Sunday, 16 January 2011

Forced Adoption

Booker has another article about the theft of small children by social services this morning.

The fact that politicians insist everything in the garden is rosy speaks volumes.  Why are they so 'frit' (as Cameron said to Angus Robertson this week) about tackling these secret courts?

It's long past time the hermetically sealed Family Court system was abolished and another system put in place - one in which the fate of parents and children cannot be decided by an incestuously closed community of social workers, police, lawyers, doctors and other professional 'experts', who all too often seem to work together in an alliance which seems ruthlessly oblivious to the interests of the families who fall into its clutches.

Forced adoption is doubly wicked because it is a 'life sentence' where the adopted children are permanently deprived of contact only only with their parents but also with their adult siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles.  The parents are ruthlessly jailed by secret courts if they dare to protest publicly or reveal identities of any witnesses.

The video is a few years old but nothing has changed as far as I'm aware.  I wish Eric Pickles would readdress the situation now he is in a position of power.

The problem is also increasing in Scotland with the number of children taken away from their parents having almost doubled in the last three years.  Two thirds of the children were babies and toddlers under five.

Of course it's nothing to do with the money local authorities receive for achieving their adoption targets (the link details only English councils).

As a society, should we accept that local authorities have adoption targets?  Of course not. Is it right that LAs receive bonuses for the number of children they acquire for adoption?  Of course not.

There will be children who require to be taken into care for one reason or another, but with only around 5% being returned to their parents, something is wrong somewhere. This is not a subject in which I have experience but I do have an interest, like most people, in the wellbeing of our children and the preservation of family life.


WitteringsfromWitney said...

As I have said over at my place SR, the silence of the 'elected' is damning and despicable - but then they have so much more important matters to engage their minds.......

subrosa said...

What's more important than the care of our people WfW? Ah yes, ensuring they glean enough money to feather their nests is one.

wisnaeme said...

I strongly second the above statement of Witterings from Witney in it's totality.
...and myself being an ex local authority children's home and Barnardos brat, I'm not without life experiences on the matter.

Aye, . . . and ah had a for sale sign on me too.

Jo G said...

I'm going to take a deep breath here and say things that some may disagree with. My views on these issues have changed dramatically because I now believe not to act is to take too great a risk with the life of a child.

I think Social Workers have a rotten deal these days. In one respect they're criticised for splitting families but when another Baby P emerges they are the first people we go for. They can't win.

The other week in my local shop two young people were buying four bottles of Buckfast and a dozen cans of beer. (Couple of days before Christmas.) They had a young child with them and the "father" was holding the wee boy. The "mother" said to him, of the Buckfast, "Don't drap them." to which he replied, "Nae chance, ah'd drap the wean first." I looked him right in the eye and he was almost daring me to say something. I turned and walked out of the shop. He disgusted me and so did the "mother". This beautiful wee boy has no chance with people like them in the sort of environment they will create. In ten or twelve years time he will be his "father". We need to do something about the weans.

In parts of Scotland, my neighbourhood is one such place, some families are into the third generation of that sort of environment. It isn't healthy.

If children are even slightly at risk I say get them out of there.

Jo G said...

The 5% being returned to their parent statistic may actually reflect the enormity of the problem Subrosa. I actually can believe things are as bad as that out there, honestly.

But I keep thinking about the risk factor. We can't take the chance.

Look at the monster Andrea Bone and what she got away with. She assisted her boyfriend in the murder of her beautiful wee lassie. She was convicted but SHE was the one who got help from Social Workers and got off on appeal. She said she was "frightened" from him. I could recount the things he did to that wee girl while its "mother" sat and watched. The week of the court case when the details came out on the news how many of us had to rush at the tv to switch it off because the detail was unbearable. She was fourteen months old. Her grandmother had begged Social Workers to get her out of there and no one did anything. Little Mother Bone had a younger child too and was trying to get access to her after she got out! Perish the thought she would ever get near a wean again. Women like her should be sterilised.

Derek said...

The problem Jo G, is that as Eric Pickles says, the social workers are not fit to decide, and are not making the right decisions. And whilst your short example might seem less than humourous, what was that particular families personal circumstances, and what amount of them were you privy to? I'll wager none. Exactly the situation social workers are in, they cannot see what is in front of their eyes, make the wrong decisions, do nothing where needed, and interfere where not.

