IMPORTANT: With effect from 6 April 2011. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 will come into force for all family proceedings, including adoption proceedings. The provisions of the Family Procedure (Adoption) Rules 2005 will be included in the new Rules. You can preview the new Family Procedure Rules and the Practice Directions supplementing them prior to 6 April 2011 by using the following link. Rules and Practice Directions PreviewPlease note that all applications made on or after 6 April 2011 must be made in accordance with the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The Special Guardianship Regulations 2005 (England and Wales) Section 115 of the Act introduces a new legal status for non-parents who are, or wish to care for children in a long-term, secure placement. The concept of a special guardianship order (SGO) tends to lend itself to looked after children but it can equally be of relevance to a non-looked-after child who, for example, is cared for by relatives. The article provides detail on applying for an SGO, the key features of a SGO, special guardianship support services, the effects of an SGO and how to vary and discharge an SGO. See February [2006] Family Law for the full article.

The Special Guardianship 1.What is Special Guardianship (SG)?  2.What are the Regulations and Guidance?  3.Why was SG introduced?  4.When might SG be the preferred option? 5.Who can apply to be a Special Guardian?  6.What is the process? note: » Back to the top of this webpage 1. What is Special Guardianship The Adoption and Children Act 2002 introduces a completely new court order, Special Guardianship, intended to provide another option for legal permanence for children who cannot grow up with their birth families. A Special Guardianship Order gives the special guardian legal parental responsibility for the child which is expected to last until the child is 18. But, unlike Adoption Orders, these orders do not remove parental responsibility from the child’s birth parents, although their ability to exercise it is extremely limited. In practice, this means that the child is no longer the responsibility of the local authority, and the special guardian will have more clear responsibility for all day-to day decisions about caring for the child or young person, and for taking important decisions about their upbringing, for example their education. And, importantly, although birth parents retain their legal parental responsibility, the special guardian only has to consult with them about these decisions in exceptional circumstances. Back to the top 2. What are the Regulations and Guidance The Adoption and Children Act 2002 The Adoption and Children Act 2002 inserts new sections into the Children Act 1989, and modifies some existing sections of the Children Act. In relation to special guardianship, these are the relevant references: Section 115 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (insertions) Inserted Section 14 A-G of the Children Act 1989 Schedule 3 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (modifications)  Any decision about special guardianship must be viewed in the light of the welfare checklist in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. In addition there are Special Guardianship Regulations 2005 which set out further provisions, particularly in relation to special guardianship support services and the report to the court. There is also a summary at the beginning of the Special Guardianship guidance (paragraphs 1-21), based on the Act, and regulations. The Act, regulations and statutory guidance need to be read together in order to fully understand the new system. Regulations England The Special Guardianship Regulations 2005: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051109.htm  Wales The Special Guardianship (Wales) Regulations 2005: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales  Guidance England and Wales DfES Guidance on Special Guardianship: http://publications.education.gov.uk/.pdf Back to the top 3. Why was Special Guardianship introduced For some time researchers and practitioners have highlighted that there are some, mainly older, children and young people in care who may accept that they can not live with their birth parents, but who are still unhappy about being adopted and breaking all legal ties with their family. Long-term fostering has provided an alternative placement option for this group of children and young people, but it hasn’t always offered them the security and sense of belonging that they need. At the same time, some foster carers who have been caring for children over a period of time, have felt anxious and frustrated about the lack of clarity about their role in day-to-day decision making, and have expressed their need for a legally secure relationship with these children. Special Guardianship Orders have been introduced to offer an alternative permanency option for this group of children and their carers, and one which might be more appropriate in other particular circumstances. Back to the top 4.When might Special Guardianship be the preferred option Any decision to apply for a Special Guardianship Order should clearly always be based on meeting the needs of the child or young person, but there are particular situations where it might be more appropriate: Older children and young people in long-term care, as described above, who may wish to retain some legal ties with their birth family and who do not want to be adopted. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who need a secure, permanent home here, but have strong attachments to their family abroad. Prospective carers from minority ethnic groups who may wish to offer a child a permanent family, but have religious or cultural difficulties with adoption as it is set out in law. Kinship care, where members of the extended family may not want to adopt the child, but do need more security and clarity about day-to-day decision making. Back to the top 5. Who can apply to be a Special Guardian A court may make a Special Guardianship Order in respect of a child on the application of: a. Any guardian of the child b. A local authority foster carer with whom the child has lived for one year immediately preceding the application c. Anyone who holds a residence order with respect to the child, or who has the consent of all those in whose favour a residence order is in force d. Anyone with whom the child has lived for three out of the last five years e. Where the child is in the care of a local authority, any person who has the consent of the local authority f. Anyone who has the consent of all those with parental responsibility for the child g. Any person, including the child, who has the leave of the court to apply Back to the top 6. What is the process There is nothing in the Special Guardianship regulations setting out a planning process which local authorities must follow, as there is for adoption. Each local authority will need to establish their own policies and procedures to make a decision about special guardianship for children in their care, and it is not necessary to have a panel to make this recommendation. All applicants must give their local authority 3 months notice in writing that they are going to apply for an order, and local authorities are required to produce to the court a report on all children, not just those who are looked after, when an application is made. This report must include information about the child, the child’s wishes, the child’s birth family, contact arrangements, the prospective special guardian and recommendations about whether or not an order should be made (See the schedule to the relevant regulations for further details). The local authority is expected to start work on this report, or arrange for someone else to do it, as soon as possible after receiving the notice. The court cannot make an order without having received a report. Local authorities are expected to ensure that the social worker who prepares the report is suitably qualified and experienced, but there are no restrictions on who can write the report as there are for adoption. Before making the Special Guardianship Order a court must consider whether to vary or discharge any other existing order made under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. The court can also decide to make a Section 8 Contact Order at the same time as the Special Guardianship Order. In all circumstances the court must consider the whole range of options available before making a Special Guardianship Order.

