Can't win -

[observer]

Seems Social Children Protection Services are in a no win situation; watching the line up on TV the other night, of agencies saying "sorry" for the case of the two girls who suffered 30 years of rape at the hands of their own father - is a cause to pause for thought. However, on balance, it would seem active and early intervention in taking kids into care, even at the risk of acting on spurious or malicious information, is the safer option.

[LymmParent]

Safer for the authorities, you mean? Because being taken from your family and shoved into a care home, passed around foster families like a bag of washing, never knowing what is going to happen to you, being shoved out once you turn 16 and quite possibly being subjected to worse abuse at the hands of "carers" or other kids in the system is most definitely not a good thing for kids. It's a last resort option for the comparatively few children who are at serious risk of worse damage at home.

 

I'd like to see a slightly better system for checking on the wellbeing of children. Children under 2 required to see a doctor every month, children between 2 and 5 four times a year, children over 5 twice a year. Basic examination, failure to show raises a red flag and Social Services arrive to check.

[observer]

Errm, think your jumping the gun again LP; being taken into care, could be for a matter of days, to allow for an investigation to establish the facts, which is precisely what hasn't occured in many of the recent cases of child abuse and even death.

[harry hayes]

I normally think LP is a bit too liberal minded, but in this case he has it just about right.

 

Happy days

[Eagle]

I normally think LP is a bit too liberal minded, but in this case he has it just about right.

 

Happy days

 

[LymmParent]

Errm, think your jumping the gun again LP; being taken into care, could be for a matter of days, to allow for an investigation to establish the facts, which is precisely what hasn't occured in many of the recent cases of child abuse and even death.

 

Right. You name the local authority that can complete an investigation in a matter of days and I'll agree with your proposal. When my grandmother was given six weeks to live but wanted to go home, Social Services couldn't schedule a meeting to discuss organising a visit to assess her house within those six weeks - never mind actually doing anything!

 

Didn't we get to see your plan in action when Marietta Higgs pronounced judgement on all those parents as sexual abusers? Those kids were gone for months, some were abused in care, all were traumatised and it turned out to be utter twaddle.

[LymmParent]

I normally think LP is a bit too liberal minded, but in this case he has it just about right.

 

Happy days

 

 

Harry meant it kindly. I am unoffended. There are many worse things written about me on this very Forum... But whatever must Harry make of Obs going on about my thongs and boots

[observer]

Perhaps you are coming over as rather butch LP?! You've merely cited the other side of the same coin, and I'm aware of cases of spurious complaints to child line by children about their parents, that have resulted in seperation - BUT, it's a question of balance, and of acertaining the truth of a situation asap, in order to safeguard those involved - just because you've had a bad experience of the SS, is a condemnation of current systems rather than the principle I'm suggesting.

[LymmParent]

Obs, you are suggesting taking children out of their homes and sticking them in strange places ON SPEC. Cases where malicious allegations are made far outnumber the cases where genuine harm is being done. If anyone can ring up and get kids taken into care, the care system will collapse for a start. There aren't enough foster carers for children currently in the system - never mind hundreds more.

 

I'm not using one bad experience as a criteria for judgement. I'm pointing out that the systems in place cannot ever respond to such allegations within a few days. Too paperbound.

 

And we do actually have a system that allows the removal of any child a Social Worker believes to be at risk. Your original example of two daughters abused by their father for all those years is a case in a million. A better system for spotting the signs is what we need, not a knee jerk vigilante approach that'll damage more kids than it helps.

 

As for butch, I'm afraid you're back in fantasy land again. I'm nearer Bambi than Rambo!

[Paul Kennedy]

Because being taken from your family

 

Maybe the word family should be defined.

 

When Observer said "Seems Social Children Protection Services are in a no win situation", he's spot on. All due of course to the total and abject failure and disgraceful behaviour of some parents....and families.

[harry hayes]

If I were Gordon Brown I would claim a typing error. As George Washington I would admit I had chopped down the wrong tree.

My apologies.

 

Years ago we had no hierarchies locally and the appropriate childrens officer could take action as he or she saw fit and without question. Now, thanks to "progress" that kind of thing is many times more difficult, as is the police taking younger yobs to court, which is in the news of late.

 

Happy days

[observer]

Ever heard of "judgement calls" LP; these are decisions based on experience and training, that "professionals" should have to make now and again; but in this PC world; inertia caused by covering pone's back, appears to be the order of the day.

[LymmParent]

Ever heard of "judgement calls" LP; these are decisions based on experience and training, that "professionals" should have to make now and again; but in this PC world; inertia caused by covering pone's back, appears to be the order of the day.

 

But you are the one wanting to do away with judgement calls and bundle kids off just in case there's some truth to malicious reports, so the relevant backs are covered if there is.

