Local Authority put child in care through 'back door'

[madme]

Apparently there will be a piece about a child with SEN who was taken into care just after the parents won their sendist case- it seems that LEAs may consider this where a child is in a boarding school and the overall costs will be cheaper.

[Enid]

What!!! How can they take a child into care for that reason! I have heard of a case where to get a 52wk place in a boarding school the child had to be considered "looked after" so with the parents agreement the child became a "looked after" child, but they still retained PR. Enid

[chill2computer]

Hi

 

just cheacking will it be shown on Monday 14th at seven PM.

[chill2computer]

Does any think it may be propaganda to stop people going to the SENDIST tribunal. Thats the sort of thing Labour are into.

Edited July 13, 2008 by chill2computer

[Cat]

This is NOT a propaganda exercise believe me it is not. I know that for 100% sure. If you look at the posts on here there are parents who are looking down the barrel of this gun and it happens. The fact that these parents went to SENDIST and won is just part of 'their' story and nothing to do with any kind of government plot.

 

However is the new proposed rules for SENDIST go through - and they do have something to do with the government - parents will be looking a different reasons for not going to a SENDIST appeal, which will not be a SENDIST appeal because from November SENDIST is being closed down to make way for the new tribunal system new rules or not.

 

The programme tomorrow night should be a wake up call to all of this that this can and does happen to some parents if they push too hard.

 

Cat

[mandyque]

I have just had an email informing me of this:

 

"Sarah Spiller has done a special report regarding a disabled child taken into care through the back door by Bedfordshire, following the parents successful appeal to SENDIST and a High Court decision, which is irrational but dangerous. It is important piece especially for parents whose children are in boarding schools as it is enabling LEAs to place children in local provision and care, if the cost is cheaper than the child's current provision, regardless of the fact you may be the best parents in the world.

 

Can you please circulate the fact the piece, which has John Friel on it is going out Monday evening at 19.00 hrs C4 news and get as many people as we know to respond to the piece, so we can try and put a stop to this shabby practice, not just for our children, but for future parents of disabled children."

 

I'm very concerned about this as I'm currently taking the LEA to tribunal to get dd placed in a specialist residential school myself.

[Kathryn]

I've merged the two topics on this subject.

 

K x

[JsMum]

wow scarey, I dont know if Ive the courage to watch the programme now though, I might be put off going to tribunal, I will try.

 

JsMum

[Enid]

Oh god, and me. will defo watch it now, as I was thinking of going downthe boarding school route. Enid

[kinky j]

Just thought i'd post a link to these articles as they seem to be related:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitesearc...amp;x=0&y=0

 

Woah, that's a big link! sorry, i didn't expect it to be that long . anyone know how to make it shorter?

 

they make some interesting reading, and it's nice to see people speaking out about this kind of thing!

 

KJ

 

edited to add, Oh, it does it automatically lol!

Edited July 14, 2008 by kinky j

[smiley]

On soon - Channel four

[bid]

The little bit I have read about this so far states that the parents have been given the option of putting their son into care so that he can continue to receive special education. They did win at SENDIST, but the LEA appealed to the High Court and won.

 

So, still stinks, but it's not quite true to say that this child 'has been taken into care' after the parents won at SENDIST.

 

Bid

Edited July 14, 2008 by bid

[Enid]

Yes, its the same as the case I mentioned further up the link, parents I know had to have their child" looked after" by the LA so they could get funding for 52 week placement, they still have PR, but I wouldnt like it, you would have to attend, by law, every 6 months a "looked after child" review, their child wouldnt understand that, but many would and would feel you had put them in care, mine would never forgive me! although he was so awful tonight I could have cheerfully given him away! but not for long! Enid

[Mumble]

parents I know had to have their child" looked after" by the LA so they could get funding for 52 week placement, they still have PR, but I wouldnt like it, you would have to attend, by law, every 6 months a "looked after child" review

Isn't it the case that any child receiving respite, even if for one night a week, is referred to and reviewed as a 'looked after' child?

[JsMum]

As A word of warning the link is extreamly heavy, Ive half convinced myself that the local SS are now going to try and get J now, I would like to add the information is very distressing, my hearts palpatating just skimming it, its dreadful.

