How social services can seize our children

[Paul Nutteing]

This argument is getting heavily sidetracked here.
I at no point am disputing that there are incompetent social workers, just
as there are incompetent members of other professions.
I am not disputing that individuals in any profession will attempt to

cover

their own backs if their jobs, mortgage are on the line as a result of

their

incompetence.
The difference with social workers is that the press will take an

interest,

as these are matters of life and death. The press won't take in an

interest

in the incompetence of the local librarian. I think that making statements
like "too often"; "they" - ie them as a collective group; "usually"; "more
than any profession I know" - is a tabloid journalism approach, as is the
use of stories and examples which bear little resemblance to the argument
being made. It leads to a perception that "social workers are

incompetent".

Does it occur to you that - as someone who works with children - I am
meeting the Lauren Wrights of this world and have to deal with social
workers who are explaining why cases aren't actioned? The reality is that

a

child covered in bruises will be returned to their families by the courts
unless the social workers can PROVE where those bruises came from beyond

all

reasonable doubt. Basically, without eyewitness accounts or the child

being

prepared to repeat allegations in a formal, videotaped interview, the case
goes nowhere and the child stays at home to suffer more abuse. In my other
posts, I made it very clear that I know of real-life cases where we *know*
children are being abused, but cannot prove it. That *is* the way the

system

works.
The suggestion of the original post is that it is "too easy" for SS to

take

a child into care. My point - actually backed by at least one of the cases
you quote - is that it is exactly the opposite. Your perception, based on
the tabloid news, which in itself seems to be based on very little, is

that

these "incompetent and lazy" social workers are actually working their

butts

off to fabricate evidence in order to meet government targets which have

no

bearing on themselves, their income, their job security or anything else
which might actually kick them into gear. In fact, Essex's staff appears

to

be made up significantly of people who are overseas temps
http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/recruit/overseas/cases/essex.html so they
have even less at stake in Essex County Council's targets.
Why would they be doing this? And more importantly, where is the evidence
that they are?
Russell

Lets zero in on one statement:
"I know of real-life cases where we *know*
children are being abused"

So please go into more detail what constitues *know*
that is not proof or even evidence admissible in court.

Exposing corrupt Wiltshire social workers and
their incompetent director a Raymond Leonard Jones
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/nutteing3.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine as that URL was
http://www.nutteing.50megs.com/nutteing3.htm

Valid email ***@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

[Russell]

Post by Paul Nutteing

This argument is getting heavily sidetracked here.
I at no point am disputing that there are incompetent social workers, just
as there are incompetent members of other professions.
I am not disputing that individuals in any profession will attempt to

cover

their own backs if their jobs, mortgage are on the line as a result of

their

incompetence.
The difference with social workers is that the press will take an

interest,

as these are matters of life and death. The press won't take in an

interest

in the incompetence of the local librarian. I think that making statements
like "too often"; "they" - ie them as a collective group; "usually"; "more
than any profession I know" - is a tabloid journalism approach, as is the
use of stories and examples which bear little resemblance to the argument
being made. It leads to a perception that "social workers are

incompetent".

Does it occur to you that - as someone who works with children - I am
meeting the Lauren Wrights of this world and have to deal with social
workers who are explaining why cases aren't actioned? The reality is that

a

child covered in bruises will be returned to their families by the courts
unless the social workers can PROVE where those bruises came from beyond

all

reasonable doubt. Basically, without eyewitness accounts or the child

being

prepared to repeat allegations in a formal, videotaped interview, the case
goes nowhere and the child stays at home to suffer more abuse. In my other
posts, I made it very clear that I know of real-life cases where we *know*
children are being abused, but cannot prove it. That *is* the way the

system

works.
The suggestion of the original post is that it is "too easy" for SS to

take

a child into care. My point - actually backed by at least one of the cases
you quote - is that it is exactly the opposite. Your perception, based on
the tabloid news, which in itself seems to be based on very little, is

that

these "incompetent and lazy" social workers are actually working their

butts

off to fabricate evidence in order to meet government targets which have

no

bearing on themselves, their income, their job security or anything else
which might actually kick them into gear. In fact, Essex's staff appears

to

be made up significantly of people who are overseas temps
http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/recruit/overseas/cases/essex.html so they
have even less at stake in Essex County Council's targets.
Why would they be doing this? And more importantly, where is the evidence
that they are?
Russell

"I know of real-life cases where we *know*
children are being abused"
So please go into more detail what constitues *know*
that is not proof or even evidence admissible in court.

