Local Authority put child in care through 'back door'

[bid]

I think from the original post it was susgesting that basically to get childrens rights/services now the LEA are going to try and place them in care because its cheaper, rather than pay the extra thousands it costs in a residential specialist school, the parents in this story had one fundamental right taken off them, a CHOICE, it wasnt there CHOICE to send their child to a childrens home and then a different specail school, its wasnt their CHOICE that their child be placed in Care, LAC, it was well if you want respite its A Childrens home, as this is the reason the Specailist special school was turned down.

 

My understanding of the case is that the parents need a 52 week placement for their son because of his profound needs.

 

The LEA, subsequently backed up by a High Court ruling, found that these needs could be met in one of their day special schools in tandem with a specialist children's home on the same site.

 

I'm no apologist for LEAs, believe me, but if this provision meets this lad's needs as set out in his Statement, then the LEA must fund this rather than the more expensive residential special school offering a 52 week placement.

 

In the circumstances, it would seem (without having any knowledge of the school/children's home on-site) to offer an acceptable provision. It sounds physically similar to where I work in that the residential units are separate blocks from the school, but on the same site.

 

The question of the lad needing to be in the care of SS to access this provision doesn't highlight the fact that his parents retain Parental Responsibility. I think it is a scenario that many parents of children with profound needs will face at some point, either as children or when they are too old to continue to be looked after in the family home. As such, I think it is a great shame that this kind of stigma has been attached to what would appear to be a care package.

 

Bid

[justamum]

My case could be very easily portray abuse, thats how easy it could be

 

JSmum yes it is so easy for this to happen isn't it. As with my sons records and even though there was no evidence to support the allegation it was not recorded as such and so the allegation sat on his records waiting until his pead discharged him into another dept. I have had it removed now though my solicitor but just think what would have happened it I hadn't..doesn't bear thinking about. However they are refusing to remove the part about my home being emotionally and socially detrimental to my sons well being. What was my crime? I didn't attend the school run booze ups at the pub. Sorry but I don't drink and I was not keen for my children to be subjected to watching their head teacher, a drunkard any way, getting p***ed. But they have put a note on to say I disagree. They also put a note on to say I disagreed with another child's record being in my son files too Well yes I do disagree, he is not my son!

 

One of the home ed groups I belong is full of parents being accused of unfounded abuse by teachers and the LA. Why? Because they said no, I won't agree to that!

 

Now I am not saying that all teachers do this, most don't. But are there some out there that get the Hitler syndrome. I also have friend who is a very qualified teacher and has come across a fair few of these and their nasty allegations toward her and parents.

[madme]

Can I just say that while I posted the original message the heading is not mine. Someone merged it with another and overwrote my heading. Please can someone change it back to its original ? I also posted later to show that I had based my post on an email- it was in fact from a Solicitor. - I accept that my original post didnt reflect what had happened. Thanks

[JsMum]

My understanding of the case is that the parents need a 52 week placement for their son because of his profound needs.

 

The LEA, subsequently backed up by a High Court ruling, found that these needs could be met in one of their day special schools in tandem with a specialist children's home on the same site.

 

I'm no apologist for LEAs, believe me, but if this provision meets this lad's needs as set out in his Statement, then the LEA must fund this rather than the more expensive residential special school offering a 52 week placement.

 

In the circumstances, it would seem (without having any knowledge of the school/children's home on-site) to offer an acceptable provision. It sounds physically similar to where I work in that the residential units are separate blocks from the school, but on the same site.

 

The question of the lad needing to be in the care of SS to access this provision doesn't highlight the fact that his parents retain Parental Responsibility. I think it is a scenario that many parents of children with profound needs will face at some point, either as children or when they are too old to continue to be looked after in the family home. As such, I think it is a great shame that this kind of stigma has been attached to what would appear to be a care package.

 

Bid

 

If in this case, the boy is placed in the childrens home during the evenings and weekends, and then attend the special school on site then would the funding come from two or three purses, for example Health care services, Social Services leaving the LEA to fund the Special School, so all the funding wouldnt come all from the LEA purse.

 

JsMum

[Bard]

And therein lies the difference between a parent's love and commitment and a professional's duty of care.

Quite rightly, J's mum, your post is all about you and your son.

But I have had over 700 children so far who have been my responsibility for a year, every day.

You have the right to see, prioritise and comment on the needs of your child, and the nuances of your particular circumstances.

