Social services removing children from parents with ASD

I had my daughter's removed a year ago purely for having aspergers, I am going to fight with all my might to get them back, no one was autism aware on my case and no allowances were made, my whole family have been alienated for over a year including their 20 month old cousin, they have been placed with my youngest daughter's  paternal grandparents so therefore my eldest has no relation to them and they have psychologically abused my daughter's telling them they'd never see their auntie again and that I would be sent to prison, I have looked after the girls from birth on my own with no assistance, I fully intend to take this as far as it can go to get them back, I had a positive parenting assessment also but nevertheless the paternal family to my youngest got granted an SGO, the girls have been there 10 months not a year like the criteria says and they also had no representation yet their opinion was always listened to by the social worker, guardian and judge yet I was bullied for my aspergers.

firstly I am sorry to hear that I am also a autistic adult but black male and have had my daughter adopted due to what id summarise is lack of professional candour and lack of equality and diversity, racism and ostracisation

I would like to outline some major legal documentation alot of local authorities social workers and public authorities dont like to adhere to when interacting with DIFFERENT PEOPLE. 

first thing I will say is get yourself a adult social and have a needs assessment done to identify what your difficulties are and what support u do need with or without children (this should be part of your transition plan being that alot of autistic people have difficulties with transitions and significant life events then having a child would of been such. How was you supported?) 

I would then advise u to google and research on Statutory guidance for local authorities and NHS organisations on the implementation of the adult autism strategy (statutory means schools have an obligation under law to carry out this.)this is in line with the adult autism strategy

if u have had a SEN report when u was a child there should be information already to what support u should have and receive if this support has not been put in place due to lack assessments then all support that was given as a child should be kept in place until new support is put in place and your needs are being met

I would also like u to pay attention to the equality act 2010 which states discrimination by association means any child u have if you are discriminated against then you are to and anyone who you are related to and didnt recevie the support you or they should of received 

the main principle of the children's act is to keep children within their families by all possible means this would include providing support to their parents where that support can be provided.

all social workers have a duty of care o communicate effectively if this was not done effectively due to your autism needs whether they be u need face to face contact only (teams or something if not able) or only written so if they constantly phone u then u put in. complaint as people as this would be a reasonable adjustment that could be made 

you could also look into a advocate who will also help to uphold your rights as a autistic individual this could be from Age uk or via your local authority adult social worker this does not have to be a stranger (professional)but can also be a family or friend or both stranger(professional and family member) who the social worker can interact with you over high flare situations that alot fo them exploit. Due to there lack of knowledge.

ask a social worker the difference between a tantrum and a meltdown. Not many know the difference which in itself is very frightening 

People who are adults now might have had a "Statement " of SEND, which ceased to have effect when they left school. EHCPs now last until 18 (or 25 if in education) and now include social care provision. Adults who are at uni are entitled to an assessment for Disabled Students Allowance and may get additional support. Adults who are at work, or seeking work, may get support from the Department of Employment. Adults with more significant support needs may be entitled to support under the Care Act 2014, but the LA is not required to provide services in every case - it depends on the needs assessment and what is available locally. Not all autistic adults need, or want, an assessment under s.9 Care Act 2014. Many autistic people function adequately without social care involvement.

Regarding "statutory guidance ", - it is statutory because it is linked to legislation. Unlike primary legislation (e.g. Acts of Parliament), the guidance is just that - guidance. Authorities must "have regard" to the guidance. Most guidance uses two keywords. If it says the authority MUST do x or y, that is an absolute requirement. If it says "should", it is a recommendation. Usually, guidance has phrases such as " so far as reasonably practicable", which basically means they ought to do it if they have the money and resources. The fact that statutory guidance has not been followed may be used to support a claim to a Tribunal or a complaint to the Ombudsman, but it is not, in itself, actionable. For an Ombudsman complaint, it is necessary to prove that there has been "maladministration".

