazi branch of this authority advertised children without the mothers knowledge on bemyparent the forced adoption catalogue for BAAF.

Maybe as (per usual) it is up to me to educate the Local Authority on what is lawful or not.

Before advertising children as puppies you need CONSENT yes CONSENT.

We all know that you like to think of yourselves as being ABOVE THE LAW and that you glory in the knowing that you are never faced with any accountability.

But THERE ARE laws and procedures you are ( supposed ) to follow.This may come as a shock to the many of you that are not aware of these owing to your BULLY management team. For the majority of you , you will take no notice anyway.

This is from bemyparent website stating you need CONSENT and how to go about getting it.

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/info-for-agencies/featuring-a-child/agreement-to-publicity-and-other-consents,326,AR.html

Not how you advertised these children without the mothers knowledge that all have a sudden have DISAPPEARED from the site .

Unfortuately you did not manage to remove the evidence of you CRIME before a campaigner took a screenshot and made a video about it.

Now anyone with a subscription to bemyparent or BAAF will see that this profile no longer exists.

WHERE WILL THEY APPEAR NEXT ?

THE DAILY MIRROR ?

Please seek appropriate consent next time !!!!!

May 2, 2010

Dear Dear Lord Justice Wall – President of the High Court Family Division

Sheena Williams

2 May 2010

Dear Dear Lord Justice Wall – President of the High Court Family
Division

Having forwarded a copy of the following email. I would like to
know if judges are paid for their contributions or if this is done
on a voluntary basis. If paid please provide the sums involved
encompassing all judges and records held.

I would also like to invite you and/or others to attend any of the

‘Child snatching by the State’ events that will be occurring
throughout the country. You are most welcome to put forward the
stance from the family courts perspective and will meet many
families with ‘first-hand knowledge of children’s social services
and the family courts’ who have shown great courage in adversity,
yet still show compassion and understanding for others, safe in
their knowledge that through love there is no separation.

I hope you will forgive this invitation being placed in the public
domain, but feel it is within the best interests of honesty
openness & transparency, in keeping with the justice system fully
engaging with families whose decisions affect so many children &
families lives.

Article – Family Courts ‘jolly good fun’ ?‏

Dear Judge Isobel Plumstead

I am absolutely disgusted to read the following article sent to me
by distraught parents who have had their children stolen by social
services in secret closed family courts; having attended the recent
‘Child snatching by the state’ conference in Stafford.

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/features/it…

I have no reason to doubt these parents & grandparents accounts/
experiences of social services and the family courts, having
resigned from the Conservative party due to Conservative Kent
County Council taking my own offspring of 4 young granddaughters
for the exact same fate.

Many like myself bitterly regret seeking the advice & assistance of
social services and believe they should come with a government
‘health warning’

Could it be that I was hoping to raise the exact same concerns,
encompassing the lack of support for families by social services
and transparency & accountability within the system?

Forgive me for not finding it ‘ jolly good fun’ to be removed from
the court (without my consent) and my granddaughter’s lives
forever, through fear of social services canvassing for my own
young children. Having been lucky enough to be advised against
being bullied into‘ psychological testing’ by a gentleman who also
attended the conference called Ian Josephs an Ex Kent County
Councillor (Conservative)

You may find his website of interest

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduct…

Nor do I believe the children will find it ‘ jolly good fun’ when
they realise as adults what has happened to them; many have been
abused within the ‘care’ system and separated from their siblings,
to then be given to strangers rather than blood kin, who dearly
love & care for them.

What I am certain of, is that they will want to know who is
ultimately responsible.

regards

Cllr Sheena Williams ( Independent – Maidstone Borough Councillor)

Link to thisSend follow up

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/article_family_courts_jolly_good#incoming-84164

A COUNCILLOR with a child porn conviction has defended his decision to join a committee, which deals with legislation including rules protecting children.

A COUNCILLOR with a child porn conviction has defended his decision to join a committee, which deals with legislation including rules protecting children.

Councillor Lee Wanger‘s appearance on Stoke-on-Trent City Council‘s licensing and consumer protection committee comes just a month after he said he would not take up the role.

The Tunstall ward member, pictured, had initially told The Sentinel he would step down after concerns were raised by council members about his suitability.

But he said he is taking on the role to serve residents who re-elected him in 2006.

Click here for more

He is adamant that his conviction has no bearing on his ability to serve on the two licensing panels.

He said: “I wasn’t going to join the panels at first, but after seeking legal clarification I was told that there was no reason I could not take up the roles.

“As leader of the Stoke-on-Trent Independent Group, I am entitled to these seats.

“I know some members are unhappy about my decision, but I think this is part of a political campaign against me in the run-up to the local elections.

“I have always voluntarily stayed away from any roles that would involve contact with children and will continue to do so.

“Should a case come to either committee involving a person with previous convictions for sexual offences then I would not sit in on that part of the hearing.”

Mr Wanger was convicted in January 2005 of paying $25 to subscribe to a child porn website in 1999, although he has always maintained his innocence.

He was fined £250 and ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register for five years. The order expired last month.

He said: “My conviction is spent now and I have served my time.

“People in this city do have faith in me as a councillor, and that’s why I was re-elected after my conviction.”

Mr Wanger attended his first committee meeting yesterday.

The committee deals with issues such as licensees selling alcohol to under-18s and assessing whether those applying to become taxi drivers pose a risk to the public.

At yesterday’s meeting, vice-chairman Councillor Joy Garner asked officers whether panel members should be subjected to stringent child protection checks.

In a discussion on competence tests for taxi drivers, she said: “We are taking steps to improve the quality of cars and drivers, but there is legislation coming through dealing with safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

“How do the Independent Safeguarding Authority checks affect drivers, operators and us as council members?”

Licensing officer Rachel Collier said it would be up to the council’s standards committee whether any council members would need to be registered with the safeguarding initiative.

April 29, 2010

Cannock social services advertise children like lost puppies on BAAF website

I have just found MY twins on the adoption website the way social services have described them is unreal they are just babies not animals that have just started walking they are not noisey children they need to be at home with there real family not some people who think they can parent a child because they cant have them themselves i might be a young mum but i would never harm my children and they was taken away from me because i was a young SINGLE mum of twins its unfair young single parents should not be a traget its not very often you hear a teen mum harming her child infact on the news its been growen adults killing their children strarving them its disgusting social services should be ashamed and as for SHEENA ADAMS coming into my home and taking my beautiful children away from me half of them doesnt know what its like to be a mum MUMMY LOVES YOU KEISHA-JADE AND KACEY-JAYE WITH ALL MY HEART

This is from the poor mother who has discovered her children for sale in the forced adoption catalogue courtesy of Cannock Social Services.

This mother has obviously not willingly surrendered her children so those in doubt of the barbaric trade of forced adoption take heed.

See this mothers beautiful twins here . Do they look abused or neglected ?

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/

STOP FORCED ADOPTION !!!!!!

http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/child-snatching-by-the-state/

BAAF British Association of Adoption and Fostering (child stealing scumshite)

> Chief Executive – David Holmes
Executive Director – Barbara Hutchinson
Director BAAF Central England – Nick Dunster
Director BAAF Northern England – Erica Amende
Director BAAF Southern England – Jeffrey Coleman
BAAF Scotland Director – Barbara Hudson
Director BAAF Cymru – Jenny McMillan
BAAF Northern Ireland Director – Frances Nicholson
Director of Child Placement – Mo O’Reilly
Director of Fundraising, Media and Marketing – Diane Gault
Director of Publications – Shaila Shah
Director of Policy, Research & Development – John Simmonds
Director of Finance & Administration – George Wood

April 28, 2010

BREAKING NEWS

Massive increase in Social Services taking children into care

image for Massive increase in Social Services taking children into care
“All children will be confiscated if in the company of adults.”
Responding to the criticism of all Social Services departments across the UK over the handling of the Baby P case, West Nowhere Social Services are taking a much more pro-active approach.
“We do not want to be caught with our pants down,” a spokeswoman for the SS said, “So we are taking children into care at the slightest allegation.
“Just yesterday, for example, a member of the public reported seeing an adult take a child into a public toilet and we just had to act.
“The parent laughably claimed that she was simply ‘changing the baby’s nappy’ – a likely story!.
“Another woman was apprehended as she held a child’s hand whilst crossing the road – clearly another sexual abuse case!”
The woman is in custody pending charges of child abuse and the child is now being brought up by our childless SS staff.
Warning signs at the entrance to the borough state:
“All children will be confiscated if in the company of adults.”
This reporter looks forward to an increase in the crime figures when these kids grow up.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i73960

Loony Social Services Stormtroopers take fertilized egg into care

image for Loony Social Services Stormtroopers take fertilized egg into care
Head of Social Services sends more snatch squads out.

Mr. and Mrs Jones had just settled in for the night in their pleasant home in Surrey and were getting “bu-sy” when there was an almighty thud from their front door followed by the sound of jackboots on the stairs, then their bedroom door flew open and social workers grabbed and pulled the couple apart.

“We have reason to believe you may be unfit parents”, announced one of them, then pulled out a large bathroom plunger and proceeded to remove a fertilized egg from Mrs Jones.

“We’ve never been so shocked or distressed, and I’ve never been so humiliated or in so much pain”, said Mrs Jones. “We’re decent folk. What do they mean ‘unfit parents’?”

We visited the Social Security Headquarters at the S.S. Building in Surrey, where Staff Sergeant Mrs Miller or possibly Frau Von Muller said “Vee had reezon to believe zat zee fazer had not paid a speeding ticket six months earlier. Vee vill be putting ze child up for adoption after it is born” (fake accent added by our editing department).

Justice for Families says that this is just one further example of overzealous behaviour by social workers. Their spokesman said:

“Previously, they used to stand by and do nothing when children were being abused by their parents and others. Now, it seems, they are going to the opposite extreme.”

The Joint President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, Mr. T. Hobbes, a nasty, brutish and short man, said “Who gives a shit what the parents think? My wife can’t have children so fuck everyone else!”

‘Disturbed’ Goldfish Removed From Family Home By Social Services

image for 'Disturbed' Goldfish Removed From Family Home By Social Services
£17,000 Worth Of Abused Fish

Pandemonium broke out this afternoon on a council estate in Oxford when Social Services removed a ‘disturbed and abused’ pet goldfish from its family home, in a bowl, on the sideboard, and took it into protective custody.

‘This is outrageous,’ said Jimmy Flagg, 19, a father of eight and the fish’s rightful owner. ‘These Social Services people have lost it altogether. Something ought to be done about this.’

Mr Flagg put up a fierce struggle in an attempt to prevent Social Services removing the goldfish but was overpowered by some burly policemen and could only look on helplessly as the family pet was taken into custody.

Neighbours, on hearing all the palaver going on came out in support of Mr Flagg, hurling insults, tomatoes, and old James Brown 45’s at the Social Services and the police.

As the situation deteriorated, some men in black suits wearing sunglasses and carrying big sticks emerged from a bus and cleared the streets, pronto, with threats of violence and tins of rice pudding.

‘You’ve not heard the last of this!’ Mr Flagg shouted before retreating inside and slamming the door.

Letitia Gambino, a Social Services agent said: ‘I’ve never seen such a blatant abuse of fish welfare rights. The poor creature was swimming round and round in never ending circles, opening and closing its mouth all the time.

‘To any trained Social Services agent, this obviously signifies chronic distress. I am in no doubt that we have followed the correct procedures.’

We don’t see what all the fuss was about quite frankly. Apart from the fact that the ooperation cost something in the region of £17,000.

For a fish.

More as we get it.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i44273

German social services take bi-polar bear cub from mom

image for German social services take bi-polar bear cub from mom
Little Flocke looks a lot happier now he’s not going to be fostered by the Orca killer whale family

Nuremberg, Germany – (Reuterus): Social service have intervened in the controversy of baby Flocke the bi-polar bear cub whose mother was recently branded a negligent old slag by Nuremberg Zoo officials.

The five-week old bear was taken into care after its mom, Gudrun, was suspected of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

The controversial diagnosis was originally invented by British quack doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadow as one good reason to jail single mothers who harm offspring to get attention – or, in the case of polar bears, an extra thirty kilos of fresh haddock for dinner.

At first Nuremberg social workers were keen to foster little baby Flocke with a large family of Orca killer whales, based on largely unsubstantiated reports that they have excellent parenting skills.

Fortunately somebody gave them an oceanic food-chain map that showed what young Flocke’s lifespan expectations might be in that scenario.

Eventually young Flocke was taken into care by keepers who looked after little bi-polar bear cub Knut last year and helped him flourish into handsome manhoood.

Gundrun meanwhile is said to be on anti-depressants.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i29078

Dummy’s guide to being a family court judge

Continuing our undercover investigations into the dark and seemy world of family law, here is another excerpt from the book, the Dummy’s guide to being a family court judge, given to all solicitors/barristers and magistrates about to embark on their first sitting in that Alice in Wonderland world of the Family Courts…

Definitions – to make your life a bit easier, we have defined some of the common terms you may come across in your brief attendance in these courts:

Children – These are small versions of adults. You may occasionally have seen pictures of these at home. You may recall that they were the names on the cheques that you wrote on a regular basis in connection with some boarding school or court fine or something. They are the reason given for the court hearings, but in fact that is just an excuse for having a go at their ex-partner in front of you.

CAFCASS – This is the organisation who provide expert opinions on why the mother is the best parent. Their job is to spend lots of time with the mother and get to know her and her reasons for opposing contact. They then write out what she said in their own words and you mostly have to follow their conclusions. Beware! Some CAFCASS officers may suggest that children ought to SEE their father occasionally! In those rare cases, you have the perfect right to ignore their conclusions and find for the mother anyway.

OPEN Courts – This horrific suggestion has largely been ignored by the government. The idea that THE PUBLIC might want to see the unbelievable things that happen in secret in your court is too horrible for words! They might even compare what you say with what other judges say elsewhere and suggest that there is a difference and use it to criticise you, heaven forbid! Don’t worry, though, so far only the media are allowed in and none of them are really interested in ordinary cases – only those involving celebs.

April 27, 2010

Podcast With Researching Reform

http://researchingreform.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/child-snatching-by-the-state/

April 26, 2010

Social Services will snatch you at birth, Abuse you then dump you when your 16 ( by which time they will have alienated you from your natural family )

State Care; They’ll Snatch You At Birth, Abuse You Then Dump You When You’re 16

Welcome to the UK.  The only place on earth which guarantees one thing, Child Protection is the last thing on the Government’s agenda.  Child destruction is the method chosen by the current system.

How on earth can Social Services fail to save a battered baby after 60 chances to save him?  And why on God’s green earth do we allow these scum to get away with destroying the lives of innocent children day after day?

