Tag Archives: children’s rights

Briefing on the Children & Social Work Bill, House of Lords Report Stage 8 November

Children and Social Work Bill – Report Stage 8 NOV 2016
This bill is a charter for rape and social cleansing and must be stopped

We write to draw your attention to our letter signed by five women’s organisations about this Bill, published in the Guardian. It appeared at the same time as Community Care reported that the government has admitted “errors in its handling of [Isabelle Trowler] the chief social worker’s ‘conflict of interest’, mentioned in our letter.  

“The national child abuse inquiry was set up in response to a massive survivors’ movement to examine how and why local authorities and others failed to protect children. Even before it started, the government wanted to exempt these institutions from public scrutiny. The Children and Social Work Bill would enable local authorities to remove statutory protections from the most vulnerable – children in custody and in care (Social workers row over children’s bill, 19 October). Given the history, this amounts to a rapists’ charter”.

Privatisation passes for innovation. Isabelle Trowler, chief social worker for children and families and chief promoter of the bill, co-founded Morning Lane, a private company working with 25 local authorities. KPMG, which partners Morning Lane, has been awarded a £2m government contract. When questioned, Trowler dismissed it as “peanuts”. But the children’s social work budget is estimated at £6.5bn, and Credit Suisse and others are behind private companies like Frontline, which are already training social workers.

We share the horror of whistleblowers and Together for Children that child protection services may be privatised. But we seem to be alone in objecting to the bill promoting adoption as the “gold standard” and to resources going to “corporate parenting” while impoverished families get nothing.

There isn’t even a duty to consult children and their mothers about their feelings and wishes. The life-long trauma of separation, however hidden, to children and biological families, is hardly mentioned. Britain already has the highest adoption rate in Europe – 90% without the consent of the birth families.

We hold monthly self-help meetings with mothers struggling to keep their children from social workers instructed to prioritise adoption and foster care. Some mothers lose their children after reporting domestic violence – penalised for “failing to protect” them.

Others are young, scared and inexperienced – penalised for “failing to convince” that they could be “capable” parents while a wealthier family waits to take their child. All are low-income families, many with precarious housing, learning difficulties or a disability, many black or immigrant. The incentives to discriminate will vastly increase with privatisation.

Cristel Amiss Black Women’s Rape Action Project; Anne Neale Legal Action for Women; Lisa Longstaff Women Against Rape; Nina Lopez Global Women’s Strike; Kim Sparrow Single Mothers’ Self-Defence

This bill is being debated just as the benefit cap comes in: 88,000 families may no longer be able to pay their rent and 500,000 children may be impoverished. No one knows how many will then be taken into care or adopted as their parents are accused of “neglect” for no longer being able to keep a roof over their heads!

We hope that given some of the deep corruption this Bill promotes and the poverty that is being imposed on hundreds of thousands of children and their families you will vote against it. We hope that you will support the amendments below and speak up for children, whose enforced separation from their biological families is being treated as a business opportunity for the private sector.

 

Please support the following amendments to the Children & Social Work Bill

CLAUSE 9
After CL 9, AMDT 33, New Clause: Profit-making and children’s social services functions

After CL 9 AMDT 35, New Clause: Duty to report on outcomes

CLAUSE 28
After CL 28, AMDT 52, New Clause: Whistleblowing arrangement in relation to looked after children and children at risk

After CL 28, AMDT 53, New Clause: Public interest disclosure in relation to looked after children and children at risk

CLAUSE 29
AMDT 57, leave out CL 29

CLAUSE 30
AMDT 58, leave out CL 30

CLAUSE 31
AMDT 64, leave out CL 31

CLAUSE 32
AMDT 66, leave out CL 32

CLAUSE 33
AMDT 68, leave out CL 33

After CL 33: AMDT 69, New Clause: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

After CL 33: AMDT 70, New Clause: Safeguarding Unaccompanied Refugee Children

CLAUSE 40
After CL 40: AMDT 72, New Clause: Whistleblowing arrangement in relation to social workers

After CL 40: AMDT 73, New Clause: Public interest disclosure by social workers

 