 

Scared to bits now, especially as Ive placed complaints, and going to SENDIST!!!!

 

JsMum

Edited July 14, 2008 by JsMum

[baddad]

Hi all -

 

Just watched this, and while I'd certainly agree with the parent's perspective etc, I've gotta say the pre-programme 'release' was very alarmist and misleading...

The decison should be made on the basis of meeting the child's needs - and from that POV the current provision did look to be meeting those needs wonderfully, but as no real details were given of the proposed provision it's all a bit confusing. Did the parents feel that the specialist placement/care package being offered couldn't meet their sons needs, or were their objections mainly based on the residential care element of the package? Were any reassurances offered them about the temporary nature of residential care - i.e. that he would be free to return home after his formal education ended? The school placement currently being accessed included 52wk per year residential care, so in a sense it was the 'same' package - just offered split between two sites rather than one...

God, what an awful situation. I think the most dangerous thing about this case is that it could be seen to set a general legal precedent, where the boundaries between 52wk provision and Monday - Friday term time provision get blurred. I hope they do a follow up piece, because this left so many questions unasked and so many details unqualified

[madme]

Hi. I think that my starting post was misleading given the contents of the piece- I had received an email from someone and just repeated what was said. Sorry to have frightened some. However it will certainly raise issues for those seeking a 52 week placement. It is a shame that the piece didnt explain more. It also highlights how much parents are spending going to Tribunal

[MichelleW]

I watched the report, and had a couple of concerns (well several actually!).

 

As I was considering appealing to SENDIST regarding the fact that DS2's statement is not specific or quanitified, I am concerned that even if I win, the decision could be overturned and I would then have to pay loads of costs - the family had to paty about �45,000

 

secondly the child appeared happy and settled and made improvements at the school he was at, and the LEA and courts were going to disregard that in preference for a cheaper option. Obviously the LEA had though that was the best place for him or they wouldn't have agreed to fund that school in the first place.

 

Also the parents said that the so called "voluntary" placement of child in care was the only option - and therefore not an actual "option" as there were no alternatives offered by the LEA. So it would appear to me that the parents were being forced to accept a situation as there was no alternative.

 

I personally would not feel happy putting my child onto the "looked after child" register because I have seen where it can go (forced adoption of children against parents consent) which worries me enough that I will not even go to SS to ask for respite. Once in "the system" it is not easy to "get out" and then there is always the percieved view that a looked after child, or child in care is due to bad parenting.

[Enid]

Isn't it the case that any child receiving respite, even if for one night a week, is referred to and reviewed as a 'looked after' child?

[/quote

 

You are right Mumble, as far as I know, hadnt really thought of it like that. Enid

[Enid]

[quote name='MichelleW' date='Jul 14 2008, 09:28 PM' post='223940'

 

I personally would not feel happy putting my child onto the "looked after child" register because I have seen where it can go (forced adoption of children against parents consent) which worries me enough that I will not even go to SS to ask for respite. Once in "the system" it is not easy to "get out" and then there is always the percieved view that a looked after child, or child in care is due to bad parenting.

 

These are the things that worry me, yet tonight my 2 youngest had to stay upstairs out of the way, yet again whilts DS "went off on one" in the lounge, there must be some sort of middle way, so you could get help without getting sucked ionto the system. Enid

[baddad]

I watched the report, and had a couple of concerns (well several actually!).

 

As I was considering appealing to SENDIST regarding the fact that DS2's statement is not specific or quanitified, I am concerned that even if I win, the decision could be overturned and I would then have to pay loads of costs - the family had to paty about �45,000

 

secondly the child appeared happy and settled and made improvements at the school he was at, and the LEA and courts were going to disregard that in preference for a cheaper option. Obviously the LEA had though that was the best place for him or they wouldn't have agreed to fund that school in the first place.

 

Also the parents said that the so called "voluntary" placement of child in care was the only option - and therefore not an actual "option" as there were no alternatives offered by the LEA. So it would appear to me that the parents were being forced to accept a situation as there was no alternative.

