FionaK |
|
| Fiona says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
15 May, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Jamie says:
15 May, 2015 at 2:37 pm
Grizzle McPuss
I might also be an idealist but I think if the government has any responsibilty towards children, it is firstly, to have children being raised by their parents in a healthy happy home with the full assistance of government, this is the most cost effective measure and the best measure.
It is also the law. Certainly there are resourcing issues which mean that services which should be available are not: and that includes care options as well as at home support. That is a consequence of what the UK has voted for, in terms of how it will fund social and health services. But nonetheless the law requires that families are kept together wherever possible, as a primary responsibility.
I beleive that whilst foster and adoptive parents no doubt in many cases care very much for the children, nothing can ever replace the love of the biological parents.
That is true where that love exists: and where it is expressed in safe and loving care. For many children that is not an option.
I accept there may well be cases where this is not the case and government intervention may be needed but the numbers in my opinion and backed up by the linked documentary I gave earlier are too high suggesting that something goes wrong when the government gets involved and this needs to be considered strongly.
You have absolutely no idea at all what is the “right” number. No-one does.
The documentary makes a lot of false claims, and it is very noticeable that only one side of each case is outlined. Contrary to the impression conveyed it is not at all easy to remove a child from a parents’ care. Nor is it true that social workers can do it: unless in an emergency situation when in fact it is also open to the police to take that action. Where that happens the decision is reviewed in court or at a children’s hearing within 72 hours.
I note that much was made of grounds of “future emotional harm”. It said this is legislation within the last 5 years. That is a lie. Emotional harm has been a ground for intervention certainly since the 1995 Act and IIRC it was also included in the 1968 Act, in Scotland. It is very rarely used, because it is, rightly, difficult to establish.
Nor is it true that a child is entitled to a lawyer, and that entitlement is not honoured. A child’s interest is, in Scotland, represented by a Safeguarder, and/or a guardian ad litem.
The documentary is almost wholly misleading as to process, and to practice.
The worst thing is the assumption that social workers wish to remove children: nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed we are often criticised for not acting early enough and for leaving children at risk for longer than we should. That is true, and much more often the error, than the opposite is. This is due to the statutory obligation to try to keep families together; the obligation to seek to place with close relatives if the child must be removed; the practical problem of having few good alternative places for children; cost (which should not matter but does); the problems of getting hard evidence in situations of child abuse within families (which is also a problem in cases of spousal abuse and of rape); the fact that most children want to stay with their parents no matter what is happening to them, since they know nothing else; and on and on.
Someone asked you above what experience you have of this issue: I would like to know too
|
| | |
