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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.