In the UK, this system currently in place allows this sequence of events to happen:

  • Mother declared unfit due to having previously been in an abusive relationship
  • Social Workers decide child could suffer future “emotional harm”
  • Child removed from loving stable environment with no unfixable problems
  • Child placed into care home costing £2,500 a week
  • Child bullied and sexually abused in care home
  • Child sent to Foster home
  • Good foster carer gives up on child due to life circumstances
  • Child sent to another Foster home where they are abused
  • Child leaves care with no education and addicted to class A drugs
  • Child ends up in prison, prostitution or worse, dead
Well congratulations Nazi Britain, you’ve ruined the life of another child, pat yourself on the back.  Some reading the above statements may say that that situation is highly unlikely.  Well check the sources of information below, backed up with the information on the UK Abuse section of this site and think again.

Sources of information:
http://www.epolitix.com/stakeholder-websites/press-releases/press-release-details/newsarticle/one-in-four-care-leavers-face-a-bleak-future-says-care-leavers-foundation///sites/national-care-leavers-week/
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-are-care-leavers.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8574591.stm

April 22, 2010

Jack Straw caught LYING about children

April 18, 2010

Dimbleby Rocked By Questions Of Paedophilia And Murder courtesy of Pie n Mash films

P&M Press Release 16 April 2010
Dimbleby Rocked By Questions Of Paedophilia And Murder
Angry documentary filmmaker Bill Maloney was thrown out of the ‘Leader’s Debate Question Time Special’ audience by David Dimbleby for speaking about Institutional child abuse, the restraining techniques used in YOIs and government paedophile rings.
Just moments before Question Time went live David Dimbleby introduced the panel asking each of them what they would be doing the next day. Michael Gove (Shadow Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families) said it was his wife’s birthday and Dimbleby asked if he had bought her a present to which he replied, “I actually bought her four presents”. Asked what the presents were Gove replied “A linen suit, a designer hand bag and two other presents that I’m not prepared to divulge”. Maloney shouted “Did we pay for them Mr Gove?” which raised a laugh from the panel and audience. Dimbleby concluded with Nigel Farage MEP of UKIP who made a sanctimonious remark to which Maloney shouted, “I don’t know why you’re so flippant, you’re guilty of stealing expenses the same as all the rest”. Dimbleby shook his finger and shouted at Maloney “If you are going to behave like this when we go on air I will have to tell you to leave.”
Maloney responded by shouting “If you want me to leave David tell me to leave. Don’t talk to me like I’m a piece of shit! You’ve got an angry electorate here and you select only five questions from 150? This is a biased audience which does not represent the lower classes.”
“I’m a documentary filmmaker and I investigate Institutional child abuse; the restraining techniques that are killing lower working class kids in Young Offenders Institutions; and paedophile rings in government that are fucking our kids! You don’t like talking about the children do you David?”
Security was then called. As he was led out Maloney turned to the panel shouting, “I’m here about the children, not about the economy. I’ve got more bollocks than all of you! Shame on you!” Maloney’s wife continued by shouting “Everyone in this audience should google Hollie Greig G.R.E.I.G and realise that the government does nothing!” †
The security guards didn’t lay a finger on Maloney as he was led out by the Producer – in fact the security guards looked like they wanted to pat him on the back!
Maloney submitted two questions to the show which were not selected, one on the issue of crime:
Considering the government has given £840 billion to bail out the banks, how much have they spent on getting 3.5 million children out of poverty? Give the £3.4 billion promised to get children out of poverty which ‘breeds’ crime.
The second was on the issue of institutional child abuse:
Considering it cost Australian taxpayers 200 million dollars for the Popes visit there in 2008, how much is the government spending on the Pope’s visit to the UK? And should we allow the Pope, whose Vatican City has the lowest age of sexual consent in Europe of only 12 years, into the country at all?
All Maloney wanted was his questions answered, as no politicians are willing to discuss these issues.
For further information or to arrange an interview with Bill Maloney Please contact Maria Maloney Tel: 07710 416470 or email:maria@pienmashfilms.com

We appreciate your comments about Bill’s work and for inviting him to consider speaking at future roadshows etc. He is definitely interested, particularly any that may be held in the South of England/London areas – and further afield if funds allow.

Many thanks to Pie N Mash films and we look forward to seeing more of their work and to hopefully work with them in the future.

April 13, 2010

Judge shocked by social workers who split families

Judge shocked by social workers who split families

New head of family courts warns against ‘arrogance’ as care applications soar in wake of Baby P case
Patrick Butler
The Guardian, Tuesday 13 April 2010
Article history
Lord Justice Wall: ‘The aim of social workers should be to unite families rather than to separate them.’ Photograph: Sarah Lee
Social workers have been criticised over attempts to permanently remove young children from their mothers by the new head of the family courts, who said their legal duty should be to “unite families rather than separate them”.
Lord Justice Wall – who will be sworn in today as the president of the high court’s family division – described as “shocking” the failure of social workers in the London borough of Greenwich to support a mother trying to make changes to her life and get back her two children, who are in care.
The judge said the case would do little to dispel the perception of many that social workers were “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system – trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process”.
The judge said: “I am very conscious of the criticism that social workers are damned if they do and damned if they do not.” But he added that at the same time their duties in care proceedings under the Children Act were plain and their aim “should be to unite families rather than to separate them”.
Sir Nicholas Wall’s appointment as the president of the family court division was initially rejected by Jack Straw before finally being confirmed last month. In December he made waves after he told a legal conference that the judiciary had to “come off the bench” to “speak up about the parlous state of family law”.
His comments on safeguarding practice come as social workers face increasing pressure to intervene to protect children at risk of abuse. Since the Baby Peter case in November 2008, when social workers were criticised for failing to prevent the killing of 17-month-old Peter Connelly at the hands of his mother, her lover and her lodger, there have been record numbers of applications to take children into care.
Hilton Dawson, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said he was “a little astonished” by Lord Justice Wall’s remarks. He said it was incorrect of the judge to say the aim of the Children Act was to keep families together – it was to look after the interests of children.
He said: “I do not know about these cases in particular, but generalised remarks about ‘authoritarian’ social workers are just plain wrong.”
The Greenwich case involved a five-year-old boy and his sister aged three, who were taken into care in January 2008 after the girl was taken to hospital where her left arm was found to be broken in three places. Doctors said the injury was not an accident and both children were removed the same day.
At a hearing in November 2008 a judge said the girl’s father, who had a history of violence, was probably responsible for the injury, and confirmed the care order after concluding that Greenwich council was right to suspect the mother was still in contact with the father.
But Mrs Justice Baron, sitting with Lord Justice Wall, overturned the “draconian” order, saying that the mother was “warm and loving” and had tried unsuccessfully to get help from the council to help her escape her abusive relationship.
Lord Justice Wall called this a “very poor social work practice” and added: “She both needed and sought help and was quite improperly rebuffed by a local authority which had plainly prejudged the issue.”
A spokesperson for Greenwich council said: “Our priority was, and always will be, to protect children from being violently abused. In this case there was overwhelming evidence that a baby had been physically abused and we developed a care plan to provide safety and security for the baby and another young sibling.”
He said the council accepted the court’s concerns about the lack of support provided to the mother and said it was arranging for an independent review of the case “so we have the best plan to ensure the welfare of these very young children”.
In a second case, also heard last Friday, Lord Justice Wall criticised an attempt by Devon county council to overturn an court judgement that a teenage mother, known as S, should be given a last chance to prove herself fit to keep her baby boy.
Devon’s lawyers argued S had a propensity to form relationships with potentially dangerous individuals, putting herself and her baby, known as H, at risk, and the baby should be put into foster care as a further period of assessment was unnecessary.
Lord Justice Wall described the council’s argument as “pretty unattractive” and said: “Local authorities don’t seem to understand that the public perceive them as prejudging cases of this nature.”
Another judge, Lord Justice Aikens, who was sitting with Lord Justice Wall on the Devon case, said there was no evidence that the mother had maltreated her baby in any way, or that the violent father of her first child, whom she had agreed should be adopted, would have anything to do with S’s baby.
He said the “outside perception” might be of social workers who were effectively saying to the mother: “Whatever you may do doesn’t make any difference – we are going to take your child away.”
He added: “That is more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the west of England – that is the impression you give.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/13/judge-shocked-social-workers-families

010

Judge in charge of family courts criticises ‘arrogant social workers’

Baby Peter

Social workers have been criticised as “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents” by the judge who takes charge of the family courts today.

Lord Justice Wall said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

In a separate case, on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England”.

The criticism of social workers from two of the most senior family court judges came as the number of children placed in care has reached a record high after the Baby Peter tragedy.

Social workers say that they are not prepared to take any chances after the death of the 17-month-old toddler at the hands of his mother, her lover and their lodger in Hackney, East London. He was being monitored by social workers at the time of his death.

The remarks are likely to be seen as a warning to social workers not to take children into care before all other avenues have been exhausted. They may also be seen as a signal to the family courts to challenge more robustly legal orders to take children into care.

Lord Justice Wall made his comments in a highly critical ruling against Greenwich Council, where social workers had taken two children into care and begun adoption proceedings despite their natural mother’s best efforts to change her life.

The Greenwich case involved a mother known as “EH”, who is seeking the return of her son “R”, aged 5, and daughter “RA”, aged 2, from care.

The children were taken into care in 2008 after the parents had taken RA, then a baby, to hospital, where her left upper arm was found to be broken. Doctors considered that the injuries were not accidental, social services were informed and both children were removed from their parents that day.

Initially they went to live with their maternal grandmother but were moved into foster care after a dispute between the grandmother and their father. Since June last year the father ceased to have any contact with the children and the mother has attempted to separate from him, alleging domestic violence.

Social workers refused to believe that the relationship was over, while rebuffing the mother’s request for help in ending the relationship. Lord Justice Wall described the conduct of the social workers as “hard to credit”.

“Here was a mother who needed and was asking for help to break free from an abusive relationship. She was denied that help abruptly and without explanation. That, in my judgment, is very poor social work practice,” he said.

“What social workers do not appear to understand is that the public perception of their role in care proceedings is not a happy one. They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system, and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process. This case will do little to dispel that.”

The adoption order has now been set aside after the ruling made last Friday.

In the Devon case, on which Lord Justice Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens criticised the actions of social workers in pursuing plans to have a baby adopted without giving his mother a last chance to show that she could look after him. The Devon legal team was given time to read the Greenwich judgment and withdrew their case.

Lord Justice Wall will be sworn in today as the president of the High Court’s Family Division. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, originally challenged his appointment. Lord Justice Wall has been an outspoken critic of some government policies, including the funding of family courts.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7095791.ece

Social workers were ‘enthusiastic removers of children’

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

SPONSORED LINKS:
Ads by Google

Titan Casino Games Online
Download & Get Up To £4000 BonusTo Play Titan Casino. Play Now!
www.TitanCasino.com

Spread Betting – Try Now
Try GFTs Award-Winning TradingPlatform. Free Practice Account.
www.GFTuk.com

William Hill™ Online
Get The Best Odds Online,Plus A Free £25 Bet. Join Now!
www.WilliamHill.com

€200 Bonus at Bwin Casino
Best Casino Games & Hottest Dealsat Bwin Casino. Join Us Right Now!
casino.bwin.com/bwin-casino

A leading judge accused social workers of behaving like “Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China” for the way they went about permanently removing children from their mothers.

Lord Justice Wall, who will be sworn in today as president of the Family Division of the High Court in London, was referring to two specific cases. One involved Devon County Council, which did not give a mother a last chance to prove her baby was safe with her. The other was in the London borough of Greenwich, whose social workers did not support a woman in her fight to regain custody of her two children, who were in care.

Lord Justice Wall said the way Devon County Council acted was “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the west of England”. And he said the Greenwich case would do little to correct the perception that social workers were “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children into an unsatisfactory care system – trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process”.

However, he accepted that social workers were “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” following the case of baby Peter Connelly, in which staff at Haringey Council in north London were condemned for failing to act on signs that the 17-month-old was being abused. Peter, who was on the child protection register, died in 2007 from injuries including a broken back.

Lord Justice Wall said the legal duty of social workers involved in care proceedings was plain and “their aim should be to unite families rather than separate them”. He said that when he heard the Devon and Greenwich cases at the appeal court, he granted each mother more time to show they could parent their children safely. In the Devon case, the council said the mother had a propensity to form relationships with potentially dangerous individuals extremely quickly, putting herself and her baby at risk – an argument that the judge called “pretty unattractive”.

The Greenwich woman’s son, aged five, and daughter, two, were taken into care after the girl’s arm was broken in three places. Lord Justice Wall noted that the mother had since separated from her partner despite being denied help from the authority “to break free from an abusive relationship”.

Judge says social workers are like ‘Stalin’s Russia’

Social workers have been called ‘arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children’ by judges.

Lord Justice WallLord Justice Wall: branded social workers ‘arrogant’

Their practices were more like those in ‘Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China’ than what would be expected here, said one senior judge.

The comments came in two cases before the Court of Appeal involving bids to permanently remove young children from their mothers.

In both cases – in Greenwich, south-east London, and in Devon – judges granted the mothers more time to show they could look after their youngsters.

Ruling on the Greenwich case, Lord Justice Wall said of social workers: ‘They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process.’

In the case, a mother was seeking the return of her five-year-old son and two-year-old daughter. Three judges set aside a decision to grant a full care order to Greenwich Council, which wanted the children adopted.

On Friday, they concluded the ‘warm and loving’ mother, who had left the girl’s violent father, had not been supported by social workers.

In the second case, Devon County Council was to appeal against a ruling that a teenage mother should be assessed to see if she is fit to keep her baby boy.

After reading the Greenwich judgment, the application was withdrawn. Lord Justice Aikens said of the bid: ‘It is more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China… that is the impression you give.’

Greenwich Council accepted the concerns about lack of support for the mother. Devon County Council said it felt a care order was in the child’s best interests.

April 12, 2010

Reviews so far on conference

Well, what can I say? Considering the subject matter, it’s not at all surprising that the place was charged with emotion from minute 1. It was palpable. No punches were held back, the entire day was a wake up call, an assault on the senses and for anyone who wasn’t there, let me tell you; you had to be.

Fortunately for you all, there were cameras everywhere. I filmed it myself, and over time I will be posting videos uncut and unbleeped. Just to give an idea of what an emotional experience it all was.

