Hello Surviving Safeguarding – my comments about DV and the process of resources that are provided, was to make comment, for all readers of this article and not just you. My point is that SWs do not simply ignore such a major issue such as DV or fail to provide proper services. There would be clear safeguarding plans to provide such services and any good CP chair would want to know what I had been doing if such services had not been provided. SWs are held to account for every thing they do. Furthermore have exhausted attempts to safeguard children, once proceedings have been initiated, my point is that any recommendation for adoption can only be argued for, once a whole range of other options have been exhausted. This is not down to individual social workers personal practice or doing what they like, but standard processes that have to be followed regardless. I would expect the counsel for parents in proceedings to strongly challenge me or any other social worker if standard protocols have not been adhered to. Once these processes have been completed without success, then and only then does the matter of adoption come on to the agenda.

If LAs have started to set targets for adoption this is to avoid what has happened historically with the large numbers of children drifting in care institutions or who have been through multiple foster care placements, or for whom SWs continue to try to work to try to return a child to their family. However, I can think of many cases where children yo-yo in and out of the care system, because of failed attempts to ‘rehabilitate’ children and for whom the option of permanent alternative placement has been denied, because of misguided attempts to rehabilitate. Untold harm is done to this group of children.

In my view, the government targets are aimed at getting permanent decisions for children made, however difficult that may be, to avoid this very kind of failing children in care. Until we examine in depth each and every case outcome, in terms of the statistics for adoption, we cannot really say. This is not with the agenda of proving there is government conspiracy to take children from working class parents and place them with nice middle class ones, but to look at the what happens when Social work fails numerous children who are languishing in the care system. Then perhaps we can have an informed date with the facts to hand, not just LAs setting targets for the number of children that will be adopted. This has to be seen in the context of what has happened for children in care in the past.

Hello Surviving Safeguarding – I would be really interested to know what the Judge’s reaction was to such comments – as I would anticipate any such views would be strongly challenged, especially by your own counsel and the Judge, unless you can evidence it – especially since the Re:A case law, where even hearsay is strongly challenged, let alone suppositions and what ifs….

I agree too; I say above government rhetoric around adoption is unhelpful, governments of all ills seem to think adoption is a solution of whatever kind. It really isn’t. It really is a nothing else will do measure. It was also very unhelpful for Martin Narey to bust myths that weren’t myths and for Edward Timpson to mention re B-S as reducing the numbers of children being adopted this week in the Children and Social Care Bill debate.

However, the framework of the law is much more influential in SW practice than anything any government says, until they change the law.

SW give mums the responsibility of leaving their partner in order to keep the child safe was the obvious inference from my comment. I agree it isn’t straightfoward, there needs to be insight and motivation to change, neither of the Butler parents had that. I also wasn’t suggesting that children are left at risk, just making a point that vulnerable women are given responsibility for protecting children when we all know how hard those relationships are to leave for a variety of complex reasons.

There does appear to be much debate about what works in perpetrator programmes and much conflict. Since those people move onto other relationships and are a risk to other children, the problem is perpetuated. There appears to be more work around victims than perpetrators and that might be because what works is more complex, but it doesn’t mean that that shouldn’t be our focus. Thanks for the link, I am familiar with it already.

I don’t think custodial sentences are the answer, nobody can be locked away for ever anyway, and if you don’t do the work with someone they might not be with that mum & child but they do move onto other relationships.

Hi Annie, it certainly wasn’t a personal dig, so apologies if it came off that way. I can see how at face value, some of those results are very concerning, I think there’s just a wider story and probably some ineffective reporting from the local authorities.

I agree – look at David Cameron’s “unashamedly pro adoption” speech. What about being “unashamedly-what’s-in-the-best-interest-of-the-child”??

Hi again,
Having been through DV, having worked with mums going through proceedings who are victims of DV, I can honestly say that even if you do leave, you still then fall victim to the “future risk” that you might then engage in another violent relationship, or go back to your abusive partner. Or I have also heard it said that mum is now unable to cope as a single mother. Many times, you cannot win.

Hi,

Thanks for your comment. I think that’s the point; we don’t know that that is what the “targets” are because the LAs are not evidencing that within the FOI requests. So, naturally, it can be read a number of ways. You have read it one way (if you have read the TP research), I have read it another. You cannot “promise” me anything, with all due respect.
I have never believed that SWs get bonuses for removing children; I still believe that to be nonsense pedalled by people who cannot accept that their own failings have lead to their children being removed.
Thanks

Hi Anita,

Thanks for your comment. Again, without appearing rude, I know the process very well and do not need it explained to me. I’m also not sure the relevance of your point about DV? Perhaps you could explain further?
We will have to agree to disagree that adoption targets are a factor. I have spent a great deal of time carefully reading and researching the Transparency Project’s evidence, and – as I have already said – I’m not a woman easily swayed. The evidence, although ambiguous, is there within the FOI requests. I have read that in my own way, and based upon my own experiences I was asked to write this piece.