Observations on the Children and Social Work Bill

http://www.pic.cx/img65/hgtbeyyeaavhxvqrwhqq.jpg

The questions that should and haven't been answered are, who has asked for this Bill and why? What is its underlying purpose and why has the opportunity not been seized to address the many deficiencies that have been revealed in the British 'care' system? Is it in fact just another camouflaged method of further commercialising children as a financial asset for private business?

Particularly but not exclusively, the following problems have been identified time and time again:

1. Parents are imprisoned for breaching gagging orders;
2. Social Services are taking children at birth;
3. Judges hand abused children to the abusive father;
4. Children are NOT being listened to;
6. Mothers are not listened to;
7. Sexual Abuse should NOT be handled by SECRET family courts, as it is a CRIME.

See:  https://vickyhaigh.wordpress.com/

"A BILL TO Make provision about looked after children; to make other provision in relation to the welfare of children; and to make provision about the regulation of social workers.

1 Corporate parenting principles (1) A local authority in England must, in carrying out functions in relation to the children and young people mentioned in subsection (2), have regard to the need— (a) to act in the best interests, and promote the health and well-being, of those children and young people; (b) to encourage those children and young people to express their views, wishes and feelings; (c) to take into account the views, wishes and feelings of those children and young people; (d) to help those children and young people gain access to, and make the best use of, services provided by the local authority and its relevant partners; (e) to promote high aspirations, and seek to secure the best outcomes, for those children and young people; (f) for those children and young people to be safe, and for stability in their home lives, relationships and education or work; (g) to prepare those children and young people for adulthood and independent living"

"Section 15 Power to test different ways of working

(1) The purpose of this section is to enable a local authority in England to test different ways of working with a view to achieving better outcomes under

children’s social care legislation or achieving the same outcomes more

efficiently."

This allows a local authority to set up 'different ways of working'. What these might be is not described and therefore an unknown quantity. Whatever is proposed can last up to six years, which for a child is almost a lifetime.

The open nature of the proposal is obviously intended but it should be appreciated this can also lead to dangers, particularly in a climate of increasing privatisation where children are also seen as financial assets to be maximised for private gain, and where adoption is seen as a panacea of all familial ills, even against the wishes of the natural parents.

The Bill does little to alter existing regimes, which of course it could if the will was there. All the problems and deficiencies highlighted in the last decade or so is thereby ignored as is the basic problem of the failures of social services departments both in intervention and lack of it, in multiple cases.

Central to this is the pervading secrecy surrounding procedures even when those family members most closely involved wish to make circumstances known.

Although in Lord Nash's view the provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Section 1(1) embeds the primacy of the child's welfare, nevertheless in practise, these obligations must always be interpreted by Social Workers and Courts and therein often lies the problem as real cases have proved most recently in the Butler case. (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/ellie-butler-murder-how-the-full-tragic-story-unfolded/)

It has to be recognised, that natural and step-parents can be the chief cause of a child's mistreatment and so cannot in law be the final arbiter if the child has to be rescued. But by the same token, clearly neither Social Workers or Courts are infallible or even without their own dangers.

The only way to protect families from overweening bureaucratic power is by ensuring that parents have rights that must be respected; that the removal of a child from the natural family should only be the last resort supported by indisputable evidence; that the parents wishes should be properly represented; that the children themselves will be listened to and taken seriously; and that there is a presumption of transparency, unless the need for secrecy can be proved necessary. The term "future harm" so often used as an excuse for removal, should be prescribed in terms of what has actually occurred.

These protections are notable by their absence in the Bill. Are they enshrined in earlier legislation? If not perhaps they should be? Perhaps the "Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel" proposed by the Bill will be able to? Perhaps it might to start by considering the details of the Hampstead case? Section 13(1)(b) would certainly appear to allow this to happen: "serious harm to a child who is known or suspected by the local

authority to have been abused or neglected."

Or is the creation of the "Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel" just another camouflaged method of further privatising a public sector function?

It would appear the old term "children in care" has been replaced by "looked after children". Whether this is an advance or improvement is open to question. Presumably the former term was so discredited by the actuality, to require its replacement, but really is "looked after" the best we can do?

Children require stability, love, care and a sense of belonging to a family unit for their later physical and mental stability, even if imperfect. State and institutional settings seldom provide this and have often proved to be quite the reverse and therefore should be considered a fall-back, not a primary solution. Where is the emphasis in this Bill on supporting family units, not destroying them?

The Hampstead case proved definitively the weaknesses and dangers in the present arrangements. It is clear from this Bill (subject to the proviso above) that nothing from that experience has been learnt as far as the contents of this Bill are concerned. The present legislation dating back to 1989, may appear to have the best interests of the child at heart, but like a pike lurking in the reeds, the reality - as Hampstead proved - can be quite the opposite: a danger that is neither acknowledged or tackled by this Bill.

From: https://www.change.org/p/eu-parliament-abolish-adoptions-without-parental-consent/u/17146664?tk=TtwXqeFJu933BINPHxsDUKM4x0gbcsnxpB9ZHTLHE8s&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

STOP 'corporate parenting' - especially despite Brexit!

Association of McKenzie Friends

JUL 2, 2016 — Dear Supporters,

Nearly 6,000 of you online campaigners are likely also to be victims of the most heinous and hypocritical 'public service' one could imagine.

Despite our efforts, the Government has launched a Children and Social Work Bill that is SHOCKING, as it legitimises 'corporate parenting', as if biological parents don't count.

The text is onhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0001/17001.pdf

The stages of the Bill are onhttp://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/childrenandsocialwork.html

A list of 41 Peers who have contributed to the Debate so far is onhttps://punishmentwithoutcrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/16-07-02-peers-contributing-to-bill.pdf - with email addresses and phone numbers.

We sent them this 11-page report to STOP FORCED REMOVALS and asked for a meeting:
https://punishmentwithoutcrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/16-06-07-stop-forced-removals1.pdf

In Brussels we breathed HOPE thanks to Greek MEP Kostadinka Kuneva and her Cypriot colleague Takis Hadjigeorgiou who organised this seminar: Children Not for Sale - the Black Hole in our Culture. https://mcknews.com/2016/06/26/children-not-for-sale-the-black-hole-of-our-culture-eu-eu-coe-mojgovuk-brexit/

But we better get on our skates in the UK! "They" must NOT get away with destroying children and families under the label of 'corporate parenting' for future generations!!!

THANK YOU for your engagement, commitment, help and support!!!

Belinda and Sabine