Lack of leadership in soicial services

It’s exactly the same with teens the social workers are bound by the rules, children run away from home, at some stage they are out of control and taken into a care home, where they run away again. The police take them back only to repeat the same cycle, there is no way to restrain them unless they commit a serious crime, then when they do get harmed it’s the social service that get blamed.

That case went to court and the female judge made the decision to return the little girl to her parents. She’d been living happily with her grandparents and they fought to keep her. Terrible case but his wife ( child’s mother) stood by him.

A sw was quoted in The Guardian “Ellie was let down by the entire system.”

They sometimes get it wrong and they definitely failed in their duty of care with little Arthur. It’s not as if other people weren’t alerting them.

The Any Answers programme was excellent and a number of social workers were given space to explain procedures.
I don't think anyone hss directly attacked social workers, most understand the pressures only too well. For the record, I have been a Labour supporter all my life and would rather be strung up than vote Tory!!

Who would be a social worker?
The torrent of abuse from a few ignorant posters, the attempt as always to blame the Tories, the sneering at social workers, who are damned if the do and damned if they don't.
I am not a social worker and could image nothing worse, but the ones I worked with loved their job and in my opinion were good at it.
They have no obvious yardstick to measure performance and prove their worth to the world: no patients recovered, pandemics contained, improved academic results, better housing, increased sales, speeding punished, crime tackled .

Their success lies in preventing these cases, but nobody sees that; visiting a distraught family on Christmas Eve, Day and Boxing Day; finding homes for destitute families, preventing children from living with abusive parents, spotting and stopping neglect and abuse, tracking children across the country, endless case conferences with people who smilingly agree with all the recommendations but have no intention of doing a thing.
Only known about when there is a failure. The people to blame are the manipulative, cunning, sadistic parents who know every trick to prevent their children being removed, mainly because of the income they bring, and a delight in outwitting the authorities.
Who would have thought at first glance that Emma Tustin was a bad parent: spotless house, devoted partner, answer for everything, and a monster.

Who would have thought at first glance that Emma Tustin was a bad parent: spotless house, devoted partner, answer for everything, and a monster.

A well trained social worker with the awareness and nous to know all is not as it seems, especially when reports are coming in from different people.

Any Answers was very good today. Callers were given space to express their views clearly. I was impressed by the retired police officer. He’d worked on one of the specialised police child protection teams so worked closely with social workers. He is now working with social workers involved in family group meetings. So his experience is extensive. He reported positively about social workers, paid for a 37 hour week but usually putting on 70-90 hours yet still only scratching the surface. He reported guidelines are social workers have 18 children on their case loads but carry 30 plus. He went on to say social workers are involved with families where drug/alcohol/domestic abuse are endemic, along with hostility and threats to social workers.
What he said resonated with my own experience. When I retired my case load included 29 children from a number of families. All needed safeguarding/legal proceedings.
I wonder of those who so easily blame and dismiss social workers are prepared to be influenced by this experienced ex police officer

Ilovecheese

However we voted individually, as a country we have a Conservative Government.
The Conservative party are the party of low taxation and a smaller State.
The State is responsible for providing social services.
A smaller state means less for Social Services.
A smaller number of social workers leading to a higher caseload.
Less training and less oversight.
Less police officers.
This is what a smaller State means.

exactly, combine this with a tabloid press who blame SS when things go wrong, but never list their successful interventions, a press who witter on about 'nanny state' and you have the perfect storm.

I listened to 'Any answers' on radio 4 this lunchtime. The whole show was given over to callers regarding little Arthur's demise. Very interesting and enlightening contributions were made by ex social workers, a policeman and a lawyer. Indeed the system seems to be bogged down in paperwork with little sign of urgency when required. What has stayed with me most is two of the social workers - in separate areas and with different bosses - were told their standards were too high. Also the guile and the ability of offending parents to 'work the system' I found astonishing.

tickingbird

^Who would have thought at first glance that Emma Tustin was a bad parent: spotless house, devoted partner, answer for everything, and a monster.^

A well trained social worker with the awareness and nous to know all is not as it seems, especially when reports are coming in from different people.

And added to which if these departments join up the dots, past history on Ms Tustin would have revealed early on that she had mental health issues, had tried to take her own life, had 2 of her own 4 children removed from her care, had jumped out of a window, fracturing her pelvis and requiring several weeks in hospital.

