Council Put Children’s Lives At Risk To Cut Costs

Researching Reform does not think this is the only council in England and Wales implementing this policy or encouraging a culture of bullying within child protection teams. We very much hope more whistleblowers from other councils will come forward. Source: Council Put Children’s Lives At Risk To Cut Costs

Standard

Council Put Children’s Lives At Risk To Cut Costs

Researching Reform does not think this is the only council in England and Wales implementing this policy or encouraging a culture of bullying within child protection teams. We very much hope more whistleblowers from other councils will come forward.

Researching Reform

A whistleblower who worked as a social worker for Worcestershire County Council, has called out the local authority for its unethical practices which placed children’s lives in danger. 

The whistleblower, who was part of the council’s failing children’s services team, says the local authority prioritised cuts above everything else, and bullied and intimidated social workers who refused to put quantity before quality when it came to preparing child protection assessments.

Further claims made by the former social worker include:

• That “stressed and tired” social workers were exploited – with some working 25 hours without pay, on top of their contracted hours.

• Several social workers were going on sick leave due to stress.

• One social worker went to work with a broken hand, afraid of the consequences of not meeting a deadline.

• A social worker dealing with 40 cases – more than the maximum which is meant to…

View original post 128 more words

Standard

BBC’s Today Programme And Researching Reform On Children’s Right To Speak To Judges

Researching Reform

BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning focuses on children’s right to speak with family law judges. Researching Reform had the privilege of talking with Sanchia Berg about the policy, what happened to it and why it was needed.

The piece includes thoughts from a boy called Oscar, who says he feels children should have the right to speak to judges and that it would make the process more friendly.

An extract from our conversation can be heard at around 0:52:00 over on BBC Radio 4’s live player, and the accompanying article on the topic can be read here.

For a summary of this policy, and its development over the last ten years, our Lexis Nexis article offers a complete history.

Many thanks to Sanchia for inviting us to share our thoughts.

Court cases children

View original post

Standard

LANDMARK RULING: Foster Children Can Now Sue Local Authorities For Abuse

Researching Reform

A Supreme Court ruling which has overturned previous precedent and made history, will now allow children abused whilst in foster care to sue the local authorities that placed them.

Those who have been abused, as well as child rights campaigners all over the country who have fought tirelessly to establish this duty of care which should have been acknowledged a long time ago, will be delighted by the ruling.

The case which came before the Supreme Court saw Natasha Armes, now 40, from Nottingham, win against Nottinghamshire County Council after Supreme Court justices ruled by a majority of four-to-one that it was liable for abuse she suffered as a child 30 years ago.

The Supreme Court justices found the local authority was vicariously liable for the abuse Natasha suffered at the hands of her foster parents, but bizarrely, concluded that the council was not negligent in choosing or supervising them, even though the…

View original post 187 more words

Standard

From midwife to sick and homeless in 2yrs #PIPstories #DWP

Jenn’s account – like the others that will follow in the series – puts the Tories’ ‘conscious cruelty’ into stark, human terms that must surely move and outrage those who read it. If we’re unmoved, then sheer self-interest should motivate us to demand change – if Jen can go from a long and fruitful career as a midwife to homelessness in such a short time, almost any of us is vulnerable.

SKWAWKBOX

midwife.pngLast week, the SKWAWKBOX put out an appeal for those who have suffered the abuse of the government’s PIP (Personal Independence Payment) process, which consists of multiple hoops, unrealistic appointments and constant meaningless assessments that often result in the withdrawal of payments to people whose conditions are never going to improve.

We were inundated.

The stores we received were full of bravery and anger. Some are desperate. All are harrowingly tragic. In the first of a series of those stories to raise awareness of the human cost of government callousness, the following tells of the situation of J – a senior midwife who, within just two years of a diagnosis of severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), was unemployed, homeless and bounced around without support by the DWP (Dept of Work and Pensions) and its agents.

It is told in J’s own words, with emphases added by the SKWAWKBOX:

I was diagnosed…

View original post 1,056 more words

Standard

Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged

High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.

President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.

Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.

The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:

Source: Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged

Standard

Munby: Parents Who Object To Care Proceedings Should Not Be Gagged

A High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.

President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.

Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.

The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:

Researching Reform

High Court ruling has confirmed that family judges do not have an absolute right to gag parents who object to care proceedings.

President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who handed down the judgment, said that in the interests of open justice courts should balance every child’s right to privacy with people’s right to freedom of expression.

Munby also noted that injunctions preventing the identification of a children’s guardian, council and social workers should only be granted if there were compelling reasons.

The president also made other points in relation to the case involved, which are important for families going through care proceedings in general:

  • Family courts cannot prevent parents, the media and websites from identifying social workers once care proceedings have ended
  • Video footage or photos posted online by parents are allowed as long as the content does not lead to the identification of any children involved in…

View original post 29 more words

Standard