[Update 15/5/15 : We’ve now put all the conference material together on our events page here and we’ve stopped updating this post. The most up to date programme is on our events page.]
Policing Parents? Protecting Children? Promoting Adoption?
Do we get the child protection system we deserve
The Transparency Project is pleased to announce a multi-discliplinary conference, on 1st June 2015, which will discuss the different views and perspectives from experts, lawyers, social workers, parents and care leavers in an attempt to re-position the current unhealthily polarised debate around the child protection system.
We will be joined by Dr Lauren Devine of UWE who is currently undertaking research into the evidence base for our current system and by Brigid Featherstone, co-author of ‘Re Imagining Child Protection’. The event is sponsored by St John’s Chambers, Bristol.
The conference will take place at the NCVO facilities, near Kings Cross in London.
The timetable for the day is set out below.
Please note our ‘Ground Rules’ as set out briefly below and discussed in more detail here.
NEWS AND UPDATES
Please note that workshop A is no longer available 23/02/15
We are delighted to announce that the Family Rights Group will be joining Workshop C – Therapeutic interventions and community support 23/02/15
We have started collecting brief biographies of those who will be speaking at the conference. We are aiming to have a conference specific website up and running where we can collect information about what is discussed, proposals for next steps etc.
REGISTRATION AND PAYMENT
We have some tickets left but need to confirm final numbers ASAP. If you would like to come, please email info@transparencyproject.org.uk by Friday 15th May. Tickets are priced at £5 for unwaged, £30 for waged, £50 for professionals of 5 years or less PQE, £100 for professionals of more than 5 years PQE.
Payment can be made by cheque to the Transparency Project, or via on line transfer to account number 11508415, sort code 40-17-50.
Ground Rules for All Participants
The aim of the conference is to share views and experiences of the current system in order to be able to talk about what goes well, what goes badly and what we can do better. We would like to be able to produce something in writing after the conference that could help politicians, professionals and others better understand the child protection system.
We know that a lot of people feel strongly about this debate and rightly so, because it is important. We know that some people will come to the conference with their own experiences, some of which will have been very negative for them. However, for this conference to achieve anything worthwhile, participants must be able to contain their own emotions from spilling out into words or behaviour which will disrupt proceedings or make any other participant feel unsafe.
We request that all participants respect each other and the aims of the conference and anyone who is unable or unwilling to do this will have to leave. The decision of any individual member of the conference organising committee will be final in this regard.
We discuss the necessary ground rules in more detail here.
CPD points for solicitors
We have received the following information from the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
From November 2014:-
- Solicitors do not have to complete 25% of their 16 hours annual CPD through accredited activity, the basic 16 hours will remain.
- removing the defined terms ” authorised CPD provider” and “authorised distance learning provider” from our regulations
In relation to the course you are running in June, this still can be counted towards a Solicitor’s 16 hours of annual CPD as where solicitors are not opting into our new approach for training, they will still need to complete 16 hours worth of CPD training, however, none of this needs to be accredited.
You may wish to review the information on our website for further information.
http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/training-for-tomorrow/Resources/cpd-position-statement-q-a.page
http://www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/training-for-tomorrow/resources/cpd-position-statement.page
Suggested topics for afternoon discussion – from 3.15 – 4.15
Please note these are NOT the workshops! you will find those on the timetable below at B-D.
Suggestions are coming in for the issues most likely to require debate/discussion. Please feel free to contact us to add more. We want to understand what people are most concerned about and what, if anything, we can do to improve.
- Section 20 agreements – the drift and delay problems. Are there adequate mechanisms in place for review of these? What’s the IRO doing?
- The anti-authority parent – does disagreeing with or failing to co-operate with a social worker equate to being a ‘bad parent’? What can be done to improve relationships between parents and social workers? These issues are highlighted in the recent Hertfordshire case and discussions over at suesspicious minds.
- Risk of future emotional harm – Re B [2013] is this an acceptable basis for removing children for adoption?
- Perception of experts as independent – what should happen if experts in a case are on a ‘paid retainer’ with a LA? also an issue raised in the Hertfordshire case above.
- Problems with ‘working together’ – example of recent disjunction between family and housing law discussed by Nearly Legal. How do we make sure family courts have the best information about issues they may not be familiar with nor fully understand?
- Opening up the family courts – the impact on children. Is it likely to be a serious as some fear? What lessons can we learn from other jurisdictions?