Ok. Try this one. This is true, and from my own experience. I could do many
more, but this would seem to be the most clear cut.

Eight year old girl. Marks to inner thighs consistent with abuse. Her story
changes as to how she got them - sometimes it's a spring sticking out of the
mattress, sometimes it's the cat, sometimes it's fighting with her little
brother. Dad is observed by staff fondling the girl's bottom in a sexual way
when he thought no one was around. She wrote an extraordinarily graphic poem
in which she participated in a sexual act. There is a history of these types
of concerns with an older sibling.

When asked about the poem, she decided to "partially" tell. According to
her, some nights a man who she doesn't know climbs through the (locked)
window and abuses her. Except at least twice during the disclosure she
slipped and referred to the abuser as Dad before correcting herself. Social
services are called.

With the social workers, she repeats the story, but adds that perhaps its a
dream. She is medically examined and confirmed to have been abused. She
maintains the story of a strange man coming through a locked window when she
is at home. She makes a point of insisting that it *isn't* Dad, even though
this hasn't been put to her.

As things stand,
a) She has been abused.
b) She is not prepared to identify her abuser.
c) It is likely - but unproven - that this is Dad.

Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt". The fact that she has been abused is apparent, but it
could of course be by any adult or teenager she has been in contact with.
She (rightly) will only be removed from her home if that is proven to be the
source of the problem (imagine the distress caused to a child abused outside
the home who was then removed from her family).

The "admissible" evidence:
* One adult's version of two - instantly retracted -comments during original
disclosure
* One member of staff's interpretation of the way in which her father
handled her.

Add to that the fact that the child's own testimony goes something like "I
can't/won't tell you who but it definitely isn't Dad" and the case would go
nowhere.

The family did not attend any of the subsequent counselling sessions
organised, preferring to "deal with it themselves". The child was put on the
"at risk" register and monitored. This basically meant that social workers
regularly met with the child and family, and case conferences were organised
in which any additional observations by the school were noted. But unless
that child was prepared in a formal, recorded, admissible interview to say
"It was my Dad" - which she wasn't - then any court action would achieve
nothing.

Russell

[Paul Robson]

Post by Russell
Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt".

Your story is very sad, but this statement is simply *not* true.

You are correct about the court action, and the story is terrible, but it
is irrelevant.

Social Services are still taking children for adoption for utterly
spurious reasons to hit targets for money.

The fact that they are simultaneously still ignoring massive stuff does
not affect that point one iota.

Your mistake appears to be assuming that as a body (rather than
individuals) they give a shit. They don't.

[Russell]

Post by Paul Robson

Post by Russell
Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt".

Your story is very sad, but this statement is simply *not* true.

I will concede to Periander's greater wisdom that it is "the balance of
probabilities" which counts - I am a teacher, not a lawyer.

As in any court case, however, the lawyer acting on the behalf of social
services still needs to present a coherent case backed up by more than a
pure accusation.

I am still waiting for you to post an example of a case subsequent to the
40% adoption target where the "facts" have not been supplied by the parents
who have just had their child taken (as in the OP article). This - of
course - is never possible as the information is treated as confidential. We
simply do not know.

Therefore I remain to be convinced - either "beyond reasonable doubt" or "on
balance of probabilities" - that these cases either were carried on little
or fabricated evidence; or that this is part of some new pattern which is
emerging.

Russell.

[Paul Robson]

Post by Russell

Post by Paul Robson

Post by Russell
Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt".

