Social services removing children from parents with ASD

If the council had a duty of care to provide street lighting less people be injured in darkness it would apply equally in the countryside and the city centre. Lots of rural roads are unlit. There is no statutory duty to support public transport with subsidies or additional services. No statutory duty  to maintain parks as far as I’m aware. They could be sold off the cash.

swimming baths, leisure centres. you could raise a sizable amount of money just by selling them off.

i’m not saying that this is desirable I’m saying that when people notice that the council is so strapped for cash that every day but nonessential amenities they enjoying going away change would be forced.

The borough where I am a school governor is not meeting all its statutory targets for kids with SEN. The SEND budget is £2m+ over-spent. The budget for kids in care is over-spent. Social worker vacancies are not being filled becaust the "vacancy savings" are part of the pot that can be used to offset these overspends. There are adults in need of Care Act assssments, but no money to fund care packages. All these are *statutory* duties. The law does allow local authorities to take into account the available resources, however.

We have a huge homeless problem. The housing department cannot meet its statutory duties because there is not enough social housing, London rents are above the Government limit for housing benefit, and I have written about rent arrears already. If tenants can't (or won't) pay their rent, there is no money in the housing pot, but the tenants who do pay their rent still want their repairs done. How very inconsiderate of them.

I used to work with kids in care in NE London. I had a target of five visits a week. Most of the kids were placed in Kent, one in a secure unit in Bristol, one in a YOI in Norfolk ... you get the picture. A good 60% of my time was spent driving or on the train. If I went by train I could do some paperwork.  Add supervision, training, team meetings, attending Family Court ... there weren't enough hours in a day. On one occasion a kid had to be moved in an emergency. I had arrived at work at 8.30 am and at 2.00 am the next day I was waiting for the night bus home. When we had to move kids with behavioural problems we used an agency, basically ex-police drivers drive the car and the social worker watches the kid. Fortunately the driver dropped me off at the bus terminus a few miles from home. Time for four hours sleep, a shower and a shave and back to the office to do the paperwork. You can only do that for so long before burning out.

To use your analogy,Peter, the problem is that neither Peter nor Paul have got any money; they sold all their valuables to pay last year's bills, have overdrafts at the bank and maxed all their credit cards. They have nothing left to rob.

Not building cycle lanes might work, but not filling in potholes is not a good idea. Councils can be held liable for damages where accidents are due to potholes that the council is aware of. A new transmission for a car costs more that a bucket of tarmac and the wages for a couple of blokes with shovels fot half an hour.

As for MPs ... do you mean the "honorable" ladies and gentlemen who bailed out the banks, crashed the budget on HS2, and let their chums rip the NHS off with dodgy PEP...?  I don't know where you live, but I live in a safe seat where the MP is effectively appointed by the local party. (It doesn't matter which, all the major parties have a few safe seats.) You could stick a rosette on a monkey and he, she, or they will be elected - the only question would be the size of the majority. Sure, the proletariat get to vote for the passengers on the gravy train, but they can't stop the train. Your typical MP wants to keep the whips happy, claim their expenses, get promoted, become a cabinet minister then get a seat in the Lords and a few directorships, or a media job.

Ian said:

Just one problem. Councillors are not allowed to set a deficit budget - the District Auditor can disqualify them.

Good. Give them the choice of prison or the sack and it'll become blatantly obvious things need to change. But as I've previously said if councils can't treat their funding as one big pot and rob peter to pay paul then really what is the point of councils? I'm all in favour of simplification of taxation. abolish local taxes and make it MPs fault if local services are under funded. Then we can vote them out. At least most people know who their MP is and what the alternative pretends to stand for.

Ian said:

Are you going to hold the police liable for every murder they do not prevent, every break-in they do not stop, every drunk-driver they did not stop before the accident?

To be honest if the death is a result of negligence or gross incompetence I wouldn't have an issue with prosecuting the police for not preventing a murder. Corporate manslaughter is for deaths an organisation would have prevented if they'd done due diligence.

