We recently wrote about an article by Louise Tickle in the Guardian which had caused a certain amount of controversy, in particular arising from her use of the term ‘kidnap’ to describe failures of local authorities to act appropriately when accommodating children under s20 Children Act 1989, as illustrated in a recent judgment concerning a significant number of children in the care of Herefordshire Council. As well as being a freelance journalist, Louise is a member of The Transparency Project group.
We’ve noticed that the Guardian have now published a comment piece which seems to be a response to Louise’s kidnap article, or at any rate to have been prompted by it. It has generated an amount of discussion within the Transparency Project group and it’s fair to say that there is some divergence of views, which probably reflects a wider lack of consensus about how we should publicly discuss issues around failures of local authorities or of social workers.
The reply post is by a social worker going under a pseudonym and is entitled : A warped view of social work in the media is unfair – and dangerous.
You can read Louise’s original article ‘The state has a terrible secret : it kidnaps our children’ here, and our post ‘Secret State Kidnap – breathless headline or blunt reality?’ here.
The central complaint of the pseudonymous author is that recent media coverage of social work ‘has misrepresented the system that seeks to protect children’. The examples it gives are a piece that appeared in The Economist in March : From Cradle to Court – The troubling surge in English children being taken from their parents, and Louise’s piece.
Of The Economist it is said that they failed to draw the distinction between ‘looked after’ children and removed children. There are of course some looked after children who are not removed and where the plan was never removal, and the Economist don’t draw that distinction. But whilst the Economist article mentions the number of looked after children, it is focussed on the rise in the number of children who are the subject of a court application, the statistics for which have been rising year on year for a decade.
Although there are no readily accessible statistics showing what proportion of looked after children are under care orders with a plan for remaining at home, those who work in the court or child protection system (including the social worker who wrote the piece) will know that it is relatively unusual for a child to be the subject of a care order and yet placed at home – and that in some local authorities it just never happens. Although we don’t know the precise breakdown of ‘looked after at home’ and ‘looked after removed’ children, there has been a prolonged and marked statistical trend of more and more children being the subject of proceedings – so we don’t think there can be any real doubt that more are also being removed from their parents.
The second point made against The Economist is that the article doesn’t acknowledge the move away from adoption towards the proper exploration of alternative options like special guardianship in recent years (following Re B-S in 2013). That seems to be a legitimate criticism – the Economist cite the rise in the number of applications for care orders, but do not refer the reader to statistics on the outcomes of care proceedings. The Family Court Quarterly statistics routinely show a discrepancy between the number of care order applications and the number of care orders – a care application does not always result in a care order, either because a child remains at home / goes home or is placed with family members, typically under a special guardianship order.
What is clear and accurate from The Economist article is that the state is resorting to taking families to court with the prospect of removing children and all that brings with it, much more frequently.
Louise’s article though, is said in terms to be ‘dangerous and damaging’. The author acknowledges that there is evidence that social workers have ‘misapplied the law’, but there is no sense that the author has read and taken on board the judgment in the case that Tickle is reporting about, which sets out really quite significant poor practice and unlawful behaviour (we think that describing the behaviour of the local authority as described in that judgment as a mere ‘misapplication’ of the law is minimising the extent of the failures – if you want to know why, read the judgment here. As one of our group members (Polly, a lawyer) says : ‘retaining a child in the face of parental objection for years is not a misapplication of the law but a fundamental rejection of the whole idea that there is a threshold and legal oversight. It’s egregious’).
Whilst the author complains that ‘reporting of the basics of the child protection system is […] often seriously flawed’ (as it undoubtedly is), this journalist is generally known for her careful and thorough writing on this area, and this particular article by her is factually accurate and underpinned by a specific example, with a link to the judgment. So even if one takes issue with the use of the phrase ‘kidnapping’ or phrases which appear to point the finger at frontline social workers in general, this seems an odd example to pick to best illustrate poor or unfair journalism.
Complaint is made that Tickle’s article trivialises a complex issue and is ‘used to justify condemnation of the whole profession’.
There is an irony here : a social worker complaining that journalists use words to condemn their whole profession, whilst using words to condemn the whole journalism profession.
