Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Dundee Demo report.
Further info:- http://gapukinfo.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl87070.swf&video_id=CE9Ih2169y0&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/CE9Ih2169y0/hqdefault.jpg&sk=Aba9SxvYfXrKBJCLn7NtepKKAW-42qmmC&fs=1%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam&hl=en&cr=US&avg_rating=0.0&length_seconds=40&allow_ratings=1&title=GRANDPARENTS%20DEMO%20AT%20DUNDEE%20SOCIAL%20WORK%20CONFERENCE
Dear All,
Our campaign in Dundee went very well. We were right outside the room where the attendees were having registration and their morning coffee breaks and they could not help but see us as we waved to them. Someone heard them debating us being there so we have achieved what we came for.
Alan Baird the boss man in question has refused to resign over the Branden Muir case in Dundee and would not answer our phone calls to his office. His secretary refused to give us any information as to his whereabouts and even refused to speak to the media.
The media coverage was Brilliant, GMTV, STV, Radio Times, The Telegraph, The Courier and a few radio and newspaper reporters which i can't remember them all but will be posted on the blog above as they become available. We can't thank them all enough for their coverage and kindness.
The Apex City Quay Hotel Dundee.
It cost £95+vat for social services to charge social services for the conference. £65+£13.50 for breakfast at this Hotel which lots of them stayed overnight. What a Bill!According to the locals there is huge social services building with lots of rooms and another one just yards from the Apex (luxury) Hotel which could easily have housed this conference.
Why was so much of your money spent on a big fancy hotel when an alternative was available? "Simply the best" for our social services that has an obvious policy on cost saving and treating our children as commodities to save money and they throw it away on luxury for themselves.
We should all demonstrate outside the social service headquarters in our particular areas and demand to be heard. Then report our findings to a central point of information for UK distribution.
Will you join us to bring justice for our children?
Jimmy
If I did not have personal experience of the behaviour of Social Services I would think your response over-the-top. But I do, and my experience is that Grandparents are non-persons as far as Social Services are concerned.
Regards
Edinburgh Business man.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/
March 26, 2009 9:06 AM
Changes that must come about for our children's best interests.
Grandparents Apart UK
Essential points that need to change for our children’s best interest?
1…Our motto is “Bringing Families Together” so we think the best interests of a child startsoff with Equal parenting when there is no valid reason not to. We know two parents should be first and formost in a childs life for a balanced upbringing with grandparents as a strong backer upper and first when parents are not avaiable.
2...The ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ to be Mandatory for professionals working in Children’s welfare to ensure children do not lose out on the benifits grandparents can offer.
3…The social services must stop treating children as commodities like a business deal
4.....If adopted a child must maintain contact with birth family.
5 ...Kinship care before strangers. Grandparents should not be by-passed for strangers.
6. ..All below accountable to law. The law turns a blind eye to the following. For courts not to
pursue these in condoning the use of them.
(a).....False accusations.
(b)....Erroneous reporting by social workers.
(c).....Flouting of court orders.
7…Proper recording of all social work meetings and discussions E.g. Dual tape recording similarto police proceedings for the protection of both the client and social workers.
8….More “transparency” and especially “accountability” of Social work and their managers
9….Specialised training for social workers in the best interests of our children.
10…Orchestrating “cover up’s”, when children are failed.
11…Accusations removed from record, when proven innocent.
There is a huge rise in drug and alcohol abuse and there is reckoned to be a million children in Britain today living in a home with one or both parents addicted to drugs or alcohol. Amid fear of the ever increasing cases of child abuse. Grandparents Apart UK have considered a new proposal in the best interests of children.
Our new proposal is considering the child in as much as not to have the protection of their grandparents in child abuse cases is devastating to them and not at all in their best interests.
We therefore propose that The Charter for Grandchildren in Scotland should be adopted for use in England and Wales, ‘ The role grandparent can play in their grandchildren’s lives’ must be mandatory for professionals dealing with children thereby ensuring in the absence of one or both parents that the love and protective role grandparents can play is not wasted as is the case at present because grandparents are regarded as irrelevant persons and therefore rarely considered in practice.…Being mandatory for professionals would not be an imposition on the parents or family in general…If the governments were to adopt this as an example it would send a message of encouragement to families that grandparents can be a huge asset in the family and it could be worthwhile attending mediation focussing on the best interests of the children.
It is generally agreed by governments and most organisations dealing with children that grandparents are important in the family.. It is also agreed that they can be vital in the early detection of child abuse and in the care and stability of children when they are in a crisis situation especially in the middle of the night. That is if they are informed about it at all, being irrelevant persons, this is not always the case. If the crisis has been violent and very upsetting it would be in the best interests of the children to be settled as quickly as possible with someone who cares for them.
Grandparents Apart UK is a non-profit staffed by volunteers Scottish Charity.
0141 882 5658
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Essential points that need to change for our children’s best interest?
1…Our motto is “Bringing Families Together” so we think the best interests of a child startsoff with Equal parenting when there is no valid reason not to. We know two parents should be first and formost in a childs life for a balanced upbringing with grandparents as a strong backer upper and first when parents are not avaiable.
2...The ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ to be Mandatory for professionals working in Children’s welfare to ensure children do not lose out on the benifits grandparents can offer.
3…The social services must stop treating children as commodities like a business deal
4.....If adopted a child must maintain contact with birth family.
5 ...Kinship care before strangers. Grandparents should not be by-passed for strangers.
6. ..All below accountable to law. The law turns a blind eye to the following. For courts not to
pursue these in condoning the use of them.
(a).....False accusations.
(b)....Erroneous reporting by social workers.
(c).....Flouting of court orders.
7…Proper recording of all social work meetings and discussions E.g. Dual tape recording similarto police proceedings for the protection of both the client and social workers.
8….More “transparency” and especially “accountability” of Social work and their managers
9….Specialised training for social workers in the best interests of our children.
10…Orchestrating “cover up’s”, when children are failed.
11…Accusations removed from record, when proven innocent.
There is a huge rise in drug and alcohol abuse and there is reckoned to be a million children in Britain today living in a home with one or both parents addicted to drugs or alcohol. Amid fear of the ever increasing cases of child abuse. Grandparents Apart UK have considered a new proposal in the best interests of children.
Our new proposal is considering the child in as much as not to have the protection of their grandparents in child abuse cases is devastating to them and not at all in their best interests.
We therefore propose that The Charter for Grandchildren in Scotland should be adopted for use in England and Wales, ‘ The role grandparent can play in their grandchildren’s lives’ must be mandatory for professionals dealing with children thereby ensuring in the absence of one or both parents that the love and protective role grandparents can play is not wasted as is the case at present because grandparents are regarded as irrelevant persons and therefore rarely considered in practice.…Being mandatory for professionals would not be an imposition on the parents or family in general…If the governments were to adopt this as an example it would send a message of encouragement to families that grandparents can be a huge asset in the family and it could be worthwhile attending mediation focussing on the best interests of the children.
It is generally agreed by governments and most organisations dealing with children that grandparents are important in the family.. It is also agreed that they can be vital in the early detection of child abuse and in the care and stability of children when they are in a crisis situation especially in the middle of the night. That is if they are informed about it at all, being irrelevant persons, this is not always the case. If the crisis has been violent and very upsetting it would be in the best interests of the children to be settled as quickly as possible with someone who cares for them.
Grandparents Apart UK is a non-profit staffed by volunteers Scottish Charity.
0141 882 5658
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Dundee Demo over rights for Grandparents.
http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2009/03/25/story12828010t0.shtm
Grandparents from across Scotland gathered outside the Apex Hotel in Dundee today to demand better rights, and urged social workers to listen to their concerns (writes Kirsten Johnson).
The protest took place as delegates from the Association of Directors of Social Work met in the hotel for a one-day conference to discuss developing a workforce fit for purpose.
The current president of ADSW is Dundee City Council’s social work director, Alan Baird, who recently fended off a resignation call over his department’s handling of the Brandon Muir case.
Jimmy Deuchars, from pressure group Grand-parent Apart UK, led the demonstration.
He told the Tele he hoped the lobby would make those at the meeting listen to the group’s plea.
“Grandparents are at the bottom of the list when it comes to rights, but we are the ones who can notice the first warning signs. We deserve to see our grand-children, and they deserve to see us.
At the moment the Charter For Grandparents is only advisory. We want it to be mandatory — it will save children’s lives.”
Brian McNair, chairman of the Equal Parenting Alliance, also attended the demonstration. He said, “I hope the social workers, especially Alan Baird, take note. You have to be seen to be heard nowadays. We hope this brings our message into the public eye.
“We are questioning the integrity of some social workers across the country. They often do not record meetings they have with grandparents. This is not right. “If grandparents are in contact with their grandchildren they can see the signs of abuse, but the social services class them as irrelevant.”