Just one problem. Councillors are not allowed to set a deficit budget - the District Auditor can disqualify them. I seem to recall this happened last century in Liverpool.  It needs central government funding, and that means more taxation from your pay-packet and mine.  There are not enough CAMHS or adult mental health workers - look at the waiting times for autism diagnosis. There are not enough drug and alcohol services. There are not enough safe places for victims of domestic abuse. There are not enough childcare places. There are not enough care homes for the elderly. I was a school governor representative on our local council scrutiny for a while and saw the confidential papers. I am glad that I did not have to actually vote for some of the service closures that were necessary to balance the books.

Are you going to hold the police liable for every murder they do not prevent, every break-in they do not stop, every drunk-driver they did not stop before the accident? Take Baby P as a case in point. He was killed by his parents, not by the police, the doctor or even the social worker.  Had the authorities stepped in, I bet the parents would have been bleating about how their human rights were being infringed, and how it was just a misunderstanding.

You could have a police officer, a social worker and a family therapist on every street corner. They do not know who is going to abuse a child *until it happens*  any more than the police know which bank is going to be robbed until the alarm starts ringing. Statistically a bank is going to be robbed, a child beaten, an older person financially abused by a relative.Statistically, somewhere in UK this week a father is going to go to the pub, get drunk and go home and beat his wife and kids. So do we close all the pubs? Or sue the landlord for selling the guy the booze?  (Of course, it is a crime to sell more alcohol to someone who is drunk.)  If we are lucky and the kid is bruised, the school might spot something and inform social care.Or the first the authorities may hear is when the kid is taken to A&E and dies of his injuries.

I mean nothing I've suggested stops the police acting on criminality in the normal way unless they become aware of it via a search authorised by a social worker without court order. So say in this hypothetical scenario a social worker authorises entry to a home and they find the parents inside doing drugs. The social worker can use this as grounds to seize the kids. The evidence of drugs can be used in family court. However the police can't charge the parents with possession or use the evidence to ask for a warrant for a drugs bust at a later date. because the search wasn't court authorised the evidence acquired can only be used for limited purposes. That's what I would propose.

Nothing in my prevents police informing social services of criminality in situations where they already do.

Ian said:

Social services can get a variety of parenting orders, supervision orders etc. but the same thing applies - there are not enough social workers, counsellors, probabtion officers etc.

My position is that the courts should make orders as if social services had adequate resources and then leave the government with the headache of finding the money. In fact I think they ought to be able to find government employees and officials in contempt if the intervention ordered isn't funded and delivered. I think if councillor john doe knew he could face a few nights in the cells for contempt of court if court ordered interventions didn't happen some how the money would be found. Even if it did mean a few less cycle lanes and few more potholes.

If I had my way we're amend the corporate manslaughter act to remove social services immunity for corporate manslaughter (for children not in care).

There is an interface between criminality and child protection. Take for example the kid who was "accidentally" shot by a gang member trying to shoot a relative from a rival gang. A parent who is incaple because of drugs may be dealing on the side to fund their habit, allowing undesirable people into their home, and the kids get to see what is going on. The police need to be able to act on what they find.

In the same way, if police investigate any incident and a child is present, as a witness, victim or even if they were just there and may have seen or heard something, social services will be informed. They will not get all the details of the incident, just enough to enable them to decide whether a safeguarding investigation is required. Often these incidents are domestic violence or are substance related. Another problem area is where parents have mental health issues.

Similarly, if a young person "comes to police attention" and is dealt with informally, or is below the age of criminal responsibility, social services will probaby be informed, because the child's behaviour may be part of a larger pattern of concerns.

Social services can get a variety of parenting orders, supervision orders etc. but the same thing applies - there are not enough social workers, counsellors, probabtion officers etc. to provide a service for everybody who needs them.  Second and third appointments for clients who do not engage take up time that could be used for other clients. People move, change their names or whatever. Some people are "undocumented" immigrants or over-stayers actively avoiding any sort of authority.

And some parents are intellectually challenged. They love their kids, they try hard, but don't quite get it together. No amount of parenting classes, visits by health visitors, family support workers etc. is enough. These are parents who are not deliberately cruel, they just do not understand their child's needs. (You said let my baby try soft food ... so what was wrong with Vindaloo?)

The bottom line is that, whether it is the NHS, social services, or any other public service, the public get what they pay for.  Sure, there is always inefficiency and wastage, not just in the public sector.  But the bottom line is that we need more people, people who are trained and have the skills to do the job. Most social workers have more than their official "safe" caseload, and the presure is to close cases because there are new cases piling up. I don't see the Great British Public demanding to pay more taxes to pay for better public services.