The judge has ordered a gagging order on us, we are not allowed to even show online a photo of the children with their mother.  the judge would like to believe out of sight means out of mind.  wrong.

The special guardians think they have won the battle, the war has only just begun.  The laugh for us is their age.. 70 and having to deal with a 11 year who hates them and the whole world.  In their care over 6 months the child has been excluded from school 10 times, shot a girl in the face, beat young children and consistently been in trouble with the police.  now he also has to deal with the loss of his mother from his life completely.

the judge doesnt want anyone knowing this or the surroundings of his wrecking this childs life.  i wonder why

The Final Order of the Corrupt Court, inc gagging order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                                                                    Case Number: EX11C00009

FAMILY DIVISION EXETER DISTRICT REGISTRY                                                               EX11C00033

BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE TYZACK QC IN PRIVATE, SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COURT'S INHERENT JURISDICTION

BETWEEN

L COUNTY COUNCIL

and

T COUNTY COUNCIL

and

MOTHER

and

FATHER

and

GRANDPARENTS

and

CHILD (by their children’s guardian)

and

 (Intervenor)

Before His Honour Judge Tyzack QC on the 13^th of January 2012, sitting as a Judge of the Family Division.

Upon hearing counsel for LOCAL AUTHORITY L , SECOND LOCAL AUTHORITY T and GRANDPARENTS , solicitor for Dr (FATHER) and for the children.

And upon this matter being transferred to the High Court for the purpose of exercising the inherent jurisdiction in the making of this order.

And upon MOTHER AND INTERVENOR not attending in person, but INTERVENOR attending by telephone and having taken the opportunity to cross-examine the social workers for each Local Authority and make submissions and having been given and declined the opportunity to cross-examine the other witnesses.

And upon the court having refused MOTHER AND INTERVENOR application to adjourn these proceedings and for MOTHER to be represented in these proceedings by INTERVENOR

And upon INTERVENOR having declined the opportunity to attend the court on the second day of the hearing.

And upon the court having spoken to MOTHER by telephone and given her the opportunity to make submissions to the court, which opportunity she declined.

And upon the court noting the provision made for contact within the final care plans and expressing the hope that MOTHER will avail herself of the contact presently offered with a view to it progressing thereafter.

And upon the court finding that the threshold criteria are met in relation to each child and that the orders set out below are in the best interests of the children, and indicating that full written reasons for these decisions shall be handed down on the 3^rd of February 2012, all parties being excused from attending at court on that date.

NOTICE TO MOTHER AND INTERVENOR: if you disobey the terms of paragraph 9 of this order you may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or be fined or have your assets seized. You should read the order carefully and are advised to consult a solicitor as soon as possible.  You have the right to ask the Court to vary or discharge the order.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.       There shall be supervision orders in relation to the children in favour of T Council until 23:59 on the 11^th of January 2013.

2.       There shall be Special Guardianship orders in relation to the children in favour of GRANDPARENTS

3.       Pursuant to section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 neither the respondent MOTHER, the intervenor  nor the respondent father shall be permitted to make any application under section 8 or section 14D of the Children Act 1989 in relation to the children without the leave of the court. And it is provided that:

(a)   Any application for leave shall be listed before His Honour Judge Tyzack QC (if available);

(b)   Any application to vary or discharge the terms of this order shall be made formally in writing and shall be listed before His Honour Judge Tyzack QC (if available); 

(c)   Service of that application on the Special Guardians shall be effected by the court office;

(d)   The Special Guardians shall be excused attendance at any hearing of such application if so advised;

(e)   Such orders shall expire on the 20^th of January 2016.

           

4.       Pursuant to section 14B(2)(b) of the Children Act 1989 the court grants leave for:

(a)   The respondent father to remove the children or either of them, from the United Kingdom for the purpose of foreign holidays, on condition that he provides to GRANDPARENTS full details of the proposed holiday in advance, to include flight details, accommodation and contact details together with details of any internal travel plans, in the absence of which GRANDPARENTS will not release the children’s passports to him;

(b)   The children or either of them, to be removed from the United Kingdom for the purpose of foreign trips organised by the school or such other providers of organised activities for the children as may be consented to by GRANDPARENTS; and

(c)   The children or either of them to be removed from the United Kingdom for the purpose of foreign holidays by (RELATIVES), providing that they, or either of them, provide to GRANDPARENTS full details of the proposed holiday in advance, to include flight details, accommodation and contact details together with details of any internal travel plans, in the absence of which GRANDPARENTS will not release the children’s passports to them;

5.       The respondent father shall forthwith, and in any event within 48 hours of receipt by him thereof, release to GRANDPARENTS the passports for the children, and GRANDPARENTS shall thereafter shall hold any such passport identity card or associated authority to travel issued in relation to the children.

6.       Any person travelling with the children, or either or them, out of the United Kingdom by virtue of paragraph 5 of this order shall return the passports of the children, or either of them, to, immediately upon the children’s return to the United Kingdom, and in any event within 24 hours of such return.

7.      Upon service of this order on the Passport Office no further passport shall be issued in the names of the children without the written consent of the Special Guardians or either of them.