What child is 'slightly' at risk? What is 'slightly'?
Would my daughter be 'slightly' at risk if I went to her school and complained about the weight of her school bag, or the fact she has nowhere to hang a wet coat and so goes in with none (of her own choice) or, the fact that I might disagree with certain lesson content taught under the title of "Citizenship" and suggest to her she keep an open mind? Because just such actions could trigger the filling out of a Child Assessment Form completed by some incompetent and passed to another person or comittee for action to 'protect' my daughter. From whom? from me - or an interfering state mechanism with only one thing on its mind - to increase the number of children fostered, regardless of what either the parent or the child want?

Stick your head over that parapet and expect to lose it.

Jo G said...

Derek, I think we see enough evidence these days that "an interfering state mechanism" is needed very badly. And let's look at who we attack first when it all goes wrong and another child dies in horrific circumstances. Its the state.

I'll stick my head above the parapet and say that those who cannot look after children safely cannot be allowed to have them in their full time care. It is too risky. When it comes to potentially dead, brain-damaged and injured children what the parent "wants" is irrelevant too. We have at the moment, children in the care of drug addicts whos addiction is the only priority they can focus on. That makes it a dangerous environment for children.

In making important points like that I don't feel remotely in danger of losing my head. On the contrary I think those who see it as the "right" of a parent to keep a child they cannot possibly care for properly as reckless.

Jo G said...

And Derek, I'm not advocating Social Workers all leaping from a van gathering in weans. I want a proper system where children can be monitored and support provided to young mothers. I say mothers because what we see now invariably are daft wee lassies who didn't just get caught out on contraception, they weren't that bothered whether they were pregnant or not. There are no fathers around but just a succession of boyrfiends, there is no family structure. There is also poverty. The state is not responsible for lifting the tab but it can remove the children to a better place in many of these cases. Leaving them where they are will simply produce exact models of those they see around them in later years. Which means the just goes on and on.

subrosa said...

Aye wisnaeme, I know you have first class experience in this. Isn't it dreadful we're now in the retailing of children.

subrosa said...

Jo, I know how social services work in this. I know how parents can be manipulated when they're in a vulnerable position and think these people are helping when they're certainly not.

Why wasn't Baby P taken into care? It was noted he was badly cared for, he wasn't properly supervised etc. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Baby P would be a difficult child to steal. There was an aggressive partner involved and other intimidating men.

Of course there are those who can't care of children, but there are others whose child/ren are taken for little or no reason. One case springs to mind. Remember social work removing the baby of the girl they said 'didn't have the mental ability to look after a child'. The couple fled to Ireland if I remember and have proven to be excellent parents. They even married, which shows the ultimate in commitment to me anyway.

subrosa said...

Jo, social services know about the likes of Andrea Bone. They could well have acted much earlier. No, the problem is there is no hard and fast independent ruling about this. As I said in the article the 'experts' will all support each other and there's nobody willing to defend the parents who have been falsely accused.

If you look at the video money doesn't come into it either.

subrosa said...

Another recent case springs to mind Derek now I've read your comment. Not so long ago there was an 8 year old who lived in a rural area. She wanted to walk the 200 yards to the bus stop alone and her parents thought she was responsible enough.

Someone reported it as cruelty and the parents were threatened with having the child removed into care. It was only their sensible action in contacting the media which saved this stupidity going on, yet they were continually investigated for months after. I don't know how I'd cope.

subrosa said...

Jo, what is the definition of poverty?

I know a young woman (17) with a baby. She says she's far better off on the 'social' than any of her unemployed friends and she has a nice house, all furnished by the 'social' too. The pushchair is top of the range and paid for by the 'social' except for her donation of £15. The thing costs over £400.

Naw, I think our welfare system is financially reasonable. Unfortunately those who don't manipulate it are the losers and they're usually the folk who need it more because they're using it as a safety net because of unforeseen circumstances and not using it as a wage.

Demetrius said...

What seems to be a major part of this problem is the time and delays caused by trying to get the Social Services actually into court to explain and defend their actions. This is extraordinary and quite simply if they cannot present their case, then they lose.

BrianSJ said...

Still a few days to be able to contribute to the Munro review of Child Protection

Derek said...