CHALLENGES
During the conference the delegates, representing each local authority area in Scotland, considered the challenges within workforce development. BT’s group human resources director
Alex Wilson gave a keynote speech outlining how the company addressed workforce issues and shared knowledge and experience of developing good practice.
There were also presentations given on the place of the Continuous Learning Framework in organisational develop-ment and the use of Social Services Knowledge Scotland, an online knowledge service for social services staff and their managers.
Grandparents from across Scotland gathered outside the Apex Hotel in Dundee today to demand better rights, and urged social workers to listen to their concerns (writes Kirsten Johnson).
The protest took place as delegates from the Association of Directors of Social Work met in the hotel for a one-day conference to discuss developing a workforce fit for purpose.
The current president of ADSW is Dundee City Council’s social work director, Alan Baird, who recently fended off a resignation call over his department’s handling of the Brandon Muir case.
Jimmy Deuchars, from pressure group Grand-parent Apart UK, led the demonstration.
He told the Tele he hoped the lobby would make those at the meeting listen to the group’s plea.
“Grandparents are at the bottom of the list when it comes to rights, but we are the ones who can notice the first warning signs. We deserve to see our grand-children, and they deserve to see us.
At the moment the Charter For Grandparents is only advisory. We want it to be mandatory — it will save children’s lives.”
Brian McNair, chairman of the Equal Parenting Alliance, also attended the demonstration. He said, “I hope the social workers, especially Alan Baird, take note. You have to be seen to be heard nowadays. We hope this brings our message into the public eye.
“We are questioning the integrity of some social workers across the country. They often do not record meetings they have with grandparents. This is not right. “If grandparents are in contact with their grandchildren they can see the signs of abuse, but the social services class them as irrelevant.”
CHALLENGES
During the conference the delegates, representing each local authority area in Scotland, considered the challenges within workforce development. BT’s group human resources director
Alex Wilson gave a keynote speech outlining how the company addressed workforce issues and shared knowledge and experience of developing good practice.
There were also presentations given on the place of the Continuous Learning Framework in organisational develop-ment and the use of Social Services Knowledge Scotland, an online knowledge service for social services staff and their managers.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Reaction to our demo from Dundee police.
I filled in the form on Tayside Police website and on Thursday or Friday a lady contacted me. Asked her questions and wished us well. So on that stregnth we confirmed our booking at the hotel adding one more.
On Sunday afternoon a policeman came on from the Dundee Police sounding quite miffed as he thought we had not contacted them, he said "what is this." I explained I had spoken to a lady from the police station and he mellowed somewhat. He went on to say we would be on private Port Authority land and we would need to get permission. Then I said we would go to the nearest point out of the Port land and he said there were no pavements for us and the Harbour Gate would be the only place.
We have emailed the Dundee Port Manager which the policeman said did not exist. Mr Matt North of the Dundee Port Authority phoned us first thing and explained, that land does not belong to them and that the Dundee council have adopted it. And emailed confirmation to that effect.
In Glasgow we contacted the Glasgow Police, they spoke to us asked all the questions how many etc then wished us well just like the police lady from Dundee did on the first instance. The demo in Glasgow went off with no problem and gave us tremendous media coverage.
Today the demo in Dundee went off well. The police did have a presence of 2 plain clothes and a van recording us all the time. The Community Inspector had a word with me and we assured him we were on a peaceful demonmstration and he was very courteous and accepted us. The demo went off very well with coverage from GMTV, STV, Radio Taymouth i think it was, and other local newspapers and radios which i forgot in the confusion of it all. We have to thank them all for their kindness and coverage.
On Sunday afternoon a policeman came on from the Dundee Police sounding quite miffed as he thought we had not contacted them, he said "what is this." I explained I had spoken to a lady from the police station and he mellowed somewhat. He went on to say we would be on private Port Authority land and we would need to get permission. Then I said we would go to the nearest point out of the Port land and he said there were no pavements for us and the Harbour Gate would be the only place.
We have emailed the Dundee Port Manager which the policeman said did not exist. Mr Matt North of the Dundee Port Authority phoned us first thing and explained, that land does not belong to them and that the Dundee council have adopted it. And emailed confirmation to that effect.
In Glasgow we contacted the Glasgow Police, they spoke to us asked all the questions how many etc then wished us well just like the police lady from Dundee did on the first instance. The demo in Glasgow went off with no problem and gave us tremendous media coverage.
Today the demo in Dundee went off well. The police did have a presence of 2 plain clothes and a van recording us all the time. The Community Inspector had a word with me and we assured him we were on a peaceful demonmstration and he was very courteous and accepted us. The demo went off very well with coverage from GMTV, STV, Radio Taymouth i think it was, and other local newspapers and radios which i forgot in the confusion of it all. We have to thank them all for their kindness and coverage.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Success of our last demo.
Grandparents Apart UK
Just as we successfully with pride and dignity protested in Glasgow on 4th March 2009.We will again make our presence known at this event by means of another demonstration. We can not let this opportunity go ahead without our input being taken into consideration.
ALL of our Directors of Social Services will be present for this one meeting at a very exclusive venue.
Will your voices be heard?
Will your concerns be listened to?
Join us at Grandparents Apart UK who stand against wrongful decision making by these Directors who are paid for by the public for the decision making with the public's children.
The Association of Directors of Social Work (ADSW)will be holding a one-day seminar onWednesday, 25th March 2009 at the Apex City Quay Hotel in Dundee.
The purpose of this event is to:
• Consider and debate the inherent challenges in workforce development
• Share knowledge and experience of developing good practice
• Promote the roles of strategic and operational managers in driving forward the workforcedevelopment agenda
As workforce development is a vital function at all organisational levels, the seminar will be of particularrelevance to frontline, middle and senior managers. Staffing and HR Professionals.
For more information and contact details please download the
Just as we successfully with pride and dignity protested in Glasgow on 4th March 2009.We will again make our presence known at this event by means of another demonstration. We can not let this opportunity go ahead without our input being taken into consideration.
ALL of our Directors of Social Services will be present for this one meeting at a very exclusive venue.
Will your voices be heard?
Will your concerns be listened to?
Join us at Grandparents Apart UK who stand against wrongful decision making by these Directors who are paid for by the public for the decision making with the public's children.
The Association of Directors of Social Work (ADSW)will be holding a one-day seminar onWednesday, 25th March 2009 at the Apex City Quay Hotel in Dundee.
The purpose of this event is to:
• Consider and debate the inherent challenges in workforce development
• Share knowledge and experience of developing good practice
• Promote the roles of strategic and operational managers in driving forward the workforcedevelopment agenda
As workforce development is a vital function at all organisational levels, the seminar will be of particularrelevance to frontline, middle and senior managers. Staffing and HR Professionals.
For more information and contact details please download the
Dundee rally. What we want to happen.
What must be for our children’s best interest?
1.... ‘Charter for Grandchildren’ to be Mandatory for professionals working in
Children’s welfare.
2.... Equal parenting when there is no valid reason not to.
3.... Stop treating children as commodities like a business deal
4.... If adopted, child contact maintained with birth family.
5 ....Kinship care before strangers.
6. ...All below accountable to law.
a)-- False accusations.
b)--Erroneous reporting by social workers
c)--Flouting of court orders.
d)-Orchestrating “cover up’s”, when children are failed.
7. ..Proper recording of all social work meetings and discussions E.g. Dual tape
recording similar to police proceedings
8… More “transparency” and especially “accountability” for Social work and
their managers
9. ..Specialised training for social workers in the best interests of children.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
SSCUP for grandparents.
Grandparents Apart and the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party
At the Grandparents Apart Uk Rally held in George Square, Glasgow, on 24th March 2009 I John Swinburne leader of the SSCUP pledged 100% support from the SSCUP and I stated that the aims of Grandparents Apart UK would be vigorously pursued by all SSCUP -MSP who were returned after the 2011 elections
The importance of grandparents having full access to be able to enjoy stable relationships with their own grandchildren must be recognised and written into law.
The 2011 manifesto of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party will fully endorse this issue.
John Swinburne
Founder and Leader of the SSCUP
At the Grandparents Apart Uk Rally held in George Square, Glasgow, on 24th March 2009 I John Swinburne leader of the SSCUP pledged 100% support from the SSCUP and I stated that the aims of Grandparents Apart UK would be vigorously pursued by all SSCUP -MSP who were returned after the 2011 elections
The importance of grandparents having full access to be able to enjoy stable relationships with their own grandchildren must be recognised and written into law.
The 2011 manifesto of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party will fully endorse this issue.
John Swinburne
Founder and Leader of the SSCUP
Monday, March 16, 2009
Demo in Dundee
Grandparents Apart UK
will be there to protest like we did in Glasgow on 4th March 2009.We cannot let this go unchallenged when we have all the directors of social services at one venue.
will be there to protest like we did in Glasgow on 4th March 2009.We cannot let this go unchallenged when we have all the directors of social services at one venue.