8.      No person shall apply for the issue of any passport, identity card or associated authority to travel for either by the authorities, or by other any Country outside the United Kingdom until further order of the court. For the avoidance of doubt this does not preclude the entry into the United Kingdom passport of either child of any visa for entry into another jurisdiction.

                 

9.       Pursuant to the Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction both the respondent mother and the Intervenor shall, upon service with this order, be prohibited until further order from disclosing any information for publishing or broadcasting in any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, internet website, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service of:

(a)           the name and address of:

(i)       the children

(ii)      the children parents (including the children’s step-father);

(iii)                GRANDPARENTS (SPECIAL GUARDIANS)

; or

(iv)     the Local Authority in whose area the children is resident (currently T Council).

(b)      any picture being or including a picture of either the children the children’s parents (including the children’s step-father); or

(c)      any other particulars or information relating to the children

IF, BUT ONLY IF, such information is likely to lead to the identification of the children Any application to vary or discharge the terms of this order shall be made formally in writing and shall be listed before His Honour Judge Tyzack QC (if available) and service of that application on the Special Guardians shall be effected by the court office. The Special Guardians shall be excused attendance at any hearing of such application if so advised.

10.     There shall be permission to the Special Guardians, to disclose a copy of this order to the passport agency and any relevant official agency involved with either themselves or the children

11.     For the avoidance of doubt all previous orders in relation to the children (save for the reporting restriction orders made on the 12^th of January 2012) are hereby discharged.

12.     The reporting restriction orders made on the 12^th of January 2012 in relation to the children shall be varied under the slip rule so that any reference to CHILD 1 shall read as .

13.     There shall be no order as to costs save detailed assessment of the publicly funded costs of each party who is or has been in receipt of public funding during these proceedings.

They finally get theyre way on Thursday... The judge gets the kid

after a 6 year struggle the judge the cronies and the vulchers will get our lad. They dont care who he is with as long as he is not with us. they have no evidence to show we have caused any harm to the child ... they simply say we have emotionally harmed him or we may emotionally harm him in the future. no evidence of course, just a crystal ball and funny handshake!!

worst of all for Angela (my wife) is the fact the child will be basically adopted ( special guardianship ) by our worst enemies, her father and step mother. These poeple met me in 2004 for the first time. Within 10 minutes they attacked Angela by beating her, strangling her and punching her, then proceeded to glass me in my arm and Angela in her neck, missing the jugular vein by half an inch.

They have a history of violence to their children, and to each other, they are alcoholic dependent and it is an accepted fact. Yet HHJ Tyzack of Exeter County Court would rather the children live with them than us.. why you may ask???

Well, after 5 years of constant investigations by social workers, councilors, psychiatrists etc the judge and his cronies still could not get a professional to state that i and my wife were a risk of significant harm to the child. So in December 2010 HHJ Tyzack decided to order a section 37 investigation in to our care of the child ... this was 2 months after a wrprevious report by social services had been submitted. (stating no evidence could be found we were any risk to the child), we refused to co-operate with the order and with social services. Social Services adamantly and strenuously informed the judge on the day and after that there were no grounds for a section 37 investigation and that in law the threshold criteria was not met. HHJ Tyzack had plans though, he gave us 7 days to become involved in the 9th investigation against us in 6 years, or he threatened to place the child into Interim Care.

We stood by our morals and 7 days later the child was placed into local foster care to enable social services to investigate.

2 seperate reports were placed to the judge over the next 5 months, in both reports social services stated no evidence could be found of any risk of significant harm to the child, on both occasions HHJ Tyzack slated the social workers work and said there had to be something wrong because he was "convinced". In essence HHJ Tyzack was not getting the answer he wanted. The judge was so hell bent against us he even called the director of Leicestershire Social Services to direct him not to consider allowing the child to remain in our home whilt the section 37 took place, (this is illegal the judge has no jurisdiction over the decision as the law says only the local authority can decided where to place the child).

Leicestershire social services turned against us, we argued with one social worker who refused to leave our home, i asked him 12 times to leave but he wouldnt, eventually i legally removed him from the house after seeking advice from the police as to what was a legal removal (minimum force). Immediately social services stated we were now a risk to the child, because my behaviour had showed evidence. (the child was at school seeing none of this).

The next report to the court was damning, a full 100 % turn around, we went from good parents to bad parents overnight on the basis i threw a social worker out of my own home. (metaphorically speaking), HHJ Tyzack all of a sudden needed to spend some time telling them in court just how wonderful a job they had done and congratulated them on their realization that they had to tow the line.

so where are we now? the child was removed from our area and placed with his grandparents some 8 months ago, he consistently stated until 2 months ago that he wished to live with us. He is and was so unhappy in his placement that he got excluded 10 times in 2 months in his new school, he shot a girl in the face with a bb gun, he broke a childs nose by punching him, he has lots of police involvement, he is 12. The social worker stated that there was a clear correlation between Angela speaking to her son on the mobile he had and his behavioural problems.

within a week of this the childs mobile was 'lost', and has not been replaced, apparently he has been behaving so well its clear he is better off with out his mum contacting him (states her father). The next thing we know the child is saying he doesnt want to talk to his mum, he doesnt want to see her, etc etc.... total 100% rejection. Grandfather (angelas father and now foster carer of the child) was ecstatic enough to call around the family and boast to all how the child had now turned against his own mother, and gloated about the "money they will get for the children under special guardianship".