The main principle of the Children Act 1989 is that "the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration"  s1(1). Usually, this means keeping the child within the family. The Children Act talks of "parental responsibility " for the child - that means it is the parent's duty to look after the child. Parents' "rights" depend on them carrying out their responsibility for the child's welfare. If a parent is incapable, through substance abuse, mental illness, developmental conditions etc., the authority will try to support them, but the welfare of the child always comes first.

Most autistic parents are  "good enough" parents (in the sense used by Donald Winnicott). The majority of parents' needs can be supported through tier 1 Universal services (school, GP) or Tier 2 (SEN help at school, Early Help, voluntary organisations.) Social workers usually get involved at Tier 3 where other services have not been effective, and the first line of approach is whether the child is "in need" (s.17 Children Act 1989). Even where there has been a safeguarding concern, many cases are "stepped down" to " child in need " support or to a tier-two service for parenting support.

It is easier to apply to a First Tier Tribunal such as SENDIST if one is a litigant in person.  Using the regular court system is expensive, and these days Legal Aid is far less available than it used to be.

Agreed. I have presented at the SEN Tribunal and won. But local authorities have legal departments, and some parents instruct lawyers to even the score. I was up against an SEN Officer (administrator) who was not well prepared and the kid got his assessment. In the last case where I was an expert, the parents chose to be legally represented because it was a more complex case.

There are two main types of schools in England - academies which are run by trusts and funded directly by the DfE, and schools that are maintained by a local authority and funded mainly by a grant from the DfE.  Either way, the DfE has the money, and the academy or LA has the duty.  In the same way, the local authority funds the EHCP, and if the actual provision costs more, tough, the school has to pick up the tab. Only the governors also have to maintain the fire alarms, repair the boiler and still balance the budget. 

Your solution sounds sensible, but if the roundabout is part of a road programme funded by a grant from the Department of Transport, you can't spend the money you save on schools. All the roads are already full of potholes as a result of cuts last year and the year before and the year before that. The Local Government Association estimated in 2018 that adult social care services would face a funding gap of £1.5bn by 2019-20 and £3.5bn by 2024-25. [Guardian]  That's an awful lot of roundabouts and piles of bin bags.

Getting back to autism, what would be the response if an autistic adult had as part of their care package some sort of sports or fitness or sports activity, but the sports centre had been closed to pay for an autistic kid's school place? But the council "has" to provide both ... OK, reductio ad absurdum, but I hope you get the point.

As for the so-called National Curriculum, the details are set by the Head Teacher and governors. So the school where I am a governor chose Mandarin as part of its modern foreign language offer, and the school down the road chose Spanish. Our kids play brass instruments, the school down the road plays recorders. One secondary school offers an NVQ in construction, another offers health and social care and beauty care.

A recent child death enquiry involved a parent who prioritised her substance abuse over her child's welfare. Society expects social workers to stop dysfunctional parents from killing their children. One could equally blame the police since drug misuse and child neglect are crimes and their job is to prevent crime. Just don't blame the parents. [sarcasm]

Child protection is not as easy as the armchair experts would have you believe. Take a child into care and you are a baby snatcher who has no respect for parents' "rights". Leave the child to be killed by their "loving and caring" [sarcasm] parents and the same critics are baying for your blood. Social workers are expected to get it right every time or face personal abuse - or worse. I wonder how many people here get death threats from their "customers" in the course of their work? 

Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world, and it is confusing. We are not very good with cognitive dissonance and random disorder, but stuff happens anyway.

Ian said:

If the authority does not have the resources, the guidance alone cannot be used to force them to overspend.

I mean the court absolutely can force the local authority to over spend if it issues an injunction they can only follow by over spending. I remember this tv interview where a councillor was defending a frankly untenable position where they were being taken to a SEND tribunal for an administrative mistake where a special needs student wasn't given a priority place in the school they were entitled to. The school now being full the council was offering a school place that clearly didn't meet the students needs. And the councillors position was 'well the schools full, what do you expect us to do kick another student out.' And the question that should have been asked and wasn't was 'well the tribunal has the power to order you to give the student a place at that school so what do you do if it does?' The obvious answer is they spend money on additional staff, possibly even a porter cabin, or risk the courts response. That could involve borrowing or slashing some other areas budget. Maybe some area isn't getting its mini roundabout this financial year.