 

I personally would not feel happy putting my child onto the "looked after child" register because I have seen where it can go (forced adoption of children against parents consent) which worries me enough that I will not even go to SS to ask for respite. Once in "the system" it is not easy to "get out" and then there is always the percieved view that a looked after child, or child in care is due to bad parenting.

 

 

Hi michelle/all -

Obviously, I don't know anything specific about the case, but a couple of things that occurred reading the above. While i do agree that a 'Hobson's choice' is no choice, I don't think the interview really gave enough details about the background - had other sugestions/solutions been offered(Monday-Friday boarding/In county day provision etc), and what were SS role in this (the LEA couldn't make a decision about residential care - that must have been a SS decision?)? The LEA/courts believed that the proposed placement(s) could meet needs equally well, and while I would be quite happy to take that with a pinch of salt (trust LEA's? Me? Not on your nelly!) I do think that a balanced interview would have at least asked about that...

 

Finally, I sincerely hope that if a child who receives occassional respite is seen as a 'cared for child' then the 'perceived view' isn't that that's a result or indication of bad parenting...

 

[Tjololo]

'Finally, I sincerely hope that if a child who receives occassional respite is seen as a 'cared for child' then the 'perceived view' isn't that that's a result or indication of bad parenting...'

 

Earlier this year, my ds was referred to a scheme that matches up a SN child with a foster family, who then provide weekend respite care every month or so. We were skeptical that this scheme would work in my ds's case. We have been proved right. We are now looking into him going instead to a residential centre one weekend each month.

 

In my ds's case, I can vouch with 100% certainty that his referral for respite care has ot absolutely nothing to do with how he is parented. Nothing at all!

 

Tbh, this thought hadn't even crossed my mind!

[MichelleW]

I agree that any report may not give all the facts - and it is impossible to know what options were discussed - but the report just highlighted all my fears together.

 

I personally know of a few cases (different situation though) involving autistic children where SS has been called in because a) someone considered the mother to be neurotic 'cos she was pushing for what she believed was best for her child B ) SS was called in because an autistic child was not eating properly ( I guess most of us have been in that situation!) and c) SS were called in again because another child was displaying eating disorder and behavioral disorders that were put down to the mother (child was privately diagnosed, but went on to get a NHS diagnosis)

 

And my other fear is fighting the LEA and not getting anywhere.

 

I would also hope that a "looked after child" due to occasional respite wasn't perceived to be so because of bad parenting - but I'm not sure if that is the case or not. And that really does worry me!

Edited July 14, 2008 by MichelleW

[chill2computer]

I was told that the SENDIST tribunal system changes this year and it will be less parent friendly, has any one else heard the same thing?

 

I am a bit worried as I have my case heard in November.

[Kazzen161]

As I was considering appealing to SENDIST regarding the fact that DS2's statement is not specific or quanitified, I am concerned that even if I win, the decision could be overturned and I would then have to pay loads of costs - the family had to paty about �45,000

 

secondly the child appeared happy and settled and made improvements at the school he was at, and the LEA and courts were going to disregard that in preference for a cheaper option. Obviously the LEA had though that was the best place for him or they wouldn't have agreed to fund that school in the first place.

 

Also the parents said that the so called "voluntary" placement of child in care was the only option - and therefore not an actual "option" as there were no alternatives offered by the LEA. So it would appear to me that the parents were being forced to accept a situation as there was no alternative.

 

The interview stated that the Tribunal only agreed to the parental choice of school on a legal technicality - implying that it did not find that the parental choice of school was the only one that could meet the child's needs. I am guessing that the LEA have offered a non-52 week special school placement, and the parents have said "we can't cope with him at home" (which they implied in the interview), so the LA have therefore offered to take the child into care.

 

The mother's last words were " we only want what is best for our child", and we all know that we are not entitled to what is *best* - only what adequately meets their needs.

 

My son has been in a residential school/college for 7 years and no-one has ever referred to him as a looked after child.

[Enid]

My son has been in a residential school/college for 7 years and no-one has ever referred to him as a looked after child.