What is to happen now i hear you ask?

well, on thursday HHJ Tyzack will place the child in the special guardianship of two poeple who viciously attacked and stabbed the mother of the child. The solicitor in Torbay Janine Bond will be all victorious and will no doubt celebrate wrecking the relationship between a child and his mother. No doubt the grandparents will throw a party, and we are sure the Guardian and his freind the judge and a few others in that court will have a nice meal in an expensive restaurant on the £5 million pounds of proceeds this case has made them over the 6 years. personally i hope they all choke on their prawns.

To see my wife losing her child for the 3rd time in 6 years and to see her cry throughout the day and night for a child who has apparently no feeling for her and rejects her simply (according to the creatures above), she feels as though it is a death, and it is. They have killed what she had with her son, they have slaughtered a loving relationship and they feel they have the moral high ground.

We have 2 other children, aged 3 and 5 yrs. I am sure that if he could HHJ Tyzack would just love to steal them too, but he cant. that is the only silver lining we have is knowing they have not and can not wreck us as a loving family. I cant name the child but if i could and he was reading this in the furture id say : hey T dont worry about it mate, no one blames you, adults are the most vile and destructive creatures, your mum loves you so much, i care for you ... you are in my eyes my other son. . . they can only wreck it for now, we will still be here waiting when you are old enough to the lot of them to fuck themselves... you know where we are and our door is always open to you bud. they can take the child from the Baggaleys but theyll never take the baggaleys from the child.

i will be updating this blog very soon

please read some of my past blogs in the meantime

 Shadowman group on facebook

http://www.facebook.com/groups/162108910533114/

join our group if you have any issues in the family court re children

join our group on facebook

http://www.facebook.com/groups/reformfamilylaw/?notif_t=group_activity

big day coming

thursday is the big day. some ass kicking coming

You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > Education > Education
Session 2010-12

The Child Protection System in England
Written evidence Submitted by John Hemming MP , Justice for Families

1. I founded the Justice for Families campaign in 2006 in a response to the number of people contacting me with problems which arose from care proceedings in England. Justice for Families assists people facing problems with the care system by offering advice on taking cases though the domestic courts and to the European Court of Human Rights. Justice for Families currently has over a thousand cases. These are my personal views.

2. England’s child protection system is in crisis. Perhaps the most obvious symptom of this is in the large numbers of vacancies in the profession and the anecdotal reports of burnout amongst practitioners. At the same time families have left the country to get away from the system and increasing numbers of children are dying from suspected child abuse and neglect. Ofsted’s records of serious childcare incident notifications went up from 47 baby deaths in 2008 to 75 baby deaths in 2009. This was accompanied by a substantial increase in the numbers of children being taken into care.

3. The problem is that the system takes the wrong children into care. Inherently the quality of practice will vary. Some practitioners may be very cautious before taking a child into care – particularly given the outcomes for children in care. Others may take a more gung ho approach. If, however, the care system gets overloaded with children resource constraints will inevitably have an effect. The costs are also an issue. Similar sums could provide a lot more support.

4. Haringey, like many authorities, had a target for the number of children in care which was kept for budgetary purposes. The target for March 2007 was 365 and for March 2008 352. In part the objective of reducing numbers in care is laudable as well of that of trying to reduce the weekly costs which have run at higher than £800 per child per week. On 3rd October 2006 it was noted that the deficit forecast for Haringey Local Council was £4.6 million which included a forecast overspend for Childrens Services of £2.3m – including a figure of £500K for Looked After Children. The Executive Member for Finance said "I will be working closely with the services concerned and I will be looking to them to identify ways to bring the budget back on target". It was recognised at that time that the placements budget was running at 381 children and was very tight. The figure then crept up to 392 by November 2006.

5. By March 31st 2007 the financial situation had improved although there had still been an overspend of £500K on legal fees. The numbers of children in care had reduced and a new target was set of 352. In March at the end of the 2007-8 financial year, however, the numbers of children in care had increased back up to 373 (21 more than budget). It appears that controls on the number of care proceedings were tightened up in November 2006 with the 12 month rolling number from November 2006 going below 40 for the first time they were released in August 2007 and the number then went back up above 50 (where historically it has been in recent years) in September 2007.

6. From this can be seen how the care system can be influenced by budgetary constraints. At a senior management level the details of cases are not considered. Managers are instructed to get certain numbers to change. Whilst BV163 was in operation managers were instructed to increase the numbers of children adopted. This was a pressure from central government that occurred not taking into consideration what effect this had on children and families. Managerial success was determined on the basis of the numbers rather than how well children had been cared for.

7. The child protection system in England is particularly obsessed with adoption. What is worse is that not only was the system driven by financial targets for increasing the number of adoptions, but also that it was driven by a mathematical error in the calculations as to what proportion of children were adopted.

8. There are many reports that show the error made by the government, but a good example is Alan Rushton’s paper "Outcomes of adoption from public care: research and practice issues" published in Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2007) 13: 305-311. In this paper he says "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."

9. The mathematical error made by the department is that they are comparing the number of children adopted (3,800 in 2004-5) to the number of children in care (about 63,000) rather than the number that came into care in that year (7,700). Of the 7,700 taken into care in 2005 1,700 were aged over 10. Those children are normally taken into care because their parents cannot cope. Hence of the 6,000 that could potentially be adopted some 3,800 are actually adopted. That is more like 60% than 6%.

10. Unsurprisingly a large number of these adoptions break down. Research by people such as Alan Rushton finds disrupted adoptions run at around 20-25%. These fail often because the children that are adopted exhibit very difficult behaviour. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that many adoptive parents are not given full understanding of the child's background and behavioural difficulties before the adoption is completed. There also seems to be a perception among some adoptive parents that once they are abandoned by both CAMHS and the LA being left to cope alone with these behaviours.