Cristel Amiss, Black Women-s Rape Action Project  bwrap@rapeaction.net

Lisa Longstaff, Women Against Rape  war@womenagainstrape.net

Nina Lopez, Global Women’s Strike  gws@globalwomenstrike.net

Anne Neale, Legal Action for Women  law@allwomencount.net

Kim Sparrow, Single Mothers’ Self Defence  smsd@allwomencount.net

 

Tel: 020 7482 2496

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Children's rights

Guardian Letters: Family support at risk from children’s bill

 

 

Child protection

Family support at risk from children’s bill

‘We seem to be alone in objecting to the bill promoting adoption as the “gold standard”, and to resources going to “corporate parenting” while impoverished families get nothing,’ write a group of women activists.
Photograph: Niall Carson/PA Wire
Letters, Tuesday 25 October 2016

The national child abuse inquiry was set up in response to a massive survivors’ movement to examine how and why local authorities and others failed to protect children.

Even before it started, the government wanted to exempt these institutions from public scrutiny. The children and social work bill would enable local authorities to remove statutory protections from the most vulnerable – children in custody and in care (Social workers row over children’s bill, 19 October). Given the history, this amounts to a rapists’ charter.

Privatisation passes for innovation. Isabelle Trowler, chief social worker for children and families and chief promoter of the bill, co-founded Morning Lane, a private company working with 25 local authorities. KPMG, which partners Morning Lane, has been awarded a £2m government contract. When questioned, Trowler dismissed it as “peanuts”. But the children’s social work budget is estimated at £6.5bn, and Credit Suisse and others are behind private companies like Frontline, which are already training social workers.

We share the horror of whistleblowers and Together for Children that child protection services may be privatised. But we seem to be alone in objecting to the bill promoting adoption as the “gold standard” and to resources going to “corporate parenting” while impoverished families get nothing.

There isn’t even a duty to consult children and their mothers about their feelings and wishes. The life-long trauma of separation, however hidden, to children and biological families, is hardly mentioned. Britain already has the highest adoption rate in Europe – 90% without the consent of the birth families.

We hold monthly self-help meetings with mothers struggling to keep their children from social workers instructed to prioritise adoption and foster care. Some mothers lose their children after reporting domestic violence – penalised for “failing to protect” them.

Others are young, scared and inexperienced – penalised for “failing to convince” that they could be “capable” parents while a wealthier family waits to take their child. All are low-income families, many with precarious housing, learning difficulties or a disability, many black or immigrant. The incentives to discriminate will vastly increase with privatisation.

Cristel Amiss Black Women’s Rape Action Project
Anne Neale Legal Action for Women
Lisa Longstaff Women Against Rape
Nina Lopez Global Women’s Strike
Kim Sparrow Single Mothers’ Self-Defence

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Children's rights

Children & Social Work Bill Report Stage

Dear Friends,

Please see below our briefing sent to members of the House of Lords who are discussing the Children & Social Work Bill today.

You might like to sign this petition objecting to the parts of the Bill which would allow children’s services to be privatised:

Protect the rights of vulnerable children and care leavers

* * * * **

CHILDREN AND SOCIAL WORK BILL – REPORT STAGE 18 OCTOBER 2016
Briefing from
Legal Action for Women (LAW) and Single Mothers’ Self-Defence (SMSD)

As you may know, we have written previously to express our strong opposition to this Bill. We are glad that serious concerns were raised during Second Reading and Committee Stage, which are reflected in some of the amendments coming up today. We hope you will particularly support the amendments overleaf:

Our primary concerns are:

·         The government push for adoption as the “gold standard” puts pressure on social workers to prioritise it over enabling children to stay with mothers and birth families, especially grandparents. (See attached testimony from mothers and grandmothers.) Social workers who disagree that this is in the interest of the child face dismissal.

·         Disregard for children’s views, wishes and feelings about the people they love and want to live and/or have contact with, including parents, grandparents and siblings.

·         Lack of support for mothers and kinship carers (family and friends) while prospective adoptive and foster parents are given help.

·         Discrimination against low income families whose children are more likely to be taken into care given the lack of financial support and increased levels of poverty.

·         Children in care are four times more likely to experience mental health difficulties.

·         Privatisation of children’s services. Many oppose as dangerous the dropping of local authorities’ statutory duties and the shifting of power from parliament to the executive.