There really ought to be fast track for a social worker to gain access to a child or child's home with out a court order. I appreciate that's an invasion of privacy and my response would be there ought to be a safe guard that any evidence found in such a search can't be used in court (except for child welfare related purposes) or as a basis for a search warrant.

So hypothetically if a social worker calls a police man to force entry to your home to check on your child as part of a routine check and they find stacks of cash from your money laundering operation on the kitchen table there is sod all the police can do about it. I think that's a fair way to safeguard the use of such a power.

The problem is that social workers can not insist on seeing a child if the parent does not let them into the home. The only alternative is to go with a police officer if you have a reasonable belief that the child is at risk of the harrm, and the police officer has a power to enter and remove the child. Research shows that often social workers want to believe that a parent is making an effort, sometimes in the face of evidence otherwise. We know that the outcome for kids in care is not that good either. Unfortunately, parents have been known to lie and mislead social workers. They promise to go for therapy or parenting classes or whatever, but don't turn up and we can't make them ... just inform the Court that thay are not adhering to the safety plan. Some parents may still want to stay in touch with an abusive partner who has harmed their child. It is complicated ...

Ian said:

Cases like Baby P show that  sometimes we leave it to late in the hope that the parents will "sort their lives out". Every social worker is between the Scylla of the right to family life and legal process, and the Charybdis of knowing that if we don't intervene some kids will die and we will be hung out to dry by the press.

Part of the problem is social services seem to have option A, do nothing, and option B, take the child in to care, and very little in between. Parent says they can't be at home for a visit, reschedule. Look at the star case, How many visits were rescheduled. There ought to be a range of 'in between' options to ensure access to a child and the environments a child moves in but those that exist are rarely used because it requires manpower and leg work and isn't much easier than getting an order to get children removed anyway.

you are right I meant Litigation friend not McKenzie friend.

A McKenzie Friend is a person who is not legally qualified who "assists" a litigant in person. They can take notes, whisper advice etc. but not speak in court. 

A minor would have a " guardian ad litem " in cases where the court was considering making an oder affecting them, e.g. care proceedings. A minor or person lacking capacity can sue through a "litigation friend" , sometimes known as a "next friend" , with the permission of the Court.

I only started to find out about stories similar to this during Covid both with the HSE in Ireland - and with regard to disabled children in Canada being forcibly vaccinated, then we found out about parents who refused to have the schools change thier child’s gender in California then social services would step in and remove the child from the parents custody - these situations are terrifying that the state can have so much power over peoples lives, even overriding the rights of parents and breaking up the traditional family unit and family structures, which will have a massive social impact in future generations - we knew about this to a certain extent before Covid and here in the U.K. including relating to LGBT issues, but since Covid the potential for this to happen even more is utterly terrifying, as I have extended family in Ireland who are parents of very young children and given that the corruption of the Irish state that has been already revealed, I would be horrified if this happened to any of my extended family members in Ireland - though I am an older Irish gay man with autism, I’m also a traditional Catholic Irish patriot and I’m really concerned about the level of corruption that leads to state overreach and intervention in families, given that the family is the basic unit of any properly functioning civilised society, as traditional Catholic teaching clearly points out to us 

Ian I am not demonising social workers, I actually use my experience to train social workers around child protection and neurodiverse families with Cathie Long who is also an independent social worker like yourself, should you wish to know more about my experience please watch this (269) Cathie Long & Esther Whitney - Beyond Stereotypes 2021 - YouTube 

 I would also recommend the following journals:

Blakemore, M. (2015). Human Right Violations Against Parents That Are Autistic, Have an Autism Spectrum Condition. ww.autismwomenmatter.org.uk/featured/human-right-violations-against-parents-that-are-autistic/Booth, T. and Booth, W. (2004). Findings from a court study of care proceedings involving parents with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 179-181.

Clements, L., & Aiello, A. L. (2021). Institutionalising Parent Carer Blame - The experiences of families with disabled children in their interactions with. Leeds: Cerebra .