Subrosa, I used to walk farther than 200yds to school when I was five and a half, and I wasn't alone. The only time a school board official might have batted an eye was if I had NOT got to school! And when we were there, likely as not any misdemeanour might have been corrected with the cane, slipper, or ruler. We had one teacher who would throw books and blackboard erasers at us, and I used to be told schooldays would be the best days of my life! I couldn't wait to leave.

Jo, you miss my point entirely, why am I not surprised. You make much of children in what anyone might call compromised situations and crave for more interference, but what of those like Subrosa described, like Pickles described of being "too polite", like those that are in similar situations as Christopher Booker has described - and which might according to your ideals - be my child for possibly questioning a situation that requires a simple re-arranging of facilities during inclement weather. In such instances it would appear you are all for more interference - not enough of it!

How often has it been reported that a child has been removed, only to have the child traumatised and in tears, with neighbours and relations stating how the family as a group were quite happy and perfectly normal? Far too often. Wrong decisions are being made, wrong policies are being followed, by the wrong people employed for the job. State interference at the wrong time, in the wrong place, for all the wrong reasons.

Observer said...

It is incredibly difficult to take children into care, it really is the last resort. The tests which need to be met are very high - too high for comfort if you regularly encounter children at risk.

That is the situation in Scotland, I can't comment on England.

& when children can't be cared for by their parents then the first option that is always considered is kinship carers.

As far as I am concerned more children should be taken into care, but that it is very expensive & the pressure is on social workers NOT to take children into care.

That is the reality of the situation in Scotland.

subrosa said...

It does indeed Demetrius and the families involved have no comeback against the incompetence of social services in this regard. The courts appear to regard it as the norm.

subrosa said...

Thank you for the link Brian. My contribution is on the way but I doubt few voices will be heard.

subrosa said...

Derek, at the age of 6 I walked a mile through the city to go to school. My brother was in the senior school and took me for two days (so he recalls but he's older so I don't dispute it).:)

Apogee said...

Hi SR,have read the comments with a feeling of Deja vu.
Thirty odd years ago, a friend of mine had dealings with social workers,she had gone to them about a minor problem, and she quickly discovered the more you had to do with them , the worse the problems became. The problems, the social workers were the problem. Her original problem was a minor matter with a benefit payment which she could have sorted out herself but a "friend" told her to get the social workers to help her.Bad move!
She quickly discovered that they were incompetent, couldn't even make the same mistake twice, they would make a different one and then act on a situation they had created which was totally false.And as she discovered, they all had worse problems than she had.
When she started getting questions about her kids she realised where things were going and left the country.
Things still seem the same today, and its funny how certain organisations, presumably with a common purpose , always seem to get mentioned when these things get into the press. How is it that the lessons, never seem to be learned?
The whole local government and court structures need replacing with a sane ,HONEST, organisation ,one which has an equally honest system of checks and balances applied,and an equally honest system of remuneration that does not end up with grossly overpaid fools being paid to do a job in which they are way over their heads.
The results prove the case!
And her kids grew up to be well adjusted successful adults,without the "aid " of social workers!

Final point to ponder on. What is written down by "social workers" Government officials , police etc, is "FACT" ,and God help you if something is written down wrongly and not challenged at the time by you, and is later used in court proceedings against you, and you do not have sufficient witnesses to challenge it.
Heard of a case where witness statements were taken so incompetently that the witnesses both ended tearing up the rubbish they were expected to sign and re wrote it themselves, they still cannot decide if the people taking the statements were totally stupid and incompetent , or working to orders!They were not low paid!

Observer said...

You are all aware that a social worker can't just turn up & take small children away?

This thread seems to be full of people who have a paranoia about the state.

I have to say that I think more people are concerned with the welfare of children than are paranoid about the state.

Do bear in mind that the vast majority of children taken into care have parents who are addicted to either drink or drugs or frequently both. Bear that in mind when you listen to their stories.

As I said in point of fact it is very difficult to take a child into care.

subrosa said...

I know of a similar case round about 30 years ago too Apogee. She was ill and asked social services if there was some way she could arrange for her children to be taken (not collected) from school. They were onto this like flies. When she realised what was going on she upped sticks and moved to Holland where she had worked some years before.

subrosa said...

Observer, I certainly aren't stupid enough to think social services could knock on my door and remove my children. They wouldn't even do that if a child was covered in bruises and had obviously been abused like Baby P, which is unfortunate.

