Any foster carers out there?

[Leni]

In my view it is not the social workers themselves who are to blame for much of the tripe that is trotted out.

 

It is chiefly the bureaucratic management who give all the claptrap about "putting the client first" but in reality have

 

only one interest which is protecting themselves from criticism when things go tits up.

 

Hear, hear!

[Sir Nibble]

I seem to recall a case, I think it was concerning the dead child before the dead child before baby P. Social workers who had not carried out their legal responsibilities were sacked. All their fellow social workers staged a sit in protest stressing that the whole department had been failing to uphold its statutory responsibilities for some time due to the workload. OK, so where was the whistle blowing and the very public sit in BEFORE the child died? Why is such action warranted to fight for a social workers job but not for the vulnerable childs life? I have met a variety of social workers in a variety of roles from local councillor through foster carer to service user. There are some very very good people out there and then there are whole departments that exist only to provide a career structure for social workers. I have asked for intervention knowing full well the social service department has a statutory obligation under the children act to carry out assessment and been told "nothing we can do" right up to the point when I identified myself as vice chair of the relevant local authority committee when all of a sudden it's "yes councillor" and they swing into action. The department I am working with now are definately the best I have encountered but they still cannot return phone calls, cannot be trusted to arrange hospital transport without two reminders and a call to the taxi firm to book the bastard ourselves, they are expert arse coverers and have no compunction about misleading the court to dodge censure. Like I said, they are the BEST I have encountered.

[Sir Nibble]

Well said. They have a job to do and often it becomes a tabloid shaming exercise. It doesn't help.

 

It's best to avoid suspicion and conflict by just letting them do their job so they can tick off the questions that the government have set in legislation. They are human at the sharp end of the worst acts of humanity.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly although I have never had a problem LETTING them do their job more trying to persuade them they ought to. My beef is that for three and a half years I have been caring for this child and she has shared my boating. Throughout this time it has been a running joke as to which social worker gets to come boating for an inspection that isn't really required and I have made it plain that I am happy to take them aboard but it has suddenly become urgent that the boat and it's paperwork is inspected before we take the child aboard again just coincidental with them wanting me to attend a meeting when I intend to be boating. This is not caring for a child, it is coertion for beauracratic reasons.

Since I am going to have to e mail them a scan of my BSC I think I will include the full bumf with all the pages and pages of guidance along with the appliance record so that they can understand what it is they're looking at.

[Tony Brooks]

I would agree with this wholeheartedly although I have never had a problem LETTING them do their job more trying to persuade them they ought to. My beef is that for three and a half years I have been caring for this child and she has shared my boating. Throughout this time it has been a running joke as to which social worker gets to come boating for an inspection that isn't really required and I have made it plain that I am happy to take them aboard but it has suddenly become urgent that the boat and it's paperwork is inspected before we take the child aboard again just coincidental with them wanting me to attend a meeting when I intend to be boating. This is not caring for a child, it is coertion for beauracratic reasons.

Since I am going to have to e mail them a scan of my BSC I think I will include the full bumf with all the pages and pages of guidance along with the appliance record so that they can understand what it is they're looking at.

 

 

So how about pointing out that you may have recourse to a more powerful bureaucracy?

 

I may be wrong but I thought that the European Convention of Human Rights (as now enacted into UK law) gives everyone the right to a family life and holidays are part of family life so are thus protected. If you can potentially show to a judges satisfaction that they are acting as you describe I would have thought they may well have second thoughts if they think they have pissed you off enough to actually start proceedings. Maybe worth a little investigations.

 

I think that I would also be asking for documentary evidence that those who are evaluating the BSC etc. are actually qualified to do so - and I bet you are more qualified than any of them. I feel they have dug themselves a big hole with this into which they could be encouraged to fall into.

 

Why are they discriminating against you compared with a "conventional" family when apparently they have no well founded reason to?

 

They may have difficult working conditions but that is no excuse for what looks very like maladministration to me. Anyway keep up the good work.

 

Would emails from across the country questioning their conduct help? If so lets have details and suggested wording and they can have one from Berkshire no problem, and I suspect from this thread lots of others. In fact I suspect some of us could suggest certain sections of the press may be getting interested.

[Leni]

Watched an excellent program on Social Workers on TV last night - 'Caring for our children'. Showed the 'good' - and IMHO very necessary - side of Social Work. I think it's a series, and I shall certainly be watching the rest.

 

I just wish I didn't know of so many people's bad experiences and indeed real suffering at the hands of officious, interfering and just plain misguided Social Workers!

 

Still, it was good to see SW's doing a good job, and shows we shouldn't tar every one with the same brush!

[Tony Brooks]

Watched an excellent program on Social Workers on TV last night - 'Caring for our children'. Showed the 'good' - and IMHO very necessary - side of Social Work. I think it's a series, and I shall certainly be watching the rest.