Social care and to a lesser extent education are areas people mostly only notice when they go wrong so the temptation is to prioritise spending on more visible areas like roads, transport, bin collection and leisure. If local councils prioritised their social care and education budget and left every other department to make do with the funding that was left the roads would be full of pot holes, the leisure centres would be closing down and the streets would be overflowing with rubbish. And they'd all be voted out. Because at the end of the day people don't think of their schools and social care as a council thing. They're 'state' schools not council schools. They have a 'national' curriculum not a local one. When some poor child dies because social services screwed up and its all over the papers people don't write to their councillors they write to their MPs. Really social care and education should be placed into central governments direct control and funding. Or possibly to a devolved authority if we get some english devolution.

Ian said:

if you are also instructing a lawyer you are unlikely to get much change from £10k for SENDist.

I thought SEND tribunal panels were encouraging more people to come without a lawyer. The panel itself is generally composed of two experts and an experienced legal professional so its not as if the panel has to take the local authorities expert 'on faith.' The panel is inquisitorial in nature and can pick apart the experts argument if there are evident flaws in it, especially if the complainant has already called into doubt one or two of the experts assertions. With a preexisting diagnosis for autism and a pre existing ECHP which the local authority isn't following maybe you wouldn't need expert testimony or a lawyer in every case. Just a good set of arguments as to why the councils interpretation of the ECHP was invalid. Ofcouse SEND tribunals have no power over decisions over children going into care anyway.

Thanks, Peter. You make some good points.

I was making a general comment regarding guidance, not specifically the Autism Act guidance.  Local authorities also have other statutory duties, e.g. to prepare a balanced budget and not over-spend. If the authority does not have the resources, the guidance alone cannot be used to force them to overspend. A lot of my work involves young people in education settings, and LEAs and governors have to balance the needs of an individual pupil with the needs of the other pupils in the school and the "efficient use of resources". [EA96 s 317(4)]

We also have a situation where service users or their parents who have resources can pay for independent experts and lawyers to challenge authorities, but it is expensive. An independent psychologist, OT and social work report will cost a few thousand pounds, and if you are also instructing a lawyer you are unlikely to get much change from £10k for SENDist. (Although you can represent yourself or use a lay advocate, and a lay advocate may cross-examine witnesses, etc.)

The advantage of an Ombudsman complaint is that it does not usually require legal representation, and comes at the end of the local authority complaints procedure, so you will already have an idea of the authority's response.

Thanks, Peter. You make some good points.

I was making a general comment regarding guidance, not specifically the Autism Act guidance.  Local authorities also have other statutory duties, e.g. to prepare a balanced budget and not over-spend. If the authority does not have the resources, the guidance alone cannot be used to force them to overspend. A lot of my work involves young people in education settings, and LEAs and governors have to balance the needs of an individual pupil with the needs of the other pupils in the school and the "efficient use of resources". [EA96 s 317(4)]

We also have a situation where service users or their parents who have resources can pay for independent experts and lawyers to challenge authorities, but it is expensive. An independent psychologist, OT and social work report will cost a few thousand pounds, and if you are also instructing a lawyer you are unlikely to get much change from £10k for SENDist. (Although you can represent yourself or use a lay advocate, and a lay advocate may cross-examine witnesses, etc.)

The advantage of an Ombudsman complaint is that it does not usually require legal representation, and comes at the end of the local authority complaints procedure, so you will already have an idea of the authority's response.

Agreed. I have presented at the SEN Tribunal and won. But local authorities have legal departments, and some parents instruct lawyers to even the score. I was up against an SEN Officer (administrator) who was not well prepared and the kid got his assessment. In the last case where I was an expert, the parents chose to be legally represented because it was a more complex case.

There are two main types of schools in England - academies which are run by trusts and funded directly by the DfE, and schools that are maintained by a local authority and funded mainly by a grant from the DfE.  Either way, the DfE has the money, and the academy or LA has the duty.  In the same way, the local authority funds the EHCP, and if the actual provision costs more, tough, the school has to pick up the tab. Only the governors also have to maintain the fire alarms, repair the boiler and still balance the budget. 

