When or if to intervene

Posted on by

The thorny issue of social workers intervening in cases of child neglect has been highlighted by a recent report by Action for Children which shows that many actually feel powerless to do so.

The findings are contained in a new report, Child Neglect in 2011: An annual review, which found that just over half of those social workers questioned felt that they were powerless to intervene as did over a third of police officers.

Over 4,000 took place in the survey, conducted by the University of Stirling, including the general public and a range of professionals and is part of a comprehensive review into the whole issue of child neglect. The university says that the findings are a concern, painting a picture of a child getting stuck in a safety net, rather than getting caught in it as protection.

Social workers generally found, according to the report, that the point at which they could get involved was set too high, while other factors deterring them from intervening were a lack of resources and insufficient support services to refer families to. It would be interesting to discover whether those of you reading this with any experience in these issues have similar concerns to those of the social workers questioned. Please let us know if you have.

Here’s a link to the story

Do we need national register for adoption?

Posted on by

I ask because the government wants to make changes to the current adoption system by creating a more effective national register to get children to suitable parents faster and also wants a time limit introduced to get councils acting faster to allow prospective parents to take custody of a child.

Though there are thousands of couples who are looking to adopt and the number of children taken into care has grown in recent years, foster carers have to undergo strict and lengthy procedures before finally bringing the child into their home while the government is thought to be concerned about social workers placing restrictions on children going to carers who were not a “perfect match”.

So, the new scheme aims to speed up the process and will also aim to fast-track those who have successfully adopted vulnerable children in the past. It will also contain proposals to bar councils from getting the top rating by Ofsted should they fail to place all suitable children for adoption within 12 months.

With social workers blamed by the government for some of the delays and concern expressed about them having too much influence on the adoption process, it is perhaps not a surprise to see Hilton Dawson, the chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, saying that money is at the heart of the problems at the moment and it is desperately needed rather than “knee-jerk target setting”.

Are you with the government or the social workers on this argument? Do social workers use their influence to stop children from being rehoused in cases where perhaps the carers would be suitable but “political correctness” is being used? We’d like to know what you think.

Here’s a link to the story

 

Conflict in the home

Posted on by

A new survey has revealed that over half of parents with children under the age of 18 experience serious or frequent conflicts within the home.

The report, conducted by YouGov for 4Children, found that were there were conflicts in the home, arguments and shouting were the usual occurrences, although one in 10 said that physical fighting could occur as a result.

The Enemy Within, the subsequent report from 4Children, said that violence within the home was more widespread than was currently thought with children themselves usually the victims. It claimed that almost a million children were affected by domestic violence either directly or indirectly.

4Children now wants local authorities to acknowledge that a problem exists and come up with solutions to it. Its research found that nearly half of all councils did not have a domestic violence strategy which mentioned violence committed by family members, while 10% didn’t have a strategy of any kind.

The group has obviously identified a significant problem. Is it right to focus heavily on local authorities? Should there also be greater action called for from the police, the courts etc? Let me know what you think about ways to tackle the problem of domestic violence.

Here’s a link to the story

And a link to The Enemy Within!

 

What are the reasons for record number of Cafcass applications

Posted on by
Reply

New figures just released by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, known more commonly as Cafcass, have shown that more children than ever have been made the subject of local authority care applications.

There were 903 applications in January, the highest figure recorded by Cafcass since it started collected data in 2001 and figures so far for this year are 12% higher than in 2011. Cafcass itself says that the figures show that agencies are now working harder to ensure that children are being removed quicker from deeply damaging households and that there has been a greater recognition of the impact that severe neglect can have on children.

However, Sue Kent, from the British Association of Social Workers, says that while the increase in referrals is necessary for child protection issues, she adds that the effectiveness of Cafcass and social workers is being compromised by a cut in resources. She said that there is not enough money going into preventative services so that the authorities can become involved with a family at an early stage rather than getting there when it is too late. She also said that social workers are bearing the brunt of the rise in applications and that they, as a result, are experiencing higher levels of stress and burn out with many leaving the profession altogether.