It may be that Tickle’s article ‘ignores the sheer complexity of the decisions social workers make day-to-day and undermines the work we do to help children and families in crisis’, but the author does not acknowledge that opinion pieces are inevitably tightly word limited, and that Tickle has written sympathetically of the difficulties faced by social workers on other occasions.
It’s not clear how the article trivialises the issue – if anything it emphasises a serious issue by using emotive term ‘kidnap’ to describe very poor behaviour. Many have condemned the use of the term kidnap. Others take the view it is hard hitting but legitimate description of evidenced examples of unlawful removal of children. Whilst in our previous post we didn’t think that the intention was to denigrate the whole profession, it is clear that a number of people have interpreted it as doing so. It may be that there is a need on both sides to reflect on the language used and the reaction to it.
It is really important that when the state does bad things and breaks the law, the press are able and willing to report that – however much flack they get for it. The vilification of social workers, who do a tough job in difficult circumstances, is also unhelpful – it makes it harder for social workers to do their jobs. There is a real tension at times between those two things. The answer of course is to avoid failures in the first place, as then there will be nothing to report on – but this is often out of the control of individual social workers because the problems are systemic.
So, a conversation that basically runs like this :
SW ‘Stop calling us kidnappers!’
Journalist : ‘Stop breaking the law and I’ll stop saying it!’
is probably not hugely productive.
We think that professionals like social workers must be ready to accept criticism of their colleagues, the system they work within or their profession where individuals, organisations or systems clearly fall below an acceptable standard, and that they need to better understand that a journalist who writes a story about social work failure or local authority practice is simply doing their job, a job that by its nature makes life uncomfortable for someone (a position that social workers ought to be able to empathise with). And that it is no part of the function of journalism to act as a public relations conduit for social work.
This should be mirrored in the other direction : journalists and media organisations who issue condemnation of individuals or organisations like social workers or local authorities, must be prepared to listen to pushback. There is room for both.
It might be helpful to think of it this way : whilst journalism about what is working well in social work is to be welcomed, generally the good news stories ‘do not meet the threshold for [journalistic] intervention’.
It is probably as hard for social workers to get a good news story about social work heard as it is for journalists to get a fair hearing amongst social workers. Perhaps each profession needs to gain a better understanding of the ethical underpinning, context and function of the other to break out of this sometimes repetitive cycle?
thank you – a clear and fair post. My essential worry is that ‘kidnap’ implies a clear sense of deliberate, criminal wickedness – which is unlikely ever to be true in a system where (it seems to me) decisions are often imposed by management on social workers ‘on the ground’ for reasons other than the immediate welfare of any particular child. The real evils here are inertia, overwork, poor training, lack of reflection/knowledge.
I do not mean to attempt to excuse unlawful behaviour on such a scale and for such a long time. I don’t excuse that. It should not be happening and journalists should be exposing it.
But when the pendulum swings back and forth between ‘monster parents’ and ‘demon social workers’ children are of course no safer, as the journalistic fuelled hysteria over ‘Baby P’ indicates so horribly clearly.
‘Social Workers break the law’ would be a true and accurate headline without the added element of deliberate criminality – but I appreciate that it would have less of an impact as a headline.
We all need to understand the impact of our actions and inactions and there is no special pleading for any professional group when they get things wrong, nor should there be any wish to avoid criticism. Any attempt to avoid scrutiny (because I am looking out for children! or because I protect Article 10!) should be challenged. The whole point is to get to the facts as without the facts nothing can ever be recognised, challenged or successfully changed.
I am a social worker working with a cp team. I am horrified at what I see I recently witnessed a SW mislead the court on purpose to obtain an ICO on a new born baby. I have no where to go to raise concerns as I know I will have my professional capabilities put into question the LA is a powerful institutional company. The women that dominate it are in some cases wicked. My manager once laughed that she had to take a baby from her mother whilst breast feeding. This same manager is biased, unprofessional and a disgusting human-being. She said she can make an assessment either positive or negative depending on how she writes it, this is true and I see it alot. For instance a pregnant mother had her baby removed at birth and during court is was said she missed 9 midwife appointments, however what was not said was that she missed them cause she had contact with her daughter and if she missed that contact that would be used against her. What also was not mentioned are the number of appointments attended, thus the court did not have the true picture. The social worker also said parenting classes were offered and mum refused- blatant lie this did not happen. She was offered a real life baby two weeks before birth after asking for 4 months. I see this time and time again the LA mislead and lie because they know by the time it gets to court the judge has no option but to agree because nothing else has been prepared. So yes I do believe that SW can kidnap children and those of us who witness it are too scared to come forward. there needs to be more transparency.