At times I myself was on the verge of tears. We had parents whose children had been taken for no good reason other than to fill care contracts, who found within themselves the courage to stand up and give a three-minute brief on their situations. To those, I salute you! For myself, and I’m sure for many, many other people, we could bang on about our own cases all day long, but that isn’t the point of this conference, that’s what blogs such as this one are for. What the conferences are intended for is to make the wider public aware of what is going on, by giving an overview. Yes, we have plenty people waiting, willing and able to relate their stories, but for most of them, who don’t know how to go about it, they’re stuck. This is what my public hat is for – to show them how. To teach them how to blog, to give them the confidence to speak out without fear, and to give them the strength to keep fighting not just for themselves, but to give them that reserve back that they might be able to help others they find along the way who are in the same state as I found them. I am of course, putting all my energy into regaining my own children but as you all well know the so-called judicial process takes its sweet time doing anything, so I find myself with lots of spare energy while I wait for that to trundle along to offer myself to others who genuinely need help.

So to those I met Saturday, particularly to the very special guests Hollie & Anne Grieg, to the speakers: Brian, Ian, Jack, Robert, Shee, Zoomy, Jane, Linda, and the rest – you know who you are – I thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to meet you all and speak with you all, I only wish it could have been under better circumstances, but I do hope you would join the Roadshow (details as they emerge – it’s just an idea at the moment!) and help spread the word.

Videos to follow.

PS: Sam and Mark and partners, I so humbly apologise for not being able to get you the promised opportunity to say your pieces, it was not a technical problem I can assure you, the problem(?) was that the queue of people for the open mike and the fact that the laptop was the far end of the stage meant that Brian couldn’t scoot over with the mike for you! Next one we’ll have a teleconference going!

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

This entry was posted on 2010/04/12 at 08:41 and is filed underBackgroundBrian GerrishChild Snatching By The StateCommon Law,EducationFMOTLGenocideHollie GriegIan JosephsJane Webb,LyndamacMark McDougallNews & Current EventsRobert GreenSam HallimondSocial EngineeringZoompadcivil libertiescorporate crime,cover-upfraudkidnapslavery . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackbackfrom your own site.

http://thelostpacket.wordpress.com/

Su and I attended the Child Snatching by the State conference this weekend. It was a pleasure to meet her (and her family, albeit briefly!) I am hoping that Su will write up her notes, too, and I will amend this post as necessary.

There was a vast amount of information to take in and I am still processing it. What I propose to do in this post is to provide a brief rundown of the speakers and the key themes that arose from the day. I will then expand on the key themes and offer some Renegade analysis over the next week or two.

We started off with an introduction by Brian Gerrish, who is well-known for his work on forced adoption and Common Purpose. I know that some political bloggers exercise extreme caution around the issue of Common Purpose, preferring not to be labelled as conspiracy theorists, but nevertheless I think that there are valid criticisms to be made of this organisation, its modi operandorum, and the outcomes it seeks to achieve.

Fewer people doubt that children have been and are removed from innocent families by incompetent or vindictive social services departments. This problem – now covered by the mainstream media on a regular basis – is exacerbated by the closed nature of the family courts system, and the gagging orders that prevent parents (and children) from speaking out about what is happening to them.

Then Ian Josephs spoke. He witnessed first hand the collusion and corruption that can occur within local authorities when children are unnecessarily removed from their families and placed into care settings. Even now, many years later, he still offers free legal advice and help to anyone who is threatened by social services departments.

Ian described in some detail the individual and organisational drivers for forced adoption that operate interdependently, creating tightly controlled situations with foregone conclusions that are difficult to resist. However, he also provided clear information and instruction on the best way to deal with such situations and ensure the greatest possible chance of removing one’s family from the clutches of social services.

Jack Frost, author of the Gulag of the Family Courts, articulately described the deeply embedded and organisationally protected nature of false abuse accusations. Two consultant paediatricians alleged that his wife had Muchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy, after his daughter became ill with ME at the age of 12. His family had direct and prolonged experience of:

the veritable thriving yet dependant food chain of social workers, charities, local government officials and ‘public officials’, whose livelihoods and careers depend on instigating care proceedings and taking ever more children to feed the conveyor belt of linked foster care and adoption agencies. Which agencies are themselves, often owned or managed by ex-social workers and ex- local government officials!

After lunch the stage was given over to parents who had had their children stolen from them by social services (in at least one case aided and abetted by the NSPCC), and children (now adults) who had been stolen from their parents and violently abused in care settings. This was the most distressing part of the day and, I suspect, the reason why no social workers attended this event. To stand in front of these people and justify or defend current safeguarding policy – policy that fails abused children and non-abused children alike – is an impossible task, regardless of whatLord Laming says.

There followed a talk by a Canadian, Kevin Annett, who “told the untold story of the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada”. He provided information and exerpts from his film, Unrepentant, to highlight the brutal treatment, torture and murder of children in church-run Indian residential schools. Whilst this topic was somewhat tangential, it was nevertheless something I was glad to have brought to my attention, and it also confirmed two other areas of thought:

  1. The tactics that people use to break up families and break down individuals are the same the world over, and
  2. State sanctioned, organised “care” of children is forever ideally placed to be hijacked and appropriated by those who harbour abusive, fascisteugenic tendencies.

I was also made aware of the Indian Act, which (as I understand it) mandates that Indians who live on reservations in Canada are essentially wards of the state, and cannot refuse the “offer” of medication or immunisation, for example.

Finally, Robert Green stood up and spoke at length about the case of Hollie Greig, who was sat in the audience with her mum, Anne. All of the information is available here, and I would advise that anyone who struggles to believe that such a monumental cover up could ever take place should first read the website and related documentation.

So, just off the top of my head, here are some key themes I am happy to expand on:

  • Crackpot conspiracy theory or legitimate concern?
  • Common tactics to divide and conquer
  • How to protect your family
  • Campaigning for change
  • What to do next
  • Reading list and resources

What do you think?

http://www.renegadeparent.net/post/Child-Snatching-by-the-State-conference-first-thoughts.aspx

Child Snatching Conference in Stafford was a great success

Pictures Courtesy of Stafford Post
Fight is to go national
Apr 21 2010
The Stafford mum behind the town’s controversial conference that ‘lifted the lid’ on forced adoption has announced she is organising a national tour to highlight the injustices of the family courts system.
Campaigner Jane Webb brought together over 200 people at Stafford Rangers FC for ‘Child Snatching by the State’ on April 10.
At the event distraught parents revealed their heartbreak battles to be re-united with their children while others called for changes in the law to prevent children being adopted without parents’ consent.
Ms Webb told the Post the event had been a massive success, having brought together campaigners and families. “The response has been incredible, both on the web and locally, so we are now organising a national tour,” she said. “We need to do this because there is nothing being done to support these parents and keep families together.”
She said the ‘Child Snatching by the State’ group would now fight to get juries into family courts, halt forced adoptions and call for end to parents being ‘gagged’ by courts.
Speaker and businessman Ian Josephs, who flew in from Monaco for the conference, described the family courts system as ‘a disgrace’.
‘State child snatch’ parents speak out
Apr 14 2010
By Lynn Grainger
Broken families revealed their heartbreak battles to be reunited with their children at a controversial conference held in Stafford on Saturday.
The emotively-titled ‘Child Snatching by the State’ brought together campaigners, parents and families fighting to make the public aware of ‘injustices’ in the family courts system.
They want changes in the law which would put an end to ‘forced adoptions’ – where children are removed without their loved ones’ consent – and to allow them to speak out about their experiences.
Around 200 people gathered at Stafford Rangers FC for the day-long event. Some travelled from as far afield as Spain and Monaco. They heard first-hand harrowing allegations of abuse, tales of families ‘torn apart’ and of one tragic case that ended with the death of a Stafford mother.
The event was organised by Stafford family rights campaigner Jane Webb.
On stage she paid tribute to local mum Willow Simpson who hanged herself at St George’s Hospital in 2007 after learning her son would be adopted without her consent.
“I’ve done this because there is nothing being done to support these parents and to keep families together,” she told the Post. “The main thing we want is to get juries into family courts, to stop forced adoptions and for the courts to stop gagging parents so they can speak out about injustice.”
One mum who took to the stage during the ‘open mike’ session of the conference spoke of her battle to win back her son who she claimed was abused in care. While being filmed for the event she said: “I will fight, fight, fight and I am not giving up, I will never give up. It’s me and his family that love him, not strangers in care.”
Speaker Ian Josephs, who runs a language school in Monaco, is fighting for changes in the law.
During the 1960s the campaigning father of seven re-united many parents with children who had been taken into care, while he was a councillor.
Now he wants juries, rather than a judge, to rule on family court proceedings and for the lifting of ‘gagging’ orders on parents who are going through the court system so they can speak out about their experiences.
“The family courts system is a disgrace,” he said.
He also criticised social services for removing babies from mothers due to the ‘risk of emotional harm’.
Organiser Jane Webb said the controversial event had been an ‘amazing success’.

http://icstafford.icnetwork.co.uk/news/localnews/tm_headline=8216-state-child-snatch-8217-parents-speak-out%26method=full%26objectid=26242040%26siteid=87875-name_page.html

Wow ! Many thanks to everyone for a wonderful day .I will post vids and media on here as they arrive.

Well done to all !!!!

April 8, 2010

Child snatching by the state conference update

Great news Ian joesph has confirmed i hope you all give him a warm welcome.

Robert Green , Anne and Hollie Grieg also confirmed.

Express and Star covered event last night and their should be Lynn journalist in attendance.

Weather Forecast is great and a buffet is available.

Please give a donation if you can for buffet as i am doing it out my own pocket however small.

Conference finishes at 5 but Rangers are opening a seperete bar which will be open till 12 for people to do much needed networking.

I look forward to meeting you all Saturday.

Big shout to my eldest boys and their friend who are coming over to help.

xxx

If this goes well its a start of many more xxxx

April 6, 2010

Staffordshire social services bully their own staff as well as families and children

Social worker ‘harassed at home’
Last updated: 01/04/2010 10:43
A Staffordshire County Council social worker complained he was harassed by the management following a heart attack and unfairly dismissed after complaining about work changes.
Generic Online News 4Ronald Moruzzi made his allegations against the council at Birmingham Employment Tribunal after more than 25 years as a social worker.
Ann Morgan, representing the council, denied Mr Moruzzi had been harassed.
She said changes had been made, including providing duty manager cover by certain social workers.
But Mr Moruzzi, of Ashbourne Road, Leek said he objected over the way the cover policy was introduced and complained he had not been fully consulted.
“I was harassed at home with a series of council letters after suffering from a heart attack,” he said.
“This harassment was because I had made an official grievance against the management over the work changes. I was even refused to add further complaints to my grievance.
“I eventually lost my job and I am now seeking compensation for unfair dismissal and harassment.” Former Staffordshire County Council social worker Mr Alan Paling said Mr Moruzzi had been a member of a social service team which was asked to provide cover for the duty manager.
“He said the cover policy was introduced in 2008 and was expected to be short term but became ongoing.
“There was a voluntary aspect about the scheme,” said Mr Paling.
“I was Rob’s line manager at the time and he was distraught on returning to work following his heart attack.” Tribunal judge Ann Coaster adjourned the hearing to a later date when a decision is expected.

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/Social-worker-harassed-at-home.htm

peter traves on a wacking 128.00O Yet he cant be bothered to answer emails or investigate abuse or his staff

The town hall ‘fat cats’ revealed
Last updated: 01/04/2010 10:57
Stafford borough Council’s chief executive is one of a handful of people named in a new list of fat cat salaries in Stafford and Staffordshire.
Stafford Borough Council civic centreIan Thompson receives a total package of £105,980, made up of £94,012 salary, performance pay of £5,509.94 and a car allowance of £6,457.84.
The figures are revealed in the fourth Town Hall Rich List compiled by the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), which shows which officers earn more than £100,000.
At Staffordshire County Council, there are six officers in the top pay bracket headed by chief executive Ron Hilton who is due to leave his £192,617 a year post after just two years in the job.
His package is made up of salary of £190,899.94, with a supplement of £1,717.
Corporate director Peter Traves pocketed £128,710 last year, while another corporate director Richard Higgs took home £127,861.
Eric Robinson, director of social services, was paid £125,753; Keith Caskett, deputy corporate director quality assurance, received £112,337, and Sally Rees, deputy corporate director vulnerable children earned £100,846.
In new legislation that comes into force today, authorities have to report on who their most senior staff are, their final remuneration and a breakdown.
Councillor Philip Atkins, leader of SCC, said: “This is a £1.24 billion organisation and the eighth largest authority in the country providing a significant range of services to the community.
“We needed to attract the very best of candidates to lead an authority that provides essential services to 830,000 people with a workforce of 28,000. These salaries are set below the market rate and are less than the chief executive and director salaries of other similar sized authorities.” A spokesman for SBC said: “Looking at the TPA figures the amount the chief executive receives is less than his predecessor. And Ian did not have a pay rise this year.
There is a great deal of responsibility on Ian who is the Chief Executive of the largest district council in Staffordshire and whose decisions can affect 123,000 people as well as thousands of businesses in the borough.”

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/News/The-town-hall-fat-cats-revealed.htm

Council chiefs earn more cash than PM

Thursday 1st April 2010, 11:30AM BST.

A town hall rich list revealing high-earning council workers who take home more than £100,000 in wages and allowances was today released.

Chief executives at Dudley and Birmingham councils both pocketed more then the Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008/09, according to the report by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

The report claims the highest earner in the West Midlands was Birmingham chief executive Stephen Hughes, with a pay package worth around £200,000.

It also claims former Dudley chief executive Andrew Sparke had a package worth £194, 600 which included a redundancy payment of just over £85,000.

As well as basic salary, the report takes into account other allowances and bonuses, including performance pay and redundancy payments.

It claims there were 12 executives in Birmingham with packages worth more than £100,000, six in Staffordshire, five in Walsall and Dudley, three in Sandwell, one who has now left. Cannock Chase, Wyre Forest, South Staffordshire, Stafford and Lichfield all had one.

Wolverhampton has eight listed although the council says the figures accidentally include three headteachers who should not have appeared on the list.

Nationally the figures show there were at least 1,250 council staff earning £100,000 or more in 2008-2009 which is up from 1,009 from the previous year.

There were also 166 earning over £150,000 in 2008/2009.A total of 31 council staff earned more than Gordon Brown up from 19 in the previous financial year.The average package for chief executives, including the allowances and bonuses, works out at £125,745 a year or £2,418 a week.

The information was gathered under the Freedom of Information Act.

John O’Connell, policy analyst at the campaign group TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Town Hall bosses have had a very good recession at taxpayers’ expense.

“More of them than ever are earning massive amounts.”

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/04/01/council-chiefs-earn-more-cash-than-pm/

April 4, 2010

social workers are targeting babies for adoption

The government is denying that social workers are targeting babies for adoption. Listening to desperate calls from pregnant women or mothers of new babies and toddlers on our help-line would quickly show their denials are not true.