- Impact on care proceedings of the rise of litigants in person – what can be done to improve position for people who won’t get legal aid? see discussions by John Bolch on Marilyn Stowe’s blog.
- Funding for therapeutic intervention- what options should or could be available for parents who are advised they need lengthy therapy/counselling?
- How is the UK system viewed in Europe? – note the recent report ‘Social services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States’, in particular para 74 which criticises the refusal of the UK system to reverse adoption orders as a ‘misunderstanding’ of what is in the best interests of a child.
Timetable for the Day
| 9.15-9.45 | Registration | |||||||||||
| 9.45 -10.00 | Introduction and welcome | Sir Mark Hedley | ||||||||||
| 10.00-10.30 | Evaluation of the Evidence Base for current practice | Dr Lauren Devine UWE | ||||||||||
| 10.30-11.00 | Re-Imagining Child Protection | Brigid Featherstone | ||||||||||
| 11.00-11.30 | Coffee break | |||||||||||
| 11.30-12.00 | Expert reports and assessments; new directions for 2015. | Lisa Wolfe and Vicki Ellis | ||||||||||
| 12.00-12.30 | Care leavers’ perspectives | Kirsty Seddon | ||||||||||
| 12.30-1.15 | Parents’ perspectives on the system | Introduction by Jerry Londsdale . | ||||||||||
| 1.15-2.00 | Lunch | Invitations to complete a ‘next steps’ questionnaire online. | ||||||||||
| 2.00 – 3.15 | Parallel discussion groups/workshops | See below | ||||||||||
| 2.45-3.15 | refreshments and informal discussions | Post-it note ‘instant’ feedback wall | ||||||||||
| 3.15-4.15 | Top table panel lead Q&A discussion | Top table of morning’s plenary speakers | ||||||||||
| 4.15 – 4.30 | Closing summary, distil the day and key outcomes – call to action? | Sarah Phillimore | ||||||||||
WORKSHOPS from 2pm to 3.15pm
|
||||||||||||
The activities of the UK family courts have become a major area of concern for a period of years. There is no doubt that injustice is occurring and that parents face a plethora of professionals which can be overpowering, especially if the professionals have already made up their minds, even though there is no criminal charge to answer to. In many cases the family courts appear, not to be used as a last alternative but as a first.
I have absolutely no doubt at all that Local Authorities are abusing the use of section 20 and are using the family courts as an easy solution to resolve problems of a nature different to physical or psychological abuse of a child. Many parents who are innocent of illegal acts against their children are forced or coerced into separation from them by use of section 20 and some have not even been allowed legal advice before signing.
Other parents have been subject to a range false allegations, from having mental health problems to having convictions, which they did not have along with the submission of false, erronious and inaccurate information into the court by Social Workers. Although I have no direct experience of the family courts myself. I have helped friends prepare and rewrite letters and documents for their court hearing and as a result have come across some pretty astounding discrepancies in the evidence gathered, presented and provided to the court and I include in this false allegations and testimony.
This evidence has gone on to be accepted by a judge and it appears that judges within the family courts are far from impartial when it comes to the acceptance of evidence, especially if that evidence has been prepared by the Local Authority and even if it does contain discrepancies. This is a complete violation of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, a right to a fair and impartial hearing. However, there is a difficulty in revealing these problems, and that difficulty lies in the fact that the courts themselves are protected by secrecy and confidentiality and one can easily find oneself in contempt of court, even if it could be classed as being in the public interest to reveal what is actually happening.
I know of cases where evidence has been changed, alleged conversations, been altered amended or adjusted and false evidence presented to make a case for the Local Authority. This amounts to perjury and certainly means that the professionals concerned cannot and indeed must not be trusted. Evidence which is altered, adjusted or amended is not evidence, but when it comes to the removal of children, evidence submitted should at least be honest and accurate or at the very least be fair in its representation. No person I know can have positive reports of their parenting submitted by health visitors, yet become a monster in the eyes of a Social Worker. Yet I have also seen this.
I directly know of cases, where evidence has not been accurate and certainly there are hundreds if not thousands of raised voices across the country that false or inaccurate evidence has been used in other cases.