 

So who pays for this? SS or LEA and is it 52wk. <'> Enid

[Cat]

I was told that the SENDIST tribunal system changes this year and it will be less parent friendly, has any one else heard the same thing?

 

I am a bit worried as I have my case heard in November.

 

This has been discused here. Here is a link to the discussion

 

http://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=18097

 

It is all going to depend on 'when' in November your tribunal is really. SENDIST goes on the 7th of November I think? Any cases after that automatically swap to the new system.

 

Cat

[Cat]

The mother's last words were " we only want what is best for our child", and we all know that we are not entitled to what is *best* - only what adequately meets their needs.

 

I think that you hit the nail right on the head Kazzen. Local Authorities don't do best they do adequate. I am left wondering what kind of care home this lad would be going into given that he will be attending a day school? The staff are going to have to be trained to the max I would have thought to cope with this little boy. The irony of this situation is that next year because of the change in council boundries I am told that this council will no longer exist.

 

Cat

Edited July 14, 2008 by Cat

[NobbyNobbs]

oh my...

 

placing a child voluntarily into care (which is what those parents must have done) is completely different to social services sneaking in and putting a child in care to save money. SS can't just do that for starters. there are massive procedures to take a child into care, SS have to file with court, then get permission to take the child from a judge and its then reviewed, appealed and so on so SS will only take a child if they really feel that they are at risk and have a good case of evidence to support.

 

anyone can place their child into voluntary care. social services then have responsibility to provide suitable care for the child, but because it was voluntary the parents usually retain a large amount of say in the childs life. this is what is allowed SS to get children places in specialist schools this way.

 

the term looked after child as far as i know is used predominantly for children in foster and residential (SS) care homes, not specialist schools. looked after children (supposedly) get priority in education and some other handy benefits that are why the child got into the school be being 'taken into care'

 

and as for LAC reviews, they are just part of everyday life and involve a few social workers, a teacher, the childs legal guardian (not the parent, its court appointed), a medical professional and sometimes parents as well as carers sitting around to discuss problems and goals for the childs care.

 

the idea that social services is out to get your kids is one of the most annoying media created hypes ive come across. for starters SS investigating a claim, and removing a child into care are two completely different things. you can complain that SS investigate a report that an autistic child wasn't eating properly, but then are also outraged when they dont pick up on another child being starved to death. you just can't have it both ways and SS have to investigate all reports that are made, but can't investigate if reports aren't made.

 

this just seems to be another story of 'pick on SS' when they were trying to help a child get the care they needed in a backwards system.

[Cat]

Looked After Children - this is what the law says.

 

OUTLINE OF THE EXISTING LAW

 

11. All statutory references are to the Children Act 1989. A child is a person under the age of 18 (section 105).

 

12. A "looked after" child is a child who is provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of its social services functions, or who is in its care under a care order (section 22(1)). There are many social services functions which may involve the accommodation of a child, but the most important are contained in sections 20 (general powers and duties to accommodate children in need) and 21 (duty to accommodate children on remand or in police protection).

 

Looked After Children Service Objectives in relation to Respite Care Services for children with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour.

 

Under the Children Act 1989 a child or young person is considered - looked after - if they are provided with accommodation by or are in the care of the local authority for a continuous period of more that 24hrs.

 

The parents in this case have not placed their child into voluntary care - this is what they are being told they will have to do, told as opposed to being given a choice. As of yet they have not done this. However by the end of this week the school placement will no longer be funded. So unless they can have the lad back home - and let's remember that they legally have a duty of care to their other kids which SS might well pick up on - they really do have their backs up against the wall.

 

SS might well be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but what they are 'not' in many cases is specially trained to understand autism and how it impacts on a family. Sadly there is a growing number of parents who have autistic children who do have SS on their backs. This is something that even the national charity is aware of and something that my own group raised with a Minister many years ago now - but nothing ever changes. You would not employ an electrician to fit your bathroom suite you would employ a plumber. However SS send out untrained social workers to assess the needs of families - how can that be right?