But I'm also not stupid enough to know just how speedily they can remove children. It doesn't take long to write an report, whether it be honest or not, then to involve the law, should social services wish.

I disagree with you about it being very difficult to take a child into care. I'm not prepared publicly to state my reason but it can happen very quickly before the parent(s) understand what's going on.

So you approve of councils having 'adoption targets'? I think it's disgusting.

Jo G said...

Derek, with the sort of situations we see now, where the end result can be neglected children, even murdered children, I think to use the term "compromised situations" is inappropriate. It doesn't remotely describe the danger and neglect some of them live in.

I think Social Work are damned if they act and damned if they don't.

Subrosa I take your point about the 17 year old with the beset of gear all paid for by us. THAT is what I would end at once. These girls do NOT care who pays. They need to learn the state will not, that the state will certainly take on responsibility for a baby, have it adopted, but it will not keep HER! Single parenthood has become a culture with some families into the third generation of it and not a father in sight. My concerns are with the children.

I have had my fill of listening to the lists of injuries inflicted on defenceless children and the detail of the pain they must have suffered before they die. Enough is enough.

The state needs to be monitoring, looking out for and protecting the welfare of these children. Some of them have no one else to do it and they cannot do it themselves. It is time to put them first.

subrosa said...

Jo, today's social worker is a different breed than those back before the mid-80s. Then social workers had time. Today they're said to be under constant pressure.

Maybe it's the social work education which requires changing to avoid situations such as Booker describes. Also the adoption targets must be halted immediately. Involving large sums of money where children are concerned disgusts me.

Apogee said...

Hi SR, I would say to those who think the State is in the right in this, can I suggest that the State wields power not wisdom , a lot of power!
Very often not a lot of wisdom.
The secret courts are an abomination and perversion of the power of the state used against in many cases, people with no resources to fight back.Who does the secrecy protect?
No one but the authorities against who there is no redress.
Just hope you people who support them never end up in one.

Timdog said...

This is something I've been idly following for a while now, and what amazes me is it seems like Booker is the only person writing about it.

I posted something on my blog and linked to you, as I was particularly interested in the debate that unfolded above. I hope other people start pushing this issue, especially the horrific idea of adoption targets.

Jo G said...

If the figures are rising perhaps it is because the level of public concern and horror, since the awful cases of the likes of Andrea Bone's child and Baby P, plus other publicised cases of small children being brutalised and even killed in the home, have led many ordinary people to call for action to avoid such things.

I would not be surprised.

For me this is not about wanting the "state" to weild all this "power": it is about saving children from serious injury and death. And if you truly believe it is "wisdom" to leave these children where they are then I think you are misguided.

We can talk about family life til we are blue in the face. The fact is that "family life" in some parts of our communities is an existence many of us would not inflict on our pets never mind children. We cannot go on ignoring this.

And Tim, the "you people" nonsense here is not needed. My opinions on this are based on sheer horror at what I know many children are living with out there. I want them protected and taken away from people who are not fit to have responsibility for them. I am no longer willing to have to rush to the bathroom to VOMIT when I hear the details of court cases like the Baby P case announced on the tea time news or dodge the next few news bulletins in case the details are repeated. I can't stand having the face of a child imprinted on my mind and reliving the pain he/she must have suffered before death came because no one DID anything.

As I said earlier, when it all goes wrong Social Work are blamed. When they act, they are blamed. They can't win.

We, out here in the community, have lost the right not to have such processes imposed because too many children are caught up in our communities whom no one is looking out for. That cannot continue. There have been too many casualties already.

Timdog said...

Jo G, are you talking to me? What "you people" nonsense? Or are you referring to someone else?

You seem very reactionary. No-one enjoys reading about the horrific treatment some kids receive. I have 2 small kids, I get it, not that you need to be a parent. But none of those kids were protected by this ridiculous system. It's the easy targets, like the woman in Booker's article, that get screwed.

And it's the unanswerable few, hidden behind the veil, that enrich themselves without saving the people they are supposed to save.

Sheila said...

"There is something very rotten stalking the corridors of power."

As this blogpost says:

subrosa said...

That's the sadness of all this too Apogee. It would seem papers etc are not distributed fairly or even faked as in Booker's case.

subrosa said...

It's a subject people prefer not to discuss Timdog. Then it may just vanish into space.

I've put the link to your post here:

Elaine said...

