Brrr but it was a mighty cold one this morning [yesterday morning now – I got tied up!]. A morning of luscious oversleeping under warm duvets and a crunchy frosty frogmarch into school just before the 8.50 kettling bell. And then a long, hot, steamy shower to defrost my face and brain.
Radio 4 have been running various things about boredom and the creative process recently. Eddie Mair on PM played 2 minutes of what h considered to be “boring” yesterday to see if our synapses got jigging. However, this was clearly not a pop-experiment meant for lawyers. Because Mair’s 2 minutes of “boring” was someone reading the Ts & Cs for voting in Strictly Come Dancing – a fascinating piece of weird and imperfect legal drafting, which led me off onto a reverie about how on earth it could ever be enforced, before realising of course it is an exercise in box-ticking futility. As a boring person once said – only boring people get bored.
Anyway, back to that thawing shower. It got my synapses in a right tizz, firing off in all directions, joining dots here there and thither. And this post is the somewhat chaotic result. Having mentally formulated the gist I rushed out of the shower, hair still wet, to snap a picture of the side of my car before the evidence disappeared. They might be involved in more accidents (says my dad), but as I discovered this morning the beauty of a black car is the creeping frost-tinsel web that encrusts your motor on mornings like this (Made even more lovely by the swooshing finger doodles drawn by my gloved children as they raced to car at 8.43am). Like a frozen map of all those synapses, right?
So I’m pondering the latest depressing news as I apply detangler to my hair – but this morning it all seemed connected with stuff that is closer to home. Brexit, Trump, the far right in Europe. The Family Courts. Adoption Targets. Un-disentangleable…
Europe is an imperfect compromise. Some of us think (thought?) the pros outweigh the cons (a bit less than half), some think not (a bit more than half). Whoever is right, those of us who thought Brexit would never happen were not listening sufficiently carefully, or not engaging with the grumbling from those who were unhappy about the way things were. And – boom! I give you : Brexit. And – boom! The yanks gave us Trump…
Such is the way of things in Family Court disputes too. When people are pressed too hard into compromise that they can’t really live with (in court or in mediation) – it can break down further down the road, sometimes explosively. Although I don’t happen to agree with him about no fault divorce, Richard Balchin has a point about the need to build a cathartic release valve into any system dealing with wounded, anngry people – and the need to acknowledge anger or a sense of profound unfairness. We pretend we can fudge deep anger out of existence by telling them they ought to suppress their feelings and behave sensibly, pragmatically – and by intentionally or inadvertently pressurising people into compromise – it is not always possible and not always wise. Sometimes we’re just kicking the can.
I’m not sure we’re very good at listening to the grumbles about the family courts anymore than we really HEARD the pre-Brexit grumbles. People talk of not being listened to. It is too easy to say “Well, those are just the people who didn’t “win” or get the outcome they wanted – there will always be some of those”. There will, but we need to take care that this fact does not deafen us to messages we need to hear about how our system is not working. And how people are not prepared to buy into it.
It isn’t just individual cases. There are grumbles – loud ones – about the system itself. That victims of domestic violence aren’t listened to, that unsafe contact is permitted. That dads are discriminated against and marginalised. That social workers lie, snatch babies for targets and bonuses. That everything is corrupt.
One doesn’t have to agree with Brexiteers that they were right about Europe, and one doesn’t have to agree with Trump supporters that he has a fantastic sexy hairstyle, to see that it might have been a good idea if we’d engaged earlier with the grumbles.
So. Take adoption targets. The Transparency Project have tried to engage – we’ve listened to the grumbles and questions and tried to help find an answer. We haven’t got there yet. See : English councils confirm they set targets for the number of children to be adopted. But what response have we had? We’ve had a lot of people TELLING US that adoption targets don’t operate in the way the grumblers fear or suggest. And a few people offering anecdotal evidence that “I’ve not done x” or “I’ve not seen x done”. And I don’t doubt the authenticity of those accounts – but they fundamentally don’t answer the question or engage with the grumbling. See here on Community Care (comments) : My child was nearly adopted – here’s why adoption targets are wrong.
So. Who is going to step up and deal with this issue?
Because there is a groundswell. Those who look can see it. Those who choose not to carry blithely on telling themselves that this is the lunatic fringe, a few conspiracy theorists. They are wrong. These people are our clients, our family, our friends. These people are the parents of vulnerable children – who might, just might, be capable of being helped to be better parents – but who might shut out professionals who try to offer that help because they believe their child will be snatched if they open the door.
And for the same reasons that people elected Trump, and for the same reasons that people voted in the confident but false belief the referendum was binding rather than merely advisory and that Brexit would somehow magically happen in a flash like the ripping of a plaster – people will start acting (do act) on the basis of the information that IS out there about adoption targets and our so-called evil corrupt secretive system of child snatching. Information like the documentary explored in this post : England’s Stolen Children? Plus ca change, plus c’est le meme chose. Because we’ve not bothered to listen or to give them anything better to rely on (You only have to look at this coverage by the BBC of Pizzagate for an illustration of how fast-spreading and powerful these narratives are – and how difficult it is to bring people back once they have leapt down the rabbit hole).
And they will start acting on this information through their engagement with lawyers, social workers, judges, their children. Don’t our professional and political leaders owe them a duty to give them some answers? We need to take a hot shower, join the dots and wake up.