I have to see all of my children, each equally as important as the next, and some who need my help, intervention and protection because I'm the first base. I wish that I didn't have a memory with awful, heart-breaking and enraging cases in it, but I do. I wish that all children had parents that deserved them and cared for them, especially the ones that I come to know personally. Most of them do, and that's how I have the strength to do this job.

I could never be a Social Worker.

[Kazzen161]

I think from the original post it was susgesting that basically to get childrens rights/services now the LEA are going to try and place them in care because its cheaper, rather than pay the extra thousands it costs in a residential specialist school, the parents in this story had one fundamental right taken off them, a CHOICE, it wasnt there CHOICE to send their child to a childrens home and then a different specail school, its wasnt their CHOICE that their child be placed in Care, LAC, it was well if you want respite its A Childrens home, as this is the reason the Specailist special school was turned down.

 

Parents don't have a right to CHOOSE a school, they have the right to express a preference, and the LEA have to go with that preference as long is it is an efficient use of resources (and other criteria).

 

If parents had a right to choose a school, we would all go for the BEST school, even if it provided more than our child needed, and the LEAs would soon be bankrupt.

 

That was the argument that my LA used against my preferred school - that it provided more than T needed, and that other schools could provide for his needs more cheaply. My LA would rather have sent him to a school 600 miles away than to my preferred one (40 miles away) as the cost of that school (even with transport) would have been a lot less than the cost of my preferred school. In the end I proved that my preferred school was the only school that could meet all his needs.

 

From reading the link, it just reads as though the parents wanted the best provision, not just adequate provision, and were trying to force the LEAs hand by refusing to let their child go to the home. As someone else said, they were asking for 52 week residential school anyway.

[Kazzen161]

If in this case, the boy is placed in the childrens home during the evenings and weekends, and then attend the special school on site then would the funding come from two or three purses, for example Health care services, Social Services leaving the LEA to fund the Special School, so all the funding wouldnt come all from the LEA purse.

 

JsMum

 

I am not sure now that education and SS have amalgamated to become Children's services. I had hoped this sort of argument over funding would stop when they amalgamated, but I am not sure if they still have separate pots of money or not.

 

For my son, SS should have paid for the care side, but they refused to get involved at all (as they knew it would cost them money). In the end, that school was the only one that could meet all of T's needs, and it just happened that the school was residential - so the LEA paid for all of it.

 

One person I know did have SS involved, and the SEN Tribunal told them to go away and do a proper assessment before the next meeting. SS did not turn up to the next meeting, so the LEA ended up paying for all the costs of the residential school (as it was the only one that could meet the child's educational needs). Tribunals have no power to make SS do anything.

 

It was possible for placements to be joint funded - sometimes costs were shared between education, health and SS.

[Karen A]

Well this is where COMMUNICATION comes into it. If you believe a child is exhibiting signs of abuse, but are NOT entirely sure because there are no cigarette burns etc, you speak to the parents and tentatively ask questions around your suspicions. How else are you going to know if soiling is due to bowel problems or something else. A genuine parent will seek medical help for the former and concerned about the later!

 

Of course it's right to raise concerns if you believe a child is being abused, but you/someone needs to recognise abuse from medical issues and not just go head long into abuse allegations. Obviously if there is a clear case of abuse then that's different.

 

I worked in a council run nursery and once the children were dropped off and the parents gone our first duty was to 'change' the children into the clothes the nursery had..in other words strip and look for bruising. You then became suspicious of every parent at the nursery and the poorer they were the more you looked for bruises...digusting state of affairs but this was 'Council Policy and Nursery rules for staff'. Yes there were one or two that had bruises and the parents questioned but none were abused and one of the children turned to have a mobility problem but still had to run the SS reporting for child abuse.

 

 

I have not yet read through the rest of this thread so don't know if my comments have been made already.However I feel it is extremely important to draw attention to the fact that there are specific guidelines for all who come into contact with children in a professional capacity or even within volunary organisations.

In my area guidance is extremely clear that ANY CONCERNS should be reported to the appropriate person within SS responsible for child protection.

Talking to parents to discuss concerns goes against all recognised advice.It could enable the parent to either cover any evidence of abuse or worse still ensure that children were too frightened to give an account of the abuse.

Any cause for concern should be made by the responsible professional to the child protection team or officer who will then decide what action to take.

Teachers,nurses,SENCOS etc have a responsibilty to report concerns NOT to assess how valid those concerns are or what the risks are.