Of course the figures can be interpreted two ways. They can be seen as good news that the authorities are acting quickly to get involved with suspected problem families or they may be damning confirmation of the growing underclass in society who will not take parenting seriously and, as a result, place their child in danger. Which is it or is it possibly a little of both? We would, as ever, welcome your views, especially if you have experience in this field.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hRQkvE0l-jSpe0G9T53tnXH6OzbQ?docId=N0422241328777140778A

Unpaid parental leave delayed

Posted on by
Reply

We d be interested to hear your views on the news that an extension of unpaid parental leave is to be delayed by a year.

The EU s Parental Leave Directive gives member states until 5 March this year to adopt its proposals to give parents with children under the age of five up to four months unpaid parental leave, an extra five weeks on the current rules.

However, the directives do also include a grace period , effectively postponing the plans by a year and the government is poised to take this up, citing its Modern Workplace policy which is already set to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave. So the UK will not implement the Directive until March 2013.

As many people don t use up their current unpaid parental leave directive, it s unlikely that the new Directive, when it does come into force, will have much of an effect on employers, but do you disagree? Any thoughts most welcome!

http://www.workplacelaw.net/human-resources/content/38962

To smack or not to smack

Posted on by
Reply

The age-old argument over whether parents should smack their children has received another airing over the past week with David Lammy, a Labour MP and a former education minister, claiming that riots such as the country experienced last summer, could be avoided if parents were able to physically punish their children.

Mr Lammy, who has admitted disciplining his own children, said that parents were no longer in charge in their own household and lived under fear of social workers becoming involved if they were to hit their children. He said that he was smacked as a child and that the experience had taught him self-discipline and respect.

Ironically it was the Labour government of which he was a part that tightened up the laws. Parents, before the Children Act of 2004, were able to use reasonable chastisement whereas now there is a ban on any force that causes the skin to be reddened. Parents who fall foul of the law can be sentenced to a maximum of five years in custody.

Mr Lammy says it is also relevant that judges were left to determine whether a parent had used reasonable chastisement before 2004, whereas after that date it has been left to social workers. Most of all, he thinks that there should be greater clarification of the law as it stands, to help parents and children alike know where the boundaries are.

Mr Lammy is the MP for Tottenham which includes the borough of Haringey where the Baby P and the Victoria Climbie scandals brought child abuse into the national headlines and he says that parents should be instructed further on differentiating between reasonable chastisement and what could be termed child abuse.

Is he correct in feeling that parents should have a right to physically punish their children if their behaviour demands it or should smacking be outlawed once and for all? It is a debate which is worth having whatever side of the argument you are on, so surely David Lammy is to be congratulated for that at least. Tell me what you think; I d like to hear from you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093223/Labour-MP-David-Lammy-Smacking-ban-led-riots.html

Can smacking be harmful to development?

Posted on by
Reply

Is smacking capable of being harmful to a child’s development? It is according to a Canadian study into the issue which claims that chastising a child regularly in this way makes that child more aggressive towards parents and siblings as well as their peers and spouses in later life.

The research is timely as it comes as smacking has been making the headlines recently following the intervention of a former education minister, David Lammy, who said that bringing back the more traditional forms of discipline may have helped avoid unrest such as was seen in the riots last summer.

Mr Lammy said that he had smacked his own children and had been smacked himself as a child, but the Canadian research, based on 20 years of evidence, says that, far from improving a child’s behaviour, it can over time make it much worse and can result, in later life, in antisocial behaviour, depression and drugs and alcohol abuse.

The authors of the research say its findings are conclusive, but are they? Many people would agree with Mr Lammy regarding his comments about the riots and they feed into a general debate about the lack of respect people feel that children these days have towards, not just their parents, but their elders generally. It’s a debate that will continue I’m sure. We’d welcome your views on the smacking debate too.