11. What is particularly sad is that a large proportion of the children who are adopted are removed at a very early age from their birth family. Research by Professor Michael Rutter points to the key months for a baby being 6 to 18 months. In 2004-5 1,770 babies were taken into care before this period.

12. The evidence in terms of attachment disorders and particularly reactive attachment disorders, therefore, for these children is that this is caused by the way they are treated whilst in care. Professor Rutter’s research demonstrates that the children can recover from difficulties from a lack of love and attention in the first 6 months of life, but not so readily from that in the following 12 months.
13. Reactive Attachment disorder is often misdiagnosed as autism. Children who have this problem have difficult behavior that the authorities provide little support for and then when the children get old enough their behavior is so difficult that their adoptive parents cannot cope and they go back into care.

14. A figure of 20% of adoptions failing would give some 800 children every year who are coming back into care. What I find particularly dreadful is that a number of those are children whose problems are caused by their treatment in care.
15. At the same time we have children removed at birth for inadequate causes. It is obvious from the figures as to increasing numbers of deaths (sent to Ofsted) that the crystal ball used by practitioners to predict the future (such as likely emotional abuse) is not spotting the children at risk of dying as a result of abuse.

16. Before going into the issue of potential changes I will look specifically at the issues raised by the committee.
Whether the child protection system allows for effective identification of, and early help to, children at risk of different forms of abuse and exploitation (including, but not restricted to: neglect, sexual and physical abuse, domestic violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child trafficking and online exploitation);

17. The current system has low thresholds that allow a very large number of interventions. The interventions that actually happen, therefore, tend to be driven in part by a mixture of budgetary limits and chance.

18. The phrases "neglect" and "physical abuse" are far too vague. One constituency case I have relates to a debate as to whether or not a child has been smacked. The damage that has been done to the family as a result of the intervention goes much further than any potential harm to the child.

19. If low thresholds are allowed for intervention then this places a strain on the system and does not allow a proper triage system to operate.
20. "Emotional abuse" is far too much of catch all category. Children suffer some psychological trauma from being taken into care. Hence before a child should be taken into care for "emotional abuse" there has to be a very high threshold. It would be useful to have a longditudinal study of cases of children removed from families for emotional abuse to identify if this benefits the child.
Factors affecting the quality of decision-making in referral and assessment, and variations across the country;

21. There are far too few guidelines for decision-making. This gives rise to a wide variation in thresholds. One mother who has had over 9 children removed by one authority has recently been allowed to go home and look after her child by a different authority.
Appropriate thresholds for intervention, including arguments for and against removing children from their families;

22. This is a matter that requires detailed work as referred to above and formal guidance from the government.
Whether the child protection policies and practices of non-social work agencies and Government departments assist professionals to work together in the interests of the child.

23. There are far too many compulsory referrals which means that the childrens services departments have to do a lot of triage work. There needs to be clear guidance as to when intervention is warranted and this should guide both social work agencies and non-social work agencies.
Solutions
Firstly, there need to be some general principles
Design a system for real people

24. We need to move away from an approach that looks for scapegoats and aims to punish people for making errors. Child protection is a complex environment where subtle judgments need to be made. Too much pressure on the individual making the judgments results in a number of unacceptable outcomes. Firstly, people decide they do not want to do the job – hence lots of vacancies. Secondly, defensive decision-making occurs and finally there is a tendency to try to cover up mistakes rather than learn from them.

25. Care should add value to the child’s life and the parents are actually often the best people to monitor that even if they are not directly responsible for the care of the child.
26. The system should aim to be minimally intrusive with supervised parenting as a priority rather than to be avoided.
Have checks and balances that actually work

27. The system has many so called checks and balances. However, because of the pressures there is a tendency not to correct early mistakes. This creates a culture in which once a decision has been taken an overwhelming effort goes into implementing the decision and too little thought goes into reviewing whether the original decision was right. At the same time it is important that if a decision is changed that no effort goes into punishing the person or people who made the original "wrong" decision. What is needed is that people learn from the process rather than feel they must justify their original decision at all costs.
Operate on an evidenced basis with guidelines

28. There are no real guidelines or law as to what warrants intervention, when parenting is "good enough" or how people fail or pass assessments. This results in an overly wide individual interpretation which is only marginally evidence based. The large numbers of disrupted adoptions show that the main policy underpinning the English system is failing for large numbers of children every year.
Don’t have too much bureaucracy and targets

29. Numerical targets for subtle issues of judgment don’t help. Even having a simplistic target for a timescale within which to do an assessment really doesn’t help. The systems used for recording information should be driven by the job rather than performance indicators. Targets have done substantial damage to judgment.
Given the general principles there need to be specific changes.
Move away from a legally dominated system and strengthen the case conference

30. The case conference should be the key location in which decisions are taken. This should not require lawyers although parties may have advocates in meetings. The objective of the case conference should be to look inquisitorially for the best way forward for the children and the families with a view towards what potential solutions exist on a co-operative basis.

31. The practitioners of various disciplines should be allowed to cast a secret ballot as to the conclusion. There may be a merit in bringing in a small number of independent individuals as jurors to balance out the process. This could include members of the extended family. Furthermore proceedings should be video recorded and a copy kept.

32. The case conference, however, has to operate in a truly independent manner with a chair who is not financially dependent upon the local authority. It can also be used to control contact arrangements.
Independent has to mean truly independent

33. One problem area is that many individuals are described as being independent when they are in practice not independent. An expert appointed jointly by the parties depends upon all of the parties. The refusal of second opinions means that it is the decision as to which expert is appointed that generally the determinant of the outcome of the case. Contentious issues such as SBS are ones where specific experts are known to have specifi c views.

