Skip to main content

Childrens Social Services version of Democracy

The link is to more of the newly revealed Norfolk Story.

I would like to extract elements:
April 2004
Diane’s mental health social worker informs her that that he has made a referral to children and families for extra support.

November 2004
Just before the baby’s birth, a case conference is convened. The case conference lasts four hours and nine of the 12 professionals vote against registration, while three social workers vote for it. The chair decides to use her exceptional powers to assure registration on the grounds of likelihood of emotional abuse but does not make clear the five-day right of appeal. The police officer attending the meeting later phones the chair to question her decision.

So, in this instance the local authority was approached for "extra support". The social workers decide - here's a baby we can steal. Even with the Child Protection conference voting 9:3 against registration the baby is still put on the register.

Notwithstanding the fact that this was a major abuse of process that has caused considerable stress I am not aware of any disciplinary action that has been taken against any individual member of staff.

Does that mean that the management of Norfolk are happy with the behaviour of their staff?

Par for the course really.


moira said…
The trouble is mental health workers refer parents to protect themselves.
Then they watch social services try to destroy a family like in this case and mine.
They lie about the person's mental health and do not consult the person's mental health team for their opinions.

They do not consult them as they like to portray a parent as unstable so that the courts will give them what they want.

SS really are abusing parents with mental health problems.

The anxiety and distress they cause can make people ill.then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which social services use further against the parent.

Obviously SS will never say well are methods drove the parent into hospital,they will use it to declare someone an unfit parent.

Mental health profs who are mostly highly ethical,just stand by astounded and watch,as social workers charlatans break every rule in the book.

They then become frustrated as they referred the parent in the first place. It does not take a great deal for a CPN or Doctor to refer someone,as I am sure they think SS will offer support.

Or CSS support as many parents will testify, means extreme bullying into complying to their demands.

Also these social workers know, if they put someone with mental health problems or learning disabilities under extreme fear of losing their child,that it will affect assessments.
The parent becomes stressed out and anxious and withdrawn and this goes against them in write ups of assessments.

Under normal circumstances the parent would be perfectly ok but these test conditions can affect the vulnerable and SS know it.

I think its wicked and totally unethical.SS use their power and intimidation to force a negative outcome.

CSS come down hard on people with mental health problems. Just because a third of children are killed by mentally ill parents does not mean millions of people should be potentially persecuted by CSS.

Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:

Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…