 

I just wish I didn't know of so many people's bad experiences and indeed real suffering at the hands of officious, interfering and just plain misguided Social Workers!

 

Still, it was good to see SW's doing a good job, and shows we shouldn't tar every one with the same brush!

 

 

Yes, but on last week's program you would have seen a young social worker with little experience of life being left to deal with a problem on her own. It was only later that her supervisor got involved. I also thought that her facial ironmongery left much to be desired image wise and as far as respect for her clients went.

[Barry]

So how about pointing out that you may have recourse to a more powerful bureaucracy?

 

I may be wrong but I thought that the European Convention of Human Rights (as now enacted into UK law) gives everyone the right to a family life and holidays are part of family life so are thus protected. If you can potentially show to a judges satisfaction that they are acting as you describe I would have thought they may well have second thoughts if they think they have pissed you off enough to actually start proceedings. Maybe worth a little investigations.

 

I think that I would also be asking for documentary evidence that those who are evaluating the BSC etc. are actually qualified to do so - and I bet you are more qualified than any of them. I feel they have dug themselves a big hole with this into which they could be encouraged to fall into.

 

Why are they discriminating against you compared with a "conventional" family when apparently they have no well founded reason to?

 

They may have difficult working conditions but that is no excuse for what looks very like maladministration to me. Anyway keep up the good work.

 

Would emails from across the country questioning their conduct help? If so lets have details and suggested wording and they can have one from Berkshire no problem, and I suspect from this thread lots of others. In fact I suspect some of us could suggest certain sections of the press may be getting interested.

 

I'm worried about the wisdom of a combative approach. Sir Nibble might need excellent legal advice before taking such a course. whilst it may be tempting, if not reasonable to suspect someone in a heavy bureaucracy might be unable to handle the authority they possess and thus might actually be abusing that authority, giving them both barrels in response might well be counter productive if the bureaucracy is tempted to dig their heels in, in return.

 

I wonder if Sir Nibble might be best served by a gently assertive rather than an aggressive course of action.

[Sir Nibble]

I shall continue to jump through their hoops saying "Yes of course" and smiling sweetly. The power is all in their hands. The most I can do is state that I have a prior arrangement which they were informed of BEFORE they set the meeting date and therefore I cannot attend. I know the meeting cannot go ahead without me but that is their problem they will just have to reschedule. In the event they actually do put their foot down I still won't attend because I will be at the boat even if the nipper can't. Plenty of work to be done and I will not submit to this coertion.

I have already once brought down the judges ire upon them when I was able to prove my side of the story when they fabricated wrongdoing on my part and I am still under punishment for that, I won't be doing it again.

[matty40s]

We eventually stopped fostering after going through a situation where our daughter (7) was put through questioning by a policeman due to the incompetence of SW's.

Over 10 years, we had cared for a total of 54 kids, aged newborn to 14.

We had a young lad, 3, who went to a contact with his mum and the rest of the siblings, 4 of them, these were known as being chaotic afairs and there were always problems settling him down on his return.

He came back to us after 5 hours, and the lady who was supervisin the transport said, the mum had complained about a bite mark on his arm. It wasn't there when he left.

Next day our SW came round and effectively suspended us, the lad was taken away to a diferent carer and she went through lots of questions.We showed our care records, any bruise or other always noted.

Next day we got a visit from the police who questioned us, they had taken received a report from the social worker and the mum wanted to take it further. After our daughter came home from school, the police asked her a few questions (nicely) and then left.

We were left hanging for two weeks, our social worker, manager and the lads social worker made no contact and calls were no returned.

After two weeks we finally had a visit arranged, our social worker came on her own, said there had been a mess up at contact, one of the contact centre supervisors had seen the bite take place from one of the other much older siblings, she had then gone off shift and not done her report, until she returned 6 days later. She had also not told the next shift about it either. The police had also said that the bite mark had been a much older child or small adult.

Our social worker gave a small apology, and then started to discuss what time that day she could get the lad back to us.

 

She got some quite strong feelings given, and we took the decision to stop.

There were MANY instances over the years similar to SrNibbs, but it was the complete lack of trust, joke of an apology, and failure to show any common sense that made our minds up in the end.

Edited February 7, 2012 by matty40s

[Rebotco]

I shall continue to jump through their hoops saying "Yes of course" and smiling sweetly. The power is all in their hands. The most I can do is state that I have a prior arrangement which they were informed of BEFORE they set the meeting date and therefore I cannot attend. I know the meeting cannot go ahead without me but that is their problem they will just have to reschedule. In the event they actually do put their foot down I still won't attend because I will be at the boat even if the nipper can't. Plenty of work to be done and I will not submit to this coertion.

I have already once brought down the judges ire upon them when I was able to prove my side of the story when they fabricated wrongdoing on my part and I am still under punishment for that, I won't be doing it again.