34. Social Workers regularly "advocate for the child" in lobbying experts as to what they expect the conclusion to be from a particular report. It would not be surprising if a local authority were to oppose the appointment of an expert with whom they had previously had difficulties. Hence experts have to keep the local authority sweet.
Have a merits review case conference

35. There needs to be one or two tiers of independent reviewing of the decisions of the case conference. This needs to occur outside the management of the local authority responsible for the original case conference.
36. The problem with the judicial processes is that they have substantial costs which do not exist and are not accessible for people without advice.
Scrap the adoption panels

37. It is unclear what added value arises from the adoption panels. Some evidence is needed as to whether they improve decision-making. Such a large proportion of adoptions are disrupted that it is clear that decision-making goes badly wrong. Adoption panels are made up of lay people who are presented with large quantities of often complex paperwork at a late stage. They normally rely on the social worker who wrote it to guide them through the report and although searching questions are asked this brings into question the true independence of the panel. Further the chair is usually an employee of the LAs children's department.
Scrap targets and improve case handling.

38. If the performance indicators are scrapped then some of the problems with the ICS are resolved. Record keeping needs to facilitate the process whereby matters are taken to the case conference and through merits reviews. It is important that the recording process identifies allegations that are agreed by parties to the case and also those that are contested. Too many cases are based upon shifting sands and shifting arguments.
Have longitudinal research and feedback

39. The current system has a database called SSDA903 that could be used for more effective research. However the previous government refused to research the numbers of adoptions that were disrupted. Independent audit of a small number of cases on a longitudinal basis is needed for feedback as to changes in practice.

40. There are quite a few cases where children continually run away from foster care to get back to their parents. Detailed review of these is needed to understand whether the actions taken by the state are really any benefit to the children.
Have better categorization of cases for budgetary purposes

41. There will always be budgetary problems. In the current climate questions should be asked as to whether cases based upon "emotional abuse" warrant intervention. However, there needs to be a finer analysis of cases so that when budgetary decisions are made there is some understanding as to their impact.
Facilitate independent scrutiny

42. There needs to be more independent accountability as to what is happening in care cases. Judges should not have control over what is released in respect of the cases that they handle. This should be handled by the information commissioner’s office. Material that does not identify any human parties should be assumed to be to general publication with the permission of a party as long as the parties are kept anonymous. The process should require parties to tell other parties that which they wish to publish and to copy this to the information commissioner. After two weeks they should have deemed consent.
Replace "risk of significant harm" with Article 8.

43. The question as to when intervention is handled is better phrased in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights than Section 31. Article 8 builds in a balancing act that is not built into Section 31 of the 1989 Act.
Review the merits of forced adoption

44. The existence of forced adoption as an option creates a major tension between parents and practitioners. Those countries with forced adoption also have higher levels of deaths from child abuse and neglect. Removing the option of forced adoption could align the interests of parents and practitioners and in doing so improve the outcomes for children.
Use standard of proof between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt.

45. Many practitioners use the "real possibility" standard of proof which is basically to try to disprove an allegation and if you fail to disprove the allegation then it is considered proven. This is a disastrous approach as it results in many matters being accepted as fact for which there is no evidence. Training needs to be given to stop this from happening.
Don’t increase the levels of qualifications

46. There is no evidence that requiring degree level qualifications in social work has improved the situation more important than qualifications are life skill gained over a number of years bringing to the practitioner a rooted common sense approach which is lacking in the current system. What may improve the postion is extra on the job training before becoming fully qualified. There has been a deficit of suitable places available to degree students over the last few years and if the degree is going to continue as a necessity, then this needs to be addressed.

Don’t reorganize the departments

47. The initial Laming reform that completely reorganized social services has probably been counter productive, but reversing those reforms is probably not warranted.

Review specifically how to handle Domestic Violence issues

48. There needs to be a detailed review into how child protection issues are managed within situations which involve domestic violence.
Reading Parents their rights

49. Currently in care proceedings there is no vehicle for ensuring that parents are aware of their rights regarding the law and child protection. Nor are parents aware that when they have an argument with their spouse, then that constitutes "emotional harm" and can result in their child being adopted.
October 2011

©Parliamentary copyright
Prepared 15th November 2011
Footer links
A-Z index
Glossary
Contact us
Freedom of Information
Jobs
Using this website
Copyright

what makes a social worker lie and lie and lie and .......

what is it in the psyche of a social worker that makes them want to lie in the fashion they do?  i ask is it a power thing?  is it holding the lives of youngsters and their futures with their familys in the palm of their hands that they get off on or they simply pure evil, with a licence to destruct?

lets look at one particular social worker, i will call her angela snowbum.  When Ms Snowbum took her degree in social work i bet you she thought she was going to do good for the community.  I bet you she was a little different to the other students, not getting drunk, never considering drugs, never having sex unprotected or on a exciting 1 nighter!  no you see these poeple are not normal types, they are persons with deepseated emotional problems, they feel a need to protect children from monsters and in my opinion from the types i have met the monsters are actually inside their own heads, it is they that are the monsters. My other opinion is a percentage of these CYPS officers is that they may have at one time in their lives been abused themselves.  the third opinion is simply a person craving power and they will get it no matter what route that takes, these are the pure evil types the childsnatchers.

the war goes on

well we have complied with everything they want, we are simply waiting now for there confirmation that this is going no further so that we may concentrate on getting our lad back home.  I have since my last blog here been arrested 5 times, all leading to nothing,  strange this isnt it after our official complaint to police about a certain sergent making a false referral to social services.  it is all coming out now, civil claim on its way soon i am sure.

i will update this blog in about a week, at the moment i am purpously being quiet so as to not upset someone whom is very important to the future we have.