Edited July 14, 2008 by Cat

[baddad]

SS might well be damned if they do and damned if they don't, but what they are 'not' in many cases is specially trained to understand autism and how it impacts on a family. Sadly there is a growing number of parents who have autistic children who do have SS on their backs. This is something that even the national charity is aware of and something that my own group raised with a Minister many years ago now - but nothing ever changes. You would not employ an electrician to fit your bathroom suite you would employ a plumber. However SS send out untrained social workers to assess the needs of families - how can that be right?

 

 

Hi cat/all - not a comment on this particular case, because as i've said, I really don't know enough to comment...

However, I don't find anything intrinsically wrong with Social Services investigating cases where they have reason to believe that children aren't being properly cared for - regardless of whether that child is autistic or not. Having seen newspaper reports of situations where they've hesitated for too long I think discrete investigation when circumstances suggest the need a far better option.

Having a child doesn't necessarily imply an ability to care for that child, and autistic children are not exempt from being born into circumstances where their care needs are compromised. All evidence shows, in fact, that disabled children generally are more at risk from abuse for a whole host of reasons - including (as you've pointed out) the impact that the disability has on a family. Quite right you wouldn't employ an electrician to fit your bathroom suite - but within that equation you have to take account of the fact that parents may not be expert 'plumbers' either. I don't know what an 'untrained' social worker is - I assume that anyone actively working as a social worker has to have completed their DIPSWA training to be allowed to work unsupervised in the field, and that training might not incorporate specific autism training, but it certainly involves more theory and demonstrated understanding than being a parent does because anybody can take on that role without any training or experience whatsoever.

 

Getting back to the case in point, IF the residential care/school package can meet all of the needs of the child as well as the current provision, and offering that alternative can cut the annual cost of provision from �250,000 to �120,000 (I'm working from memory on those figures, so don't shoot me if they're not 100% accurate), AND there are no negative implications for the parents in terms of parental responsibility and/or to have their child at home at the times they would have in the other school and/or to have him back home at their discretion when his formal education ends, what is the difference here, and is it big enough to justify more than double the annual expenditure? Whether a school or a residential care placement, the parents have elected (with very good reason - I'm certainly not making any judgement about their decision) to place their child in the care of others for 52 weeks per year. Surely the only question remaining after that decision is does the provision being offered the child fully meet his needs? That's the question I would have liked to have seen the report addressing, but it seems to have been completely overlooked...

[hassleabe]

i rang my solicitor yesterday when i read about this as i was worried because of all the court cases over my son and the LEA and i was worried the same could happen to us if i pushed it too much ..he told me not to wory and sent me the link about their case from the court if anyone wants to read the background about it i will send it just dont know if i am allowed to put it on here althouggh it is a public court paper and can be found in the archives love bren

[bid]

I agree with BD and NobbyNobbs on this one.

 

One very naive phrase often heard IMO is that parents 'always know what's best' for their child.

 

I'm sorry, but this is patently untrue as anyone who works in the education/care/medical field sadly knows.

 

Bid (running off to the forum stocks in anticipation )

Edited July 15, 2008 by bid

[justamum]

One very naive phrase often heard IMO is that parents 'always know what's best' for their child.

 

I'm sorry, but this is patently untrue as anyone who works in the education/care/medical field sadly knows.

 

AND it should NOT be always assumed they don't!

[smiley]

Surely the only question remaining after that decision is does the provision being offered the child fully meet his needs? That's the question I would have liked to have seen the report addressing, but it seems to have been completely overlooked...

 

I agree. It was completely lacking in the report - and without that question being answered, it's hard to comment.

[Mumble]

*Walks into torture chamber, sees stocks are full and places self on rack instead. Good thing really, I need to stretch my legs to fill my new jeans. *

 

We don't know enough about this case and we all know that the media will often pick elements that create good television and a bit of hype - and they've succeeded - just look at this thread and, I suspect, countless others on other forums.

 

There is a potential problem I think that 'looked after child' applies simultaneously to short term respite asked for by the parent and to children taken from the family home for their own safety on a potentially permanent basis. Yet sometimes it is useful to collapse service groups together so there are less 'talkers' and more 'doers'.