Will you join us?
The Association of Directors of Social Work (ADSW)will be holding a one-day seminar onWednesday, 25th March 2009 at the Apex City Quay Hotel in Dundee.Only the best will do. Luxury is no problem.
The purpose of this event is to:
• Consider and debate the inherent challenges in workforce development
• Share knowledge and experience of developing good practice
• Promote the roles of strategic and operational managers in driving forward the workforcedevelopment agenda
As workforce development is a vital function at all organisational levels, the seminar will be of particularrelevance to frontline, middle and senior managers. Staffing and HR Professionals.
For more information and contact details please download the
The Key elements of the Lamming report
At least 200,000 children live in households with a high risk of abuse.
1. Firstly we need a family law that is fair and just.
2. Equal Parenting needs to be the norm where dads as well as mums, even if they live apart
have a say in bringing up children.
3. Parental alienation needs to be frowned upon by everyone and incur heavy penalties.
4. The Charter for Grandchildren needs to be mandatory for professionals working in
children’s welfare to ensure children do not lose out on the benefits grandparents can offer.
5. Mediation should be promoted more to prevent molehills becoming mountain.
6. Social services need to be more open and truthful and answerable to the law if not.
7. Accusations not proven should be removed from records.
8. False accusations should be punishable by law.
9. All meeting to be recorded to eliminate inaccuracies.
10. Using children for revenge or blackmail should be punishable by law.
Social workers trying to protect them (children) feel demoralised and unsupported.
1. Social workers have too big a case load and are making too many mistakes to reach their targets.
2. Better education and better liasion with senior management who appear to be naïve of what happens on the shop floor.
3. The welfare of children is run like a business ‘cost befor care’ and this very cold attitude is not in the best interests of childre.
In many areas they spend too much time on inadequate IT systems and too little time seeing children.
1. On the job experiences cannot be beaten.
2. Seeing the trauma of young children indistressshould be enough to soften even the hardest hear. but when it is the case of rush in with twenty armed policemen to snatch 8 children nobody care about the didtress of the child.
New recruits deal with complex cases without adequate training and supervision.
1. I know someone who had a friend that trained as a social worker but died within 6 months and is was claimed lack of training and stress was a big part of his death.
Police child protection teams are under-resourced and have low status.
What this really means, we do not know. The last paragraph explains how they go about it. I have it from a granny that had full PRRs over her grandson but the police waded in and bodily dragged the 14 year old back to his mother on her say so. Methinks the police are well qualified.
It can take 45 weeks to bring a child protection case to court.
An absolute scandal! That amount of time destroys a childs stability, identity and the will to be a human being . Having to suffer being told your family does not want you any more just to prepare them for adoption.
The government should provide child protection training for council leaders and senior managers.
Of coarse, that is the main problem, the higher staff havn’t a clue what goes on with their social workers. I have a nice letter from Edinburgh Council; explaining their policy. It is nothing like what happens in practice.
Social workers' employers should face disciplinary action over child protection failures.
Aggreed. Social workers should face the law for falcifaction of records but so should the directors for neglect of duty.
A national agency should be set up to oversee the swift and effective implementation of these recommendations.
More money being thrown in the wrong place. The governmennt is admitting here it cannot cope with it’s own organisations. Order them to do the job right or face the consequences of losing their job or prosecution. That will make them sit up and take notice. Listen to the people when they are crying out to you for justice or is that dropping your standards too far.
1. Firstly we need a family law that is fair and just.
2. Equal Parenting needs to be the norm where dads as well as mums, even if they live apart
have a say in bringing up children.
3. Parental alienation needs to be frowned upon by everyone and incur heavy penalties.
4. The Charter for Grandchildren needs to be mandatory for professionals working in
children’s welfare to ensure children do not lose out on the benefits grandparents can offer.
5. Mediation should be promoted more to prevent molehills becoming mountain.
6. Social services need to be more open and truthful and answerable to the law if not.
7. Accusations not proven should be removed from records.
8. False accusations should be punishable by law.
9. All meeting to be recorded to eliminate inaccuracies.
10. Using children for revenge or blackmail should be punishable by law.
Social workers trying to protect them (children) feel demoralised and unsupported.
1. Social workers have too big a case load and are making too many mistakes to reach their targets.
2. Better education and better liasion with senior management who appear to be naïve of what happens on the shop floor.
3. The welfare of children is run like a business ‘cost befor care’ and this very cold attitude is not in the best interests of childre.
In many areas they spend too much time on inadequate IT systems and too little time seeing children.
1. On the job experiences cannot be beaten.
2. Seeing the trauma of young children indistressshould be enough to soften even the hardest hear. but when it is the case of rush in with twenty armed policemen to snatch 8 children nobody care about the didtress of the child.
New recruits deal with complex cases without adequate training and supervision.
1. I know someone who had a friend that trained as a social worker but died within 6 months and is was claimed lack of training and stress was a big part of his death.
Police child protection teams are under-resourced and have low status.
What this really means, we do not know. The last paragraph explains how they go about it. I have it from a granny that had full PRRs over her grandson but the police waded in and bodily dragged the 14 year old back to his mother on her say so. Methinks the police are well qualified.
It can take 45 weeks to bring a child protection case to court.
An absolute scandal! That amount of time destroys a childs stability, identity and the will to be a human being . Having to suffer being told your family does not want you any more just to prepare them for adoption.
The government should provide child protection training for council leaders and senior managers.
Of coarse, that is the main problem, the higher staff havn’t a clue what goes on with their social workers. I have a nice letter from Edinburgh Council; explaining their policy. It is nothing like what happens in practice.
Social workers' employers should face disciplinary action over child protection failures.
Aggreed. Social workers should face the law for falcifaction of records but so should the directors for neglect of duty.
A national agency should be set up to oversee the swift and effective implementation of these recommendations.
More money being thrown in the wrong place. The governmennt is admitting here it cannot cope with it’s own organisations. Order them to do the job right or face the consequences of losing their job or prosecution. That will make them sit up and take notice. Listen to the people when they are crying out to you for justice or is that dropping your standards too far.
Explosive report Ed Balls refused to make public
Baby P boss in £1m sex bias claim as we reveal explosive report Ed Balls refused to make public
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162061/Baby-P-boss-1m-sex-bias-claim-reveal-explosive-report-Ed-Balls-refused-make-public.html
By Simon Walters and Daniel BoffeyLast updated at 5:41 PM on 15th March 2009
Vital legal meeting delayed for six weeks
Interim care order agreed but not issued
Baby P returned to his home though dogs were still there
Social workers did not believe mother had live-in lover
And now disgraced council boss could win £1m in claim for 'sex discrimination'
An attempt to cover up the full horror of the death of Baby P was exposed last night after a secret report on the blunders that caused the tragedy was leaked to The Mail on Sunday.
The report shows how the true scale of incompetence by the authorities - and the appalling injuries suffered by the little boy - were censored by the disgraced social services chief blamed for the tragedy, with the full backing of the Government.
Victim of abuse: Baby P died in August 2007 aged 17 months
Schools Secretary Ed Balls has refused pleas to publish full details of the Serious Case Review of Baby P's death in August 2007. But The Mail on Sunday has learned that it shows:
A vital legal meeting that failed to decide to take the child out of his home days before he died had been delayed for six weeks because of 'workload pressures' - and was a shambles when it took place.
It was agreed there were legal grounds for issuing an 'interim care order' to withdraw the child six months before he died - but nothing was done.
Instructions not to let the child return home until dogs had been removed from the house were ignored.
Police were accused of letting their investigation into child abuse claims 'drift'.
Social workers did not believe the mother had a live-in lover - even though she announced she was pregnant in a parenting class that they told her to attend.
A doctor who failed to notice Baby P had a broken back believed the boy had been sent for treatment because of his 'behaviour' - not child abuse.
When the police officer in charge of the case changed, the new officer was not told of Baby P's background.
Health, welfare and legal experts missed vital meetings to discuss the child's welfare.
The Serious Case Review was supervised by sacked Haringey social services chief Sharon Shoesmith - who, it can be revealed, is accusing the council of sex discrimination over her dismissal and could win as much as £1million if successful.
The review was completed last November after Baby P's mother, boyfriend and a male lodger were convicted of causing or allowing the baby's death.
However, it has never been made public. Instead, an 'executive summary' - in effect a censored version - was published.
The decision not to publish the full report was supported by Mr Balls, who said it could deter people from co-operating with investigations into similar cases. However, critics say it is a cover-up.
The Serious Case Review shows how the summary played down the catalogue of blunders by the authorities - and watered down the scale of brutality inflicted on the child as a result of their failures.