The CARE PLAN

so we recieve the care plan.  Unbelieveably it states my wife must refer to womens aid, and we must both attend domestic violence units for courses.  That I should seek a psychological assessment from my G.P,  that i must attend a calm course and complete my probation sentence (too late they have already breached me!!).

The fact we are both saying there is no incident of domestic violence seems to go over these idiots heads.

The fact the evididence put in the report to conference was false means nothing these poeple, for example when we pointed out i do not actually suffer from bipolar and never have, they simply replied " THAT IS YOUR OPINION"

it is impossible to work with these poeple, they are hellbent on taking our children, we will not let that happen.  The fight is on

Scumcial workers now taking us to court for our 3 and 5 year old

after a malicious referral from our landlord Mr Terry Buckingham Rampton, through his 'freind' sergent Chriss Huss, stating shouting could be heard from our house and a little girl could be heard saying "daddy dont push mummy over"  social services attended our home,  initally they stated the above but after a couple of weeks the wording of the referral changed to "shouting that resembled domestic violence could be heard from the house on the 19th May 2011.  A little girl could be heard saying "daddy dont hit mummy again"

firslty we were not in the house on the 19th May 2011 we were away.  Secondly the landlord lives 1 mile away so even if he had heard what he allegges he would have to have supersonic hearing.  Whenour children were seen by social services we made it abundantly clear that this would only be able to take place if they only veiwed the children, did not speak to them other than niceites and not assessing, and that they did not veiw the children without an apropriate adult (grandfather) with them at all times.

The grandfather took the younger child to the toilet for a matter of 90 seconds, at the most, In that time social services state our daughter simply turned around and made statements that mummy and daddy argue millions and that daddy pushed mummy over.  Our 5 year old daughter vehemently denies this, she says the social worker is lying and in fact she was asked is there anything at home you would like to change and her answer was yes, "i would like to have an elephant".  However the social workers are adamant they assessed her under section 47 investigation in a total of 90 seconds.  They are confirmed by the grandfather as not saying anything to the children other than hello and goodbye and asking them general questions about what their favorite toy is.  On their way out of the house they told the grandfather there were no concerns and the children were obviously very happy and contenct children.

We are aware the landlord did this because he boasted of it to us in a phone call " ha ha ha your goping to lose your kids, thatll teach you to rip me off, its who you know not what you know",  he then went on to make threats against me and my wife that in the end we had to inform the police who are investigating.  I later called Sergent Chriss Huss at Hinckley police station who admitted the landlord and herself had passed the information to social services.  ((this is the same officer who sat at the back of the court with the landlord for 8 hours in a trial where the landlord accused me of breaking his sink,.(criminal Damage) i was found not guilty)  only 4 weeks previously))

Do social services takle any of this information into account ?  NO

so there is a core assessment meeting, did we recieve the report to that meeting>  NO

did we recieve the minutes from that meeting?  NO

a child protection conference conference is then called.  We arrive on time but the conference room is not ready, we sit and wait and at 2 minutes to 11 (11 o'clock being the starting time of the conference)  Linzi English (head of the child protection unit) throws a conference report to each of us.  With 2 minutes before the start of the conference we were certainly not prepared to consider the report at that time. 

Therefore we passed them back and refused to read them,  Liar Linzi then said the report had been posted on wedneasday before hand, this was a blatant lie.  I called her a liar, she took offence to this and an argument ensued, no witnesses were in the room, we actually walked out of the room to find the chair Sara Bosun Hayes, however Liar Linzi had asked the police to attend and they were sat in the foyer, SET UP!!  we walked toward them and liar linai started histrionics demanding we leave the building.  To be fair the police were unhappy and did try to negotiate with her for 15 minutes to allow us to attend but she refused as did the chairwoman.  The conference took place without us.

No 1 person attending the conference was there to defend any of the information provided to the conference by the Liar.

Therefore she had free reign to make whatever allegations she wanted.  Frightening the life out of the attendees at the meeting, school teachers, school health workers, council housing officers, invironmental health officer, and many other poeple.  Some of these poeples attendances was dubious, Jo Wykes of Hinckley Council is a housing officer who made a referral against me in 2010 because she didnt like the "way he spoke to me on the phone".  However they all had a part in the decision to place our children on a child protection plan.

It was some time later we recieved the report the conference recieved and the evidence relied upon. 

Did we recieve the minutes of the conference?  NO

The report itself was frighteningly misleading and full of inacuracies.  The watered down version is the following.

Nigel suffers from Bipolar Disorder  ..   NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE

Nigel suffers Tourettes Syndrome  .... NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE

Nigel has been diagnosed with explosive personality disorder   ...  NO I HAVE NOT

Nigel has many convictions for assaults against council officers, police officers, court officials and social workers.............  I DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CONVICTION NAMED ABOVE

There is further inacuracies, that amount to a false and malicious character assessment.

when you consider the above and then align it with a apparent referral for what is alleged to domestic violence, from a man with tourettes, bipolar and explosive personaltiy disorder,  Is it surprising the attendees at the conference were sufficiently concerned to support the child protection plan.

The problem is by taking away our right to defend and question these allegations in the conference the children now face care proceedings due to our refusal to co-operate with the care plan.