The Bill comes at a time when:

·         Adoptions are higher than in any other European country, with 96% of adoptions in England taking place without parental consent.

·         More and more children taken into care – the number of “looked after” children in England is the highest since 1985. 1 in 5 children under five are referred to children’s services; 1 in 19 investigated – even higher if over 5s are included.

·         In 78% of cases we have been dealing with, children were removed or were under threat of being removed after the mother suffered domestic violence.

·         40% of mothers who come to us are women of colour and/or immigrant women, suggesting racism and other discrimination by social services and courts.

Our Suffer the little children Dossier of 40 cases documents the life-long traumatic impact of separation on children and their mothers (invariably their primary carer), whether through adoption, being taken into care or given to violent fathers. We are calling for financial and other resources to enable children to stay with loving parents and grandparents. As distinguished campaigning journalist Richard Wexler from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in the US, warned: “There is no understanding of the harm of removal. For a young child, it can be an experience akin to kidnapping.” 

We would welcome the opportunity of discussing this further with you at your convenience.


Anne Neale

Legal Action for Women

law@allwomencount.net    0207 482 2496

Kim Sparrow

Single Mothers’ Self-Defence

SMSD@allwomencount.net


Please support the following amendments to the Children & Social Work Bill

CLAUSE 1
AMDT 2
Page 2, line 6, at end insert— “() to nurture, protect and maintain relationships with families and carers with whom they have lived previously and with whom they wish to remain in contact.”

AMDT 3 * Page 2, line 6, at end insert— “() to promote access to legal advice and representation for children and young people, including independent advice and representation where appropriate.”

After Clause 1, AMDT 8, New Clause: Duty to promote physical and mental health and emotional well-being

CLAUSE 8
AMDT 29*
Page 8,line 35, after“orders”, insert“— (a) after subsection (2)(b)(ii) insert— “(iii) there being no person who has parental responsibility for the child.” (b) ”

AMDT 30 Page 8, line 42, leave out from “child’s” to end of line 2 on page 9 and insert “or a person with parental responsibility for the child; (ii) long-term foster care, with a connected person, existing foster carer or other person; (iii) adoption, with an existing foster carer, foster to adopt carer or other person; (iv) long-term care not within sub-paragraph (i), (ii) or(iii);”

AMDT 31 Page 9, line 9,at end insert— “(iv) the child’s wishes and feelings.”

CLAUSE 9
After CL 9, AMDT 33, New Clause: Profit-making and children’s social services functions

After CL 9 AMDT 35, New Clause: Duty to report on outcomes

CLAUSE 28
After CL 28, AMDT 52, New Clause: Whistleblowing arrangement in relation to looked after children and children at risk

After CL 28, AMDT 53, New Clause: Public interest disclosure in relation to looked after children and children at risk

CLAUSE 29
AMDT 57, leave out CL 29

CLAUSE 30
AMDT 58, leave out CL 30

CLAUSE 31
AMDT 64, leave out CL 31

CLAUSE 32
AMDT 66, leave out CL 32

CLAUSE 33
AMDT 68, leave out CL 33

After CL 33: AMDT 69, New Clause: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

After CL 33: AMDT 70, New Clause: Safeguarding Unaccompanied Refugee Children

CLAUSE 40
After CL 40: AMDT 72, New Clause: Whistleblowing arrangement in relation to social workers

After CL 40: AMDT 73, New Clause: Public interest disclosure by social workers


Mothers and grandmothers – the reality of adoption

Danielle

“My grand-daughter was forcibly adopted from her loving and supportive, vulnerable and poor family in the name of child protection, using the spurious charge of her being “at risk of significant harm”.

They wanted my grand-daughter adopted at birth and took her mum to court just days after giving birth by caesarean.  The judge didn’t agree and said she could go to a Mother & Baby unit.  But it was a horrible place where she was totally isolated: she was not allowed to see her family or me or my son; she wasn’t allowed to go out with the baby, and everything she did was monitored, but even so the baby was doing fine and developing normally and was a happy contented child.   She suffered serious trauma by being removed at five months from her birth mother to whom she was securely attached and in whose care she was thriving.  Amazingly she managed to form a secure attachment to the foster mother who asked to be her special guardian and to bring her up maintaining direct contact with her birth family.

