A Much Closer Look At The Children And Families Bill 2013 (Adoption & Family Justice)

Today I want to talk about the Children and families bill 2013, I’ve already shared some thoughts on the sections covering SEN but today I’m writing my personal views in relation to those sections of the bill mainly concerning ‘Adoption and children looked after by local authorities’ & that of family justice (public family law).

People maybe somewhat surprised to hear me say this, but the proposed changes within this section actually worry me more than any other part of the bill! Yes, that does include SEN! Despite SEN being of great importance to me, as it affects my own family and is what I campaign for, there is ever increasing campaigning for the issues the surround SEN, and over time more knowledge and awareness has been developed. Its the issues surrounding adoption and family justice that concern me somewhat more, mainly due to societies ignorance when it comes to this dark and somewhat hidden area of law, one that leaves families broken. I honestly believe that if every single person in the UK really knew how the laws surrounding these issues were applied, then things may have moved with the times and the true meaning of justice would have been found by now.

Its an area that doesn’t affect many of us. Many will never have to deal with family courts, social services and the possible heartache of losing a child to the state when no crime has been committed. Yes, many children do need to be taken from parents who fail to provide the right home environment, parental care and so forth, but it may surprise you when I say that many children are in fact taken from loving homes, from the parents who are able to care for them and Is desperately long to do so. These parents haven’t inflicted any sort of harm or pose any risk of future harm to their children, but have them removed from their care all the same.

Are children really taken by the state when really they should remain with the loving family they were born into? Yes! Believe it or not this is true and thousands would tell you so if given such an opportunity to do so!

I apologise for such a long post, but firstly, before I go on to enlist the reasons why I think some of the areas of the bill have left myself and many others concerned, let me highlight the current problems within this somewhat hidden area of our family justice system and that of the laws that surround child protection (Children’s Act 1989) & that of the ‘Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Do you actually know any of the following?

Children are currently placed on child protection registers with a huge proportion being removed from the care of their birth parents, simply because the local authorities claims that there is a “Risk” of emotional abuse to child one day in the future. Here’s a few examples when this happens…

A child born into a family where a mother has been abused by a partner! This can be physically, emotionally or sexually! This could be before the child was even born or in some cases, even conceived. What’s more the mother may have left the relationship having built up the courage to do so, but is now faced with the involvement of the Social Services (SS).

Example… A woman who is to frighten to leave her partner, a man who controls and bullies her, finally gets up the courage to report him to the police and bravely leaves the family home with the children. With no place to live she contacts family support services. Someone, either the police or support service has approached the SS (Social Services) as the child protection laws permit them to do so. Now the children of the woman are placed on the child protection register because the mother “Allowed” herself to be emotionally abused by their father. The woman is a mother who has never hurt her children, her local GP and Health Visitors have no concerns, school is happy with her children’s progress, yet this mother now has to report every move she makes to SS. The SS eventually do apply for care proceedings and she eventually loses her children. The reason given… “Risk of Emotional Abuse!”

Next time you hear about a battered wife or even husband, who didn’t speak out, the chances are they were not only afraid of their partner but also of the involvement of their local authority and its Social Services team. Because as I’ve explained… Such a situation can warrant the authorise to apply for interim care orders.

Basically, there is a strong that children are removed from parental care because the mother has reported a crime in which she has sadly fallen victim to!

Then their are those parents who have Special Educational Needs or a disability!

Believe it or not, many of these parents have there children removed from their care, having only just given birth to them. In many cases this is within hours! Their only crime, they have been born with SEN or a disability. Instead of support, these babies are removed and placed on adoption registers where many are adopted quickly due to them being newborns. In actual fact, most adoptive parents have been decided upon by the authority during the birth mothers pregnancy, sometimes before she is even aware of the looming situation.

The majority of children taken by the state and put up for adoption are children under 3 years old. It is known by all that these children are much easier to adopt out.

I know of a case where the Local authority is awaiting care proceedings for a 3 year old toddler. She is the daughter of a mother with slight SEN and is said to be too advanced. They claim there is a risk the child will become to clever for the parent in later years (this therefore highlights as RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE)!! The parent only has a mild learning disability due to the radiotherapy she received for her childhood cancer! Sadly I know all this because the mother involved is in fact that of my little sister. Yes, having asked the SS for support following an abusive relationship she now could lose her child too.