Health visitors are often instructed to give all parents a “risk rating”, if possible while the child is still in the womb, or soon after the birth – this is done without parents’ knowledge or consent. The questionnaire used is highly inaccurate as a predictive tool, and has a very high rate of false positives. Pregnant teenagers, the unemployed, anyone with a history of mental illness, and so on, are on the watch list – supposedly so that they can get extra support, but it is often simply extra surveillance. Midwives are instructed to report risk factors, and are losing the trust of the women they care for.

When social workers investigate mothers as a potential risk to their children we see incredibly high stress levels in women who fear losing their babies (even if the fear may not be justified). Research has shown this high level of stress hormones in the mother’s blood can reduce the baby’s growth as well as causing behavioural problems in childhood. We also suspect that it is affecting the process of birth in a number of our clients. For example, delaying birth beyond term.

Expectant mothers who were themselves brought up in care have an increased risk of social workers taking their babies, without even giving them a chance to show that they can be good parents, and providing them support and help. The State is,in effect, saying “as your corporate parent we gave you such damaging care that you are unfit ever to be a parent yourself”.

Mothers with a previous history of mental illness (perhaps caused by bereavement or a damaging relationship), or mothers with postnatal depression (very common) or psychosis also risk losing their children. The extreme shortage of mother-and-baby psychiatric units where they can safely be together is a scandal; Primary Care Trusts are seldom willing to pay for such care outside their area. The grapevine in many communities is accurately circulating the risks, so mothers who may need medical care tell us they are concealing mental illness, for fear of their children being taken. Two academic studies have shown that questionnaires to identify postnatal depression no longer work, because mothers lie. This is dangerous, since we now know that suicide is the major cause of death associated with childbirth.

Women also tell us they are concealing the fact that their pregnancy resulted from rape, or that they suffer domestic violence, for the same reason. One man, after beating up his wife, hands her the phone and says “Now call the police – and the social workers will come and take your kids.” So she stays silent. Others tell us that social work intervention has resulted in aborting a baby they would have wanted.

Not all attempts to have children adopted succeed, and mothers may have them returned after weeks, or months. The intense bond fostered by the high levels of oxytocin the mother has from giving birth and breastfeeding has been damaged. The baby has lost the breast milk which gives life-long health advantages, and contact visits are never frequent enough to breast feed.

We are a pressure group with 40 years’ experience in supporting parents with complaints about maternity care. But since the unprecedented growth in calls about child protection proceedings in the last 9 years or so, we have accompanied clients to meetings and observed social workers’ home visits. We have been horrified at what we have seen, and equally appalled by the lack of accuracy and bias in many of their reports, and the selectivity of evidence they give to the courts.

Questions should be asked of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In their annual inspections up and down the country they criticise local authorities whose adoption figures are not high enough. It is the rise in the adoption total that wins Brownie points, NOT a reduction in older children lingering in long term “care” with an unsettled future. Hence the social work snatching of new born – prime adoption material, which also met the needs of settled, wealthier, older infertile couples. As one client told us, “What they are doing is redistributive eugenics.”

Perhaps it is time we started measuring and recording the damage caused by ‘child protection’ interventions and doing the kind of cost-benefit analysis which is now required for drugs, surgery and other health interventions?

Beverley Lawrence Beech, Chair AIMS

Contacts:
Beverley Lawrence Beech – tel: 0870 765 1453 or email: beverley.beech@aims.org.uk
Jean Robinson – email: jean.robinson@aims.org.uk
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services, 5 Ann’s Court, Grove Road, Surbiton, Surrey, KT6 4BE

http://www.aims.org.uk/

April 2, 2010

Staffordshire Social Services ignored yet another child

How my sister went from good kid to jail
by RICHARD CASTLE Last updated: 30/03/2010 18:04
AN 18-year-old girl has revealed how her big sister turned from a “good kid” to being jailed for faking a kidnapping and trashing a sheltered flat.
Speaking exclusively to the Mail, Jasmine Marshall has revealed what it was like growing up with selfharming sister Jessica.
Jasmine, who says her family will not welcome Jessica back post-sentence, admitted she longs to have “the old Jessica” back.
She said: “Jessica was a good kid. She was happy and content and would help me and mum look after the younger kids.
“But then she started secondary school, got in with the wrong crowd and started stealing from shops and her friends.
“She then started stealing from her own family, smoking and skiving school.” Jessica, 19, was spared jail in October after admitting staging the kidnapping of her 16-year-old friend and making ransom demands to her mother.
However, last month she was sentenced to 14 months after being convicted of trashing a flat at Burton’s YMCA sheltered housing complex.
When arrested, she was found with a knife and a wrap of amphetamine.
Jasmine said: “Jessica has turned to a life of crime, not because she wants to, but because she just wants help and to feel like she fits in again.
“It’s also down to the amount of drugs she was taking, which messes with her head.
“I miss having my big sister around, but, looking back on all the things she has done, the kidnap is the most hurtful thing.
“Hearing about this from my dad made me sick. I can’t believe she would do something like that – it’s the lowest of the low.” Jasmine said that when Jessica reached her early teens, she would routinely run away from home and tell social services her stepfather had beaten her.
She said: “Social services never believed her, as Jessica would contact them so often that it became a joke.
“Maybe if they had done something to help her when she needed help, she wouldn’t be the way she is today.”

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/How-my-sister-went-from-good-kid-to-jail.htm

March 28, 2010

Twins who were beaten, abused, starved & driven to the brink of suicide by their FOSTER PARENTS TODAYS NEWS AND GUESS WHAT STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL DID NOTHING

Twins who were beaten, abused, starved & driven to the brink of suicide by their FOSTER PARENTS
COMPENSATION AT LAST FOR…
Laura Armstrong
Twin sisters Helen Stuckey and Sarah Walsh hugged each other with joy last week – unlike when they were little girls and hugged as they trembled with fear.
The reason for last week’s quiet embrace was that the 26-year-old sisters have finally won compensation from a council that put them in the care of the foster parents from hell.
From the age of two, Helen and Sarah were regularly beaten by the couple who should have given them a loving, protected life.
Both girls, who have bravely waived their anonymity, were also forced to perform sex acts on each other while their vile foster brother watched.
And Sarah was sexually abused by their twisted foster dad between the age of five and 16.
Staffordshire county council staff visited the children frequently but failed to spot warning signs.
These included both sisters trying to commit suicide DOZENS of times, SEVEN ignored reports of physical abuse and THREE disregarded admissions by their stepfather that he and his wife beat the kids.
Social services were unaware of the sexual abuse but Helen and Sarah claim it would never have happened if they been removed from the evil family’s care.
Helen told The People: “This battle was never about winning a large amount of money. For us it was our way of getting social services to admit blame for what happened to us.
“They will never admit blame – we understand that now – but in our minds this pay-out suggests they at least accept they were negligent.
“Now we can fully move on and try to forget those years of hell.”
Survived
The girls were placed with the foster parents in 1985 after their mother – a schizophrenic – was unable to look after them.
Almost immediately after they were taken in, the physical abuse started.
Sarah said: “If we hadn’t had each other, I honestly don’t think we would have survived. We were beaten and abused from almost day one.”
In 1988, social services admitted they were worried that the foster brother – then aged 15- was looking after the five-year-old twins during the day. But NO action was taken.
In 1993 the foster parents admitted to a social worker that the mother smacked them although carers are NOT supposed to use physical punishment. Again no action was taken.
Next year both parents agreed to stop using corporal punishment. This did NOT happen.
Shockingly, the girls weren’t only being physically abused. From 1988 until 1996 Sarah and Helen were forced to perform sex acts while their foster brother watched. Sarah was also sexually abused by her foster dad.
Sarah said: “We never did anything about it because we were too scared.”
Helen added: “Despite everything we have been through, we don’t want to be seen as victims because we know we are lucky to have escaped our foster family.
“But there must be thousands of helpless children out there trapped in abusive families.
“And one day we hope to change the law so that social services staff are required to take responsibility for the mistakes they make.”
Sarah continued: “Our foster mum was a nasty drinker and if she was drunk or hungover she would go after us with anything she could get.
“Whenever she did use her fists, she would wet them so the punch would hurt more, and then pull us upstairs by our hair.
“I wanted so badly for the beatings to stop, but we were frightened to say anything in case the social workers took us away and split us up.
“So instead we learnt to say nothing when we were beaten. And when it was over and we were alone, we would sit and cry together.
“I was so unhappy and frightened but knowing Helen was there holding my hand helped.”
Helen said: “It wasn’t just the beatings, it was the humiliation. We used to be called the waterworks by classmates because we’d always be crying when we arrived at school.
“And we never made friends because other children were too frightened to come to our house. They had seen the beatings, such as when our foster mum pulled Sarah outside by her shirt collar and slammed her up against a brick wall, screaming that she was a slag and telling her to p*** off.
“Other times we’d be banned from eating for ages, or made to eat until we were sick, just for trivial reasons. I remember once as a child eating Stork margarine with sugar on top because I was so hungry.
Desperate
“I didn’t care that it made me feel sick, I was just so desperate that I just shovelled it in like an animal.”
The People knows the identity of the twins’ foster family but has decided not to name them for legal reasons.
Their foster mother is still inolved with children while their foster brother now has children of his own. Their foster father died of cancer seven years ago. Helen said: “It scares me to think that our foster mum is still working with young children.
“In the 15 years I lived with her she never once showed Sarah or me a shred of pity, let alone any love.
“If we sobbed when she hurt us, she would just hit harder.”
Sarah said: “The things our foster brother made us do was more confusing than anything else at first. But when my foster dad abused me, I felt sick and alone.”
Helen, tortured by the belief that she was to blame for her sister’s suffering, took an overdose of pills and cough mixture.
Sarah was thrown out by her foster mum when the twins were 16. The homeless teenager began cutting her wrists and was hospitalised after four overdoses.
She said: “After years of abuse I really believed what our foster parents had told us – we were worthless and there was no point in living. It was only when my foster dad died in 2003 I finally felt that I could open up about everything.”
In 2006 Helen and Sarah reported the abuse to police.
Their foster mum and brother were questioned but released without charge after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was a lack of evidence of the brother’s abuse and the time limit to prosecute the mother for assault had expired.
So the twins – now mums themselves – launched a claim against Staffordshire County Council.
Now they have received £70,000 compensation three weeks before the case was due to be heard in court.
The compensation is NOT for the abuse but for social services breaching their duty of care.
Sarah said: “Hearing the settlement had been reached was like having a 10-ton weight lifted.”
Helen added: “I still see our foster mum in the street sometimes and she laughs if she catches sight of me. But now I can put all the anger that I used to feel behind me.”
Staffordshire County Council said: “We made an out-of-court settlement but do not accept liability for the allegations which have never been proved. We have, however, offered the claimants help and support.
“The fostering service has come a very long way since the 1980s. We were inspected by Ofsted in 2009 and our fostering service was judged outstanding.”
Solicitor Richard Scorer of Manchester law firm Pannone said: “We were able to find information to support Helen and Sarah’s case.
“Although no amount of money can ever compensate for what they went through, I am pleased to have played a part in getting them justice .”
laura.armstrong@people.co.uk

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=twins-who-were-beaten-abused-starved-driven-to-the-brink-of-suicide-by-their-foster-parents%26method=full%26objectid=22143896%26siteid=93463-name_page.html

Bungling Incompetent Staffordshire Social Worker Idiots at it again

FOSTERING FILES LEFT IN STREET
Saturday, March 27, 2010, 09:20
CONFIDENTIAL information held by social services about children in care has been found on a pavement by a passer-by.
Dozens of sensitive Stoke-on-Trent City Council documents were discovered on a memory stick left in Potteries Way, Hanley, yesterday.
The social services records of foster carers, family court proceedings, parenting assessments, child custody arrangements and the psychological history of youngsters were all included in the files.
The stick was found by IT consultant Gary Fox and reported to The Sentinel before one of our reporters handed it to the council. Now officials have launched an urgent investigation into how the security breach happened.
It is not known whether the social worker had permission to take the memory stick away from the council’s offices, or when it went missing.
But the information on the memory stick was not encrypted, which is against the council’s own policy.
A council spokesman said: “The safety of children in our care is our priority. We have procedures for ensuring that confidential and sensitive data is kept as secure as possible.
“We will conduct a thorough investigation to determine the circumstances in which the data was lost.
“We thank The Sentinel for returning the data, as situations such as this require immediate attention. The device has been put in a safe place.”
Mr Fox, who works in Hanley and lives in Stafford, had picked up the memory stick, which was covered in mud, because a blank one is worth about £10 in a shop.
The 53-year-old said: “I put the memory stick in a computer and realised there were about 40 documents on it.
“I was shocked by the vast amount of confidential information and the fact it wasn’t even password protected.
“Public bodies gather information on everyone, but it seems can’t be trusted to keep it safe.
“I handed the memory stick to The Sentinel, because people should be aware of how public bodies look after confidential information.”
The council will report the breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), responsible for regulating the use of personal information.
An ICO spokesman said: “We may serve an enforcement notice if an organisation has failed to comply with any of the data protection principles.
“We have statutory power to impose a financial penalty if there has been a serious breach of data protection.”
The security breach has shocked foster carers who rely on such confidential information being kept secure.
Carer Phyllis Hulme, aged 62, of Meir, said: “Everything to do with foster care is meant to be highly confidential.
“We are always told not to mention children’s names in meetings or discuss information with anyone. Somebody has slipped up badly here.”
Individual councils are responsible for creating their own data protection policies
NOW I JUST WANT TO ADD I HAVE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF FOSTER CARERS LEAKED BY THEM BUT NOONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE !!!!

Another Staffordshire Mother Comes Forward

I am 34 yrs old and a single parent to 2 beautifull girls who have always been my greatest pleasure in life. Ive had a couple of relationships since the the birth of my first child 17 yrs ago. I gave birth to my second child 2003 and got married 2004, however this only lasted 6 months, he was a violent controlling bully. I was divorced 6 months later. Needless to say he never bothered with his daughter again, he never emotinally supported my daughter neither did he  financially supported her. We never heard from him again.

The LA involement in my familys life started when my eldest daughter was playing up a bit, there were no major concerens she was just behaving as  normal 15 yr olds do.
The LA never offered her any help or support, not that i would of wanted this any way, but surly this is an obligation the LA are obliged to do.
She is now doing great she is studying her A levels and has a part time job at the  weekends. The only thing lacking in her life is her little sister, these 2 girls had a fabulous bond which has now been destroyed by the  LA.