Gullon-Scott, F. & Long, C. (2022). FII and Perplexing Presentations: What is the Evidence Base for and against Current Guidelines, and What are the Implications for Social Services? British Journal of Social Worker, 1-17.

George, R., Crane, L., Bingham, A., Pophale, C., & Remington, A. (2018). Legal professionals’ knowledge and experience of autistic adults in the family justice system. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 40(1): 78-97

McConnell, D and Llewellyn, G. 2002. Stereotypes, Parents with Intellectual Disability and Child Protection. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 24: 297.

Benson, P.R. (2023) ‘Maternal Mental Health and the behavior of children with autism spectrum disorder: Unidirectional and bidirectional effects’, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 103, p. 102133. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2023.102133.

I am curious as to how they even knew about your diagnosis, unless somebody had already notified them of a concern. Social Services don't just "take children" ... it requires a Court Order. To get a Care Order a social worker needs to meet the "threshold" test that the child is "at risk of significant harm" before even making an application to the Family Court.

Usually there is a safeguarding investigation. Most authorities use the "Signs of Safety" model which includes a safeguarding meeting which the parent can attend. Usually a Safety Plan is agreed and monitored for several months. If the plan fails, sometimes the parent agrees to have the child "accommodated".

If the authority wants to remove a child against the wishes of the parent - which is how I read "took my children" it requires a court hearing and a  Care Order. However ...

Most children's services are overspent ... it costs a lot of money to keep a child in care. Apart from humans rights and legality, the social worker will need to convince a senior manager that the authority needs to spend the money involved - even making an application incurs court fees and legal costs in excess of £2k ...  it is a lot cheaper to put in a s.17 Child in Need Plan.

Cases like Baby P show that  sometimes we leave it to late in the hope that the parents will "sort their lives out". Every social worker is between the Scylla of the right to family life and legal process, and the Charybdis of knowing that if we don't intervene some kids will die and we will be hung out to dry by the press.

Because Famiy Court proceedings are confidential, social workers can rarely talk about out work. We are accused of "taking" children, but usually all one hears is the aggrieved parent. We are rarely able to refute some of the "my social worker did ... " stories, because to breach confidentiality would cost us our jobs.

Social workers do make mistakes, and there are plenty of documented cases of bad practice which need to be challenged.  But I doubt any child has ever been taken into care BECAUSE of an autism diagnosis. The parent's autism may have been a contributing factor. There may have been a poor assessment that was not challenged by the parent's solicitor - many lawyers are not autism aware either - or by the childre's guardian ad litem. It is never good when the system fails. Please do not demonise the social workers ... most of us are doing the best we can with limited resources.

If they could demonstrate the government (in this case social services) acted maliciously or recklessly I think there might be scope to sue under the tort of Misfeasance in public office. Assuming they've actually acted contrary to the law. That probably won't apply here though

Now the child itself probably has stronger grounds to sue the government

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/JD-v--East-Berkshire.php

In short if your child could get a mckenzie friend they might sue social services if they wished for taking them into care. One can not sue the court but one can sometimes sue social services for presenting bad evidence and expert opinion to the court. If they were reckless or dishonest.

#notlegaladvice

Tort is a civil wrong like trespass.  If a child is removed it must be following a legal process - usually an order of a Family Court at which tne parent and the child are legally represented. You cannot sue a Court!  If there was a procedural error there may be legal remedies, usually by way of an appeal to a higher court and eventually the Supreme Court.

If you can prove that a social worker "deceived" the Court, this can be grounds for an appeal and also for a complaint against the social worker personally (to Social Work England) or against the relevant local authority, up to the Ombudsman or even a Judicial Review.

Following the Autism Act social workers are now required to have statutory training in autism and LD. Now the parent's legal representative can ask what training the social worker giving evidence has had in respect of ASD and learning difficulty.

Thank you!

I hope you win and give 'em hell in the process, it's gross what they did, and that they thought they could get away with it with impunity is disgusting.

Very true, I am also fighting for them to pay for support for my daughter as she has a lot of psychological, emotional and behavioural difficulties due to being removed at such a young age and for so long. I hope a reassessment of practice will happen although I won't hold my breath, I would imagine I will be gagged and it will be swept under the carpet. 

https://frg.org.uk/get-help-and-advice/what/complaints/#making-complaints