Schools Secretary Ed Balls refused pleas to publish full details of the review of Baby P's death
One key aspect of the full report concerns a legal review held on July 25, 2007, a week before Baby P died. It was called to decide whether to apply for a care order to remove the child from the mother's home and whether to launch a police investigation.
The summary suggests it was conducted properly. Yet the Serious Case Review shows the legal advisers who had been dealing with the case were not present and a 'locum' lawyer who knew none of the background details dealt with it.
She merely 'noted the medical report and details of the police investigation - no proper minutes were taken', says the report. It says the scandalous six-week delay in organising the meeting was caused by 'workload pressures'.
Furthermore, those present appeared unaware that as early as December 29, 2006 - weeks after abuse of Baby P was first suspected - police had agreed that the threshold for issuing an interim care order had already been met. 'Meeting decided threshold had been met but it was not worth pursuing,' it states.
The summary suggests the authorities could not be blamed because the toddler's mother had 'co-operated with child protection plans'. This is contradicted by the uncensored version.
It reveals that after the child was briefly withdrawn from the house, social services were advised that he should not be allowed back with his mother until dogs had been removed from her home. The advice was ignored.
At last year's trial, it emerged that there were a number of dogs in the house and that the mother's lover treated Baby P like a dog.
The full report states: 'Jan 21. Police objected to presence of dogs in the child's home. A meeting was convened to discuss the child's return home but no paediatrician was present.
'Jan 26. Child went back to live with his mother.'
In addition, the mother 'disappeared' for a week in July, weeks before Baby P died, without telling the authorities.
The failure to realise that the mother's boyfriend lived with Baby P is also laid bare. The full report says Baby P's father told the authorities 'he was convinced the child's mother had a boyfriend. The mother denied the allegation the next day. The father's claim was not properly checked'.
The mother announced she was pregnant when she was sent to parenting lessons by the council. Yet social services were still unaware she had a lover.
The report says police allowed the investigation into Baby P to 'drift' and when one officer was replaced by another, case notes were not passed on.
'No photographs were taken of child's injuries when police visited. Investigation drifted for two months. Specialist doctor emailed police re calling an independent review but received no reply.'
It was decided in March that there should be an urgent 'paediatric assessment' but it did not happen until two days before Baby P died.
When it did occur, the doctor failed to spot that Baby P had a broken back and believed the child had been brought in for treatment because of his 'behaviour' - not suspected child abuse.
The summary says there was 'extensive involvement' of professionals in the months up to Baby P's death. But the full report says they were missing from vital meetings and did not speak to each other. 'June 4. Meeting held to discuss child. Police and child protection people there but no doctors or medical experts. 'June 8. Case review meeting. Agreed case was urgent but no health professionals present. Legal review did not happen until six weeks later.'
Most harrowing of all, the full report contains more details of Baby P's injuries including 'haematoma [internal bleeding], scabs, blood marks, an infected finger, hives [a skin rash] and blueish bruises'.
Last night Fergus Smith, the independent child welfare expert who wrote the Serious Case Review, called for all such reports to be published in full.
He did not comment on the Baby P report, but said: 'These reports should be in the public domain, suitably anonymised to protect those involved and frontline staff.'
A source close to the inquiry said: 'Getting information from Haringey was like getting blood from a stone. The inquiry team contemplated walking out.'
A Haringey Council spokesman said: 'Publication of Serious Case Reviews is governed by statutory guidance. Any change is a matter for the Government.'
'Scapegoat': Lawyers say Sharon Shoesmith is in line for a huge payout if she wins her tribunal claim
Details of the full report were revealed as it emerged that Mrs Shoesmith, the head of children's services who was sacked over Baby P's death, is claiming that she was the victim of sexual discrimination by Haringey.
In combining a claim for unlawful dismissal with an allegation that she was treated differently because of her gender, Mrs Shoesmith, 55, stands to maximise her potential level of compensation over the loss of her £133,000-a-year job as Haringey's Director of Children and Young People (DCYP).
There is a £63,000 cap on unfair dismissal payouts but there are no limits on compensation for discrimination claims.
Should Mrs Shoesmith be successful, she would be eligible for a year's loss of earnings leading up to the tribunal date, loss of future earnings and further compensation for her alleged 'injury to feelings and for personal injury'. She has put no figure on her claim but the total payout could potentially surpass £1million, according to experts in employment law.
John Quigley, of William Sturges Solicitors, said: 'If she won hands down it could be a huge payout on the basis that she is only 55 and she would otherwise have had ten more years of employment and salary.'
Mrs Shoesmith was dismissed without notice last year after the review of the case ordered by Mr Balls.
The review blamed Mrs Shoesmith, who had 1,000 staff and oversaw an annual budget of £100million, for 'insufficient' management oversight. She subsequently lost an internal council disciplinary hearing in January over her sacking.
In her claim, lodged at Watford Employment Tribunal and seen by this newspaper, Mrs Shoesmith says she has 'suffered and continues to suffer from clinically recognised psychiatric illness and has had suicidal thoughts following the severe stress and trauma caused by the termination of her employment'. It alleges that there was no lawful reason for her dismissal.
She claims the disciplinary procedures she went through were unfair and that her fate was predetermined by the intervention of Mr Balls in a televised Press conference in which she was described as 'not fit for purpose'.
Mrs Shoesmith further claims she was 'unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of her gender' in that she was replaced by men as both Chairperson of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and as DCYP.
The submission adds: 'The claimant will say that she was treated less favourably by the Council than a man would have been treated in similar circumstances in that she was summarily dismissed from her job without compensation whereas a man would not have been so dismissed.'
She claims that she was made the 'scapegoat' for Baby P's death.
Mrs Shoesmith is also claiming breach of contract in the High Court, where she could win a year's salary for the council's failure to pay her in lieu of notice.
Mrs Shoesmith declined to comment. A spokesman for Haringey Council said: 'We will contest all her claims vigorously.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162061/Baby-P-boss-1m-sex-bias-claim-reveal-explosive-report-Ed-Balls-refused-make-public.html
By Simon Walters and Daniel BoffeyLast updated at 5:41 PM on 15th March 2009
Vital legal meeting delayed for six weeks
Interim care order agreed but not issued
Baby P returned to his home though dogs were still there
Social workers did not believe mother had live-in lover
And now disgraced council boss could win £1m in claim for 'sex discrimination'
An attempt to cover up the full horror of the death of Baby P was exposed last night after a secret report on the blunders that caused the tragedy was leaked to The Mail on Sunday.
The report shows how the true scale of incompetence by the authorities - and the appalling injuries suffered by the little boy - were censored by the disgraced social services chief blamed for the tragedy, with the full backing of the Government.
Victim of abuse: Baby P died in August 2007 aged 17 months
Schools Secretary Ed Balls has refused pleas to publish full details of the Serious Case Review of Baby P's death in August 2007. But The Mail on Sunday has learned that it shows:
A vital legal meeting that failed to decide to take the child out of his home days before he died had been delayed for six weeks because of 'workload pressures' - and was a shambles when it took place.
It was agreed there were legal grounds for issuing an 'interim care order' to withdraw the child six months before he died - but nothing was done.
Instructions not to let the child return home until dogs had been removed from the house were ignored.
Police were accused of letting their investigation into child abuse claims 'drift'.
Social workers did not believe the mother had a live-in lover - even though she announced she was pregnant in a parenting class that they told her to attend.
A doctor who failed to notice Baby P had a broken back believed the boy had been sent for treatment because of his 'behaviour' - not child abuse.
When the police officer in charge of the case changed, the new officer was not told of Baby P's background.
Health, welfare and legal experts missed vital meetings to discuss the child's welfare.
The Serious Case Review was supervised by sacked Haringey social services chief Sharon Shoesmith - who, it can be revealed, is accusing the council of sex discrimination over her dismissal and could win as much as £1million if successful.
The review was completed last November after Baby P's mother, boyfriend and a male lodger were convicted of causing or allowing the baby's death.
However, it has never been made public. Instead, an 'executive summary' - in effect a censored version - was published.
The decision not to publish the full report was supported by Mr Balls, who said it could deter people from co-operating with investigations into similar cases. However, critics say it is a cover-up.
The Serious Case Review shows how the summary played down the catalogue of blunders by the authorities - and watered down the scale of brutality inflicted on the child as a result of their failures.
Schools Secretary Ed Balls refused pleas to publish full details of the review of Baby P's death
One key aspect of the full report concerns a legal review held on July 25, 2007, a week before Baby P died. It was called to decide whether to apply for a care order to remove the child from the mother's home and whether to launch a police investigation.
The summary suggests it was conducted properly. Yet the Serious Case Review shows the legal advisers who had been dealing with the case were not present and a 'locum' lawyer who knew none of the background details dealt with it.
She merely 'noted the medical report and details of the police investigation - no proper minutes were taken', says the report. It says the scandalous six-week delay in organising the meeting was caused by 'workload pressures'.
