Session 2012-13
Children and Families Bill
Memorandum submitted by Nicola Herron (CF 98)
Re: Children & Families Bill
I understand the deadline for any responses to the above is on 23/04/2013. I do not work for a company and am writing this response/recommendations as a parent and as a Probation Officer.
I will address the following sections of the proposed Bill:
· Adoption
· Children in Care
· Aspects of Family Justice System
· Young People with Special Educational Needs
1:1 Aspects of Family Justice System
I would recommend that the Family Courts should move towards becoming
public Courts and operate in the same manner as in any Criminal Court. This
would in turn allow media to be present within the Family Court, just as they are within the Criminal Courts. This would lead to transparent practices based on fact and not the balance of probability and would thus incorporate equality in a fair and open manner.
1:2 With regards to the 'balance of probability', I would wish to see more evidence based fact and regulations to ensure that any hearings within this arena are scrutinised by policies and new national guidelines, which should be based on factual evidence and not hearsay, as is the case today. Far too frequently, Judges appear to give credence to Social Workers who operate within a service, which does not appear to understand what evidence based
practice is and indeed a service who can stand within a Family Court and use
information, which has neither been substantiated or indeed frequently not
previously discussed with the defendants.
1:3 I would also wish to see policies, which clearly demonstrate that children's voices are heard and would recommend that Guardians of the Court should be completely independent of the Local Authority. Children should be allowed to choose their own Legal Representative, which should be entirely separate from the Local Authority.
1:4 In regards to any aspect of risk of serious harm - this criteria should be
clearly evidenced with factual information to substantiate and corroborate
any allegations of which the Local Authority may have made. Perhaps the
most salient point of note would be to ensure that when Local Authorities are
investigating allegations of abuse across whatever category, there should be
more stringent guidelines for workers to abide by. For example, there should
be similar standards to PACE when investigating child abuse. I state this with
particular reference to allegations which are dealt with in isolation by the
Local Authority and not allegations which are jointly investigated by Police
and the Local Authority. If the Local Authority are to act as investigators,
then there really should be improved standards within this area. This could be
easily achieved by ensuring any investigation is undertaken in a fair and
consistent manner by the use of taped interviews and or video evidence. This
would ultimately ensure that workers are following guidelines and procedures
as well as protecting defendants who are accused of abuse. I have a personal
interest in this aspect, having been the accused party of malicious allegations on15/2/2012. I was refused these allegations until 04/04/2012 and was sacked
on the basis of hearsay on 15/02/2012. To date, no one from the Local
Authority has spoken to me about the allegations. They have however used
them in various reports and they have at no time ever been substantiated and
they never will be. I would dearly love the opportunity of sharing this
experience with anyone who could make positive changes in order to ensure
this never happens to another human being again and feel very passionately
about the injustice I was subjected to. I have worked as a Probation Officer
since 2003 and always worked within policies and national guidelines. I
more than anyone understand the difference between hearsay and factual
evidence and what I have seen and witnessed at the hands of inexperienced
workers within the Local Authorities truly saddens me. I now understand
that I am not in a minority but something really needs to change here for the
greater good.