As for risk of future harm, there should be a rigid framework around the application of this protocol and it should be accompanied, at the very least, firstly by medical evidence of physical and or psychological abuse or neglect and secondly there should be a previous history. This is an element which quite literally amounts to a “crystal ball”, which without there being a background, has no justification for application and indeed amounts to nothing other than supposition on behalf of Social Workers. No single agency, should be able to use the risk of future harm, without the support of documented medical evidence to support the claim. To do otherwise is placing the Social Worker in a position of almost complete autonomy. Effectively it even makes complaints difficult as parents could become afraid of consequences if they do complain. No single professional agency should have that power. Evidence based on a future risk, would never be accepted in a criminal court, so why on earth should it be allowed as evidence in a family or secret court? Although if there is a previous history, as I have mentioned above, it is perfectly reasonable to take precaution as a measure; future risk of harm should not be a justification to remove children on its own merit.
The other issue surrounding the famly court, is not only legal aid, but also access to court transcripts. Court Transcripts are an accurate recording of that which has occurred during the case; whereas a public judgement is merely the reflection of the judge’s opinion. This does not take into account aspects of a case where there has been a strong challenge to the evidence which the Local Authority has used. Court transcripts should not be out of the reach of the average person and indeed could provide a valuable basis on which to place an appeal.
Also, even if there is a right to appeal, it appears that some judges will simply not grant that right and that too has to be fought for; even to the point where an appeal has to be submitted in order to keep legal aid. Again, if there are anomolies in the hearing and questions over evidence have arisen, which the the judge has not taken any notice of, then at least one appeal is essential. We are not talking here about parents who have been prosecuted, but parents who to all intents and purposes may well not have had a fair hearing.
Which brings me to my final concern. It is without doubt that some judges are in the habit of “rubber stamping” the case for the local authority, allowing employees of the Local Authority and other agencies, such as Cafcass, to write what they want. Accuracy and truth seem in some cases seem to have been sacrificed in favour of and bias towards Local Authorities and their professionals. If anything this should be the deepest concern. In fact when one takes into consideration the secrecy which these courts operate under, it merely grants an unassailable autonomy to the Local Authority and other agencies involved. Indeed, the cover of secrecy and confidentiality, quite literally is used as a cover to break the law. We have in this country effectively created barrier, after barrier to justice; complaints are internally investigated and most are probably ignored. The “system” takes care of itself and yet professionals scratch their heads and wonder why people feel they cannot trust them. The lack of trust is because both professionals and the legal fraternity have built themselves an autonomy an autonomy which can quite literally remove children at will, whether there is evidence to do so or not. This is not acceptable in a modern legal system. Indeed, we would need to look back to the inquisition, to find such.
Judges need to be accountable for the evidence presented, Social Workers and Cafcass should have a legal duty to ensure evidence is accurate and honest. If not and if Social Workers are found to have lied, they should be subject to stringent and rigorous disciplinary procedures. We are after all talking about a lifetime of separation from the parent. The very least which should be done is to ensure that evidence is not inaccurate or untruthful. A Social Worker, as things stand at the minute has the power to destroy lives. Lives of both parents and their children. After all, if a child is removed from a parent illegitimately, does that not also amount to child abuse?
James Mee.
Having had experience of the child protection process and the court system, one thing always stood out for me. The way social workers twisted the truth, lied and even when perjury was proven, neither the judge or social workers batted an eye.
The major issue for me was the pattern used to persecute parents and even children.
Then I came across the study below and there it all was verbally explained. Over the years I have shared this with parents and every one asked where did you get this?.”this is identical to my case. The tactics are always the same.
Its like a social workers manual on how to persecute parents and children.
As a professional I was shocked at the way I was abused, threatened, mentally tortured in secret. I was shocked at how my children were legally abused by those paid to protect them. I was especially shocked at the use of threat therapy on abused children to silence them.
http://www.nkmr.org/en/import/2521-the-rhetoric-case-by-linda-arlig
“THE RHETORIC CASE
Persecution strategies in a child care order investigation .
The purpose of this study is to make a critical examination of six official reports in an LVU (Care of Young Persons Act) investigation, to detect the possible occurrence of persecution strategies in the social welfare service reports and, in that case, to define the strategies used and examine whether the investigation complies with the legitimate claims of objectivity and impartiality.
In the official reports, fifty-six different persecution strategies appear. Definitions of the strategies found are produced, and their application in the case will be shown in passages from the reports. The main patterns seen in the investigators’ actions are: “Power defines reality,” and “influencing and persuading the reader”. Two techniques were found in the material, withholding and fabricating, which co-operate to make an investigation defective. The strategies have been divided into six groups depending on their purpose:
Persuading the reader through language: contains twelve strategies that the investigators use to try to make the reader come to the same conclusion as themselves.
Making the client seem pathological: contains eight strategies that describe the client as peculiar, mentally unstable, aggressive, etc.