Furthermore, those present appeared unaware that as early as December 29, 2006 - weeks after abuse of Baby P was first suspected - police had agreed that the threshold for issuing an interim care order had already been met. 'Meeting decided threshold had been met but it was not worth pursuing,' it states.
The summary suggests the authorities could not be blamed because the toddler's mother had 'co-operated with child protection plans'. This is contradicted by the uncensored version.
It reveals that after the child was briefly withdrawn from the house, social services were advised that he should not be allowed back with his mother until dogs had been removed from her home. The advice was ignored.
At last year's trial, it emerged that there were a number of dogs in the house and that the mother's lover treated Baby P like a dog.
The full report states: 'Jan 21. Police objected to presence of dogs in the child's home. A meeting was convened to discuss the child's return home but no paediatrician was present.
'Jan 26. Child went back to live with his mother.'
In addition, the mother 'disappeared' for a week in July, weeks before Baby P died, without telling the authorities.
The failure to realise that the mother's boyfriend lived with Baby P is also laid bare. The full report says Baby P's father told the authorities 'he was convinced the child's mother had a boyfriend. The mother denied the allegation the next day. The father's claim was not properly checked'.
The mother announced she was pregnant when she was sent to parenting lessons by the council. Yet social services were still unaware she had a lover.
The report says police allowed the investigation into Baby P to 'drift' and when one officer was replaced by another, case notes were not passed on.
'No photographs were taken of child's injuries when police visited. Investigation drifted for two months. Specialist doctor emailed police re calling an independent review but received no reply.'
It was decided in March that there should be an urgent 'paediatric assessment' but it did not happen until two days before Baby P died.
When it did occur, the doctor failed to spot that Baby P had a broken back and believed the child had been brought in for treatment because of his 'behaviour' - not suspected child abuse.
The summary says there was 'extensive involvement' of professionals in the months up to Baby P's death. But the full report says they were missing from vital meetings and did not speak to each other. 'June 4. Meeting held to discuss child. Police and child protection people there but no doctors or medical experts. 'June 8. Case review meeting. Agreed case was urgent but no health professionals present. Legal review did not happen until six weeks later.'
Most harrowing of all, the full report contains more details of Baby P's injuries including 'haematoma [internal bleeding], scabs, blood marks, an infected finger, hives [a skin rash] and blueish bruises'.
Last night Fergus Smith, the independent child welfare expert who wrote the Serious Case Review, called for all such reports to be published in full.
He did not comment on the Baby P report, but said: 'These reports should be in the public domain, suitably anonymised to protect those involved and frontline staff.'
A source close to the inquiry said: 'Getting information from Haringey was like getting blood from a stone. The inquiry team contemplated walking out.'
A Haringey Council spokesman said: 'Publication of Serious Case Reviews is governed by statutory guidance. Any change is a matter for the Government.'
'Scapegoat': Lawyers say Sharon Shoesmith is in line for a huge payout if she wins her tribunal claim
Details of the full report were revealed as it emerged that Mrs Shoesmith, the head of children's services who was sacked over Baby P's death, is claiming that she was the victim of sexual discrimination by Haringey.
In combining a claim for unlawful dismissal with an allegation that she was treated differently because of her gender, Mrs Shoesmith, 55, stands to maximise her potential level of compensation over the loss of her £133,000-a-year job as Haringey's Director of Children and Young People (DCYP).
There is a £63,000 cap on unfair dismissal payouts but there are no limits on compensation for discrimination claims.
Should Mrs Shoesmith be successful, she would be eligible for a year's loss of earnings leading up to the tribunal date, loss of future earnings and further compensation for her alleged 'injury to feelings and for personal injury'. She has put no figure on her claim but the total payout could potentially surpass £1million, according to experts in employment law.
John Quigley, of William Sturges Solicitors, said: 'If she won hands down it could be a huge payout on the basis that she is only 55 and she would otherwise have had ten more years of employment and salary.'
Mrs Shoesmith was dismissed without notice last year after the review of the case ordered by Mr Balls.
The review blamed Mrs Shoesmith, who had 1,000 staff and oversaw an annual budget of £100million, for 'insufficient' management oversight. She subsequently lost an internal council disciplinary hearing in January over her sacking.
In her claim, lodged at Watford Employment Tribunal and seen by this newspaper, Mrs Shoesmith says she has 'suffered and continues to suffer from clinically recognised psychiatric illness and has had suicidal thoughts following the severe stress and trauma caused by the termination of her employment'. It alleges that there was no lawful reason for her dismissal.
She claims the disciplinary procedures she went through were unfair and that her fate was predetermined by the intervention of Mr Balls in a televised Press conference in which she was described as 'not fit for purpose'.
Mrs Shoesmith further claims she was 'unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of her gender' in that she was replaced by men as both Chairperson of the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) and as DCYP.
The submission adds: 'The claimant will say that she was treated less favourably by the Council than a man would have been treated in similar circumstances in that she was summarily dismissed from her job without compensation whereas a man would not have been so dismissed.'
She claims that she was made the 'scapegoat' for Baby P's death.
Mrs Shoesmith is also claiming breach of contract in the High Court, where she could win a year's salary for the council's failure to pay her in lieu of notice.
Mrs Shoesmith declined to comment. A spokesman for Haringey Council said: 'We will contest all her claims vigorously.'
Care children 'failed' by system
Children in care are still failing to flourish in the classroom
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7934884.stm
Ministers have been urged to do more to improve the education of children in care, as figures revealed they still lag behind other groups.
Students in care achieved, on average, two Standard Grade passes in 2008, fewer than pupils from even the poorest social backgrounds.
Former First Minister Jack McConnell said their poor results meant they were consigned to the "margins of society".
The Scottish Government said it was already working to improve attainment.
A spokesman said: "All children deserve the chance to fulfill their potential and there should be no difference between the chances of young people in care and their peers.
"That's why we recently moved to clearly set out what is expected of everyone responsible for our looked after children and to launch measures to improve the educational attainment and achievement of young people in care."
The results for children in care - in foster homes or children's homes - were broadly in line with the level last year, although large numbers of children were missing from the survey.
In the overall results for all pupils, which included the outcome of appeals, girls did better at Higher grade with 25.2% passing three or more Highers compared to 19.6% for boys.
The number of pupils passing three Highers was up 0.3% to 22.4%. At Standard Grade the pass rate for five Highers was up 0.6% to 76.2%.
European experience
Mr McConnell, a former math’s teacher and Labour education minister, said education authorities and ministers could learn from the experience of other European countries in raising the attainment levels of children in care.
He said: "The youngsters that are in care technically have the state as their parent. They should expect the same support, the same direction, the same assistance that we would expect any other parent to give.
"It is absolutely tragic that so many of these youngsters leave school, some without any qualifications at all, most with very few qualifications and are therefore far more likely to become involved in crime, to become unemployed, be at the margins of society for the rest of their lives." In September, the Scottish Government published the "These Are Our Bairns" document, setting out the roles and responsibilities of those who look after children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7934884.stm
Ministers have been urged to do more to improve the education of children in care, as figures revealed they still lag behind other groups.
Students in care achieved, on average, two Standard Grade passes in 2008, fewer than pupils from even the poorest social backgrounds.
Former First Minister Jack McConnell said their poor results meant they were consigned to the "margins of society".
The Scottish Government said it was already working to improve attainment.
A spokesman said: "All children deserve the chance to fulfill their potential and there should be no difference between the chances of young people in care and their peers.
"That's why we recently moved to clearly set out what is expected of everyone responsible for our looked after children and to launch measures to improve the educational attainment and achievement of young people in care."
The results for children in care - in foster homes or children's homes - were broadly in line with the level last year, although large numbers of children were missing from the survey.
In the overall results for all pupils, which included the outcome of appeals, girls did better at Higher grade with 25.2% passing three or more Highers compared to 19.6% for boys.
The number of pupils passing three Highers was up 0.3% to 22.4%. At Standard Grade the pass rate for five Highers was up 0.6% to 76.2%.
European experience
Mr McConnell, a former math’s teacher and Labour education minister, said education authorities and ministers could learn from the experience of other European countries in raising the attainment levels of children in care.
He said: "The youngsters that are in care technically have the state as their parent. They should expect the same support, the same direction, the same assistance that we would expect any other parent to give.
"It is absolutely tragic that so many of these youngsters leave school, some without any qualifications at all, most with very few qualifications and are therefore far more likely to become involved in crime, to become unemployed, be at the margins of society for the rest of their lives." In September, the Scottish Government published the "These Are Our Bairns" document, setting out the roles and responsibilities of those who look after children.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thanks To Robert Whiston
Not to self - - at some future date /project perhaps ? I don't think I
agree with the direction this article is taking. [The Survival of
Grandparent Visitation Statutes] I don't quite see grandparents as
'non-parents'. RW
A child custody dispute may arise between a parent and a nonparent in a variety of contexts. One type of case that has received considerable comment involves the same-gender partner of the child's parent.