1:5 In regards to what I have witnessed professionally, I have been astounded
by some of the inter-agency meetings I have attended. What I have
observed is an inconsistent approach to both high risk of harm cases and
low risk of harm cases. For example, when managing a sex offender tier 4 case who was released on an extended licence for public protection, I
challenged a Social Worker who had allowed this male to form a new
relationship with a female with two children just 48 hours after his
release. I was not satisfied that his risk had diminished and considered
that he was grooming the two children. When I raised this formerly with
the Social Worker she claimed that she was not concerned with any
proposed risk and had undertaken an assessment on the children and was
satisfied there was no risk. I asked how she came to this conclusion and
she was not only reluctant to discuss this with me but then proceeded to
inform me that the case was closed. The PPU officer was also somewhat
astounded as there were clear risk indicators one of which was his request
to take the young boy out of the country. He clearly could not do this whilst
on licence but attempted to make various complaints suggesting he had
previously been told otherwise. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion,
the Local Authority have little concept of risk management and I believe
that the risk assessment tools used to formulate their assessments are far
outdated by tools such as EOASYs. One standard across the board
assessment framework which simplifies their existing tools would do the
job far better than the complex tools they use now. I understand there
are different aspects for consideration when dealing with adults and
children, but a more uniformed approach would resolve such issues. It
would also ensure that when young adolescent offenders are transferred
to Probation that risk assessments are more easily accessible. To me
there seems to be a massive gap between the concept of risk assessment
between the Local Authority and other agencies like Probation and Youth
Offending Services. I think the key here is evidence based practice,
factual information and sourcing and verifying that information. You
cannot write in any Probation Report information which is false or indeed
misleading. Furthermore, you state your sources and you identify what is
fact and what is professional opinion. You do not ever make any diagnosis
of any individual outside of your remit and should you place any bias in any
report, you would be rightly hung out to dry by any Court of Law.
Furthermore, it is an offence to do any such thing under the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 and there are stringent guidelines which have to be
adhered to. For the most part, this is monitored by the assessment tool
used and then via robust line management. Probation policy therefore
ensures accountability and offers a transparency which protects both the
staff and the service user.
1:6 Finally, there should be adherence to the various principles of the Human Rights Act and no person should be deemed guilty until proven innocent, which is the case within this arena today. It should not be down to any individual to prove their innocence, it should be down to the Local Authority to provide substantial evidence and undertake a fair and proper investigation which does not breach the rights of individuals. It is simply not acceptable
for any society to consider a person guilty until proven innocent and such
practice breaches many statutes.
2:1 Adoption
Any child being adopted by the Local Authority should be adopted as a last
resort. It is not the case today that children are adopted as a last resort, as there appears to be some push towards government targets, which generate vast profits when children are adopted. Far to frequently, children are adopted into families and separated from their siblings. This is not acceptable and
traumatic for any child to experience. There will be cases whereby adoption
and or removal from the family are a necessity, but should this be the case, then every effort should be made for siblings to remain together and or with other suitable family members. It should not be the case that children are separated to meet the needs of prospective new parents. Moreover, adoptive parents should be more responsive towards the need of children to be placed together with siblings and if this is not the case, then perhaps adoptive
parents should come under more scrutiny. Adoption should be centred
specifically around the child's individual needs and more stringent criteria is
needed to ensure that children are removed with valid reasons and not reasons
which have never been substantiated.
3:1 Children in Care
If children are placed into care by any Local Authority when there are
sufficient grounds and evidence which substantiates abuse, great
emphasis and consideration should be given to their individual needs.
Residential Units should be run by qualified Social Workers and not
agency staff who have no training or experience of dealing with
challenging behaviour. More stringent regulations should ensure that any
staff member is sufficiently qualified to manage challenging behaviour.
Children's homes should ensure that all staff are qualified workers and
perhaps more stringent vetting needs to be in place to ensure the welfare
of any child within the care setting.
4:1 Young People with Special Educational Needs
Every Local Authority should ensure that any child with special educational
needs are addressed as a priority. For example, Dyslexia screening should be routinely offered at the onset of primary education. If any parent raises
concern around any specific learning needs, Local Authorities should
have provisions available to address and implement assessments. Parents
on low income should be offered financial assistance with any such
assessments. The individual needs of children with specific issues appear
to have been lost in the ether with the formation of academies and have
predominantly and frequently been refused when there are cost implications. It is important to address such issues at an early stage in order to ensure that
all children receive additional support in order to facilitate a more
positive learning experience for the child. This would also promote anti-
discriminatory practice and would ensure that every child was treated
fairly. This is not the case today and I have a child who was recently
diagnosed with dyslexia. It took me just 8 years to get this assessment and
this is far from satisfactory. My daughter is aged 14.
April 2013