Karen.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Karen A

[baddad]

Can I just say that while I posted the original message the heading is not mine. Someone merged it with another and overwrote my heading. Please can someone change it back to its original ? I also posted later to show that I had based my post on an email- it was in fact from a Solicitor. - I accept that my original post didnt reflect what had happened. Thanks

 

 

Hi madme - I've actually highlighted this point in one of my posts too - I received a message with exactly the same title via the KAT e-mail system, so I know it's not your own... I'll try and edit the title in a minute, or amend it to include that info, but please don't feel that anyone thinks you're responsible for the ambiguous title! Merging posts was purely to bring two seperate threads on the same topic together for everyone's convenience

 

I'll have a looksee now

[Karen A]

Hi All.I can't remember who posted the post on ''Child in care reviews'' but do remember the topic cropped up a while ago.

I remember that it was clear from that thread that children are regarded as being ''Children in care'' if they are looked after by Social Services even if the support provided is ocasional respite or fostering.It does not imply that parents are inadequate or that they do not have ongoing responsibilty.

I have a very good friend indeed who has a son who has severe autism.He can be exhausting and challenging to care for.The famliy has respite periodicaly which is hugely appreciated.I do not think my friend always copes well with her son but I know that she does an awful lot better than I would.The fact that the family happens to recieve support from social services in no way suggests that they are any less capable as parents.In fact at one point they were considered as potential foster carers.

 

Surely even though SS have some Social Workers that are better than others it is important to try to build bridges with them to push for improved awareness and better provision.Karen.

[baddad]

Hi all

 

I have spilt this topic and started a new thread in general discussion regarding the scottish case addressing child obesity and enforced care orders. Here's a link:

 

http://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.ph...mp;#entry224421

 

If i've missed any posts or anything like that, give me or one of the other mods a nod

 

L&P

 

BD

[Karen A]

Hi all

 

I have spilt this topic and started a new thread in general discussion regarding the scottish case addressing child obesity and enforced care orders. Here's a link:

 

http://www.asd-forum.org.uk/forum/index.ph...mp;#entry224421

 

If i've missed any posts or anything like that, give me or one of the other mods a nod

 

L&P

 

BD

 

Thanks BD. Karen.

[SueB]

Hi I've spent ages reading every thread - my eyes are hurting now lol

 

I will put my head above the parapet and say I am a social worker - Child Protection.

 

I have a BA (Hons) degree in Social Work and a MA in Global Gender Studies. My own Local Authority ensure all social workers must complete their PQ1 within 2 years. There are unqualified staff but they are not social workers, therefore CANNOT make the decisions of a social worker.

 

I'm not here to justify my job, a job that I love and do to the best of my ability. I have thick skin and can take a vast amount of insults, cynicism and on occasion hatred.

 

However, my job is to safeguard children, hopefully in their own home and in doing so I am duty bound to investigate a referral; to do this I contact other agencies (education, health, CAMHS ect) and by working with the family, together we develop a fuller picture.

 

I don't feel I need specifice training on ASD/AS as what about other disorders/disabilities such as Fetal alcohol syndrome, Downs, Fragile X, Rett Syndrome, Tourettes...I could go on. A part of my job in safeguarding children is to help the family address and cope with the symptoms of the disorder/disability

 

I am not a child snatcher believe me. What saddens me though is that some people's negative experience of social workers can colour their judgement of all social workers. Believe you me, I have worked with some appalling parents...however, why would I think all parents are appalling?

 

One last thing before I end. If I take a referral then depending on the reason and level of risk for the referral, I may not contact the parents first. I will usually speak to the referrer first (if not anon.). If the referral has come with a huge amount of risk involved, then I will speak to the child first...by speaking to the parent first can sometimes cause the child to be at an even greater risk. I may have to ask the school to keep the child there while I contact the parents. There are a number of options that can happen, but no decision is taken lightly.

 

I will not argue about my job as I believe on the whole we do good work. Others may have a different opinion...that's life.

 

Sue

xx

Edited July 19, 2008 by SueB

[darky]

Hi Sue, I just want to say, if I may, that I have a social worker. Our social worker has been an absolute GEM and has provided us with absolutely fantastic support. Not just respite, but access to an outreach service and an OT specialising in ASD's and sensory integration. He also arranged for a shower to be fitted, and is always there to give us support if we need anything. I know we are really lucky. There is good and bad in every profession, but on the whole, once we got past some difficulties in the begining our experience of Social Services has been great. I have written letters to my social worker's boss thanking them for a wonderful service. I hope no one minds, but I wanted to add something else positive to this discussion, not that there is anything wrong with anything anyone has said as everyone has very valid points. Aww gawd.