Other situations involve a stepparent, probably the most common case of a nonparent seeking custody; a relative, including a grandparent; or a third party with whom a parent has placed the child during an extended period. In all of these cases, the child may have lived with the nonparent for most of the child's life, and the non-parent may have been the primary caretaker of the child, forming a very close psychological parent-child bond.
In these types of custodial disputes, the non-parent seeking custody is faced with the traditional rule that the parent is entitled to custody unless that parent is found to be unfit (Buser 1991; Clark 1988). The effect of giving primacy to the interests of the biological parent when the other choice is a nonparent means that the best interests of the child may be disregarded.
Legal scholars have puzzled over the persistence of a rule that seems to place the child's best interests after those of the parent. Some scholars speculate that these cases reflect a concern about the importance of blood ties and a belief that the child's biological parent will in the long run be the most successful caretaker for the child. In addition, courts often show sympathy for a biological parent who has, perhaps after a period of years, now realized how important the child is (Chambers 1990). Finally, in the case of the same-gender partner, the court may express some of the societal ambivalence toward that family form.
agree with the direction this article is taking. [The Survival of
Grandparent Visitation Statutes] I don't quite see grandparents as
'non-parents'. RW
A child custody dispute may arise between a parent and a nonparent in a variety of contexts. One type of case that has received considerable comment involves the same-gender partner of the child's parent.
Other situations involve a stepparent, probably the most common case of a nonparent seeking custody; a relative, including a grandparent; or a third party with whom a parent has placed the child during an extended period. In all of these cases, the child may have lived with the nonparent for most of the child's life, and the non-parent may have been the primary caretaker of the child, forming a very close psychological parent-child bond.
In these types of custodial disputes, the non-parent seeking custody is faced with the traditional rule that the parent is entitled to custody unless that parent is found to be unfit (Buser 1991; Clark 1988). The effect of giving primacy to the interests of the biological parent when the other choice is a nonparent means that the best interests of the child may be disregarded.
Legal scholars have puzzled over the persistence of a rule that seems to place the child's best interests after those of the parent. Some scholars speculate that these cases reflect a concern about the importance of blood ties and a belief that the child's biological parent will in the long run be the most successful caretaker for the child. In addition, courts often show sympathy for a biological parent who has, perhaps after a period of years, now realized how important the child is (Chambers 1990). Finally, in the case of the same-gender partner, the court may express some of the societal ambivalence toward that family form.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Letter from Scottish Government. And reply.
Children, Young People and Social Care DirectorateCare and Justice (CYPSC) Division The-ScottishGovernment
T: 0131-244 3663 F: 0131-244 3547E: paul.wilson@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Mr Jimmy DeucharsGrandparents Apart UK, 22 AIness Crescent, GlasgowG521PJ
Your ref: Our ref: 2009/0003231 ORMarch 2009
Dear Mr Deuchars
Thank you for your emailing, on 30 January, notification of the demonstration you areorganising for 4 March to Mr Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State for Education concerning the recently publicised adoption case in Edinburgh. As adoption is a devolved matter, and therefore is the remit of the Scottish Government, I have been asked to reply.
I understand that The City of Edinburgh Council have received a complaint from thegrandparents and are investigating the specific issues raised. As you will appreciate, Icannot comment on individual cases which involve highly personal and confidentialinformation regarding all the parties involved in the case and it would be inappropriate for me to discuss any allegations made in the Daily Mail concerning bullying by social workers. However, I hope I can address some of your concerns.
All children deserve a secure and stable home to grow up in and the removal of any child from their natural parents is always a difficult decision and one that is never taken lightly. That is why councils have a duty to make recommendations based on the best interests of the child. The Scottish Government firmly believes that, if a child, cannot live with their birth parents, the first option should be to consider the ability and capacity of kinship carers in the wider family to provide the child with a safe and permanent home. In making recommendations about the placement of a child local authorities, as a matter of policy and good professional practice, consider the possibility of the child being cared for by his or her extended family. I understand that, in line with this policy, the City of Edinburgh Council operates a family first policy when placing children who need to Iive away from their birth parents and currently supports in the region of 240 'kinship carers' ( extended family looking afre children in this way) the majority of whom are grandparents. As you know as with all potential carers for Looked After Children, kinship carers undergo a rigorous assessment of their capacity to care for the children in a safe secure and stable through-out their childhood. This assessment considers a number of factors and will not rely on age alone in its determination of the person's ability to supply a safe, secure and stable home for a child.
Before a child is placed with adoptive parents, an adoption agency (either a local authority or a voluntary organisation) will have to assess the adopters as suitable, that the adoption is in the best interests of the child and that the child is placed with adopters who can best meet the child's needs.
In deciding whether an applicant is suitable as an adopter the local authority will take into account a range of factors. No one has a right to adopt a child and if the assessment indicates that they would not be able to provide a safe, secure, and stable home then they will not be considered as adopters. Any recommendation of a person as suitable to adopt a child must be considered by both an independent panel of experts (an adoption panel), which includes independent social workers, as well as legal and medical advisers, and then the local authority's decision maker, who is also independent of the case. If a child is considered by the local authority to be suitable for adoption, and this is confirmed by both the adoption panel and the agency decision maker, the local authority can apply for an order freeing the child for adoption. This order places the parental rights and responsibilities for the child with the council and cannot be granted unless the consents of the parent or guardians have been given, or that the court is satisfied that they can be dispensed with under specific grounds1. In granting this order the court will appoint a Curator ad Litem, an independent expert, whose role is to represent the best interests of the children and ensure that they are at the centre of the proceedings. A Curator will also assess permanent options for the children, including the extended family, and advise the court.
Any potential match between a child and a potential adopter is scrutinised by the adoption panel. When this panel recommends a match as suitable, and the agency decision maker, considers the match to be suitable, an application to the court for an adoption order can be made. Although the adoption agency can make a recommendation to the court that a match is suitable, it is ultimately the decision of the court to grant an adoption order.
Finally, the law in Scotland requires that the views of children over the age of 12 are taken into account when making arrangements for adoption. Younger children's views are also considered and their views will have been taken during the case, and the Curator appointed by the court will ensure that they are heard by the court.
As you can see, there are several levels of scrutiny involved in granting an adoption order and each of these will need to be satisfied that the match is in the best interests of the children before an order can be granted.
I hope that this helps.Yours sincerely
Paul WilsonCare and Justice Division
' The grounds are: the parent or guardian—
(a) cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement;
(b) is withholding his agreement unreasonably;
(c) has persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the parental duties in relation to the child;
(d) has abandoned or neglected the child;
(e) has persistently ill-treated the child;
(f) has seriously ill-treated the child
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/
Answer to the Scottish Governments Letter
The Governments state that their Children’s policies are working in the best interests of children. Is the overwhelming amount of people complaining all wrong?
So where does the problem lie?
I have stated before. It is the administration of these policies that are to blame, a monster that has gotten out of control of its master. The Governments are so wrapped up in their self righteousness that they no longer listen to the people, but only to the administration that advises them on an unfeeling cost and personal financial basis,
With all the bad publicity Social Services, Courts, Professionals are receiving from the media and John Hemming MP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNQFaBcwFlU surely even the Scottish Government must be able to make a connection here. It is sticking out like a sore thumb all over the UK.
Our demo on the 4th March in Glasgow, not a big one by any means, but the amount of media that was there is awakening the public, an even bigger force called people power to the incompetence of our Government. We did not just have grandparents protesting. There were mothers, fathers, grandparents and extended members of families that have suffered under the Government’s monster.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/
T: 0131-244 3663 F: 0131-244 3547E: paul.wilson@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Mr Jimmy DeucharsGrandparents Apart UK, 22 AIness Crescent, GlasgowG521PJ
Your ref: Our ref: 2009/0003231 ORMarch 2009
Dear Mr Deuchars
Thank you for your emailing, on 30 January, notification of the demonstration you areorganising for 4 March to Mr Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State for Education concerning the recently publicised adoption case in Edinburgh. As adoption is a devolved matter, and therefore is the remit of the Scottish Government, I have been asked to reply.
I understand that The City of Edinburgh Council have received a complaint from thegrandparents and are investigating the specific issues raised. As you will appreciate, Icannot comment on individual cases which involve highly personal and confidentialinformation regarding all the parties involved in the case and it would be inappropriate for me to discuss any allegations made in the Daily Mail concerning bullying by social workers. However, I hope I can address some of your concerns.