In aprill 2009 The LA held a secret court were they decided to place my yougest child on an ico their fraudlent claims are that of neglect they claim school attendence although she had a good attentendance at school, she had also just had her leval 5 assesment done were she was found to be OUTSTANDING as a five year, since her forciable removal she  now has a special learner every day at school her teacher says she is unable to concentrate. She was out of nappies at 2 yrs old however lately has had a couple of accidents were she has wet her self. These are so blantley the effects of being denied her loving mother. My baby is so stressed and wants to come home it is shocking.

The LA asked her if she wanted to meet her dad when they removed her she did not, however their brain washing has taken its toll and ten months later she has met him.

There are four police reports in the court bundle were this man a severly beaten me, there are pictures were he has put cigerttes out on my face urinated on me and so on .

The genius in the ss now think it is a great idea to place my daughter in his home to live permenently the police reports do not get a mention in court, rehashing old evidence they say, if we have not been able to adress them how can they be old evidence.
His police file has not been pulled, He also has another x wife and another 2 children which are not mentioned, WHY.

My final hearing april and their final evidence says they want my daughter to live with this man, on a supervision order, they will then cut my contact to once a fortnight still stricly supervised of course. That is the plan for the first year, then what contact i will be allowed i dont know.

THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS

March 26, 2010

The Family court anthem many thanks to ZOOMY

March 5, 2010

Peter Traves Corporate Director ( does he actually exist ? )

Can someone please acknowledge the existance of Peter Traves ?

I am beginning to think he does not exist.

After three years of complaints , requests for files and having plenty of evidence that any decent corporate director would be interested in.

He has yet to do anything.

Even when other people are starting to wake up to this lying and secretive organisation he fails to do anything.

This leads me to question does he actually exist ?

If he does is he human ?

One would think that anyone with a shred of humanity would seek to put things straight for the sake of the children and parents in Staffordshire.

Not Mr Traves he seems to be suffering from ” bury my head in the sand or up my arse” personality disorder with traits of I will not accept any responsibilty syndrome.


Chiefs criticised for withholding records

Social services bosses have been rapped after refusing to hand over records to a Staffordshire mother whose children had been taken into care.

After a lengthy battle the county council has been found to have breached the Data Protection Act by the Information Commissioner after its refusal to give documents to the woman.

The council has now been required to hand over all the relevant files to the mother who claims to have been unfairly treated by the county council. She cannot be named to protect the identity of her children who were originally taken into care over claims of domestic violence.

The mother, from Stafford, tried to get access to the files for two years. In June last year the council was due to deliver them to her but a last minute decision was taken not to because of concerns over what the mother may do with the information.

The mother has now received the files and claims they show her children were made to feel unsafe in foster care. The matter has been investigated by the county council which has also accepted the Information Commissioner’s ruling.

The mother said: “The local authority deliberately fought to prevent me having access to the files for two years. I believe this was because there were things they did not want me to see.”

In its ruling to the mother the ICO said: “I have confirmed my assessment that the council have breached the sixth data protection principle in this case.”

Cabinet member for children at the county council Ian Parry, said: “We have only acted, and will continue to act, in the best interests of the children involved.”

Mum triumphs in epic social services battle

by Lynn Grainger
A Stafford mother who had vital files about her OWN children withheld from her for two years has won a David and Goliath battle with social services after it was found they had breached Data Protection rules.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, asked for the files in February 2008, fearing they contained inaccuracies which had led to her having limited access to her sons.

She wanted to use the files in court but Staffordshire County Council withheld them over concerns she would subsequently publish file details ‘detrimental’ to her children on the internet.

According to the Data Protection act, the single mum should have received the information or a formal response within 40 days, but she has been waiting 24 months to see the vital information – which the authority have now agreed to hand over.

The victory follows a ruling last week by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the independent body responsible for regulating and enforcing access to personal information.


A letter to the mum from ICO caseworker Angela Ellison, reads: “I understand that, to date, no information has been provided to you in response to your February 2008 request, or any of the requests you have made subsequently during the course of your contact with the council.

“…I have confirmed my assessment that the council have breached the sixth data protection principle in this case.

“It is clear that the council had concerns about the release of the information to you. Nevertheless, you should still have received a response to your original request, and your further requests, within 40 days of each request.”

The files were due to be handed over in June, 2009, but a last minute decision was taken that legal advice should be obtained before the information was presented to her.

There were fears the mum would publish details of any alleged errors in the data on her internet ‘blog’ which could have affected her children, so it was withheld. Mrs Ellison said although in some cases information held by social services departments could be withheld, the county council should have obtained legal advice within 40 days and responded within that 40 day time frame.

Mrs Ellison concluded: “The council are now ready to provide you with the information to which you are entitled.”

This week the angry mum said: “This just proves I was right and this isn’t the end. I plan to take civil action against the council for the stress this has caused me for the last two years and the detrimental effect their withholding of my files for use as evidence in court has had for my children and I.”

Last year Stafford MP David Kidney said he was “spitting mad” over the case because he had received assurances the council would provide her with the files in early 2009.

A spokesperson for the county council told the Post: “We acknowledge the findings of the Information Commissioner, and we are pleased that the ICO recognise we have legitimate concerns over the release of the information. We have only acted, and will continue to act, in the best interests of the children involved.”

l The Stafford single mum at the centre of the row over access to her children’s files has called on parents facing similar difficulties to contact her through the Post.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said: “I’d really like to hear from other parents facing the same problems. I know I’m not alone. I won this fight and was proved right so I’d like to help others facing the same difficulties.”

Contact the Post on 01785 212370 or write to us at 35 Eastgate Street, Stafford, ST16 2LZ. Email lynn_grainger@mrn.co.uk





EXCLUSIVE: HOW THE UK’S MOST SECRETIVE COUNCIL USED A CHILD IN CARE FOR ITS OWN PROPAGANDA
This is Keelie Cooper. She was taken into care by Staffs CC. No gagging orders for Staffs CC: she’s being featured in an ad campaign on private adoption websites.
The Slogger was a tad surprised to stumble across this shot on the website of kids’ charity magazine Children and Young People Now. After all, Keelie Cooper was removed from a genuinely fractured homelife and placed with another family by Staffordshire Social Services last year. And the Staffs SS – as we all know rather too well – combine very often with the local judiciary to injunct any reporting of its clients. Or its suppliers. Or its cock-ups. Or its…oh never mind, let’s get on with it.
Just take in this gushing propaganda that’s been forced into Keelie’s mouth (my italics):
‘When things got too messy within my own family I turned to my best friend for help and we got the social services involved. At first I wasn’t sure this was a good thing to do as I have heard about a lot of social services messing things up….However, this was not the case with my “new” family and things have worked out fine. I came to understand the support that they can give you, both financially and by having someone to talk to if you feel you are not being treated fairly.’
This is terrific stuff, Staffs: Alistair and Mandy could use some of the talent you’ve clearly got tucked away in the PR department up there.
Now it seems to me (having investigated the case) that on this occasion the County Council did the right thing for Keelie. I understand she wanted to be rehomed with a friend’s family, and they allowed this. How very tolerant of them.
But the hypocritical double standards of this self-defensive publicity drive beggar belief. So while the charity mag itself (a Haymarket publication) does a worthwhile job – and is in no way complicit in this grubby attempt to glorify a derelict and controlling Council – I thought I’d share this shining example of local government honesty with a wider audience.
Amazingly, Staffs care management have still to return my call.
POSTED BY JOHN WARD

WEDNESDAY, 3 MARCH 2010
EXCLUSIVE: HOW THE UK’S MOST SECRETIVE COUNCIL USED A CHILD IN CARE FOR ITS OWN PROPAGANDAThis is Keelie Cooper. She was taken into care by Staffs CC. No gagging orders for Staffs CC: she’s being featured in an ad campaign on private adoption websites.
The Slogger was a tad surprised to stumble across this shot on the website of kids’ charity magazine Children and Young People Now. After all, Keelie Cooper was removed from a genuinely fractured homelife and placed with another family by Staffordshire Social Services last year. And the Staffs SS – as we all know rather too well – combine very often with the local judiciary to injunct any reporting of its clients. Or its suppliers. Or its cock-ups. Or its…oh never mind, let’s get on with it.
Just take in this gushing propaganda that’s been forced into Keelie’s mouth (my italics):
‘When things got too messy within my own family I turned to my best friend for help and we got the social services involved. At first I wasn’t sure this was a good thing to do as I have heard about a lot of social services messing things up….However, this was not the case with my “new” family and things have worked out fine. I came to understand the support that they can give you, both financially and by having someone to talk to if you feel you are not being treated fairly.’
This is terrific stuff, Staffs: Alistair and Mandy could use some of the talent you’ve clearly got tucked away in the PR department up there.
Now it seems to me (having investigated the case) that on this occasion the County Council did the right thing for Keelie. I understand she wanted to be rehomed with a friend’s family, and they allowed this. How very tolerant of them.
But the hypocritical double standards of this self-defensive publicity drive beggar belief. So while the charity mag itself (a Haymarket publication) does a worthwhile job – and is in no way complicit in this grubby attempt to glorify a derelict and controlling Council – I thought I’d share this shining example of local government honesty with a wider audience.
Amazingly, Staffs care management have still to return my call.POSTED BY JOHN WARD


http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/03/exclusive-how-uks-most-secretive.html

NEW STAFFORD SENSATION AS HOWARD LEAGUE REVEALS: ‘WE SENT WARNINGS ON STAFFORD 3 YEARS AGO’

WHERE WERE ANDY BURNHAM & DAVID NICHOLSON? (Ans: On the ladder to success)

Frances Crooke of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

This is HLPR director Frances Crooke’s damning indictment of Staffordshire County Council:

‘We sent a child protection referral to Staffordshire county council [in 2007] following the chief inspector’s report into forcible strip searching and videoing of a child in Werrington prison. I got a reply. (Well done, Frances – you’re way ahead of the rest of us)

‘Apparently the council doesn’t think it has to bother to investigate properly because the threshold of harm has not been crossed. Forcibly stripping a child is, according the child protection experts in Staffordshire, a legal and proportionate response. We can all rest happy that the child did not, I am comfortingly told, sustain any physical injuries. There is no discussion about whether he was traumatised, or felt that he had been assaulted or even sexually assaulted.

‘The letter says that the strip searching of children in prison is compliant with Prison Service Standards. So, as long as the Prison Service sets its own rules and abides by them, they can do what they like. It appears that normal child protection can be blithely ignored by children’s services.’

Three years on, the arrogant unwillingness to talk to outsiders and release documents to ombudspersons remains firmly intact.

This is a perfect lab-test-case of where Cool New Labour Britannia is going, Andrew Lansley. Where are you in the media on this?

TUESDAY, 2 MARCH 2010

EXCLUSIVE: EXPLOSION IN CARE-ORDERS SUPPORTS THOSE ACCUSING SOCIAL SERVICES OF TARGET MANIA


The latest figures available from Cafcass show that a new surge has begun in children being taken into care.

There now seems little doubt that huge numbers of children are being deemed to be ‘under threat’ from their domestic situations as a direct result of high-profile media cases. Behind this, it appears there is a desperate attempt to hit and exceed targets in a bid to show that local council carers are on the ball.

Although the Guardian reported in January that last quarter 2009 figures were 20% up year on year immediately following the media glare of the Baby P case in Haringey, the latest data show that care orders are up 73%. In December alone, the increase was 150%.

This has levelled off in the last two months, but the organisations and social service departments involved are being put under enormous (and cynical) political pressure.

“The word has gone out to get the numbers up” one insider in Plymouth social services told The Slog this morning, “And mistakes are being made”.

Last year, The Slog’s mother-site nby revealed the case of Bernadette McManus,a resident of Plymouth who had four children removed in a raid involving three police cars and five officers. The reasons given by the police officers at the scene were described by close neighbours at the time as ‘total rubbish’. But later, Plymouth Tory MP Gary Streeter sent McManus (a constituent) a letter written in such a manner as to seem like a threat of reprisals if she spoke to the media.

Private Care charity Children & Young People Now has looked at the problems currently faced by the under-resourced and hugely overworked quango Cafcass. They concluded:

‘The Baby Peter effect is continuing to put an immense strain on children’s professionals…North Devon service manager Mark Saunders says: “Before this recent increase we were getting one or two new cases every four weeks. Now it is around three to four a week”..’

Eminent expert in the field Alison Paddle expressed concerns that the system is poor, as it only looks at papers submitted by the council to the court and rarely involves meeting with the child and the family. “They call these cases ‘paper children’, as to them they only exist in a report” she said. A victim of this mentality in Nottingham, who ‘can’t be named for etc etc’ (yawn) writes to The Slog:

‘We have never been charged with any offence, nor have we seen the inside of a county courtroom….I can offer only the speculation that social services’ endgame is alienation between the children and ourselves to make their job of permanently separating us that much easier. Then they adopt them out, meet their targets – and get more money in the next budget.’

A senior professional in the private sector told us this lunchtime, “Cafcass has lacked continuity and been forced to hire agency workers. There is a lack of continuity, but it’s not their fault”.

A Stafford council insider was considerably more blunt last night:

“It’s the same old same old. The media catch on to the fact that central government has no money but keeps on insisting that things are improving. So the politicians take more budget away and double the targets. Then the managers dump the shit on us. This is the reason more and more people are leaving the service”.

Abusive and unwarranted child care orders represent a complex subject. But this huge leap in the latest figures suggests that many abuses can be laid at the door of target-obsessed Ministers sitting safely down in Westminster.

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/03/exclusive-explosion-in-care-orders.html

FRIDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2010

REVEALED: HOW STAFFORDSHIRE SOCIAL CARE HIRED A CHILD PSYCHIATRIST FACING GMC INVESTIGATION AT £8500 A WEEK

undefinedChild psychiatrist George Hibbert is undergoing a formal General Medical Council Inquiry while being employed by Staffs Social Services.
Yet another reason why the people of Staffordshire are asking if there’s anything behind the slick social care logo (left)

Thanks to a ludicrous gagging order, this is an odd story because I can’t tell you the name of the victim of what I’m revealing:a heartless scam made possible by social care negligence.

Staffordshire Social Care (yes, it’s the capital of collapsing services again) uses the services of one George Hibbert – a psychiatrist located handily in Swindon. Dr Hibbert and his live-in partner Jill Canvin have an interesting past.

As the Guardian reported (16.8.2001) the couple tried with other promoters to launch GW Pharmaceuticals, a firm developing drugs from cannabis, onto the market.
GW was supported prior to its £175m flotation in June 2001 by a list of prominent people, many of whom saw the value of their investments surge five-fold in the public offering. GW’s flotation infuriated analysts and fund managers, who claim the offering was hyped and over-priced. Immediately after the flotation, shares in GW went into freefall as investors dumped stock.
“Hibbert did well out of it” a well-placed legal source told us yesterday. Investors didn’t.