Social workers employed by councils are merely a link the adoption and fostering industry is a mix of charity and business interests.
In England Action for Children argued that in order to provide children's homes/fostering they had to know they would be filled. DCSF provided AfC with over 100 million pounds for the provision of children's homes/fostering and added the rider that those that were not filled would be signed over to the Local Authority for that area.
What has that to do with social workers? well you have an outside provider on whom you are reliant for places for children you take into care, you don't have the funding to run your own homes so when the provider says we will need to close the home unless...can you see the pressure from bosses/providers that will be on social workers to ensure numbers are maintained?.
So let's look at Scotland well Scotland capped the monies that charities received for services at slightly below cost but it does seem that this has now fallen by the wayside. Hence we now have a situation where Scotland's care system is now a viable investment opportunity.
It would appear that Scotland has now bowed to pressure from their 'providers' and now have a system where they are going to have to supply the 'providers' with a steady stream of children
"Commissioning: we know that the cost of residential care is a major barrier to it being used as a planned intervention for children at the point where they can most benefit from it. In tough financial times, the challenges of a contractual relationship can also become an obstacle to effective joint working around a child. Strategic commissioning, based on integrated planning, is an opportunity to maximise the effectiveness of investment and secure consensus and transparency around expectations and outcomes."
The above can be interpreted as 'we now have a flexible threshold re at what point do you take a child into care' .
I can see the danger of beautiful child friendly Scotland with it's strong communities being eaten up by the greed of the child protection industry.
Maybe some think I am just exaggerating but why would I, what reason do I have to ?
On the other hand do the charities who are providing 'care' have a reason to create a need for children to be deprived of family life? I think they do.

subrosa said...

I never suggested for a minute Jo that badly treated children shouldn't be cared for by the authorities.

But, isn't it strange that we still get as many deaths of young children as we did 25 years ago before all these targets etc came into being? No improvement there, but many more removed.

I'm not arguing that wee children are being horrifically treated by family in this country any more than I'd argue some elderly are maltreated by carers/ family. It goes on. We just don't seem to manage to help much even in this day and age.

But Jo, it's the target business which really sickens me.

subrosa said...

Thank you for the link Sheila. There is indeed.

Jo G said...

Timdog, I added a post immediately below my last one apologising for suggesting you made the "You people" reference. It was not you. It was someone else. For some reason the post hasn't come through.

To move on to your other point, I am not "reactionary". I am, I assume, as welcome in this debate as anyone else and I am simply expressing a view, just as you are. Please do not make assumptions about me simply because I do not agree with you.

With respect it seems to me many of you are assuming a great deal about all of these cases. For one thing you assume they are all being unjustly treated.

Booker states himself he is unable to publish many of the details of the cases. Which means we don't know all of the facts. Why for example would a solicitor not recommend challenging the decision? What had he seen in the paperwork regarding the background that made him/her thing it couldn't be challenged successfully?

I am happier with "the state" intervening earlier than when it is too late for a child.

Subrosa, I don't know what the target thing is about. All I can think of is that the heavy criticism of Social Services in so many high profile cases has increased demands for LAs to be seen to be acting.

subrosa said...

Elaine, excellent post in a subject you know well.

In your link these words jumped out: 'has the potential to make significant savings by intervening early'.

They admit there are deaths within the care system. There always have been but these aren't publicised.

Another quote 'we recognise that to achieve culture change necessary to make residential care a first and best placement of choice for those children who need it'. That's not choice and 66% of the children taken this past year are under 5 so how can 'choice' be involved?

Elaine, what is corporate parenting and the wider corporate family? Are these areas in which serious amounts of money changes hands?

Our politicans here in Scotland have a lot to answer for becoming involved in this.

I think they do too.

Derek said...

Likewise, thanks Sheila.
When the state becomes so ineffective at doing what needs to be done, and so domineering over excessive involvement and 'regulating' itself, the paranoia amongst parents understandably sets in. This in turn makes one more watchful, and protective of ones own children - against the state.

There is an enemy at work here that masquerades as a public service. The organisation has many well intentioned people, but its doctrines and procedures are a labyrinth away from those good intentions, they are being lost.

Jo G said...

"I can see the danger of beautiful child friendly Scotland with it's strong communities being eaten up by the greed of the child protection industry."