All children deserve a secure and stable home to grow up in and the removal of any child from their natural parents is always a difficult decision and one that is never taken lightly. That is why councils have a duty to make recommendations based on the best interests of the child. The Scottish Government firmly believes that, if a child, cannot live with their birth parents, the first option should be to consider the ability and capacity of kinship carers in the wider family to provide the child with a safe and permanent home. In making recommendations about the placement of a child local authorities, as a matter of policy and good professional practice, consider the possibility of the child being cared for by his or her extended family. I understand that, in line with this policy, the City of Edinburgh Council operates a family first policy when placing children who need to Iive away from their birth parents and currently supports in the region of 240 'kinship carers' ( extended family looking afre children in this way) the majority of whom are grandparents. As you know as with all potential carers for Looked After Children, kinship carers undergo a rigorous assessment of their capacity to care for the children in a safe secure and stable through-out their childhood. This assessment considers a number of factors and will not rely on age alone in its determination of the person's ability to supply a safe, secure and stable home for a child.
Before a child is placed with adoptive parents, an adoption agency (either a local authority or a voluntary organisation) will have to assess the adopters as suitable, that the adoption is in the best interests of the child and that the child is placed with adopters who can best meet the child's needs.
In deciding whether an applicant is suitable as an adopter the local authority will take into account a range of factors. No one has a right to adopt a child and if the assessment indicates that they would not be able to provide a safe, secure, and stable home then they will not be considered as adopters. Any recommendation of a person as suitable to adopt a child must be considered by both an independent panel of experts (an adoption panel), which includes independent social workers, as well as legal and medical advisers, and then the local authority's decision maker, who is also independent of the case. If a child is considered by the local authority to be suitable for adoption, and this is confirmed by both the adoption panel and the agency decision maker, the local authority can apply for an order freeing the child for adoption. This order places the parental rights and responsibilities for the child with the council and cannot be granted unless the consents of the parent or guardians have been given, or that the court is satisfied that they can be dispensed with under specific grounds1. In granting this order the court will appoint a Curator ad Litem, an independent expert, whose role is to represent the best interests of the children and ensure that they are at the centre of the proceedings. A Curator will also assess permanent options for the children, including the extended family, and advise the court.
Any potential match between a child and a potential adopter is scrutinised by the adoption panel. When this panel recommends a match as suitable, and the agency decision maker, considers the match to be suitable, an application to the court for an adoption order can be made. Although the adoption agency can make a recommendation to the court that a match is suitable, it is ultimately the decision of the court to grant an adoption order.
Finally, the law in Scotland requires that the views of children over the age of 12 are taken into account when making arrangements for adoption. Younger children's views are also considered and their views will have been taken during the case, and the Curator appointed by the court will ensure that they are heard by the court.
As you can see, there are several levels of scrutiny involved in granting an adoption order and each of these will need to be satisfied that the match is in the best interests of the children before an order can be granted.
I hope that this helps.Yours sincerely
Paul WilsonCare and Justice Division
' The grounds are: the parent or guardian—
(a) cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement;
(b) is withholding his agreement unreasonably;
(c) has persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the parental duties in relation to the child;
(d) has abandoned or neglected the child;
(e) has persistently ill-treated the child;
(f) has seriously ill-treated the child
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/
Answer to the Scottish Governments Letter
The Governments state that their Children’s policies are working in the best interests of children. Is the overwhelming amount of people complaining all wrong?
So where does the problem lie?
I have stated before. It is the administration of these policies that are to blame, a monster that has gotten out of control of its master. The Governments are so wrapped up in their self righteousness that they no longer listen to the people, but only to the administration that advises them on an unfeeling cost and personal financial basis,
With all the bad publicity Social Services, Courts, Professionals are receiving from the media and John Hemming MP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNQFaBcwFlU surely even the Scottish Government must be able to make a connection here. It is sticking out like a sore thumb all over the UK.
Our demo on the 4th March in Glasgow, not a big one by any means, but the amount of media that was there is awakening the public, an even bigger force called people power to the incompetence of our Government. We did not just have grandparents protesting. There were mothers, fathers, grandparents and extended members of families that have suffered under the Government’s monster.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Charter for Grandchildren
It is important that parents, grandparents and other family members, speak to, and treat each other, with respect. You may not get on, but you can still be civil, for the sake of the children. Try to avoid arguing with or criticising family members in front of the children. It can be very upsetting for them.
On occasions professional organizations such as social work departments or the courts can become involved and may have to make decisions that will have a lasting impact throughout a child’s entire life. In these circumstances it is vital that the loving and supportive role that the wider family, in particular grandparents can play is respected and protected for the child…
FAMILIES ARE IMPORTANT TO CHILDREN
Grandchildren can expect:
To be involved with and helped to understand decisions made about their lives.
To be treated fairly
To know and maintain contact with their family (except in very exceptional circumstances) and other people who are important to them.
To know that their grandparents still love them, even if they are not able to see them at the present time.
To know their family history.
The adults in their lives to put their needs first and to protect them from disputes between adults - not to use them as weapons in quarrels between adults.
Social workers , when making assessments about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
The Courts, when making decisions about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
Lawyers and other advisers to encourage relationship counseling or mediation when adults seek advice on matters affecting them and their children.
Along with others, Grandparents Apart put a lot of hard work into “The Charter for Grandchildren” demanding to be heard about the gaps in the family law concerning their grandchildren. Why? Because we really do have the best interests of our grandchildren at heart, if it was not for love of them why would we bother?
We are happy to promote the Charter for Grandchildren and the Parenting Agreement because they are useful documents.
Grandparents Apart Self Help Group Scotland. 22 Alness Crescent, Glasgow G52 1PJ
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk A Scottish Registered Volunteer Charity No. SC 031558
Grandparents Apart Uk Revised proposal for the ‘best interests of children’
Our revised proposal is considering the child in as much as not to have the protection of their grandparents in child neglect and abuse cases is devastating to them and not at all in their best interests. In this revised proposal we have listened to the government and strive to work towards their wishes as much as possible.
The governments of the UK have refused point blank to give grandparents legal rights of contact with their grandchildren. Their wishes are that grandparents should not have individual legal rights because the say it would cause more problems than it resolves solves and it is not the answer for every child. (Neither are their proposals) Further wishes of the government are that families get together without legislation and The Charter for Grandchildren was produced for that purpose but there has been no encouragement from the government and the situation is not improving and grandparents are being by-passed for strangers or like the wee girl given to two men when the she was afraid of men... This is not in the best interests of children.
We therefore propose that ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ in Scotland should be adopted UK wide and ‘and be mandatory for professionals dealing with children thereby ensuring in the absence of one or both parents that the love and protective role grandparents can play is not wasted as is the case at present because grandparents are regarded as irrelevant (not important) persons and therefore rarely considered in practice.…Being mandatory for professionals would not be an imposition on the parents or family in general…If the governments were to adopt this as an example it would send a message of encouragement to families that grandparents can be a huge asset in the family and inspire mediation focusing on the best interests of the children when there is a huge rise in drug and alcohol abuse and amid the fear of the ever increasing cases of child abuse. What more does the government want? Is this the best interests of children or is it polotics?
It is generally agreed by governments and most organisations dealing with children that grandparents are very important in the family.. It is also agreed that they can be vital in the early detection of child abuse and in the care and stability of children when they are in a crisis situation especially in the middle of the night. That is if they are informed about it at all, being irrelevant persons, this is not always the case. If the crisis has been violent and very upsetting it would be in the best interests of the children to be settled as quickly as possible with someone who they know cares for them.
In any event, the following statements are proof enough that there is common ground to build on for the benefit of our children and the governments should act without delay.
Responses from concerned parties.
Children 1st. Response to PE 1156
Grandparents should be given the right of information about their grandchildren’s welfare.
Grandchildren’s Charter which is not about grandparents’ right to contact with their grandchildren, but about their grandchildren’s interests – these documents are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Civil/17867/10388
CHILDREN 1ST is a strong supporter of this approach. The Committee may want to ask the Government about how widely these documents are used, and whether any further non-legislative measures are needed to help embed their use. Children 1st. Response to PE 1120
I totally agree that grandparents are often best placed to detect any kind of abuse or addiction that harms children and are often left picking up the pieces with no support when things fall apart. I think resolving that bit should be a priority (i.e. offering financial and emotional support) and then perhaps there’s scope to move on to greater recognition of the role grandparents play and how this could be established in law.
H. C. Woman’s Aids recent communication. Not necessarily the final word of W. A.
You are totally right: grandparents are among the most skilled professionals when it comes to looking after children. Grandparents can play an essential role in not only boosting their grandchildren's well- being. But also - as you rightly say - in detecting child abuse. MS Miller has kindly agreed to this quote in firm belief that grandparents have a crucial role to play in a child’s life in the over whelming majority of circumstances.
Maria Miller MP
Thank you for your email. I have much sympathy with your case and have
noted that my fellow Hampshire MP and frontbench colleague, Maria
Miller, has made a point which I fully endorse.