George Hibbert is also doing well out of Broken Britain. He has a lucrative contract with Staffordshire Social Services: they send him lots of mothers (who’ve had their children removed and put into care) and he spends four to six weeks ‘assessing’ them. For this he is paid, on average, £8,500 a week.

The thing is, his assessments tend to suggest the ‘patients’ have conditions requiring ‘treatment’…at his clinic. One victim of this system – who can’t be named thanks to gagging orders – alleges:

“He told the social I was bipolar, which is rubbish. I discharged myself and got a second opinion from Stafford Mother & Baby Unit. They said the bipolar diagnosis was totally without foundation.”

The two psychiatrists refuting Hibbert’s diagnosis were Drs Singh and Hofberg. In the light of this outcome, a GMC investigation into Hibbert’s activities has begun. The Slog contacted the GMC earlier this week, and was given a ‘we can neither confirm nor deny Dr Hibbert’s fitness to practice’. But other sources confirm that he is indeed under formal GMC scrutiny: the inquiry reference number is ME/C1-205725548, and the investigating officer is Mark Elliot.

Environmental Law campaigner Dr Karta Badshar confirms the widely-held doubts about George Hibbert:

“He’s making a fortune out of this,” he alleged, “when there is often nothing wrong with these patients. He is also using cheap immigrant labour at his clinic, rather than properly qualified people. But you see, this can all be covered up because of the unhealthily incestuous relationship between social workers and judges. It is a scandal”.

The Guardian (like the Slog) has been hammering away at Staffs Social Care incompetence for some years. One spectacular examplefrom their pages in 2004 recorded how the authority had to:

‘….set up a £10,000 trust fund for her. Staffordshire county council is to take the unusual step on the recommendation of the local government ombudsman, who today finds the authority guilty of maladministration causing injustice to the girl, now 16…’

And as for Jill Canvin…she is (guess what) a solicitor specialising in childcare. A source who (again) cannot be named alleged on Wednesday this week:

“She turned up for a meeting as a supposedly objective legal person. Nobody know she was Hibbert’s girlfriend”.

Ms Calvin is (we were told by her pa Tuesday last) ‘moving on’. In rather a hurry, and far too much of a hurry to return five calls made to her offices by The Slogger over three days. George Hibbert also refused to answer our calls.

Next in the http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/revealed-how-staffordshire-social-care.html: This is not an isolated case. How judges collude with ‘Social Worker Law’, and why their role should be reformed.

WEDNESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2010

EXCLUSIVE: ‘STOLEN’ CHILDREN – MYTH OR MURKY SECRET?

The Slog is in the process of putting together a special on abuses in the childcare system, systemic paedophilia in Britain, and the crisis faced by a shortage of reliable foster parents. But many observers think that disturbing signs of ‘child-stealing’ may hide something much worse than Broken Britain.

This site (and its predecessor Not Born Yesterday) has devoted much time and hundreds of column inches to the plight of non-coping families. As Gordon Brown remarked two months ago, “These people’s lives are more chaotic than most people understand”. But the chaos and frequent depression make them more vulnerable than socially dangerous in most cases. Whatever the Daily Mail likes to suggest, serious parental abuse and infant murder remain extremely rare.

The predators are sometimes paedophiles, sometimes cynical social care target-achievers – and from time to time, it increasingly seems to me, private and government organisations with an at least partially hidden agenda.

Most claims I receive about ‘stolen children’ turn out to have an innocent explanation. But a few don’t….and when this happens, a seedy world of judicial cover-up, gagging orders and local government incompetence comes to light. The police, in particular, play a role in some parts of Britain; a role that is, at best, hard to explain.

In this context, Ed Balls runs away to Tweet and mouth platitudes about crackdowns and databases of twelve million…while the ‘Minister’ for Women Harriet Harman shows no signs of caring formothers. But little is done.

In a forthcoming piece, The Slog tries to separate lunatic-fringe conspiracy theory from truth, and expose a disgrace that UK governments have been ignoring for decades.

If you have any factual evidence to support instances of stolen and/or wrongfully removed children, please contact me by emailing to john@johnaward.net.

There a thousands of Madeleine McCanns out there. Not all of them have erudite parents with access to the media.


March 1, 2010

Dedicated to my beautiful children ( im still fighting for you and i love you so so much )

Staffordshire Local Authority in the news

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/stoke-mp-david-kidney-blasted-staffs.html

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2011-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=50

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/revealed-how-staffordshire-social-care.html

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/02/whats-really-happening-in-staffordshire.html

http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/03/fury-as-law-charity-admits-stafford.html

MORE TO FOLLOW

February 24, 2010

Fight Forced Adoption

ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION!!

My name is IAN JOSEPHS.UK Social services have never hurt me, my family, or my friends, but their wicked abuse of power has simply shocked me into action!”Forced adoption” too often legally deprives healthy,happy,children from all contact with loving parents,brothers,sisters,,grandparents,and other relatives for the rest of their lives! Adoption is a wonderful thing for abandoned and neglected children if it is TRULY VOLUNTARY but is a wicked deed that should be severely punished if forced through the courts against the will and frantic opposition of loving parents. Many will say that I overstate and exaggerate my case  thereby undermining it. I promise you that on the contrary I am understating it as things are now far worse than the public could possibly imagine or accept as credible if I revealed all!Please feel free to use or quote anything you like from my site that you may find useful.

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/chat/r/t-9805973/index.html

http://www.fassit.co.uk/charles_pragnell_adoption.htm

http://www.infoniac.com/news/forced-adoption-doesnt-give-parents-any-chance.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forced-Adoption-Ian-Josephs/dp/1847997988

http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2009/11/forced-adoption-and-failures.html

Unborn children on at-risk register
Friday, December 26, 2008, 08:30
2 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.
LATEST figures show more than 60 babies are being put on “at risk” registers while still in the womb each year in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.
The authorities had some of the highest numbers of unborn babies at risk of harm or abuse in a table of 36 authorities’ figures from 2002 to 2007. Staffordshire ranked fourth on the list, while Stoke-on-Trent was at number seven.
From 2002/03 to 2007/08, officials in Stoke-on-Trent have put 168 unborn babies on the Child Protection Register.
In the last year, 31 foetuses were added to the register, with three babies being taken into care on the same day they were born.
The number of unborn babies being added to the list has risen from 23 in 2002/03.
Staffordshire County Council registered 34 foetuses as in need of protection in 2006/07 – up on 31 in 2002/03.
During that period the authority labelled 199 unborn babies as at risk.
The county council’s figures for the last year are not yet available.
Under national guidelines, officials are taking action when faced with violent, drug addicted parents and those in unsuitable accommodation.
Stoke-on-Trent councillor Roger Ibbs, portfolio holder for children and young people’s services, said: “We have robust and vigilant child protection procedures in place.
“National indicators for safeguarding show that we are in line or better than our statistical neighbours or the national average.
“We work closely with our partners on safeguarding and have clear and defined lines of communication to ensure all necessary action is taken as swiftly and as appropriately as possible where a child is, or is seen to be, at risk.”
The Sentinel reported earlier this month how, in an annual performance assessment (APA) looking at the work of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, its private partner Serco and other key agencies, Ofsted found big improvements in child protection work. It said the private team brought in to transform children’s services in the Potteries is starting to make “rapid progress”, despite overestimating some achievements.
But Ofsted added that provision was still only “adequate” overall because a few issues, such as the high rate of teenage pregnancies and inconsistent education standards, remain a concern.
It covers the period from April 2007 to March 2008 – the first year since Serco took over the strategic management of education and children’s social care in the city.
Councils must follow guidance in the Government document Working Together to Safeguard Children – part of the Every Child Matters agenda – and involve agencies such as social services, the police, health trust and NSPCC.
A spokesman for Staffordshire County Council said: “Decisions to make unborn children subject to a child protection plan are made in line with the statutory guidance.
“This same guidance is clear that the same procedures and timescales should be followed for unborn children.”
This month, following a review of safeguarding children policy, Ed Balls, secretary of state for children, schools and families, said: “Every Child Matters has led to some major improvements and the Children’s Plan continues this drive, underpinned by a resolve to make this country the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up.
“Where the most vulnerable groups are still at risk, we will continue to strengthen arrangements to protect them. Government will not rest until we have the very best possible arrangements to safeguard our most vulnerable children.”

A HEARTBROKEN Midland mum has claimed social workers have snatched her two year-old away from her because they say she is not clever enough to care for him.

The 28 year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is pleading with social services at Staffordshire County Council for her young son to be allowed to live back home with her and her parents in Tamworth.

The single mother, who is on anti-depressants for post natal depression, claims her only son, who is being currently cared for by foster parents, was taken away from her because social services ruled she was not bonding well enough with him.

The unemployed mother also claims her learning difficulties played a part in the youngster being taken out of her care.

The court case will be heard tomorrow.

She said: “I have learning difficulties, but I don’t think my son should have been taken away from me.

“I am really upset and angry they said we weren’t bonding well enough because we are really close.

“Now I see him twice a week and he keeps asking why he can’t come home.”

She added: “I have tried to explain he’s on holiday with his foster parents, who are really lovely, but he’s only two and he cries because he doesn’t understand. I just want him back home with me.

Upsetting

“My dad is not well with Alzheimer’s, and he’s very close to his grandson, so it’s really stressing him out and upsetting him that he’s not with us too.”

Staffordshire County Council said the future care of her son would be decided in court.

A spokesman for Staffordshire’s Social Care and Health said: “The Adult Social Care and Health team has been working closely with this woman for over two years now. During this time she has been offered several options of support. More recently, we have provided her with advocacy arrangements and a solicitor to represent her interests.

“Alternative arrangements have been made with the local authority to look after her son whilst a court date concerning his future welfare is fixed.”

A spokesman for Staffordshire’s Children and Lifelong Learning Directorate, which deals with all social care matters regarding children, said: “Children and Families Services have been working with this family for some considerable time.

“Specialist assessments have been undertaken and these will inform the future care planning, which will be determined by court processes. A court date has been set for September.”

The devastated mother added: “I’m upset this is going to court. I just hope the court decides he can come to live back home with me.”

http://www.sundaymercury.net/lifestyle-news/family-news/2009/09/06/heartbroken-mum-told-you-are-not-clever-enough-to-look-after-2-year-old-66331-24616019/

Suicide watch would have saved patient

By Paul Jenkins

A REPORT into the death of a woman patient at a Stafford hospital says she could have been saved had staff checked on her overnight.

An internal investigation is being carried out into the death of a 28-year-old Willow Simpson who was found by staff at St George’s Hospital hanging from the window in her room on February 12 this year.

A Cannock inquest into her death heard an independent report which said Miss Simpson should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts to take her own life.

It also criticised the system of checks on patients at the hospital and the lack of information on individuals given to staff after it found Miss Simpson had been told only seven days earlier that her son was being given up for adoption and she was unlikely to see him again.

The author of the report, independent case worker Julie Lloyd Roberts, said: “Miss Simpson relocated from Wales to Stafford in 2003 when a relationship broke down and she sufferered deteriorating health.

“In April 2006, she was re-admitted to St George’s’ Brocton Ward after an earlier short spell in the hospital.

“After seven months on the ward, she was coming to the end of her period there and the mental health team were looking to place her in supported accommodation.

“She had a meeting with social workers on February 7 to finalise the adoption process for her young son and was told she would have to apply for access to see him and there was nothing she could do to stop the proceedings.

“Staff on the ward didn’t notice her subsequent change of mood and there was no allowance for the possible risk to her health after the outcome of the meeting.

“She should have been on suicide watch after two previous attempts and was completely irrational and very ill at the time of her death.

“Checks were not made on her overnight and I have no doubt she would still be alive if they had been. “I realise the system of checks had been relaxed because of concerns from female patients about privacy and the noise of the doors opening, but their health and wellbeing should have overcome these complaints.”

Stanley Nevin, a health care support worker who was on duty the night before Miss Simpson died, said she had seemed fine and was smiling and chatting in the lounge before going to bed at midnight.

But when he went to wake her up at 7.15am the next morning he found the door locked and had to get his colleague to open it.

They subsequently found her hanging from a window in her bathroom and were unable to revive her.

He admitted he had not checked on her overnight between midnight and 7.15am and was not aware of the meeting she had recently had with her social worker.

But he said there was no fixed system of checks on patients and when it was felt necessary to check on them, it was not every 15 miutes, but more like every hour.

Coroner Andrew Haigh, in recording an open verdict, said it was clear Miss Simpson had killed herself but she was more upset than she appeared after the meeting with social workers and it may have been a cry for help.

He said the health care trust which runs the hospital had been criticised in the report for the haphazard distribution of information and system of checks, and this was being actively investigated.

Amanda Godfrey from South Staffordshire and Shropshire NHS Trust said it took incidents of this kind very seriously.

She said: “Any untoward incident is thoroughly investigated in line with our procedures and the trust endeavours to learn from and improve services as a result of such events.

“As an organisation, we also welcome the opportunity to receive feedback from users of our services, their carers and families and take their views very seriously.”

http://www.staffordshirenewsletter.co.uk/staffordshirenewsletter-news/displayarticle.asp?id=236686

Extract taken from Staffordshire County Council Child Care Team Public Law Outline Training Document

Detailed Assessment – empowering social workers to regain confidence in their own

assessments, as professionals. Demonstrating that a more fuller, clearly evidenced,

analytical assessment would leave little room for parents to successfully obtain leave

for further assessment reducing the delay in this area.

The

worker completed all assessments and was in a position to rule mother

out as a carer prior to the birth of the baby, on historical information.

Mother was notified of our plan and obtained her own legal advice. The

application for a Care Order was in May 2008. Our forward

planning/assessment/evidence gave her no realistic legal argument to

oppose. The case was timetabled to the earliest final hearing date and

was concluded on the 6th November 2008, within 25 weeks. The court

made a Full Care Order and a Placement Order and it is envisaged

Child A will be placed for adoption with his full sibling.

This innovative and progressive training has prepared the client department for the enormous

changes involved in the way that they manage their caseloads. The programme and

expertise has facilitated understanding of the legislative requirements and how to manage the

extensive information that needs to be sought and collated pre-proceedings with a view to all

matters being concluded within 25 weeks instead of the previous 40 week target. The

evidence of the success and achievement of the training package is demonstrable in every

case now undertaken by ourselves.