Your story is very sad, but this statement is simply *not* true.

I will concede to Periander's greater wisdom that it is "the balance of
probabilities" which counts - I am a teacher, not a lawyer.
As in any court case, however, the lawyer acting on the behalf of social
services still needs to present a coherent case backed up by more than a
pure accusation.
I am still waiting for you to post an example of a case subsequent to the
40% adoption target where the "facts" have not been supplied by the parents
who have just had their child taken (as in the OP article). This - of
course - is never possible as the information is treated as confidential. We
simply do not know.

Well, given that any such material would be confidential this is
completely impossible to satisfy ! I do have copies of letters to parents
from SSD threatening them with Care Orders for refusing to do as SSD
states, but I can't exactly publish them.

Post by Russell
Therefore I remain to be convinced - either "beyond reasonable doubt" or
"on balance of probabilities" - that these cases either were carried on
little or fabricated evidence; or that this is part of some new pattern
which is emerging.

Well, I suggest you don't look very hard then. Isle of Lewis. Shieldfield.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:39:09 +0100, "Russell"

Post by Russell
Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt".

Total crap. Proof BRD is indeed needed to prosecute Dad, but Social
Services could easily apply to a Family Court for a Care Order and to
prohibit *all* contact between the father and the girl (or remove the
child from the home if such is thought to be ineffective), and any
family judge would not hesitate in making such an Order if the
evidence is as persuasive as you have made out. The Family Court
makes judgements on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable
doubt. The rules of evidence are also relaxed so that everything you
have described would be admissible evidence.

The evidence in this case has either been exagerated, or the Local
Authority are particularly incompetant. Children have been placed
into Care on *far* less evidence and for far less serious matters than
those you describe.

[Periander.]

Post by Cynic
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:39:09 +0100, "Russell"
...
evidence is as persuasive as you have made out. The Family Court
makes judgements on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable
doubt. The rules of evidence are also relaxed so that everything you
have described would be admissible evidence.

Might interest you to know that Thursday last I was at the Principle
registry, now whilst I wasn't giving evidence per se, I was in the witness
box, wasn't even invited to swear.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:18:04 +0100, "Periander."

Post by Periander.

Post by Cynic
evidence is as persuasive as you have made out. The Family Court
makes judgements on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable
doubt. The rules of evidence are also relaxed so that everything you
have described would be admissible evidence.

Might interest you to know that Thursday last I was at the Principle
registry, now whilst I wasn't giving evidence per se, I was in the witness
box, wasn't even invited to swear.

Much evidence in Family Court revolves around the subjective opinion
of experts. It would be unlikely for a person to lie about what their
opinion was, so there really is no point in the oath in such cases.

I do not recall any of the expert witnesses having to swear, only the
lay witnesses, but I may have misremembered.

[Russell]

Post by Cynic
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:39:09 +0100, "Russell"

Post by Russell
Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt".

The evidence in this case has either been exagerated, or the Local
Authority are particularly incompetant. Children have been placed
into Care on *far* less evidence and for far less serious matters than
those you describe.

The evidence has most certainly not been exaggerated. The first disclosure
was made to me, and it was a very distressing ordeal.

Russell

[Paul Robson]

Post by Russell

Post by Cynic
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 00:39:09 +0100, "Russell"

Post by Russell
Now to take either logical course of action - remove the child from the
situation for her own safety, and prosecute Dad - requires "proof beyond
reasonable doubt".

The evidence in this case has either been exagerated, or the Local
Authority are particularly incompetant. Children have been placed
into Care on *far* less evidence and for far less serious matters than
those you describe.

The evidence has most certainly not been exaggerated. The first disclosure
was made to me, and it was a very distressing ordeal.

Doubtless ; but you are assuming Social Services act on the importance and
the "level" of the evidence ; they don't. They act on back covering and
finances.

That is why Lauren Wright died ; the alarm was raised quite properly, it
is simply that Norfolk SSD chose to ignore it because it cost money.