[Karen A]

Hi I've spent ages reading every thread - my eyes are hurting now lol

 

I will put my head above the parapet and say I am a social worker - Child Protection.

 

I have a BA (Hons) degree in Social Work and a MA in Global Gender Studies. My own Local Authority ensure all social workers must complete their PQ1 within 2 years. There are unqualified staff but they are not social workers, therefore CANNOT make the decisions of a social worker.

 

I'm not here to justify my job, a job that I love and do to the best of my ability. I have thick skin and can take a vast amount of insults, cynicism and on occasion hatred.

 

However, my job is to safeguard children, hopefully in their own home and in doing so I am duty bound to investigate a referral; to do this I contact other agencies (education, health, CAMHS ect) and by working with the family, together we develop a fuller picture.

 

I don't feel I need specifice training on ASD/AS as what about other disorders/disabilities such as Fetal alcohol syndrome, Downs, Fragile X, Rett Syndrome, Tourettes...I could go on. A part of my job in safeguarding children is to help the family address and cope with the symptoms of the disorder/disability

 

I am not a child snatcher believe me. What saddens me though is that some people's negative experience of social workers can colour their judgement of all social workers. Believe you me, I have worked with some appalling parents...however, why would I think all parents are appalling?

 

One last thing before I end. If I take a referral then depending on the reason and level of risk for the referral, I may not contact the parents first. I will usually speak to the referrer first (if not anon.). If the referral has come with a huge amount of risk involved, then I will speak to the child first...by speaking to the parent first can sometimes cause the child to be at an even greater risk. I may have to ask the school to keep the child there while I contact the parents. There are a number of options that can happen, but no decision is taken lightly.

 

I will not argue about my job as I believe on the whole we do good work. Others may have a different opinion...that's life.

 

Sue

xx

 

Sue.I know you have not been around on the Forum for long and just wanted to say thanks for the post.

I think it is great to have professionals here who are willing to offer a different perspective. Karen.

[Bard]

I hope no one minds, but I wanted to add something else positive to this discussion, not that there is anything wrong with anything anyone has said as everyone has very valid points. Aww gawd.

 

<'>

 

 

<'>

[bid]

Welcome to the forum, Sue, and thank you so much for your post!

 

I think we're very lucky to have a SW on board...be prepared to have your brain picked!

 

Overall, our experience of SS has beeen good too, even including the SW who managed to get the whole of my son's DLA temporarily withdrawn!

 

Many, many years ago my lovely dad taught the CQSW qualification for social work (and he had AS too! ).

 

Bid

Edited July 19, 2008 by bid

[SueB]

An earlier post made a valid point and that all Children With Disabilities should be worked by a CWD team. However, reality is that sometimes this does not happen, and as a child with a disability is always classed as a child in need, can be worked with by a regular family support team if the needs are not complex.

 

Regarding the main thread title, if a child is placed voluntarily in care, then this is under sect. 20 of the Children Act 1989 and as such the parents retain ALL parental responsibility. The LA do not have any parental responsibilites whatsoever, (that only comes with care orders). Under sect. 20, at any time the young person can leave or the parents can remove the young person and that happens quite often. I know of a lot of children who are accommodated during the week and go home at the weekend.

 

A result of being a Looked After Child (LAC) is that once the child reaches 15.5 yrs they also become part of the Children Leaving Care Team and as such will be offered additional children services until they reach 21 (or 24 if still in education). This includes financial, educational and accommodation.

 

I know in my job I make recommendations that are really upsetting (I have applied for freeing orders...for forced adoption). There is no victory in this, but the child must be safeguarded.

 

I know there are ###### social workers, I have met some, but they would be ###### at any job they did. All I can say is use the complaints procedure at any point, and use advocacy (especially for mental health), you sometimes need someone to shout for you.

[baddad]

I will put my head above the parapet and say I am a social worker - Child Protection.

 

 

HEY EVERYONE! A SOCIAL WORKER!! LET'S GET HER!!!