Why on earth would anyone co-operate with a plan that was made upon false information.

hearing 14th june 2011

same old bullshit in court today, judge says one thing one week and the complete opposite the next. not made party after saying i would be, and interim care renewal took place ... refusing our application not to re - new. good news is we got specific information we have been seeking for months and the judge ordered a transcript. ap...parently i and angela are a singlular unit now so i am able to attend court, and act on my wifes behalf, writes the statements... so everything baer being named a party. it was a good hearing and we came away feeling really positive. the truth is out there now, the ICO was put in place and still is because of the intimidating and abusive behaviour against the professionals in the case!! nothing to do with the children, the concern is the children may see my behavour when im calling the scumcial workers whores and the guardian a freaky peodo lookalike. not that i would say that to them now of course, i simply write to inform what had been stated.

Apparently it is unsuitable for a child to hear you swear or raise your voice at anyone! (this has never occured infront of the children) so anyone out there with children remember.... you must not argue, swear or raise your voice infront of 11 year old children.or you will lose your children. thats going to be about 90 per cent of the countrys parents then

 

The judge was as fair as he could be but when Angela gave evidence he did rollercoast her and upset her rythym and basically questioned her at every sentence, becoming at one point quite frustrated with her.  basically the judge was on the defencive due to the fact our case was about his mistakes in this matter, he defended himself very well but why did he feel the need to do so~?

 

the fact is we didnt expect anything other than what we got.  At least the court spelt out what the issues were at hand, we can now at least work on that.  Court of appeal looming

Anyone else in leicestershire had dealings with Linzi English andrea Rowbotham contact me

if you have have had dealings with Linzi English, Andrea Rowbotham, Nicci Collins, Rachael Sutton or Darryl Clark  contact me on witt36@hotmail.com

big hearing Tuesday

application to Not renew the interim care order for our lad.  We have unmasked a morning hearings worth of evidence proving the social services lied to the judge, the guardian lied to the judge, and the judge has been misled for a total of 10 months, it is provable and we, for the first time in 8 months are fianlly getting a chance to put the evidence to the judge.  I can not wait to watch the scum that are the social workers and the guardian squirm in their seats and listen to the bullshit they use to try and squirm out of the situation.  Fully expecting the court to refuse the renewal of the Interim Care Order.  We also have a card up our sleeve!

home affairs committee enquiry damning of the work by social services and other agencies

Home Affairs Committee Enquiry

The Harm Caused By False Accusations

Abstract

As media hysteria and judicial activism have escalated, family life has increasingly become a province of the state. The highly selective cause celebre abuse cases are notable because the children have not usually been from two-biological-parent families. The justifiable outrage these incidents provoked has unfortunately led to targeting of two parent families.



The majority of all accusations (or referrals as they are called by the social services) turn out to be false. In 1995 [Child protection Messages from Research 1995 HMSO] there were a total of 168,000 referrals with 10,500 resulting in a child being taken into care. In other words in only 6% of referrals is care action taken.



No one can imagine the horror of a false accusation until it happens to him or her. This paper considers the consequences of these false accusations on families and on society in general. It will be suggested that the most serious consequence is the harm done to children as a result of these false accusations. Also of concern is the way in which case law is used to erode fundamental civil liberties.



The reasons for this situation have much to do with the mechanistic nature of modern law, which has little regard to whether changes made are actually beneficial to society. Gradual and piecemeal changes have been made by an unholy alliance of children’s charities, psychiatrists, police, social workers, judges, lawyers and the media. The burden of proof in children’s cases has been reversed so far that innocent families are actually being harmed by these agencies. The paper concludes with several recommendations on how the current unsatisfactory situation can be improved.


http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/commons_select_committee.htm

LIAR LINDSAY ENGLISH

So we go to the meeting arranged bu this liar Lindsay English, and my god she lies for England.  She was caught out lying about the so called "referral" which turns out to be "not exactly a referral".  She lies then about the section 47 assessment and how it was used.  First she says a sec 47 was completed, then it was a section 47 on a live file, then its a section 47 on another childs file.   fact is she didnt have a fucking clue what she was talking about. 

The lies kept coming and we were able to gather so much information from this meeting whist the liar just kept being clever. 

we still havent been allowed the minutes of the child protection conference that the liar would not allow us to attend.  we ahvent recieved the initial report that was used in the core assessment to decide upon a child protection conference.

We could not believe the evidence provided to the child protection conference, all very old and well investigated information the liar simply read from old files.    SHE has NOT done her homework.

Anyway the liar has now told us they are going to court to obtain either a assessment order or a interim care order.  Our answer to the liar is GOOD FUCKING LUCK.  the judge will realise your full of fucking shit. No worries.  Though she wont know our answer as there would be no way she would be reading my blog.

CHILDSNATCHERS WONT LEAVE IT ALONE

Linzi English team manager of the child protection unit coalvile, leicestershire, what a fucking nightmare she is!!  absolute nasty piece of work in my opinion.  Held a child protection conference and refused to let us attend after i told her she was a liar 4 or 5 times. And what a liar she is.  She tried her damndest to wind us up,...  no report until 2 minutes before the start of the hearing,,  yeah that old chestnut!. ..

 then when arguing the liar says "you know what im going to court and im going to take your children away from you".  Yes i felt like pulverising the dried up old liar but decided to keep my cool.  She hated the fact we would not read the report and hated even more that she wasnt in control.  Got to say her breath stunk too.  lies lies and more lies.

Anyway, they can go to court we have got fuck all to hide.  scum child snatchers

they just cant fucking leave us alone

Andrea Rowbottom continues her campaign against us

more to come

re :  Bullshit report by anonimous neighbour!!  on a day we werent even in!!