 

However, I can honestly say from my experience (and I know about being a 'non-voluntary' looked after child) having taught children who are 'looked after children' that I do not automatically assume that they are looked after because of bad parenting. But at the same time, as Bid has said, some parents may think they know what it best, but it must be very hard when you're so closely involved to see the situation clearly and they may think they know what is best simply because they can't 'see' if that makes sense. Sometimes it takes someone more removed and less emotionally involved to make the necessary decisions.

 

As NobbyNobbs says. SS don't 'sneak in' - in fact it's not always that easy to give children the care they desperately need. We don't know enough about this case, but from the way I saw it, the taking into care was still voluntary because it wasn't a case of the child being physically removed from the parents and them losing PR. I saw it more as a case of day school and extended respite, but as I say, we weren't shown the other option (which to me seems strange - if it was so horrific, why didn't the report show it - that would make good TV )

 

I'm not so sure about trained social workers either - whilst it would be lovely to see social workers trained in autism, why single autism out? - someone else could equally ask them to be trained in X, Y or Z and that situation simply isn't possible. It's like the other thread on changes (which I've declined from commenting on - unless you're going to throw my rack into a lake and see if I float, I can only undergo one torture at a time) - of course it would be wonderful if teachers, GPs etc were all fully trained in autism, but they are general practitioners and non-specialist teachers. The very nature of their job means that we have a referral system and it simply wouldn't be possible for them to be trained in everything (and would potentially detract from the job they do).

[bid]

Hey up, Mumbley...how's the view from the rack?

 

These stocks are starting to chafe a tad (after all, they are more BD-shaped than Bid-shaped )...might join you for a bit of a stretch!

 

Bid

 

Totally agree with you, BTW

[Cat]

Question

 

If you were totally unaware of autism and how it can present and impact on both child and family and you went to visit such a family to find the child is running around the house all but naked, eats their meals sitting in their wardrobe and has no bed is sleeping on a mattress on the floor.

 

What might you think?

 

If the team from SS who first come to see you are fully trained in child protection issues but have no knowledge or understanding of autism they might just get the wrong idea. It happens and it is not as rare as you might think.

 

Training of ASD is essential for social workers - even the NAS agrees with me on this one.

 

By untrained social worker I mean a social worker who has not be specially trained in SEN. Surely if you are going to come into contact with families who have SEN you should have an inkling?

 

And as for parents not knowing their kids best - yes well the professionals that left my son on suicide watch and added to his nervous breakdown weren't very good at knowing what was best for my son either.

 

It is recognised that there is nowhere near enough professionals specially trained with knowledge and expertise in autism. This is especially so where adults on the spectrum are concerned. There is no way that I would ever entrust my sons to someone who, because they are a 'professional' working in the education/care/medical field automatically makes them the experts, without making sure that this was the case. It is patently obvious from posts made here that to accept that these professionals always know best is sheer lunacy.

 

Cat

Edited July 15, 2008 by Cat

[bid]

Cat, it can't possibly be true to say that parents always know what is best for their children...if this was so, there wouldn't be any neglected/abused/murdered children, would there?

 

It's also easy to dismiss all professionals, but ask anyone who works in any of those areas about the children they have worked with who are 'looked after' children because of parental neglect/abuse, especially those children who are especially vulnerable because they have special needs too

 

And I will always remember Bard's comment on another thread that after many years as a teacher she sees a little face for every child protection issue.

 

Bid

Edited July 15, 2008 by bid

[Cat]

Bid I have not said that parents always know what is be for their children because clearly that is not true. Many parents are desperate for help and input from professionals but sadly sometimes some professionals actually know less than the parents and make it all worse. I am also fully aware that some parents do neglect and abuse their children. I am also fully aware that sometimes profesionals get that wrong to. It is of course a very fine line to walk and a very difficult job to boot. But when you hear someone who is a leading professional in the field of disabilities saying that Aspergers Syndrome is NOT real autism you have to wonder.

 

If it is all to easy to dismiss professionals - and I did not say all because I know some excellent professionals - it is easier still to dismiss parents. I think the buzz words at the moment are 'overinvolved parents' hmm I wonder why we are overinvolved?

 

Cat