Elaine, your post was interesting but this statement from it is, I'm sorry, simply not true. Your beautiful child friendly Scotland is a figment of your imagination. Children are in as much danger here as anywhere else. It is no sanctuary I assure you. "Strong communities" don't exist very much here any more either. Just like everywhere else Scotland's idea of community has suffered very badly.

subrosa said...

Of course you're welcome in the debate Jo. I'm not aware anyone has commented to the contrary.

England has targets for the adoption of small children Jo. I've put links in the post showing the vast sums of money councils receive.

Have you read Elaine's link?

I don't think anyone is saying that they object to the authorities intervening when a child is at risk. Not at all. But you don't seem to have experience of cases in which the intervention is totally unjustified and that does happen, believe me. It's not so long ago I heard a very sad story about that when a jealous ex-friend of a young woman phoned SS to say she was mistreating her children. All lies and it took months for the whole community to pressurise the SS into returning the children. That shouldn't be so. Evidence should have been taken before the children were removed not after. The damage done to the older child will last her lifetime.

I know of ex-wives and ex-husbands who tell SS that their ex-partners have abused their children and that has resulted in horror for all concerned. One ex-wife, who did that many years ago, now lives with the burden of knowing she caused such pain purely because of her anger and nothing to do with truth.

It's a complex area and even more complex today when families are no longer a couple who are married but anyone who lives under the same roof.

Jo G said...

Derek I think attacking the state for not doing what needs to be done is unfair. It isn't the state inflicting the damage it is the environment they are being reared in and the people who look after them. These are the people who are not doing what needs to be done.

Jo G said...

Subrosa, I wasn't suggesting you don't make me feel welcome. You make everyone welcome. That comment was to Tim calling me "reactionary".

Timdog said...

Jo G my apologies, I was a bit confused by your point about "you people", but I now see that was in error. I did not want to lower the debate to name calling so sorry for that.

I do disagree with your point as I feel you are drifting into the territory of assuming that these things are being done for our own good, and I feel the State is utterly incapable of doing anything for the good of anything other than lining its pockets and pushing its ideals. I appreciate there will be occasional mistakes, but I do not accept the mindlessness with which these mistakes are pursued to the bitter end. The Baby P case was a case in point, Sharon Shoesmith still believes she is a victim and did nothing wrong, and I'm afraid that I believe she is not isolated in her mindset.

Furthermore, the adoption targets are to my mind indefensible, I cannot imagine how any sane mind could think that would be a helpful thing to implement. Combined with the secrecy of the family courts, which benefits only social workers and judges, it's a toxic system that at the very least needs dragging out of the shadows, and more likely needs a complete overhaul.

subrosa said...

Well said Derek. The system started off with the best of intentions I'm sure, but it now does exactly the opposite of these intentions - to help families and children.

Not so long ago somebody mentioned to me that there are few older social workers employed in this area, when years ago the social workers mainly seemed to be more mature women who instilled confidence into their 'clients' by offering complete trust and compassion.

Nobody believes that today.

subrosa said...

I would agree with you there Jo. Scotland is no more a paradise for children than any other western country.

Maybe we should be looking at why communities have disappeared. Why have we adopted the 'it's none of our business' attitude and stuck our heads in the sand?

Sorry that's another issue altogether of course. Ignore me. :)

subrosa said...

There you are Jo - Tim's apologised. Misunderstandings happen all the time when we have to type rather than voice our opinions - for me anyway. I'm especially bad when I'm emotional about a subject and when I read my comment later I think 'that's not what I really meant'.

I must try harder. :)

Jo G said...

Thank you Tim and to you too Subrosa.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

If a social worker gets it wrong an a abused child is killed, she/he's condemned and rightly so.

If a social worker wrongly removes a child from a caring home with no evidence of abuse, then she/he is condemned and rightly so.

What is the problem with that.

The joker in the pack is the idiotic incentive scheme based on the number of children committed to care.

Perhaps, if incentives are needed, they should be based on the efficiency and efficacy with which they handle all referrals and the ratios of those they do get right; though, in truth. the money monster should have no part in this.

subrosa said...

RA I've yet to hear of a social worker who 'got it wrong' being dismissed. It just doesn't happen. Even in the outcry in Dundee a couple of years ago the social workers involved were not dismissed. It was a case of 'lessons will be learned' in an attempt to quieten the likes of me.

One social worker involved moved to another brief and the two others moved to other local authorities.

Related Posts with Thumbnails