On just one of these many points, there is quite a lot of research on the blame/fault dispute between separating couples transferring into fighting over ther children and/or finances if there is no-fault divorce. Especially in Australia where the fault element was removed in the 70s. As I write that, I realise it was when I was at school and some readers weren’t even born. Depressing how little progress we’ve made. Current English and Welsh divorce law was made 50 years ago.
I don’t know who is going to step up, I emailed the director of ADCS, because I figured that would be a good way to collate info from LAs re targets.
But, two things. SW think they can make assertions about their practice because the procuring children for profit narrative is way off their radar, they are not where you are. Most families SW work with do not have it on theirs either so it just isn’t a very loud voice demanding a response.
I know you will know from that I don’t mean that it shouldn’t be responded to. It should.
I daresay people voted for brexit on what you call” the false belief that the referendum was binding” actually believed the then Prime Minister David Cameron when on tv with a substantial live audience plus a worldwide viewing audience he promised that if Brexit won he would trigger article 50 immediately ! Of course he did nothing of the sort……….
My reply re “adoption targets” on the “Community Care” site re adoption targets was as follows:-
No Sarah I do not use money to” further my own narrative” whatever that may mean.I just take a civilised position against” punishment without crime !” It must always always be wrong to take babies at birth from sane law abiding mothers .It must be doubly wrong to send those babies to strangers for forced adoption cruelly (for both mother and child) cutting themselves off from each other for life in most cases.
When this is done in a hurry to meet adoption targets and to fill the official “scorecards” of social workers it becomes a triple wrong.
I recently took part in an hour long film followed by a debate on french channel 5 titled ” Les enfants volés d’angleterre ” (the stolen English children).The public response broke all records for the channel and was as outraged as it was overwhelming ! The good part is that I now have scores of contacts in France offering to help mothers fleeing British social services to save their unborn babies !…………
Listen to such stalwart supporters of the “system” as Anthony Douglas (President of the Association of diectors of children’s services),Maggie Mellon (vice chair of the British Association of social workers),and Dave Hill (chief executiveof theChildren and family court advisory service;Cafcass)
The Guardian
At a recent packed public debate at Bristol’s main family court, two of the country’s most senior children’s social care professionals said that it has. “The number of children in public care is, I would contend, a national disgrace,” said Dave Hill, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS). They were especially exercised by what they saw as a postcode lottery. “You can go to many parts of the UK and find local authorities where children who have experienced significant harm are being kept within their families or in their local networks, quite safely, with strong, targeted family support or early help services,” added Anthony Douglas, chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) – while elsewhere, children suffering equivalent chaos are being taken straight into care
Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social workers; Vice Chair says:-
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents
“I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.
For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!
A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.
Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.
Child protection dominates work
These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.
What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear
“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”
As I have already pointed out David Cameron promised a questioner in the studio audience on a peak time TV broadcast that if Brexit won he would trigger clause 50 immediately ! He obviously believed that he was entitled to do this even if he eventually reneged on that and his promise not to resign !
I was a “remainer” but was disgusted by the duplicity and scare tactics of my own side…………
The french film on french channel 5 in which I participated was accurate ,Professional,and true in every detail.I don’t know who did the absurd and so faulty English translation of the narrative unearthed by our dear friend Sarah Philimore ! Watch the film dear if you want to criticise because it met 100% praise from eminent french critics and broke all channel 5 records for comments and plaudits !
You mean THIS documentary : http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/englands-stolen-children/
Familoo,
the French original was rather different and caused uproar in France. So who translated it, or is it Brits are hopeless at French ?
Lucy,
unfortunately Flo Bellone’s comments are highly accurate. She represented families when in Britain.
At every point Sarah Phillamore is wrong in this article and needs a reality check.
LA’s DO get grants lopped if they fail to meet their targets,
Private equity firms ARE moving in on this as it is highly profitable.
Children ARE advertised for adoption.
The origin of this WAS to transfer working-class kids to middle class professional homes where they would have a good education and professional careers. The advocates of this still believe “how fantastic this is” and “our fantastic homes”.
Finally very little evidence is needed by the family courts for adoption.
Winston Smith, I think the place for a discussion about whether Sarah is right or wrong is on her blog (see here). I happen to think she raises some legitimate concerns with the documentary, although the documentary itself raises some valid points it does not seem to me that it does so in a very helpful or even handed way (although I confess that I have not seen it myself).
On adoption targets see the transparency project work – it is far more nuanced than you suggest.
On the level of evidence required for adoption you are wrong. The tests are stringent and the local authority must prove WITH EVIDENCE both that there has been significant harm or that, based on the past, there is a risk of significant harm AND that no other option could meet the needs of the child.
Lucy,
I already have.
The tests are not stringent, Nothing laymen would regard as evidence is needed
Then we will have to agree to disagree. You might want to look at this case as an illustration : http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/judge-rejects-welsh-local-authoritys-care-plan-and-allows-mother-to-keep-eighth-baby/
Before we compare too much the methodology and ideology of the English Child Protection Process vs that of the French, take a look at the child homicide rates of both countries (roughly France 700 vs UK 50). Then come back to me and tell me why you think ours is worse than the French? I am fortunate to be a French Social Worker in the England and have plenty of French Social Worker friends in France.
I, and children in this country, are fortunate not to have to confront the horror of child homicide to the degree those professionals and children in France do.