Your solution sounds sensible, but if the roundabout is part of a road programme funded by a grant from the Department of Transport, you can't spend the money you save on schools. All the roads are already full of potholes as a result of cuts last year and the year before and the year before that. The Local Government Association estimated in 2018 that adult social care services would face a funding gap of £1.5bn by 2019-20 and £3.5bn by 2024-25. [Guardian]  That's an awful lot of roundabouts and piles of bin bags.

Getting back to autism, what would be the response if an autistic adult had as part of their care package some sort of sports or fitness or sports activity, but the sports centre had been closed to pay for an autistic kid's school place? But the council "has" to provide both ... OK, reductio ad absurdum, but I hope you get the point.

As for the so-called National Curriculum, the details are set by the Head Teacher and governors. So the school where I am a governor chose Mandarin as part of its modern foreign language offer, and the school down the road chose Spanish. Our kids play brass instruments, the school down the road plays recorders. One secondary school offers an NVQ in construction, another offers health and social care and beauty care.

A recent child death enquiry involved a parent who prioritised her substance abuse over her child's welfare. Society expects social workers to stop dysfunctional parents from killing their children. One could equally blame the police since drug misuse and child neglect are crimes and their job is to prevent crime. Just don't blame the parents. [sarcasm]

Child protection is not as easy as the armchair experts would have you believe. Take a child into care and you are a baby snatcher who has no respect for parents' "rights". Leave the child to be killed by their "loving and caring" [sarcasm] parents and the same critics are baying for your blood. Social workers are expected to get it right every time or face personal abuse - or worse. I wonder how many people here get death threats from their "customers" in the course of their work? 

Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world, and it is confusing. We are not very good with cognitive dissonance and random disorder, but stuff happens anyway.

Ian said:

If the authority does not have the resources, the guidance alone cannot be used to force them to overspend.

I mean the court absolutely can force the local authority to over spend if it issues an injunction they can only follow by over spending. I remember this tv interview where a councillor was defending a frankly untenable position where they were being taken to a SEND tribunal for an administrative mistake where a special needs student wasn't given a priority place in the school they were entitled to. The school now being full the council was offering a school place that clearly didn't meet the students needs. And the councillors position was 'well the schools full, what do you expect us to do kick another student out.' And the question that should have been asked and wasn't was 'well the tribunal has the power to order you to give the student a place at that school so what do you do if it does?' The obvious answer is they spend money on additional staff, possibly even a porter cabin, or risk the courts response. That could involve borrowing or slashing some other areas budget. Maybe some area isn't getting its mini roundabout this financial year.

Social care and to a lesser extent education are areas people mostly only notice when they go wrong so the temptation is to prioritise spending on more visible areas like roads, transport, bin collection and leisure. If local councils prioritised their social care and education budget and left every other department to make do with the funding that was left the roads would be full of pot holes, the leisure centres would be closing down and the streets would be overflowing with rubbish. And they'd all be voted out. Because at the end of the day people don't think of their schools and social care as a council thing. They're 'state' schools not council schools. They have a 'national' curriculum not a local one. When some poor child dies because social services screwed up and its all over the papers people don't write to their councillors they write to their MPs. Really social care and education should be placed into central governments direct control and funding. Or possibly to a devolved authority if we get some english devolution.

Ian said:

if you are also instructing a lawyer you are unlikely to get much change from £10k for SENDist.

I thought SEND tribunal panels were encouraging more people to come without a lawyer. The panel itself is generally composed of two experts and an experienced legal professional so its not as if the panel has to take the local authorities expert 'on faith.' The panel is inquisitorial in nature and can pick apart the experts argument if there are evident flaws in it, especially if the complainant has already called into doubt one or two of the experts assertions. With a preexisting diagnosis for autism and a pre existing ECHP which the local authority isn't following maybe you wouldn't need expert testimony or a lawyer in every case. Just a good set of arguments as to why the councils interpretation of the ECHP was invalid. Ofcouse SEND tribunals have no power over decisions over children going into care anyway.