Another issue in need of highlighting is how local authorities claim there to be “Risk of Abuse” if the parent of a child has sadly been the victim of child abuse during their own childhood years. This gives the social workers another reason to step in and take the child. Many mothers have lost their children for such reasons and this is never really brought to light. You may think, “No there must be additional reasons’ I know I used to think so too! The truth is, many of these mothers have their babies taken at birth, they don’t have the opportunity to prove they are able to be a good parent, let alone there be any other reason for the removal of their child from their care.

Many parents desperately do all that they can to cooperate with SS. They later find that by having done so, the SS have written poor reports on there parenting. Normal everyday small issues such as lack of time to do the housework are extremely exaggerated and blown out of proportion in court.

And here’s the really scary bit that up in till last year I was totally unaware off…

Are you aware of any of the following?

SS can use evidence in a family court that is based on hearsay! It will normally be evidence that is made up of unfounded information and sadly false allegations.The court will except and permit evidence of such type regardless of it having not been investigated or validated! The judge will use this along with other reports (often including that of expert reports given by those who have never even met the child) to decide a child’s future, one that can potentially rip a loving family apart. The family courts are the only courts that use such evidence. If we tried to use hearsay evidence in a court of criminal law a judge would refuse to even permit it let alone use it.

This means you could technically upset your neighbour who thinks its awesome to ruin your life by making a little call to the SS telling them a load of untruths. SS may then get involved, stick your children on the register and then a year down the line, start care proceedings and once in court, produce that silly hearsay evidence which is the icing on the cake and inferences the decision of the judge, leaving you hopeless and without a voice.

Now, I say without a voice as my next point is just that! Its the “Gagging of parents” by the family courts.

We can argue all we want that family courts should be transparent and open to the public but lets be honest, this isn’t going to happen anytime soon. This is because of the child protection laws and the need to keep children safe from the media and allow for family privacy. However, what we as a society fail to realise is that families who lose their children when no crime is committed are gagged by the court. If they leave the court having lost their child and therefore go on to campaign their innocence, taking it to the media in a desperate attempt of gaining justice and being reunited with their children, they are actually thrown into prison for having done so. The parent will not have named their child but this doesn’t actually matter as they are still seen to have broken this unknown law. Where is the justice in that.

If a women is rapped she is able to tell her story if she wishes. She can even do it anomalously if desired. A loving parent desperately trying to get her children back, can however not do this without receiving punishment. Its like living in the dark ages, so much so it scares me.

This is where other laws are discredited, such as that of the human rights laws. Yes, honestly it sounds unbelievable that a parent can be punished for exercising their right to freedom of speech.

Basically, when a child is taken under the category that is “Risk off emotional abuse” parents are being punished for crimes not yet committed, ones that more then likely, possibly, never actually will be! These are simply risks that are based on a strangers report.

A court of law wouldn’t punish someone for looking in a clothing store where the Security guard felt that the person in question looked suspicious and therefore posed a “Risk”of shoplifting! They just wouldn’t, would they? Could you imagine the public outrage? Then why is this any different?

Why don’t many of you know about all this? Because you are not meant too. Its not that its some type of a conspiracy, all of the above is there to be discovered if you look close and hard enough! Just ask the press! National papers headline Newspapers have repeatedly reported the darker sides such as the allocation of bonuses for given to social workers for hitting adoption targets. Even though this was abolished some years back, it still doesn’t do the local authorities reports and statistics a bad turn or even that of the Individual social workers CV.

Other problems faced…

Lack of funding and current cuts for support services aimed at helping families combat areas of concern that some local authorities see as a green light to place children on the “At Risk Registers” These could be services to support single parents, parents with disabilities or those in need of support to leave violent or abusive partners.

The benefit cuts only add to pressures already inflicted on low income families, sadly creating a risk of State intervention for reasons beyond their own control.

Thoughts…

The way in which social workers work, has to under go a complete reform for things to change. You may ask why they miss some children, why certain cases highlight how SS left abused children with parents who later killed them. This is because the SS spend to much time chasing around families of those they wish to label “At Risk Of…”

Sadly, many of those cases we read about in the paper, concerning SS lack of intervention despite the many reports and noted concerns, would have likely ended up in a state children’s home’s or with foster parents if they were saved in time. These Children are harder to adopt, the ones who are abused! Adoption agency who are constantly in battle with one another, struggle to find them adopters because of the great psychological impact that has been left with the child. Sadly it seems that putting children up for adoption under the age of 3 and with a label that reads “Risk off” as opposed to “Abused” makes them all the more disirable!