Hope, what you describe is really serious. I hope you reported it.
Lucy
The integrity of the public image is far more important than the life of a family or so it would appear in these cases. However to keep that integrity we need transparency and trust but how can you trust a corrupt institution you can’t hold account ?
I think it is important when talking about the Hereford case to recognise that the point when kidnap is an accurate description is when the parent exercised the legal right under section 20 to end it and have the child back, and the Local Authority simply ignored it. They at that point had no lawful basis for keeping the child in their care, and at that point were illegally keeping the child and parent apart.
The bringing of the child into section 20 foster care wasn’t a kidnap – there may have been very important questions about whether it should have happened (given the age of one of the parents involved) and there have been lots of cases complaining about misuse of section 20 by way of failure to explain rights, or applying pressure or duress, or drift and delay after it is given, but that’s not ‘kidnap’
I think in the two Hereford cases described in the judgment, it is a valid word to use. In general section 20, even the dreadful failures in section 20 cases which the Courts have ruled on, it isn’t. Bad section 20 is for me, a category difference from these two Hereford cases where it was simply ignored that after the parent says ‘I want this section 20 to end’ that the LA had to either give the child back or obtain a Court order. They instead, just ignored (or weren’t aware of – either is bad) the parents legal rights and proceeded as though the protection and safeguards in the Act weren’t there.
(In short, I think Louise could legitimately use the word kidnap when talking about the Hereford case, but it was overstating it to use it as the headline suggested. Journalists don’t tend to write headlines)
The word ‘kidnap’, which carries the taint of criminality, is most usually defined from more general ineptness or mismanagement by there being proven intent. It may be true that removals first take place due to overwork, lack of available support, sloppy assessment or other poor practice: however, it becomes ‘kidnap’ when the Local Authority become aware that the child has been removed mistakenly as a result of poor practice, and, rather than rectifying things, make protracted efforts to justify their error to the distress of both the children and the family. It is unfortunately too often the case that unless senior professionals from related fields, ie consultants who have finalised a diagnosis, or mental health professionals, spend a great deal of effort pressurising Local Authorities to reappraise their plan, it is unlikely to receive focus. The excuse that any change now may cause instability is used to maintain children in circumstances where they may be chronically unhappy; their lack of an effective voice escalates into self-harm or other destructive behaviour. Lack of accountability enables social workers to maintain bad decisions that often cause the very problems their actions were intended to solve. In the light of such callously generated trauma, arguing over terms seems to be a low priority.
“What is clear and accurate from The Economist article is that the state is resorting to taking families to court with the prospect of removing children and all that brings with it, much more frequently.”
100% True.
And this is not just about LA’s taking parents to court, its also about how they unlawfully use their Tax payer funded Solicitors to help Social workers damage parents using very Cruel strategic warfare and dirty tricks. generally the parents have no chance by the time they get to court and the Social worker presents their report which will very often contain misinformation and in some cases blatant Lies.
Lambs to the slaughter springs to mind.
know how they feel with the lies and misinformation makes you feel less than human by the time they finish with you
I want to make my story public about children’s social care [redacted for legal reasons] county council their failings are embarrassing can you believe in 2018 they even sent my daughter documented to another family and another families to me.
Does anybody know how I can do this?
Hi, I’ve taken your name out and the name of the local authority out to protect your identity and for legal reasons. If you have an ongoing case, you could take a look at our legal bloggers page for more information:
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/legalbloggers/
– Annie
Social workers today are liars with misimformation that judges believe because they presented it on file,parents are powerless, its 2021 and no one listens to parents who are scrutinised by these people,say( its presents future harm to a unborn) so everybody in country could be taken to court over future risk. Someone needs to stand up in goverment and address this issue. But no one will as they are in very high paid jobs with no concerns about real poor people with no one to turn to for help. Discusting,