 

 

Its the usual bureaucratic problem of the sledgehammer and nut syndrome.

 

For each of the horror cases, there are ten thousand happy cases.

 

It is their failure to be able to distinguish between the two that creates this oppressive regime.

 

It is easier for them to treat everyone as abusive, than to effectively identify the true risk situations.

 

If they concentrated their efforts into making this distinction accurately, there would be no need for their blanket

 

treatment of everyone.

 

Its like bombing a city because there might be a criminal there. They can say "we succeeded in catching that criminal,

 

we're doing a good job". But unable to recognise the collateral damage they have caused.

 

It is an admission of their failure, SirN, not of your fitness to care for the little cuckoo.

[Doorman]

Dear Ms Social Services,

 

we will be away boating, but if you would care to join us at [PLACE] at [TIME], we would be glad to accomodate you on board, which will no doubt enable you to satisfy yourself personally of the arrangements for the care of [CUCKOO].

 

I would ask you to note that as we are boating, we will only be stopping for half an hour at [PLACE], and that if you envisage our meeting taking longer than this, you are very welcome to join us as we cruise. I expect that we will arrive at [PLACE_2] at around [TIME_2], which is conveniently located for public transport back to [PLACE].

 

Love

 

Snibs

 

You neglected to insist that they wear hi-visibility safety jackets (at all times during the meeting), carry out a detailed risk assessment before boarding said boat and complete a helmsman's course prior to the visit.

 

Oh, I forgot, remember to ask for an explanation about the disastrous outcome from their colleague's dereliction of duty during the Baby 'P' affair!

[Doorman]

I'm worried about the wisdom of a combative approach. Sir Nibble might need excellent legal advice before taking such a course. whilst it may be tempting, if not reasonable to suspect someone in a heavy bureaucracy might be unable to handle the authority they possess and thus might actually be abusing that authority, giving them both barrels in response might well be counter productive if the bureaucracy is tempted to dig their heels in, in return.

 

I wonder if Sir Nibble might be best served by a gently assertive rather than an aggressive course of action.

 

I think that you've hit the nail firmly upon the head. It is this 'promotion beyond ability syndrome' that appears to be one of the causes of such a heavy handed response from bureaucrats. Their frustration in failing to understand and resolve situations leads to their autocratic stance. A case of a little bit of power in the wrong hands.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Doorman

[Bimbly1]

In my view it is not the social workers themselves who are to blame for much of the tripe that is trotted out.

 

It is chiefly the bureaucratic management who give all the claptrap about "putting the client first" but in reality have

 

only one interest which is protecting themselves from criticism when things go tits up.

Since professional management was introduced to most/all public services in the mid eighties, there has been a proliferation of managers and non-frontline staff, many of whom have no hands on experience of the nuts & bolts of working at the point of delivery. This has been to the detriment of front-lione staff. The NHS, Soc Services, Education, Police spring to mind as good examples.

 

What is surprising is that in spite of what we hear about the effects of this in the media when something goes pear shaped, most services are provided reasonably efficiently and to the satisfaction of those receiving them.

 

Bring back a requirement for common sense and experience.

[Justme]

We eventually stopped fostering after going through a situation where our daughter (7) was put through questioning by a policeman due to the incompetence of SW's.

Over 10 years, we had cared for a total of 54 kids, aged newborn to 14.

We had a young lad, 3, who went to a contact with his mum and the rest of the siblings, 4 of them, these were known as being chaotic afairs and there were always problems settling him down on his return.

He came back to us after 5 hours, and the lady who was supervisin the transport said, the mum had complained about a bite mark on his arm. It wasn't there when he left.

Next day our SW came round and effectively suspended us, the lad was taken away to a diferent carer and she went through lots of questions.We showed our care records, any bruise or other always noted.

Next day we got a visit from the police who questioned us, they had taken received a report from the social worker and the mum wanted to take it further. After our daughter came home from school, the police asked her a few questions (nicely) and then left.

We were left hanging for two weeks, our social worker, manager and the lads social worker made no contact and calls were no returned.

After two weeks we finally had a visit arranged, our social worker came on her own, said there had been a mess up at contact, one of the contact centre supervisors had seen the bite take place from one of the other much older siblings, she had then gone off shift and not done her report, until she returned 6 days later. She had also not told the next shift about it either. The police had also said that the bite mark had been a much older child or small adult.

Our social worker gave a small apology, and then started to discuss what time that day she could get the lad back to us.

 

She got some quite strong feelings given, and we took the decision to stop.

There were MANY instances over the years similar to SrNibbs, but it was the complete lack of trust, joke of an apology, and failure to show any common sense that made our minds up in the end.