Denying a child of breast milk is against its Human Rights

“Per curiam. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to remove a baby from his parents at a time when its case against the parents has not yet even been established, then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact, those arrangements being driven by the needs of the family and not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. Local authorities also had to be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed, and should make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so, and not merely to bottle-feed expressed breast milk. Nothing less would meet the imperative demands of the European Convention on Human Rights.”…
In the matter of unborn baby M; R (on the application of X and another) v Gloucestershire County Council. Citation: BLD 160403280; [2003] EWHC 850 (Admin). Hearing Date: 15 April 2003 Court: Administrative Court. Judge: Munby J. Abstract. Published Date 16/04/2003

Child Protection Police Officers Exposed

Filed under: Secret family courts,Staffordshire — nojusticeforparents @ 8:32 am
Tags: , , ,

Ex-abuse detective groomed girl
Andrew Rowe had worked as a police officer for 12 years
A former detective constable specialising in child abuse cases has admitted grooming a 15-year-old girl.
Andrew Rowe, 31, formerly of Ashwood, Stoke-on-Trent, pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court to five charges under the Sexual Offences Act.
Staffordshire Police said Rowe, who was arrested in April, had sent the girl hundreds of messages on a social networking site.
He was remanded in custody and will be sentenced at a later date.
The girl’s family released a statement through the force saying Rowe had “completely abused” the trust people had in him.
It is hard to imagine a more shocking abuse of position by an officer
Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale
Staffordshire Police said after being arrested, Rowe was suspended from duty and then resigned from the force after his first court appearance.
Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale said Rowe, who had worked as an officer for 12 years, had “betrayed” his victim and her parents.
He added: “It is hard to imagine a more shocking abuse of position by an officer.
“There is also evidence to suggest that he tried to cover his tracks and hamper our inquiries by deliberately deleting phone and computer evidence.”
The family’s statement said: “As an officer within the child abuse investigation unit, we regarded Andrew Rowe with the highest level of trust possible – a trust which he went on to completely abuse.
“The hardest thing at the beginning was the prospect of reporting a police officer to the police, wondering what level of support, if any, we would receive.
“We would now urge anybody who finds themselves in a similar situation to report the matter immediately, as we have received the highest level of help and support possible.”

Child protection officer exposed as paedophile is still on police payroll

Sean O’Neill and Russell Jenkins

A police force is continuing to pay a former child protection officer’s £35,000 salary despite his conviction for serious paedophile offences, The Times has learnt.

DC Peter Cooper, 58, was found guilty last month of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy but remains suspended on full pay pending a police disciplinary tribunal.

West Midlands Police will not reveal when its misconduct panel will meet to hear the case, which is expected to result in the officer’s dismissal from the force. It may not take place until after Cooper has been sentenced at Stafford Crown Court this month.

Judge Simon Tonking has already warned the policeman that he could face a significant custodial sentence.

Cooper has been a West Midlands officer for 32 years and was assigned to the Family Protection Unit, investigating child abuse cases, between 2002 and 2005. He was attached to the unit when the allegations against him were made in 2005.

But a spokesman for the force said that it did not plan to review cases in which Cooper had been involved during that period, nor to alert families with which he may have had contact.

The offences of which the officer has been convicted relate to his position as a senior instructor in an Army Cadet Corps in the Midlands between 1983 and 1986. They surfaced two years ago when a former cadet who had been abused by Cooper in the 1980s came face-to-face with him again. Two other former cadets also gave evidence against Cooper at his trial last month.

The three spoke of a culture of sexual abuse in the cadet corps involving a number of volunteer instructors, who held officer rank. The principal witness said: “The cadets had been brainwashed into thinking it [indecent assault] was normal.”

The witness, now in his thirties, told the court that he had gone to the police with the allegations because he reached a point in his life where he could no longer keep it buried. He said: “When sexual abuse happens your trust is shattered and you worry whether people will believe you.”

The jury found Cooper guilty of buggery and indecent assault against the main witness. But it acquitted him of five counts involving the other complainants. Investigators believe, however, that there may have been an organised paedophile ring at work within the cadet corps and that there are more abuse victims who have not yet come forward.

Cooper was a soldier in the Royal Corps of Signals, serving in Northern Ireland among other places, before leaving in 1973 and joining West Midlands Police. He volunteered as a cadet instructor, rising to the rank of major. In 1987 Cooper married and, four years later, left the cadet corps to spend more time with his family.

During Cooper’s police career he spent periods as a firearms officer and in the regional crime squad before joining the Family Protection Unit. Police colleagues who appeared as character witnesses described him as a man who rarely became flustered and said that he was regarded as one of the best in the unit at interviewing suspects.

Cooper denied the charges and his lawyers asserted at his trial that the complainants had colluded to make make false allegations.

Rachel Brand, for the prosecution, told the jury during the trial in July that Cooper was quietly-spoken with a diffident manner but the kind of man that others looked up to. She said that one witness referred to him as a “James Bond figure”.

But she said neither the passage of time nor his service in the West Midlands force absolved Cooper of responsibility for a “gross breach of trust”. She said: “The damage done to these impressionable young men is far-reaching. It causes an emotional turmoil that lasts for many years.”

Miss Brand added that Cooper was “plausible” and “intelligent” but had lied when he denied the allegations. She said: “Throughout the intervening years he must have thought he had got away with it but the truth, we submit, is out at last.”

The force said that it would stop paying Cooper’s salary when he received a custodial sentence. It felt that it was unnecessary to review his work as a child protection officer because he spent most of his time interviewing suspects and would not have been alone with vulnerable children.

A spokesman said: “When complaints are made against officers we carry out robust, thorough and proportionate investigations to ensure the integrity of the organisation. This investigation has been conducted in that manner resulting in the conviction of Peter Cooper and we are clearly disappointed that this officer has failed to uphold the high standards of West Midlands Police.”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that all army cadet instructors recruited now were subjected to strict vetting and checks by the Criminal Records Bureau.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2224849.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8242381.stm

Child Snatching examples

YouTube row over social services baby threat
Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM BST 19 Aug 2007
A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.
YouTube audio: The secret recording
Vanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.
Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.
Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: “Even puppies and kittens aren’t removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn’t we record them?”
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: “I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage ’emotionally abuse’ the child.”
The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.
The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.
Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to “emotional abuse”. Neighbours have complained that the couple’s household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.
In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: “It’s our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers.”
He tells Mrs Brookes: “I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision.”
The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.
The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: “What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that’s my understanding from reading documents.”
A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes “to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.
“The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child.”

YouTube row over social services baby threat Ben Leapman, Home Affairs CorrespondentPublished: 12:01AM BST 19 Aug 2007A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.YouTube audio: The secret recordingVanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: “Even puppies and kittens aren’t removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn’t we record them?”John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: “I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage ’emotionally abuse’ the child.”The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to “emotional abuse”. Neighbours have complained that the couple’s household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: “It’s our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers.”He tells Mrs Brookes: “I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision.”The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: “What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that’s my understanding from reading documents.”A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes “to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.”The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560701/YouTube-row-over-social-services-baby-threat.html

AND SUPRISE SUPRISE THE VIDEO WAS REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE

Social Worker Humour ( please feel free to submit your humour via comments section below )

A woman stood and watched a social worker being beaten by ten people, after a policeman broke them apart he said to the woman, “why didnt you try to help”? to which she replied “i thought ten was enough”

Q. How many social workers does it take to change a light bulb???

A. 13 (1 to change the bulb & another 12 to hold a meeting to discuss how best to change it).

How do you know when there has been a case conference at your local social services office?

Because there is always a smell of bullsh*t in the air.

What is the difference between a social worker and a fly?

Nothing – they both spread crap from place to place.

whats the difference between a social worker and a rotweiler?

its easier to get your kids back off a rotweiler

What is the difference between God and a social worker?
God doesn’t pretend to be a social worker.

Real Cause Of Swine Flu discovered
scientists have made a breathtaking discovery and found that swine flu was actually spread by social workers.The amazing disovering was found after thousands of parents and children complained that they were pig sick of social services.Scientists found a link that social workers were spreading the virus orally by spraying verbal diarrorha.
Dr psychbabble said ” This is a groundbreaking discovery that may save the bacon of thousands of children and families.” He called for the immediate vaccination of every social worker in the land which would have to be injected in their eyeballs.Those that refuse to have vaccine face having compulsory tongue amputations and mouths stitched up to prevent it passing to nspcc workers, barnados,cafcass,and judges although early signs show it may already be to late.
A spokesman for the national swine flu helpline revealed they have already been innundated with calls from cafcass officers that think they have caught it from telling ” porkies “.
We tried to get several people to comment but they all said they were prevented from doing so after being gagged under family law.
This is yet another blow to social services.!
Baroness Dulleth Mingin spokesperson for the Dcsf said ” atchoo oink sniff “

Disclaimer and information for professionals that are:

Risk averse, mentally challenged, mentally disturbed, emotionally damaged.

The content of the thread is for entertainment purposes only & the content of postings are meant as jokes, if any of the above paragraph describes you or a condition that you are suffering from then this thread may be highly inappropriate for you.

Reading this thread whilst suffering from any of the above may cause severe life long emotional damage, even contemplating reading this thread may cause significant harm to your well being or self image or self worth.

However if you happen to be contemplating reading thread or will in fact read the postings contained within this thread and you are a typical child snatching robot nazi, “snatch kids first ask questions later” or you are “always right” & lack a conscience or any moral compass you will probably be indifferent to the thread or at most be angry that others are making jokes about you a “professional”.

Please remember we are not responsible for your mental state prior to or after reading this thread.

New Medicine Available For Social Workers

THE INJUSTICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM ( great site check it out )

THE INJUSTICE OF THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM

undefined

How you deal with Social Workers, Court, Police, Prison, the NSPCC and Probation, is within these pages. Updated, as new laws and even more bureaucracy threaten to overwhelm us

Family advice and information to help with the hypocrisy of the Social Services, NSPCC and Police, who only see that which is beneficial to them. Most families just need help and space to recover, the Social Services, NSPCC and CAFCASS believe the cheapest solution, is to separate them.

The true cost of the overzealous Social Services, the inept and greedy NSPCC and the star chamber family court system needs to be investicated urgently, if the Professionals were sacked or faced prison when they lied, instead of being moved, or retrained when found out, justice would be done. It is left to a Family Court Judge, with the collusion of CAFCASS and Social Services to decide the fate of a family, unfettered by any outside judgement, or publicity, this is far from justice. The police, probation and prison services ensure this injustice is complete. Collateral damage, in order to protect children is seen as a means to an end, tell that to the families left in ruins.

http://www.legalsurvival.co.uk/

Social Workers are the problem not the solution

Social Workers “Wannabe Professionals”

Fighting Child-Stealing by the State

Conference : Lawful Rebellion – Fighting Child Stealing by the State

Duration : All Day

Date : 10th april 2010

Location: Stafford Rangers Football Club, Stafford , West Midlands

Speakers: Brian Gerrish ,Key activists and parents, including oversea’s speakers.

Anticipated support – MPs, local councillors, Police, Social Services, Charities and Quango’s:    None

Background: We now know that thousands of children are being taken from parents by the State using lies, false accusation, false evidence, perjury, intimidation, harassment and secret courts.

Those involved include some MPs, Judges, Police, NHS ( including Doctors, Psychiatrists and Paediatricians) Social Services and Charities.

We recognise that most people are good but that does not allow callous criminal activity to be covered up.

We understand that child-stealing is perpetrated by the State to break up families and leave the children to be claimed for nefarious purposes. The act of stealing is a template which is replicated across UK and in Countries overseas.

Further Details and Contact:

Watch http://www.ukcolumn.org, http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk, http://www.lawfulrebellion.org.uk

February 21, 2010

Adapted from a poem by Stan Gebhardt ( a child in care alienated from parents by social services with tragic results ))

I LOOKED FOR YOU THE OTHER DAY

I HOPED YOU’D SEE ME BUT YOU DIDN’T

I SAID ” I LOVE YOU ” AND WAITED FOR WHAT YOU WOULD SAY

I THOUGHT YOU’D HEAR ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I WANTED YOU TO COME AND PLAY WITH ME

I THOUGHT YOUD FOLLOW ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I DREW A PICTURE JUST FOR YOU TO SEE

I THOUGHT YOUD GET IT BUT YOU DIDNT

I MADE A FORT FOR US BACK IN THE WOODS

I THOUGHT YOUD CAMP WITH ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I FOUND SOME WORMD N STUFF FOR FISHING IF WE COULD

I THOUGHT YOUD COME WITH ME BUT YOU DIDNT

I NEEDED YOU TO TALK TO , MY THOUGHTS TO SHARE

I THOUGHT YOUD WANT TO BUT YOU DIDNT

I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE GAME HOPING YOU WOULD BE THERE

I THOUGHT YOUD SURELY COME BUT YOU DIDNT

I ASKED YOU TO SHARE MY YOUTH WITH ME

I THOUGHT YOUD WANT TO BUT YOU COULDNT

SOCIAL SERVICES HAD TAKEN ME INTO CARE

YOU WANTED ME TO COME HOME SAFELY

BUT I DIDNT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CHILD ABUSE BY THE STATE

19-21 February 2010

By post and by Electronic Mail

copy being forwarded to:

Jane Todd: jane.todd@nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Chief Executive
The Guildhall
Burton Street
Nottingham
NG1 4BT

Alan Simpson, MP: simpsona@parliament.uk
Vernon House
18 Friar Lane
Nottingham
NG1 6DQ

Conduct Group: conduct@gscc.org.uk
General Social Care Council
Myson House
Railway Terrace
Rugby
CV21 3HT

Fitness to Practise
General Medical Council
St James’s Buildings
79 Oxford Street
Manchester M1 6FQ

Julia Hodson, Chief Constable
Nottinghamshire Police
Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

Development Producer
Chameleon Television
Church House
14 Town Street
Horsforth
Leeds
LS18 4RJ

Newsdesk: BBC East Midlands Today
BBC East Midlands
London Road
Nottingham
NG2 4UU

ITN: editor@itn.co.uk
200 Gray’s Inn Rd
London
WC1X 8XZ

Channel 4: viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
124 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 2TX

Central Tonight:
Central Independent Television Ltd
Central Court
Gas Street
Birmingham
B1 2JT

Metro Newsdesk: news.london@ukmetro.co.uk
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT

Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London
EC2A 3EA

The UK Column: editor@ukcolumn.org
UK Column
County House
12/13 Sussex Street
Plymouth
PL1 2HR

Daily Star Newsdesk: news@dailystar.co.uk
The Daily Star
The Northern & Shell Building
Number 10 Lower Thames Street
London
EC3R 6EN

Daily Mail Newsdesk: editor.it@dailymail.co.uk
Associated Newspapers Limited
Northcliffe House
2 Derry Street
London W8 5TT

The Times Newsdesk: home.news@thetimes.co.uk newsdesk@sundaytimes.co.ukcamilla.cavendish@thetimes.co.uk
Times House
1 Pennington Street
London
E98 1TT

The Guardian Newsdesk: national@guardian.co.uk commentisfree@guardian.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU

The Observer Newsdesk: news@observer.co.uk
Kings Place
90 York Way
London
N1 9GU

Nottingham Evening Post Newsdesk: newsdesk@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk martin.done@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
Nottingham Post Media Group
Castle Wharf House
Nottingham
NG1 7EU

The Sun Newsdesk: letters@the-sun.co.uk talkback@the-sun.co.uk
Newsdesk
The Sun
1 Virginia St
London
E98 1SL

Newsdesk: investigate@mirror.co.uk
The Mirror
1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AP

Newsdesk: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
The Telegraph
1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AP

Bob Geldof, KBE: geldof@msn.com
Amanda Hon
c/o Jukes Productions Ltd.
P.O. Box 13995
London W9 2FL
UK

To whom it may concern,

It is with deep concern that I write this letter on behalf of my children who are at this very minute being physically and mentally abused whilst in the care of the State. We are VERY worried about their safety and wellbeing. I shall justify this using several points.