Ignoring objectivity aspects: contains seventeen strategies such as, for example, ignoring the client’s perspective, suppressing information, exaggerating information, fabulation, irrelevant statements, etc.
Exercising power and control: contains six strategies that are all connected with the authorities trying to take control of the client’s life.
The authorities know best: comprises five strategies containing blind faith, moralising, self-justification, emphasis on the social authorities’ resources and exceeding the limits of one’s competence.
Feel-think-believe-experience-interpret: contains nine strategies that are influenced by the investigators’ subjective interpretations, arguments, etc.”
The problem with ‘The Rhetoric case’ is that it seems to make sweeping assertions and doesn’t explain how it makes them i.e. ‘the social worker told lies’ – who determined they were lies? Maybe I haven’t given it a fair reading, but the very small type face and dense lay out was not conducive to a happy reading experience.
Few take into account the trauma children suffer on removal from home. This trauma remains for a lifetime and results in all kinds of illness, psychological issues, etc.
Anyone with access to the medical files of babies removed from loving homes will read the uncontrollable crying of the children for days, weeks, months and even hospitalized, until the child breaks and the soul fragments.
We see the older children once on gifted and talented registers suddenly on removal into care slip way down and end up on drugs and drink and in jail.The children from the same family -too old to take away all have professions, even police officers, nurses etc.
One has to ask how was this better than at home?
Well, one answer could be that if they were left at home, they’d be dead. I don’t mean to be flippant but it isn’t just as simple as saying removal = trauma so don’t remove. Children are at most risk of death and serious harm in their own homes, at the hands of adult carers. Our goal as a society must be to restrict intervention to when it is proportionate and when it is needed. I accept that sometimes the present system gets it badly out of balance. But not always.
I am very interested in the subject of the anti-authority parent. The LA admitted there was nothing wrong with my day to day parenting capacity (‘It is more than good enough’.) BUT because I refused to work with people who I deemed incapable (it is a hazard of my occupation) my son has not come home ‘Unable to co-operate with professionals’.
A question I sometimes ask clients who are waging war with the LA is ‘do you want to be happy? Or do you want to be right?’ sometimes, as the wise penguins in Madagascar say, the best strategy is ‘just smile and wave boys, smile and wave’.
Sarah, you will probably not like my answer; ‘Being right makes me happy.’ That sounds a bit trite but is the truth. As someone who’s occupation is about assessing professional competency, when I find social worker’s displaying bad or sloppy practice, I call them on it with fact based evidence. I also use their own correspondence to show where they think they can cover up errors and attempt to absolve themselves of the implications of their unprofessional behaviour. I am the first to say ‘Everyone is allowed to make mistakes; it is part of human’, but not when it is an almost daily experience. I have also encountered social workers (both myself and working on behalf of other parents) that when challenged- ‘So what is wrong with the way I do x,y or z?’ are answered with ‘Well, nothing really, it’s just not what I would do.’
I have made social workers (again working for myself and others) aware of my professional background. I have explained that I will work with anyone who is capable of showing the ability to competently perform their role, demonstrate the necessary skill set for the role and able to recognise errors and correct them in the best interests of the client’s interests (whether that be a child, a vulnerable adult, etc) Yet, all that I continually find is people on mini power trips who believe they are above their client group. (I have had ridiculous things such as ‘The house is too clean for a professional in a high power job.’, ‘The children own too many books.’, ‘The family attend the wrong church.’ (in this instance CofE!), ‘it is unnatural for a 3 year old to know what a steak is but doesn’t know what a Chicken McNugget is.’, ‘It is not fair that you have a nicer house than me.’, ‘Why are you wasting your money on private education.’, I don’t think it is fair you have two cars.’, etc, etc, etc. I have had social workers ask ‘Can you use smaller words, I don’t know how to spell them or what they mean.’, I have to tick a box….it’s says I have to tick a box, can you look and see which one is the best?’, etc, etc, etc. By documenting this (as above) poor, sloppy, bad and level of incompetent practice, this has given me a ‘label’. Hence, my interest in the topic. DG
It’s not relevant whether or not I like your answer. Its whether or not the choices you make are the right ones for you and your family. In every walk of life we will meet people who are less competent than us but who have power over us in some shape or form. Sometimes these people must be challenged and resisted, sometimes it is far better to humour them with gritted teeth so that they go away. Only you know what outcomes are best for you and your family. I just wonder whether resistance is always the best policy in all circumstances.