 

I say leave the current system in place, where removal is a last resort, but underpin it with proper support for the frontline professionals, in the form of structured and universal checks. No responsible parent is going to object to taking their child to the doctor/nurse for a quick check on weight, height, development and lack of bruises, plus a quick chat with older kids. Thereby also helping to identify non-appearance as a matter for further checking and hopefully highlighting parental shortfall of any kind.

[observer]

Don't see a problem with that; but there will still be situations where seperation will be required.

[LymmParent]

Of course. Some people are not fit to have children. But the way to find them is not to obscure the problem in a cloud of self-serving, over-zealous kidnapping on the slightest pretext.

[Sha]

I'd like to see a slightly better system for checking on the wellbeing of children. Children under 2 required to see a doctor every month, children between 2 and 5 four times a year, children over 5 twice a year. Basic examination, failure to show raises a red flag and Social Services arrive to check.

 

A positive idea LP but would be costly and therefore not one many councils would agree to adopt.

Nurses are far cheaper and for these purposes may well be more effective, and due to the lower cost more frequent checks could be done.

 

I would suggest; Children under nursery school age to see a nurse once a fortnight at a children's clinic with a home visit every 6 weeks.

Children at nursery to see a nurse at the nursery every 2 weeks with a home visit every 8 weeks.

Once attending school every child under 11 to see a school nurse once a month.

Any child off school for more than 2 consecutive days to get a home visit from the nurse.

 

I would also suggest close monitoring of emotional/behavioural development to be included in these checks. A childs personality is formed before the age of 5 so most often dysfunctional behaviour will be rooted in the family background. When kids display problems, parents should be investigated and if necessary made to attend parenting skills classes!

 

Well there's a few ways of trying to prevent problems but in practice would anything really work effectively?

The system we have or are supposed to have already fails so very badly. In a lot of the cases of abuse we read about 'the authorities' have been aware of the abuse but through lack of communication of agencies etc etc have failed to act.

Some kids have been found to have bruises, broken bones, cigarette burns, etc on numerous occasions and yet have been allowed to remain with their parents. That's not just wrong, it's downright sick!

[Peter T]

Perhaps a lot of it is down to box ticking and the constraints put on the system by the lack of common sense.

[Dizzy]

I would suggest; Children under nursery school age to see a nurse once a fortnight at a children's clinic with a home visit every 6 weeks.

Children at nursery to see a nurse at the nursery every 2 weeks with a home visit every 8 weeks.

Once attending school every child under 11 to see a school nurse once a month.

Any child off school for more than 2 consecutive days to get a home visit from the nurse.

 

For ALL children You are joking with the above suggestions I presume ???

[LymmParent]

I wasn't joking. I don't see any cost implication in a child seeing his or her GP once a month for the first two years of life, four times a year beween 2 and 5 and twice a year from 5 to 11. GPs have surgeries and are funded already. I can take my kids every week if I need to, so where's the hassle in GPs making sure they've seen a child often enough, and requesting a visit if not?

 

By all means do it as a clinic visit to a qualified nurse or school nurse if that's a better option for resources locally. The point is simply that the failure of our system is in the inherent approach. Parents are not currently obliged to allow any kind of examination to take place, so by the time a neighbour, teacher or other adult spots something, the damage is fairly advanced.

 

Clearly, you can't have social workers kicking in doors and demanding to see kids, so let's go the middle route and have a simple, lowkey check on every child. Early signs can be spotted, and non-attendees flagged for a polite enquiry.

[Paul Kennedy]

In the leafy suburbs there is a reasonable ratio of GPs to residents, alas the same can not be said of the more deprived areas. Coupled to which the demographics of GPs is such that there will be a substantial number of retirements over the next decade. Years ago they used to have health visitors and regular medical inspections at school which seemed to work. Healthcare is about focusing finite, albeit substantial resources where it will have best effect, it is a complicated jigsaw with ever moving priorities and pressures.

[observer]

But isn't "screening" the best preventative and cost effective application of medical resources - regular or periodic screening can catch things early - including child abuse? btw talking about "resources"; I've just had a letter from the NHS, informing me and no doubt everyone else, about their new data base. It contained a reply envelope, to find out more - with an optional choice of 8 languages!

[Peter T]

But isn't "screening" the best preventative and cost effective application of medical resources - regular or periodic screening can catch things early - including child abuse? btw talking about "resources"; I've just had a letter from the NHS, informing me and no doubt everyone else, about their new data base. It contained a reply envelope, to find out more - with an optional choice of 8 languages!

 

ONLY 8??? The cutbacks are everywhere!!!!

[LymmParent]

I was tempted to order the "easy to read picture version". Bet it looks like an IKEA instruction leaflet and leaves you with three surplus body parts after reading it!

[observer]

that's specially for the chavs!