They are arranged in no particular chronological order, I will write this as it comes to me.

– Today, I found out that after nearly seven years on medication to control severe ADHD, the eldest child is already showing signs of uncontrolled aggression towards his two younger brothers after being taken off the drug (Ritalin) since last week. He is suddenly showing an interest in boxing and eager to demonstrate his square circle prowess after only a couple weeks, has landed himself a school detention for “punching a wall”! Like the wall would suffer any; I’ve hit walls and only ended up with several broken bones in my fingers. We actually had him sitting down for five minutes during our supervised contact this afternoon in Larkdale Children’s Prison in Nottingham, and his legs were twitching like any “normal” person on quality amphetamines. This is NOT normal behaviour for Nathanael. Neither is him waving a dinner knife around in front of his brother’s face like it was a sword. He has been taught BETTER THAN THAT. He was put on Ritalin in the first place to control his destructive and disruptive behaviour at HIS OWN REQUEST. The boy KNEW at SIX YEARS OLD he had problems with his behaviour and needed serious help controlling it. Today his eyes were fixed and dilated and he showed signs of extreme mental agitation. He was barely in control.

– Also while at the Contact Centre – I mean, prison – we were half-introduced to a new (to me) member of staff calling herself “Cheryl”. This individual came across as tyrannically authoritarian with an air of “I know it all, you know nothing, you have no opinion until I give it to you”. Immediately on our arrival it disconcerted me to hear her ORDERING my children around like they were her own! Examples: Benjamin turned on the TV. The video wasn’t even playing. Cheryl: “Turn that down now!”. The TV is silent while there’s nothing playing on screen. I gave the boys cereal bars, Cheryl: “Sit at the table!”. It was not a request, it came across as an “Or else…!”. That woman concerns me, I do NOT want her anywhere near my children, she is DANGEROUS. Nathanael sat on the rocking horse in the common area: she attempted to forcibly remove him from it, nearly pulling the thing down on top of him! She did the same to Benjamin, AND to Jamie (ostensibly to keep Nathanael off it, saying he was too big for it, and to allow Jamie and Benjamin equal time on it. I asked her why, in a place that was supposed to be so safe, the hobby horse wasn’t bolted to the floor. She came back with this thought-ending cliché: “You were supposed to be watching him”! I asked her what I was supposed to do, centre rules stated that even if the children were tearing strips out of each other we were not allowed to physically intervene, that only the centre staff were allowed to do that – that and the fact that *she* was standing at the side of the horse and I was over five feet away. I told her in no uncertain terms that if they were tearing strips out of each other I *would* be physically seperating them and damn the consequences. She apparently had no thought-ending cliché for that one. She also had no answer to my assertion that the centre rules undermined *my* natural rights as a parent to protect my children, except to state that oh, we still had those rights – to which my reply was “Well from what we’ve witnessed today they should be coming home with *US* in that case”. She went very quiet on that one after the short gasp. I’m not sure if that was mock shock or genuine.

– Last week, Benjamin exhibited a wound on his midriff which looked like a friction burn – grazed through the skin, and it hadn’t even been cleaned. I wish I’d got a photograph now. He claims that he suffered it tripping over a piece of wood in the school playground. Aren’t schools supposed to be safe? Where did the trip hazard come from? Is it in the accident book? Has the offending piece of timber been removed? The answer to all those questions: NO. The staff aren’t even aware that Benjamin suffered any sort of injury at school (funny they seem to have forgotten the head wound he suffered in the playground last year for which he required a HOSPITAL VISIT and STITCHES. Or the incident with the sharp desk corner, also last year, which left him a disfiguring wound above his right eye (which I do have photos of), that we weren’t informed of the cause of for nearly TWO MONTHS after the event during which time he claimed to have – you guessed it, fell over in the playground! He received NO medical treatment from the school for this, he had to be treated at HOME then the Principal at the school, one Caroline E. Norman, tried to claim it was a CIGARETTE BURN inflicted by HIS MOTHER!) Today, he has a shallow, wide scratch below his right eye on the cheek which he claims to know nothing about, and dirt ingrained in his face, hands and torso. He also smelled of stale urine. It looks like our children are NOT EVEN BEING BATHED.

– WE are being coerced (or they’re trying to anyway, and failing miserably!) to withold all truth from our children. This is fantastic, Benjamin and Jamie are going to be being taught sex education at school starting next academic year, and we’re not “allowed” to tell Nathanael the answer to the question HE HIMSELF ASKED; ergo, the effects of the drug he’s *supposed* to be on on people *without* ADHD!? Please explain the logic of this? That is but one of several examples of active censorship being inflicted upon us, and WE ARE NOT STANDING FOR IT.

If there is something which involves our children and/or their future, we will tell them, and nobody will prevent us from doing that. It is OUR obligation as their natural parents to tell them what is THEIR RIGHT to know. We do not lie to our children, we do not expect them to lie to us; while they were home with us they did not lie to us. Recently they are being caught on what I call small white lies. The lies will only get bigger if they are being brainwashed into keeping things from us. That, and Nathanael’s behaviour since being sent cold turkey from a Class A drug puts him at extreme risk to himself (not just for psychological shock value, but also for its physical manifestations) and puts others around him at extreme risk of injury since he has done this before – destroying a garden at school (luckily nobody was hurt but someone could easily have been since he destroyed not only plants but also planting structures such as sheet film construction greenhouses and some tools). This after ONE HALF DAY without Ritalin! What is happening to him in particular and to the other two when he’s having a violent episode? One can only guess at the amount of force it requires to restrain him while he is violently lashing out. To hold him down would quite possibly injure him – think of someone having a hyper seizure. People have been known to spasm so hard they have broken their own backs.

– We have not seen the contact book, which is apparently intended as a means of communication between ourselves and the contract carer, for several months. We have no telephone contact with our children. We have no written contact with our children. Our extended family have no contact with our children. Their own GRANDMOTHER got THREE MINUTES with them last week as they arrived, only on the strength that she happened to be in town and we met her on her way to the bus stop! The first time she has seen or heard from ANY of them in eleven months! The social workers are *supposed* to be, as agreed in LACR meetings, the care plan, and the Judgement itself dated 2 March 2009, initiating and maintaining contact with their several aunts, uncles, cousins and other blood relatives – they have done NOTHING. We bought Nathanael a mobile phone for his thirteenth birthday to be told that it was “inappropriate” for him to own or operate such a device! Under WHOSE authority and under WHAT LAW do they justify this claim? Government guidelines state that THIRTEEN is the appropriate age for owning a pay-as-you-go cellphone and operating social networking pages and email. The same guidelines make NO EXEMPTION for children in care. Would someone please explain WHY our children are being DENIED their God-given rights to freely communicate whomever they please whenever they please using whatever means made available to them? And WHY we are not seeing the contact book or any other documents particularly now that the children are being prevented from bringing anything to contact with them, not even their school bags – notwithstanding the fact that the last report we did see described Jamie having soiled himself? Why does a nine year old boy soil himself? Is he being physically or sexually abused to the point where he is so anxious about being taken back there that he does not want to *go* back? Bear in mind the fact that the two younger children are and have been for several months now, all but having to be physically pulled off me to be taken to the taxi – THEY DO NOT WANT TO GO TO THE CONTRACT CARER, THEY WANT TO COME HOME WITH US. WHY ARE THEY BEING IGNORED?

– From mid-2007 until the day my children were taken, CAMHS had a case file on them, then Social Services decided that they weren’t needed anymore. Why would mental health services not be required for children who had just been forcibly removed from their family, isolated and desperate to come home? One would have to be practised in the art of lying to children to convince them that they were going to a better place for them not to need it; evidence to the contrary is exhibited every time I see them. They are disturbed, lonely and very, very unhappy in their present situation, the only solution to which is to send them back home where they belong where we can watch over them and protect them.

– My previous concerns about the wellbeing of my children, most of which are ongoing and deeply stressful – you have no idea how stressful unless you have actually been there – were raised with the local police, where a sergeant told me that since they were in local authority care “it’s obviously the best place for them”, they would be taking no action! Have they forgotten about Pindown ALREADY!? Another occasion had a different sergeant accusing me of being mentally ill. I am NOT mentally ill, I am ANGRY! Angry because my family has been torn apart for MONEY. It is obvious to me going by the responses by the police that they are in cahoots with SS to forcibly seperate children from families and maintain the seperation by not giving parents the opportunity to raise legitimate concerns with a public service that was chartered to PROTECT THE INNOCENT and UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND (NOT protect criminals using the Law of the Sea!). This situation severely undermines public trust in the police and encourages vigilanteism. I do not for one minute consider vigilanteism an invalid response at this stage if it means getting my children out of the danger they have found themselves in through no fault oftheir own, for the past year.

– On the subject of school events: We are made aware of school events in which our children are involved – not by the school, but by the parents of other children! We get NOTHING from the school unless we turn up ourselves and demand it (eg term reports, parents’ evenings, open assemblies etc), which suggests to me that we are being deliberately frozen out. What makes this even more insidious is the fact that during the last two LACR meetings the subject of school changes was raised, to which I made clear my position in no uncertain terms: changing the children’s schools is NOT an option under ANY circumstances while they are in care, it being further evidence of SS’ attempts to further alienate our own flesh and blood from us. Aside from that, the fact is we are STILL waiting for the EOY reports for Nathanael from the Nottingham Emmanuel School – why is it being withheld?

– The boys have just had their first birthdays away from home. How would you the reader feel if your children had been taken forcibly from your home, and have to cope with that feeling of utter despair when their birthday doesn’t happen to land on a contact day? Or Christmas? We had no Christmas as such last year. What was the point? Worse than that the fact that we had to further deal with not having ANY contact with our children THROUGHOUT the Christmas holiday – not even a poxy phone call! Turn it around: how would YOU feel if YOU were a child having to spend every day, but especially special days like these, away from your own flesh and blood?

Please, if you have read this far, consider what YOU as a FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN BEING can do in YOUR position of influence (be it local or national authority, media, whatever) to STOP this treatment of these three children and influence Government policy to prevent the same happening to others – and remember also that this is NOT something you can throw more Statutes at, we have more than enough Statutes covering the abuse, all it requires is proper application of those Statutes, of Common Law, of common sense and for the public to be made aware of what is happening to our children and the fact that it could just as easily be THEIR children. Or even YOUR children!

Yours Sincerely,

James of the First-line Family of Moore
Common Law Free Man of the Land of England

Pen Camcorder also available at Maplins

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:42 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Product Description

Pen CamcorderPen Camcorder

This cool new gadget allows you to record up to 16 hours of video and sound directly to the pen’s built-in flash drive. This device looks and writes like a regular pen, so no one will know you are actually recording! This is made possible by a micro DVR (digital video recorder) that is built into the pen. Simply press the button on the bottom of the pen to begin capturing footage.

The possibilities are endless:

http://www.pencamcorder.co.uk/products.php?product=Mini-Pen-DVR-Camcorder-4GB

  • Record your special moments without a bulky camcorder
  • Bring to museums, art galleries, or trade shows for discreet recording
  • Perfect for on-the-go video journalists
  • Bring it everywhere you go to quickly capture any moment.This camera pen is easy to use and features a pinhole camera, making it ideal for discreet and undetected recording.

    When you are done recording, simply unscrew the pen to reveal a standard USB drive. Just plug the drive into your PC’s USB port to view or transfer your captured footage, making it easy to archive or email your video files. Connecting the drive to your computer will also recharge the camera pen, or you can use the included wall charger.

    This camera pen records AVI video clips with a video resolution of 352×288 pixels and also works as a 2 mega pixel camera as well. In addition, this fully functional ball point pen provides smooth writing with black ink that can be replaced with standard refills.
    Features

    • CMOS pinhole camera and micro DVR built into a pen

    • Looks and writes with a normal pen – no one will know you are actually recording

    • Pen unscrews to reveal a USB drive that you can connect to your PC

    • Stores up to 16 hours of video at a time, which can be archived on your computer

    • Built-in Lithium polymer battery can be charged via USB

    • Up to 3 hour battery life per charge

    • Simple, easy to use one-touch recording – just point and shoot!

    • Stylish black and silver design

      List of Contents: DVR Pen Camcorder, USB cable, software CD, user’s manual, 1 year warranty.


Legal Abuse Syndrome suffered By Parents Courtesy of Social Services and The Family Courts

Synopsis of Legal Abuse Syndrome
Legal Abuse Syndrome is a 234 page book which discusses the effects of, and steps to recovery from Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), which the author has defined as a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from abusive and protracted litigation.
Anyone subjected to the abuses of the American civil justice system will immediately identify with the cover and quotations appearing on the back cover of the book.
Ms. Huffer begins in the Preface by defining LAS, and in the Introduction identifies seven LAS victims whose stories she has woven into a highly readable self-help book for other victims of LAS.  Legal Abuse Syndrome also doubles as a text book for mental health professionals providing therapy to LAS victims.
The book is divided into 10 chapters.  Beginning in Chapters 1 and 2, Huffer identifies the symptoms of the LAS victim and the etiology of LAS.  These two introductory chapters are followed by 8 chapters in which the author breaks down the Eight Steps to Recovery, consisting of Debriefing, Grieving, Obsession, Blaming, Deshaming, Reframing, Empowerment and Recovery.
Each chapter begins with a relevant quote which sets the stage for the material presented.  The book concludes with Maya Angelou’s powerful poem, “I rise.”
CHAPTER SUMMARIES</