 

 

Seriously, Sue - thanks for being brave enough to put your hand up, and thanks for your input

[Cat]

Hi Sue

 

Welcome

 

An earlier post made a valid point and that all Children With Disabilities should be worked by a CWD team. However, reality is that sometimes this does not happen, and as a child with a disability is always classed as a child in need, can be worked with by a regular family support team if the needs are not complex.

 

Who decides what is complex? My point was and is that in some Local Authorities Aspergers Syndrome and High Functioning Autism is not being classified as a disability that is complex. I can not agree with this. Living with this times 2 I know only to well how complex this condition is.

 

Cat

Edited July 19, 2008 by Cat

[SueB]

Hi cat

 

complex needs is usually defined by a having a host of problems, usually additional medical needs, mental health needs and often classed as severely disabled.

 

However, not all Autistic/Aspergic children will fit that bill. For example, my son has Aspergers, but not complex needs, as the only help and support he needs is around his social skills. I personally am fine at supporting Tom.

 

If you are not satisfied Cat - complain hun

 

Sue

xx

[Cat]

Hi Sue,

 

We meet the criteria for nothing, even though our eldest is also severely visually impaired by his Keratoconus as well as his official diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome. And actually we want nothing from SS we have been told on numerous occasions that we 'manage' our two autistic sons very well and we do. So I am not personally dissatisfied.

 

The really odd thing is that I rarely ever bat for myself. After spending the last few years helping to support and campaigning for parents who do need support and do not qualify for any it does make you wonder who decides what complex is. Really I know the definition of this because I sit on an autism sub group which is part of the CDT in my own LA and have a good relationship with them. But I can never quite get my head round this and have debated the issue many times with our Service Manager. Of course it is only those parents who do need support that find their way to us those that can cope have no need to.

 

Cat

Edited July 19, 2008 by Cat

[darky]

Hi Cat, I had exactly the same problem. My child's needs were not considered complex enough and we were coping, not even for family support. I wrote letter after letter, very very carefully. I did not give up. When they responded I responded. Once we were accepted by disability team things changed big time. Once the social worker spent some time with my daughter, the support came rolling in.

 

There is a move down here to steer away from disability team, as the disability team have the least social workers, the most cases, and the least money. Lot's of people don't realise that. I know I didn't! I think it will be better so have a common pot rather than 2 seperate budgets. Have you heard of Locality? Do you have this in your area? If you do, it is another way of getting some quality help and support. Down here there is a locality team and a locality manager for every school. The team meets up with various professionals, social workers, doctors, teachers etc. A parent/carer can ask for help, and the case goes to locality without having to be assessed by social services. The support and funding is then agreed. There is a pot of money just for locality. Schools can dip into locality as well, requesting equipment or support for children. I hope that helps.

[JsMum]

Hi Cat, I had exactly the same problem. My child's needs were not considered complex enough and we were coping, not even for family support. I wrote letter after letter, very very carefully. I did not give up. When they responded I responded. Once we were accepted by disability team things changed big time. Once the social worker spent some time with my daughter, the support came rolling in.

 

There is a move down here to steer away from disability team, as the disability team have the least social workers, the most cases, and the least money. Lot's of people don't realise that. I know I didn't! I think it will be better so have a common pot rather than 2 seperate budgets. Have you heard of Locality? Do you have this in your area? If you do, it is another way of getting some quality help and support. Down here there is a locality team and a locality manager for every school. The team meets up with various professionals, social workers, doctors, teachers etc. A parent/carer can ask for help, and the case goes to locality without having to be assessed by social services. The support and funding is then agreed. There is a pot of money just for locality. Schools can dip into locality as well, requesting equipment or support for children. I hope that helps.

 

 

There is nothing like that here, we do have mulit agency meetings.

 

The support we was recieving on the evenings, after I wrote a complaint and a lettter after letter, has now closed and the provisions are going to be under Banardoes, to get this service you have to be referred by the CDT, we dont meet their criteria, even with an ASD/HFA so we cant access it.

 

Js has had more assessments done, loads more came out, auditory, processing, intergration, socail, significant difficulties, I said all this years ago, its only just been put in black and white on a report, adding to statement, now were going to sendist, its like 7 years later, all its done is add more problems on to his development, throw lack of recognition.

 

I recieve a family support social worker, throw her referrals, he recieves a sessional worker, and I recieved a voluntary Parenting practioner which has now finished, she was on the whole good, not at the beginning, trust issues and all that but I learnt to develop that throw time.

 

The services here are very limited, very little for those who do not meet the criteria.

 

JsMum