But if the foster mum had adopted she would have had to stop fostering for a year which she couldn’t afford and social services wouldn’t put out any money to help her.  So once again my grand-daughter suffered enormous trauma by being removed at 18 months and given to adoptive parents.  She was not protected and instead suffered emotional harm at the hands of the social services.

Over 90% of children forcibly adopted come from families that are below the poverty line who are then placed in middle class families despite counter arguments that child abuse and neglect is not a class issue.  But taking our children is a form of social cleansing.

Both my son and the baby’s mum have gone on to have other children who they are caring for successfully, after social services could find no reason to intervene.   But it’s my grand-daughter who is growing up not knowing what a loving and caring family she was taken from – we are not allowed any contact with her.”

Suzanne

I have two young children.  Their father was violent, prone to drinking and angry outbursts.  Once when he was attempting to rape me, I stabbed him with a pen in self defence.  Another time I ran out of the house to call 999 and left the children inside.   The final straw came when he raped me and I reported it to the police.  I took out a non-molestation order which he contested.  The family court directed me to remain on good terms with the father in relation to his contact with the children, despite the seriousness of the situation.  I tried to do as the court directed.

During the rape investigation, I took the children abroad to keep them safe but returned with them after social services pursued me via the high court.  The children were then taken into care, and I was allowed supervised visits observed by social services.   The rape investigation continued during this time and social services began proceedings to take the children away permanently, claiming that I was aggressive (because I had stabbed him with a pen), that I shouldn’t have left the children in the house with him while I called the police and that I was “emotionally unstable” (at the same time as I was going through a rape investigation and trial).  I was accused of being “un co-operative” when I disagreed with social work reports.

My ex-partner was tried and convicted of rape and serious sexual assault in 2013 and sentenced to five years.  My parents trained to be the children’s long-term foster carers and passed with flying colours, but a family court judge ruled in favour of adoption by strangers because the grandparents ‘wouldn’t be strong enough to cope with [my] demands’. The grounds for removing the children from me permanently included: “failing to protect” my children from witnessing violence;  anger issues, mostly based on my behaviour as a teenager many years before, and a personality disorder (which had been mis-diagnosed 17 years previously, again, when I was a teenager); lies by social workers observing my visits.

I was recently diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, but I couldn’t find a lawyer to put this to the family court as new evidence, along with evidence about how much my circumstances have changed as a result of being free from the violent relationship.  I feel that being on the autistic spectrum has left me at a significant disadvantage in navigating my way through social services and the family court system where my character and capabilities were completely misjudged and misunderstood.  As a result, two much loved children are growing up with no contact with their mother or their grandparents, who had always been a big part of their lives.

Emily

I am a Black British woman of African descent.  When I got pregnant, social services already knew about me because I had been a victim of rape when I was younger.  I was diagnosed as having learning difficulties but I was given no support; I had no help from my family and the rapist was not pursued.   The day after the baby was born, social services applied for a Care Order claiming the ”child [was] not receiving care that would be reasonably expected from a parent’‘, citing my ”unidentified mental health” and ”minor learning difficulties”.

I had three independent reports contradicting the diagnosis of “global learning difficulties” which social services were using to put my baby up for adoption.  The woman judge dismissed these and all the evidence I had showing I had successfully finished two parenting courses and was about to attend another two, including one on child protection awareness.  I showed I was really determined to do everything social services asked me to do, but they had already decided that I was an “unfit” mother even though I never had the chance of looking after my baby on my own.

I eventually contacted Black Women’s Rape Action Project and they found me a new solicitor.  But social services had built an overwhelming case against me with hostile psychiatric reports and the child’s Guardian was also against me.  The judge said I had “poor parenting skills,” which I would not be able to overcome so my baby should be adopted.  I was allowed an appeal, but it was unsuccessful.  I have never had the opportunity of looking after my baby and I am not allowed any contact with her.  All this has made me severely depressed and I can’t carry on fighting.  I lost my flat and now live with my family.


Legal Action for Women law@allwomencount.net

Single Mothers Self Defence smsd@allwomencount.net

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Children's rights