Only once changes have been made in the way the system operates, can that of the changes proposed in the Children’s and families bill 2013, actually be of great benefit to all. However, to pass these clauses within this bill as legislation, and to do so as things currently stand, will only make the above issues a whole lot worse.

Areas of concern in the 2013 Children’s and Families Bill…

Part 1 Clause 6
The Adoption and Children Act Register

Relates to when a local authority can add children to the adoption register

Supply of information for the register …
Children suitable for adoption or for whom a local authority in
England are considering adoption

Children suitable for adoption or for whom a local authority in England are considering adoption can be added to the Adoption register.

Search and inspection of the register by prospective adopters…

Regulations may make provision enabling prospective adopters who
are suitable to adopt a child to search and inspect the register, for the
purposes of assisting them to find a child for whom they would be
appropriate adopters.

This is extremely unclear to me and I’m left asking myself “Can I be mistaken here?” You see from what I have read of the proposed legislation is that Local authorities will have the power to place a child on an adoption register, even before a court has made an order! Now are we just talking children in state care or those who remain with birth parents who are currently awaiting for a court hearing to decide if to oppose a care order?

I understand that for those children in long term care or foster placements, those who’s parents are not capable of caring for them, this may in fact be beneficial, especially if they have been in state care sometime. Given that these children are not in contact with birth parents and the ones who are, are in support of this then OK maybe! But for those parents who feel that the system is failing them, those fighting for children to remain with them or at least another family member as a last option, should most defiantly not have their child added to a register for prospective adopters to search through. This is a decision for a judge alone. By allowing the local authorities to add children they feel suitable for adoption to an adoption register is ludicrous. Parents will feel they have little hope in keeping their child at home with them. Especially if once at the hearing the local authority announces that prospective adopters have shown an interest in the child. This shouldn’t sway a judges decision but I lack confidence that it won’t. Social workers should be busy assessing appointed family members for suitability of becoming long term Carers if these have been put forward. Its important that all avenues have been fully explored before a child should be seen as a suitable candidate for adoption, especially when evidence is built upon hearsay evidence. If anything its not fair on both potential adopters and birth parents if a courts decision has yet to be made.

What’s more hasn’t it been said that we already have an overload of children needing loving homes? Why add those who’s futures have yet to be decided upon. We all know that children under the age of 3 are adopted more easily and these children shouldn’t be added to registers just for desirability.

Part 2 The Family Justice System

Clause 14 introduces a 26 week time limit to proceedings for care & supervision orders, with provision for extensions in certain circumstances.

Although I understand that it is of extreme importance to ensure more children who are truly unable to be cared for by birth parents, are placed into loving permeant homes more quickly. Removing the disruption of constant foster placements and state care homes, I fear that this rule will leave judges in a position to make life changing decisions on a whim.

With the use of hearsay evidence still being allowed to continue and the lack of independent support and advice for the parent, its my opinion that more parents who can, and in fact already do provide a safe and loving home for their child, will end up losing them to the state, simply because the SS claim their is a future “risk”

It is a great concern, that resources needed to ensure an effective 26 week timetable, will not be put in place at the same time as when the bill becomes a legislation.

With a 26 week timescale I am deeply concerned that this will reduce the time in which birth parents have to build a decent case for defence, access appropriate advice and support (especially given the long waiting times for such services due to funding cut backs). Above all, it will reduce the time needed to demonstrate to the court their parenting abilities. Although it is stated that family courts will always consider the best interest of the child and if able, will always aim to keep children within the family network by placing children with potential family members/relatives as opposed to placing them in state care and on adoption registers, the proposed timescales will leave less time for assessments of these potential family members/possible carers leaving the judge with no choice but to consider additional arrangements.

Above all it saddens me to see that this section of the bill has put empathise on the need for speeder timescales to unable a court to make an order for a child to be placed up for adoption and not one that ensures it makes the right decisions, whatever that maybe. Personally with such empathise given on adoption (including the addition of adding children to the adoption register even before that decision has reached at court) makes me think families will stand less hope then the little they may currently hold.

