Research Finds Covert Facebook Use Rife Among Family Social Workers

I recall reading somewhere that a Social Worker can only look on service users/parents Facebook profiles once before it becomes harrasment.

What happens, when any of us have it in writing in a letter or through a Sars Request where it states they will continue to monitor us, so openly admitting it (using mental health as a reason/excuse to not take too much notice where emails were shared about re what got posted between several professionals who work for the Council and after being falsely diagnosed anyway at the time a parent had Social Services involved prior) so would be considered as sharing false information to third parties perhaps to discredit us.

I can also inform you, that it appears our phone calls can be/can be considered to be monitored to your Council. This is something I can evidence where it’s appearing our names are red flagged, and the problem is then that the places or professionals it has got shared with can amount to slander, or at least your Council holding inaccurate information on you when you had already got falsely diagnosed through Court proceedings xx

Researching Reform

A new study looking at the way social workers in England use social media to observe parents and children has concluded that covert surveillance is rife among social workers engaging with families.

The study, which was published in September, by academics at the University of Birmingham, England and the University of Auckland in New Zealand, also noted that the proper use of social media within a social work context was largely unknown due in part to confusion around what kinds of investigative powers were available for child welfare professionals.

But a piece by The Times in March confirmed that some British social workers were breaking the law by covertly surveying and accessing private information about service users through platforms like Facebook. The Times referenced a government-funded study also produced by the University of Birmingham which found social workers had used fake profiles to “friend” parents in cases where their…

View original post 340 more words


Councils Using Alternative Orders to Remove Children from Parents After Judicial Push Back on Care Applications

Researching Reform

Councils are increasingly turning to other types of court orders to remove children in child protection proceedings after senior judges warned social workers that care applications should only be used as a method of last resort.

The development was revealed by new Cafcass chief Jacky Tiotto, during an interview with Children and Young People Now (CYP Now) magazine.

According to Tiotto, there has been a marked increase in requests for orders for deprivation of liberty, secure accommodation and emergency protection during child protection proceedings.

The finding raises serious concerns about whether social services are making false allegations around service users’ mental health in order to remove children from parents.

Emergency protection orders are only to be used in the most serious circumstances and give councils the right to remove children from their parents if there are concerns around child abuse. These orders can also limit a birth parent’s responsibilities towards…

View original post 489 more words


Family Court Returns Children to Parents – For Making a Good Impression on the Judge

If your professional and your face fits….

Researching Reform

A case in which two premature twins were returned to their parents after one child suffered rib fractures, head injuries and subdural bleeding raises serious questions about the way in which first impressions are used in family proceedings.

The judgment, which was handed down by Judge Middleton-Roy in the family court at Watford concluded that the parents’ exemplary behaviour during medical and child protection investigations and subsequent court hearings, were proof that the parents were not capable of inflicting the injuries discovered by medical professionals.

Hertfordshire County Council had applied for care orders for both of the children but the orders were subsequently dismissed.

In his judgment, Middleton-Roy painted a picture of two loving parents who could not have inflicted the injuries sustained by their baby, and seemed to gloss over the father’s acute anxiety and nervousness during questioning, which was put down to a communication disorder by a Consultant…

View original post 665 more words


BREAKING: Top Human Rights Court Rules Forced Adoption Violates Right To Family Life

Natasha on September 13, 2019 at 11:04 am
It’s a step in the right direction. Most cases, domestic or international, take years to resolve, which means that children have bonded, often, with their carers or become adults. What this case does is make it very clear that forced adoption is not legal, or viable in terms of child welfare policy. It’s a judgment that was desperately needed. And it could well be the tipping point.

And yes, it could now be argued in a UK court and could lead to forced adoptions being taken off the table. That is the brilliance of this judgment.

Liked by you


Researching Reform

In a groundbreaking case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that a child services agency breached a mother and her son’s rights by forcibly removing her son and giving him to a foster family several years after he was removed from her custody as a newborn.

The grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that Norway’s Barnevernet child services agency had violated Trude Lobben and her son’s rights to family life, and had not carried out adequate investigations into the mother’s parenting skills or provided adequate evidence to bolster its claim that the child was vulnerable and that adoption was in his best interest.


In a statement published on ADF International, a faith-based legal advocacy organization promoting human rights, Lobben’s lawyer, Grégory Thuan Dit Dieudonne, said:

“Human rights advocates have been highlighting the destructive practices of the Barnevernet for years. This ruling is…

View original post 122 more words


Free Event: Preserving Family Connections with Children in Care

Researching Reform

A free event organised by the Centre for Child and Family Justice (CFJ) and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (FJO) will look at the preservation of family ties with children inside the care system.

The event, “Children in Care: Preserving Family Connections?” will look at new research from the UK and Australia focusing specifically on questions around family connections for children in care.

The programme includes sessions on trends and patterns relating to children and how they enter the care system in Australia and England; how contact and reunification between birth families and their children are dealt with in both countries; and alternatives to child removal.

There is a session at the end of the day which offers responses from birth parents too.

Attendees will be given a copy of the new rapid evidence review on Special Guardianship, published by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, (which you can download here…

View original post 99 more words


House of Commons Briefing Paper: Child Mental Health Services

Researching Reform

The government has published a briefing paper ahead of a debate on children and mental health services being held tomorrow.

The discussion, which has been selected by the Backbench Business Committee and is being opened by Andrea Leadsom MP, the former Leader of the House of Commons, will look at the government’s efforts to ensure children’s mental health needs are being met.

The briefing paper, entitled, “Children and young people’s mental health – policy, CAMHS services, funding and education”, offers a good summary of developments around children and mental health services from 2010 to the present day.

You can watch the debate on Parliament TV.

The briefing paper can be found here.

The Backbench Business Committee can be followed on Twitter @CommonsBBCom

Screenshot 2019-07-15 at 20.23.20.png

View original post