 

I dont normally quote a whole post but your story is very close to the reasons we gave up fostering after doing it for a good few years. In our case the affair lasted over 6 months during which time we were treated like lepers. In the end the head of the SS had to order the social workers to stop harassing us & withdraw all the unfounded complaints she had made.

 

Quite often it comes down to the individual social workers that are dealing with you. First off the kids one & then your own. If you get one bad one then its hard enough. In our case both were terrible.

[soldthehouse]

I shall continue to jump through their hoops saying "Yes of course" and smiling sweetly. The power is all in their hands. The most I can do is state that I have a prior arrangement which they were informed of BEFORE they set the meeting date and therefore I cannot attend. I know the meeting cannot go ahead without me but that is their problem they will just have to reschedule. In the event they actually do put their foot down I still won't attend because I will be at the boat even if the nipper can't. Plenty of work to be done and I will not submit to this coertion.

I have already once brought down the judges ire upon them when I was able to prove my side of the story when they fabricated wrongdoing on my part and I am still under punishment for that, I won't be doing it again.

Is this the reason for their tougher stance?

[Sir Nibble]

[/size]

Is this the reason for their tougher stance?

No, that was the last bunch who told the judge we had refused to send the child for parental contact. Then I explained that we had sent the child despite the poor little love screaming her lungs out and gripping the door frame on the way out. That was pretty difficult to deal with and reduced the wife to tears but then a few minutes later the driver returned and gave the child back as she was "far too distressed to travel", social services were duly phoned and both we and the driver explained. It was a bit of a shock I must say to have that represented as a refusal on our part to comply with a court order.

Then there was the norty things we had done for which I was able to produce the written instructions from SS. All in one hearing. The judge was not pleased. Don't get involved with social services if you can help it, if you actually ask for their help they will leave no stone unturned to protect their budget and fob you off. I am sure and certain there are committed and excellent social workers out there and I have met a few, I do not believe there are any committed and excellent social service departments.

[matty40s]

I am sure and certain there are committed and excellent social workers out there and I have met a few, I do not believe there are any committed and excellent social service departments.

entirely in agreement with that one.

greenie for you, and I don't slap them out often

[matty40s]

we didn't lose the vision of what we were doing Nina, it was torn from us by a grossly incompetent SS department.They never learnt from any mistakes made over the years, continuing to give abusive parents total control in cases where they should have had NO contact at all. This is still happening NOW. There are many infamous examples I could state.

When our daughter was dragged into it,that was the final straw.

Edited February 7, 2012 by matty40s

[soldthehouse]

No, that was the last bunch who told the judge we had refused to send the child for parental contact. Then I explained that we had sent the child despite the poor little love screaming her lungs out and gripping the door frame on the way out. That was pretty difficult to deal with and reduced the wife to tears but then a few minutes later the driver returned and gave the child back as she was "far too distressed to travel", social services were duly phoned and both we and the driver explained. It was a bit of a shock I must say to have that represented as a refusal on our part to comply with a court order.

Then there was the norty things we had done for which I was able to produce the written instructions from SS. All in one hearing. The judge was not pleased. Don't get involved with social services if you can help it, if you actually ask for their help they will leave no stone unturned to protect their budget and fob you off. I am sure and certain there are committed and excellent social workers out there and I have met a few, I do not believe there are any committed and excellent social service departments.

My wife is a residential social worker for the local authority, and has been for a great many years, they take the children that come from failed foster care, and prepare them for independant living.

[Taslim]

In my view it is not the social workers themselves who are to blame for much of the tripe that is trotted out.

 

It is chiefly the bureaucratic management who give all the claptrap about "putting the client first" but in reality have

 

only one interest which is protecting themselves from criticism when things go tits up.

 

I go with that. By & large the fornt lime workers do their best. My ex did.

 

She thought the problem was with line managers & department heads & later I found this to be true.

 

They could fairly be described in similar terms to a narowboat hull ie 10-8-5 where the first figure is the plate protecting their arses, the second the back plate & the third the tin hat thickness.

 

taslim, ex foster carer.

[Lady Muck]

I dont normally quote a whole post but your story is very close to the reasons we gave up fostering after doing it for a good few years. In our case the affair lasted over 6 months during which time we were treated like lepers. In the end the head of the SS had to order the social workers to stop harassing us & withdraw all the unfounded complaints she had made.

 

Quite often it comes down to the individual social workers that are dealing with you. First off the kids one & then your own. If you get one bad one then its hard enough. In our case both were terrible.

 

My partners aunt just stoped fostering after 30 years of doing so. They've officially adopted one of the boys, he's now 18 and theyre putting him through uni. They had a very bad experience last year - their own son is in the army (serving in Afghanistan) and they were given a short term foster of an Afghani boy who is very anti the British army. Obivoulsy it kicked off and they had to find him a new home immediately. Theyve fostered many Afghani boys and the fact they are an army family is in their notes but was not picked up on in this case.