Sorry for such a long winded post. I could have most probably created all this into a more managing piece, though I’ve just felt a need to get it all off my chest and lay it out there for all to see and read.

I’d really love to hear the thoughts of others, whether the bill directly affects them in someway or they just want to make an opinion. After all… As they say… “Two voices are always better than one!”

You can click here to see proposed registration and changes as a result of the Children’s and Families Bill 2013

The Children And Families Bill 2013 – Are You Worried?

Worried about the child and family bill 2013? Well, if your child has SEN or a disability then you should be!

This is a post I’ve needed to write since I first read the published Children and Families Bill 2013 but ended up having so many questions flying around in my own head that I couldn’t find a way to relax enough to put them in to words (well, words that made sense anyway).

I have now been given the opportunity to head up to Westminster on Monday, to meet with the Minster Ed Timpson where I will be able to put those questions and opinions forward! So…I thought it would be a good idea to share them here with you guys first and also see if you had any opinions to add.

If you remember the post I wrote last year relating to the Green Paper you will know that back then I had already developed grave concerns relating to the proposed reforms relating the that of Special educational Needs (SEN). Now reading the Children and Families Bill it is only fair to say that those initial concerns have now been greatly heightened and with good cause too.

1: One of my major concerns surrounded that of the removal of school action/action plus. The green paper offered little indication on what was therefore being implemented to make things easier for those children without Statements/Education Health Care Plans [EHCP] to obtain appropriate support and services. Looking at the bill it seems that as I feared, “Nothing” is actually being put in place that will truly benefit the child who doesn’t fit the criteria for SEN. The Department Of Education (DFE) has stated that these children will have some degree of support through that of the “Local Offer” Though it should be noted that the bill as written states that the Local Authority (LA) are required to make information available relating to the education, health and social care services it “expects” to be available within its local area! This seems to hold no legal duty and therefore leaves these children in a somewhat similar situation than the one they are already in.

2: The Bill states that it has expanded the list of schools parents can request as a preference when naming the school in their child’s EHCP. This maybe so, but the fact the LA can still claim that for the child to attend the parents preferred school would be an inefficient use of resources, therefore meaning they wont name that school, actually means parents are in no way a better position than the one they are currently facing now! Well, I fail to see the difference.

3: At the start of the process the green paper promised a much quicker assessment process, with timescales being greatly reduced and parents not having to battle their way through the SEN System. However, the Bill fails to reflect this and actually fails to make known any sort of timescales for assessments, reassessments or appeals whatsoever.

4: The suggested requirement for parents to meet with LA officials before an application is made to tribunal is just pointless. It was first suggested that Mediation would become compulsory, meaning parents needed to take this route before applications for appeals to the tribunal were omitted. However, it was later agreed that this type of requirement was somewhat unfair, one making little if no sense! But then the the bill has stated the possibility of a meeting to discuss possible mediation etc is to be held before submitting an appeal to the tribunal! Come on… This will again make an already long process longer. If parents thought they could just pop down the LA and sort the whole mess out over a cuppa then don’t you think they would? No mother likes to endure the whole stressful notion of having to battle the LA at the tribunal, don’t you think we’d avoid it if we could. Again the whole lacking of timescales contributes here greatly. Why shouldn’t appeals be submitted at the first instance of it being denied. Its already known that it is only then that most LAs will actually start putting things into action and communicating with parents.

5: Another huge concern for me is the lack of information given on how the integration of the new EHCP will affect those children who currently have statements of SEN? Given a great deal of the law and SEN code will need to be rewritten to fit in with the new sen reforms how is this going to work with the statement! After all, if statements are going to be replaced this cant possibly be done by the time the new laws come into practice! With many of the laws that relate to those statements being written off, where is the legal protection to ensure the provision is still provided to the child who obtains that statements? Will statements be gradually phased out, scrapped and reproduced as EHCP as a result of annual reviews? What about those who have had annual reviews shortly before the legislation is made official? Will they hold a statement that offers no protection for a year? What happens when they are older will they receive the same protection if they remain in education? How will these new changes incorporate the social care side of things? Will those who have SALT on part 3 of their statement find that it then becomes a requirement of the health care system, no longer the duty of the LA to provide? A health care system that has no legal duty to provide it?