Did this woman’s history of instability not ring any alarm bells, did it not warrant a watchful eye? - even before she met Hughes during lockdown? Perhaps a ‘red flag’ inserted onto the computer screen - no action YET but if anything comes to light down the line, any reports from family or neighbours, question all narratives & think the unthinkable⁉️

That’s my view.

I wasn't criticising individual social workers, rather the leadership - whether from above in social services (the leader of the local SS who has just resigned was apparently earning £140,000 pa - and at that salary we are surely entitled to good leadership - or from the government. We do need more social workers and it is surprising if you can earn that sort of many that more people don't go into it! And before anyone jumps on me I do realise that money is not the main motive for good social workers.

I make a point of not interfering in my children’s decisions but did try to persuade DD not to go in to Social Work. It’s a thankless job with so many belligerent people prepared to wade in, but not so many people getting involved in family befriending schemes.

No end of times she would like to just scoop the children up and take them somewhere safe but obviously she can’t! Gut feeling alone is not enough but sometimes that’s all you can go on when the parents know exactly how to work the system. Look what happened in the Orkneys!

A closer look at the top echelons is vital. Too many taking the jobs for their own advancement. The person in charge has a lot to answer for.

Same happened with the C-diff scandal. The CEO was vain and a bully and very much responsible for what happened. Another one who resigned in the nick of time and was then employed at a higher salary in a neighboring hospital trust. This was under a labour government.

Urmstongran

tickingbird

Who would have thought at first glance that Emma Tustin was a bad parent: spotless house, devoted partner, answer for everything, and a monster.

A well trained social worker with the awareness and nous to know all is not as it seems, especially when reports are coming in from different people.

And added to which if these departments join up the dots, past history on Ms Tustin would have revealed early on that she had mental health issues, had tried to take her own life, had 2 of her own 4 children removed from her care, had jumped out of a window, fracturing her pelvis and requiring several weeks in hospital.

Did this woman’s history of instability not ring any alarm bells, did it not warrant a watchful eye? - even before she met Hughes during lockdown? Perhaps a ‘red flag’ inserted onto the computer screen - no action YET but if anything comes to light down the line, any reports from family or neighbours, question all narratives & think the unthinkable⁉️

That’s my view.

I was typing something similar, Urmstongran but lost the message. The father of one her other children alleges that was what happened.

The youngster (Arthur) was found to have 130 injuries all over his body after being hit, slapped, kicked, punched, and beaten, “over and over”

These were missed because a social worker had a cursory glance at one old bruise and believed , as told by Tustin, that it had been caused by one of the other children.

I do understand the pressures but surely there were already warning signs about this woman?

I absolutely appreciate the difficult job that social workers do - I couldn't do it for love nor money - but you cannot ignore the fact that there are failings in the system itself. I know this from first hand experience - if one social work department had communicated properly with another, my grandson (then aged 2) would never have been left alone with a mother who attempted to kill herself and take him with her.

I’d just like to make it clear I’m not blaming individual sw’s. It’s the system and it’s inability to change. The department needs a complete overhaul from the top down whether it likes it or not.

DaisyL

I wasn't criticising individual social workers, rather the leadership - whether from above in social services (the leader of the local SS who has just resigned was apparently earning £140,000 pa - and at that salary we are surely entitled to good leadership - or from the government. We do need more social workers and it is surprising if you can earn that sort of many that more people don't go into it! And before anyone jumps on me I do realise that money is not the main motive for good social workers.

Yes, we should expect good leadership but if you have limited resources and are bound by regulations limiting what you can do, it must be like wading through treacle, you just can’t do what needs doing.

It’s easy being a successful leader if you have the resources and the ability to change the system.

In too many of these cases it is decisions made by indivdual social workers after visiting the family that is at fault.

To make the excuse that the parents were devious or manipulative is not sufficient excuse. Abusers of all kinds are often charming, manipulative and abusive. It is the social workers job to recognise this and know how to deal with it.

Simple things like insisting on seeing the child undressed to their underpants and examining them carefully. A social worker going round to talk to the child at school or somewhere outside the home where parents and guardians are not present. Being able to immediately remove a child if such an interview reveals any evidence of abuse.