Gerald Howarth MP
Member of Parliament for Aldershot & Shadow Defence Minister
Making the Grandparents' Charter mandatory for professionals effectively means that you create legal duties - in other words individuals cannot enforce rights directly but can expect state institutions to follow the principles of the Charter. It might be worth you exploring the implications of this with the government.
Robert Brown Euro MSP
Former Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson MSP, also a former social worker, said
“Grandparents play a hugely significant role in children's lives. They are often the people who step in to care for children when parents can't cope due to drug or alcohol misuse and many find themselves struggling financially as a result. I would expect every social work department to look at what they can do to help in these situations, to ensure that the best interests of the child are promoted at all times. Supporting grandparents is often the best way to support the children."
Cathy Jamieson MSP Shadow Justice Minister
During my four year term as an MSP (2003-2007) I encountered many problems relative to grandparents and their grandchildren. I regularly raised the issue of 'Kinship Carers' in Parliament and complained about the lack of funding for grandparents who had their grandchildren given into their care by social workers.
The new proposals by the 'Grandparents Apart UK organisation' would act as yet another safeguard in the welfare and wellbeing of vulnerable youngsters. It is imperative that the Government acts now to help to reduce the chance of any more children becoming the focus of media attention due to abuse which has gone unnoticed by social workers and allow the Charter for Grandchildren to be mandatory by professionals.
This is a cost free simple way to help to bring to an end this new trend in society whereby vulnerable children become helpless victims. All too often there is drugs at the root of the problem. Social workers need all the help they can get therefore should welcome this new proposal NOW!
John Swinburne. Leader of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party.
Jimmy Deuchars, June Loudoun.
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
On occasions professional organizations such as social work departments or the courts can become involved and may have to make decisions that will have a lasting impact throughout a child’s entire life. In these circumstances it is vital that the loving and supportive role that the wider family, in particular grandparents can play is respected and protected for the child…
FAMILIES ARE IMPORTANT TO CHILDREN
Grandchildren can expect:
To be involved with and helped to understand decisions made about their lives.
To be treated fairly
To know and maintain contact with their family (except in very exceptional circumstances) and other people who are important to them.
To know that their grandparents still love them, even if they are not able to see them at the present time.
To know their family history.
The adults in their lives to put their needs first and to protect them from disputes between adults - not to use them as weapons in quarrels between adults.
Social workers , when making assessments about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
The Courts, when making decisions about their lives, to take into account the loving and supporting role grandparents can play in their lives.
Lawyers and other advisers to encourage relationship counseling or mediation when adults seek advice on matters affecting them and their children.
Along with others, Grandparents Apart put a lot of hard work into “The Charter for Grandchildren” demanding to be heard about the gaps in the family law concerning their grandchildren. Why? Because we really do have the best interests of our grandchildren at heart, if it was not for love of them why would we bother?
We are happy to promote the Charter for Grandchildren and the Parenting Agreement because they are useful documents.
Grandparents Apart Self Help Group Scotland. 22 Alness Crescent, Glasgow G52 1PJ
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk A Scottish Registered Volunteer Charity No. SC 031558
Grandparents Apart Uk Revised proposal for the ‘best interests of children’
Our revised proposal is considering the child in as much as not to have the protection of their grandparents in child neglect and abuse cases is devastating to them and not at all in their best interests. In this revised proposal we have listened to the government and strive to work towards their wishes as much as possible.
The governments of the UK have refused point blank to give grandparents legal rights of contact with their grandchildren. Their wishes are that grandparents should not have individual legal rights because the say it would cause more problems than it resolves solves and it is not the answer for every child. (Neither are their proposals) Further wishes of the government are that families get together without legislation and The Charter for Grandchildren was produced for that purpose but there has been no encouragement from the government and the situation is not improving and grandparents are being by-passed for strangers or like the wee girl given to two men when the she was afraid of men... This is not in the best interests of children.
We therefore propose that ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ in Scotland should be adopted UK wide and ‘and be mandatory for professionals dealing with children thereby ensuring in the absence of one or both parents that the love and protective role grandparents can play is not wasted as is the case at present because grandparents are regarded as irrelevant (not important) persons and therefore rarely considered in practice.…Being mandatory for professionals would not be an imposition on the parents or family in general…If the governments were to adopt this as an example it would send a message of encouragement to families that grandparents can be a huge asset in the family and inspire mediation focusing on the best interests of the children when there is a huge rise in drug and alcohol abuse and amid the fear of the ever increasing cases of child abuse. What more does the government want? Is this the best interests of children or is it polotics?
It is generally agreed by governments and most organisations dealing with children that grandparents are very important in the family.. It is also agreed that they can be vital in the early detection of child abuse and in the care and stability of children when they are in a crisis situation especially in the middle of the night. That is if they are informed about it at all, being irrelevant persons, this is not always the case. If the crisis has been violent and very upsetting it would be in the best interests of the children to be settled as quickly as possible with someone who they know cares for them.
In any event, the following statements are proof enough that there is common ground to build on for the benefit of our children and the governments should act without delay.
Responses from concerned parties.
Children 1st. Response to PE 1156
Grandparents should be given the right of information about their grandchildren’s welfare.
Grandchildren’s Charter which is not about grandparents’ right to contact with their grandchildren, but about their grandchildren’s interests – these documents are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Civil/17867/10388
CHILDREN 1ST is a strong supporter of this approach. The Committee may want to ask the Government about how widely these documents are used, and whether any further non-legislative measures are needed to help embed their use. Children 1st. Response to PE 1120
I totally agree that grandparents are often best placed to detect any kind of abuse or addiction that harms children and are often left picking up the pieces with no support when things fall apart. I think resolving that bit should be a priority (i.e. offering financial and emotional support) and then perhaps there’s scope to move on to greater recognition of the role grandparents play and how this could be established in law.
H. C. Woman’s Aids recent communication. Not necessarily the final word of W. A.
You are totally right: grandparents are among the most skilled professionals when it comes to looking after children. Grandparents can play an essential role in not only boosting their grandchildren's well- being. But also - as you rightly say - in detecting child abuse. MS Miller has kindly agreed to this quote in firm belief that grandparents have a crucial role to play in a child’s life in the over whelming majority of circumstances.
Maria Miller MP
Thank you for your email. I have much sympathy with your case and have
noted that my fellow Hampshire MP and frontbench colleague, Maria
Miller, has made a point which I fully endorse.
Gerald Howarth MP
Member of Parliament for Aldershot & Shadow Defence Minister
Making the Grandparents' Charter mandatory for professionals effectively means that you create legal duties - in other words individuals cannot enforce rights directly but can expect state institutions to follow the principles of the Charter. It might be worth you exploring the implications of this with the government.
Robert Brown Euro MSP
Former Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson MSP, also a former social worker, said
“Grandparents play a hugely significant role in children's lives. They are often the people who step in to care for children when parents can't cope due to drug or alcohol misuse and many find themselves struggling financially as a result. I would expect every social work department to look at what they can do to help in these situations, to ensure that the best interests of the child are promoted at all times. Supporting grandparents is often the best way to support the children."
Cathy Jamieson MSP Shadow Justice Minister
During my four year term as an MSP (2003-2007) I encountered many problems relative to grandparents and their grandchildren. I regularly raised the issue of 'Kinship Carers' in Parliament and complained about the lack of funding for grandparents who had their grandchildren given into their care by social workers.
The new proposals by the 'Grandparents Apart UK organisation' would act as yet another safeguard in the welfare and wellbeing of vulnerable youngsters. It is imperative that the Government acts now to help to reduce the chance of any more children becoming the focus of media attention due to abuse which has gone unnoticed by social workers and allow the Charter for Grandchildren to be mandatory by professionals.
This is a cost free simple way to help to bring to an end this new trend in society whereby vulnerable children become helpless victims. All too often there is drugs at the root of the problem. Social workers need all the help they can get therefore should welcome this new proposal NOW!
John Swinburne. Leader of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party.
Jimmy Deuchars, June Loudoun.
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
A granny story.
Grandma's boyfriendA 5-year-old boy went to visit his grandmother one day. Playing with histoys in her bedroom while grandma was dusting, he looked up and said, 'Grandma, how come you don't have a boyfriend now that Grandpa went to heaven?'Grandma replied, 'Honey, my TV is my boyfriend. I can sit in my bedroom and watch it all day long. The religious programs make me feel good and the comedies make me laugh. I'm happy with my TV as my boyfriend.'Grandma turned on the TV, and the reception was terrible. She started adjusting the knobs, trying to get the picture in focus. Frustrated, she started hitting the back of the TV hoping to fix the problem.The little boy heard the doorbell ring, so he hurried to open the door and there stood Grandma's minister. The minister said, 'Hello son, is your Grandma home?'The little boy replied, 'Yeah, she's in the bedroom bangin' herboyfriend.'The minister fainted. Now, that's funny... I don't care WHO you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)