Which brings me to my next concern…

6: The lack of duty with the health sector. As it stands most of the areas which the LEA consider to be non educational are tossed over to part 5 of a child’s statement! I don’t think anybody from the health sector currently ever sees that part of little man’s statement or that of any other childs! Why? because they have no duty to provide any advised provisions, thats why! So, I guess I should be excited about the LAs joint commissioning with the health sector. Sadly I’ve already lost faith in this proposal.

The fact is that the LA have a duty to provide educational provision and regardless of joint commissioning it will stay that way! So, them “non” educational support needs will fall in the hands of the health sector right? With the guys at the LA actively communicating with those in the health sector things will now be hunky dory, right? Don’t be fooled! Their will be no legal requirements made of the health sector so basically… Nothing’s changed! Its just like having the non educational aspects of a statement tossed in part 5. The only difference is the health sector will know they are there, but in no way does this mean they will have to provide such services! What with waiting lists for a basic blood test on the rise and government funding cuts that have already had detrimental impacts on the NHS and related services, it looks like even more children will be left without the support they need to succeed. Yes, they made it sound so promising when talking about it all in the green paper, but in reality, it isn’t really that pretty no matter how much you dress it up!

As mentioned Little man receives SALT and OT which the LA tried its best to toss into part 5 of his statement. It took two independent assessments and reports, a pending tribunal case (that luckily didn’t make it to the hearing) for the LEA to throw the towel in. Which brings me to the issue of legal aid, if this ends up restricted then I guess children all over England and Wales are gonna be in huge trouble.

7: My next point to make is that of the funding issue. Again the bill has been very careful not to give many clues on the budgeting side of things. Delegations of school’s budgets for those children just outside the SEN scoop have not been discussed, and very little information on the individual funding of a child’s EHCP has been offered. Ok, so we know about the idea of personal budgets, yet the finer details are still up in the air. However, at this early stage my concerns currently surround the area of passing money to families and letting them go about it themselves. Ok, this way we know what our children are getting and we can hopefully obtain the services needed to cater for our child’s needs, but isn’t this just another way of removing the responsibility and the workload from the LA. I want to know how they are going to monitor the situation to ensure that the provision on the EHCP is being implemented? Will the parents be required to document spending of the budget having to knock up an annual spending report for the LAs records? I don’t know about you guys but I’m to busy being a mother and an advocate for all that!

8: Is this just another way to lower spends? Honestly this is a serious question, one that deeply worries me! How can we as a country struggling against a Recession with cuts already hitting children’s services the hardest, have faith that our children’s needs will be met this way. The bill is missing huge chunks of legalities that although haven’t been great have all the same protected us somewhat, giving us a case to fright for our children. With the bill being very unclear when it comes to appeals, timescales and a duty to provide services who can blame me for thinking that this isn’t a way to slowly help refill the governments penny jar. After all legal expenses are just that expensive so by removing many of the legal rights associated with the statement, less appeals can be lodged and the expenses decrease… Sad but logical!

9: Has anyone else noticed that the idea of a key worker, a single person to point us parents in the right direction, has suddenly been dropped from the bill. I’ve read many of the governments responses to the concerns raised, though I failed to uncover concerns relating to a family key worker! I therefore wonder why it suddenly disappeared without trace, especially considering it was one specific aspect of the green paper most of us parents applauded? Too expensive an idea maybe?

10: The EHCP is for those with SEN between the ages of 0-25 years. However, what most people fail to realise is that this is not exactly true! Its pretty clear from reading the bill that once your child/young person leaves education then the plan will crease. This actually makes sense, after all the only aspect anyone really plans to fulfil is those provisions given in the EHCP is that of the educational part of the plan. As mentioned the area of health and social care will have no legalities attached meaning it won’t be worth the paper its written on. It will be this part that your child will probably need most when leaving education, yet it seems that more assessments from social services to obtain the help needed to help young people with the transition into adult life may well require that of you having to fight for it… Again!

Thanks for reading my thoughts and opinions on the Bill. I actually have some strong views on the sections covering adoption and children in care and have decided to express them in a separate post which I’ll try and publish sometime over the next couple of days.

Now I would love to pick my readers brains a little and ask… “What would be the most important aspects of the bill you would want to raise with the Minster?” Please it would be great to hear your thoughts.

To access the Children and Families Bill and associated documents, click HERE