Often what is needed is good and intelligent decision making by those in charge and a willingness to put the chld before the system.

Monica in my experience, any allegation of physical harm to a child would result in exactly what you say, followed by (of in the case of older children) a full child protection medical with a Community Paediatrician. If this did not happen for little Arthur (which seems to have been the case but I can’t assume the reporting is 100% correct) then this was a bad mistake.

Social workers used to regularly visit children in school or other settings and speak to them alone if there was suspicion of harm. They have not been allowed to do this for many years without the parents’ consent. Social workers have to work within the law. They do not, and have never had the legal powers to remove children summarily from their parents even if they suspect they have suffered abuse. It often feels as though social workers have one hand tied behind their backs. However, do we want the alternative, which is to invest them with far more powers to interfere in family life? This is the eternal question.

Hetty58

For Heaven's sake! How very predictable - on Gransnet - to start bashing Social Services, while ignoring the ridiculous caseloads, the awful lack of funding for councils, the police, the NHS etc, since, at least 2010.

Ah - but then of course, all you Tory voters actually did vote for that, didn't you?

This was happening years and years ago, yes would you believe in the days of Labour gov, and councils, did Labour voters vote for that, no, anymore than Conservative voters. So chucking money around as Labour is won’t to do, makes no difference Absolutely despicable comment.

It’s despicable to fail to acknowledge the impact on social work and every other agency involved of devastating austerity and cuts over 11 years. Stating my belief in this in no way suggests I defend bad practice.
Night owl’ s post resonates with my experience. I recall the change when we needed parental permission to see a child in school, often with their teachers support. Teachers are often significant, especially for primary school children. Their teacher knows them well. She knows who never has breakfast, arrives late crying ‘miss I missed breakfast club, I’m starving I’ve had niwt since dinner yesterday”.
The lengths, the endless forms etc teachers must complete before children;s services can be contacted would shock many posters.

Resources like family centres, nurseries, social work assistants who’d arrive at 7.30am to help struggling parents with routines, ensure children got breakfast and out to school, be back at the house 4 or 5pm to repeat this are long gone. Those services helped some families through tough times and provided clear evidence that other parents couldn’t/wouldn’t engage with necessary work to meet their children’s needs.

It’s like re-inventing the wheel. I could weep

The government didn’t kill Arthur.
The social workers didn’t kill Arthur.
The father and step mother killed Arthur.

Out of interest, somebody out there must know, are the numbers of children killed by their parents and care givers really dependent on which government is in power? It seems unlikely to me, but what do I know!

nightowl, while I understand the legal restarints, too often the social workers have been fobbed off by parents and have accepted the reasons the parents give, for not doing full inspections of children or accepting excuses for why the child they want to see isn't available.

On issues, like talking to children, then there needs to be a change in the law. I hope the enquiry that we are to get will look, not only the failings in this case, but revisit others like that of Baby P to see if there is any pattern to be found in these tragedies, whether, in attitudes of social workers, deffciencies in the law or even - and I think this is what really needed, and that is a thorough examination of the way social work is managed in this country and the way social workers are trained.

nightowl, while I understand the legal restarints, too often the social workers have been fobbed off by parents and have accepted the reasons the parents give, for not doing full inspections of children or accepting excuses for why the child they want to see isn't available.

On issues, like talking to children, then there needs to be a change in the law. I hope the enquiry that we are to get will look, not only the failings in this case, but revisit others like that of Baby P to see if there is any pattern to be found in these tragedies, whether, in attitudes of social workers, deffciencies in the law or even - and I think this is what really needed, and that is a thorough examination of the way social work is managed in this country and the way social workers are trained.

maddyone The parents killed Arthur, because Social Services did not stop them, they had the opportunity and blew it.

They said on Newsnight that Arthur constantly said at school that his father was trying to kill him. If this is true I see here not just a failure of SS but a complete failure of communication between the people involved with him. And I think there can be little doubt that this has been made substantially more difficult by funding cuts. Teachers with bigger classes and less support, social workers with bigger client lists and more paper work, cuts to the police service. Combine these with adults who are aware of their rights, can be threatening and manipulative and you have a system which fails vulnerable children. And these people may be responsible for killing him but it is society and the system of austerity some voted for that failed to protect him.