IF THIS WERE MY CHILD…A COUNCILLOR'S GUIDE TO BEING A GOOD CORPORATE PARENT.
In 2003 the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) brought out the above guide for city/county councillors explaining their legal responsibilities towards children in the care system.
The document was prepared in conjunction with the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and backed by Margaret Hodge MBE, Minister for Children, Young People and Families. It was then buried in a hard to reach place of a Government website. One of our IT professionals only managed to obtain the information after navigating umpteen confusing links.
It is a matter of fact that many councillors are quite unaware of their statutory responsibility towards children in the care of their Local Authority, and as the Government don't seem particularly moved to inform them this blog has taken up the challenge.
Part 1 of the information pack explains that some 93,000 children are taken into care every year in the UK (Government Figures). 4500 of whom are farmed out for adoption (Our Figures). The LGiU go on to explain that - "Looked after children are not the sole responsibility of social services". This is correct.
When a court makes an Interim or Full Care Order, both the parents and the Local Authority are said to share parental responsibility. Any practitioner of Family Law can substantiate this. However this is not what the LGiU are talking about, for they continue - "The council as a whole is the corporate parent, and councillors have a key role in that."
According to the LGiU being a good corporate parent means: accepting responsibility for children in the council's care; making their needs a priority and seeking the same outcomes for these children as for their own.
This is not merely advice; it carries the force of law: - "The Children Act 1989 says health, housing and education should also help social services look after children in care."
And after weighing in by saying you councillors must help, the LGiU then proceed to detail just how. In part 2 they say - "As a corporate parent, you have a right and a duty to question your authority. Your council's scrutiny and executive functions and processes also offer you avenues through which to act."
The basic thrust of the guide is to say you councillors have the same responsibility towards children in care as you do your own. Don't leave it to social services. Investigate the welfare of Looked After Children for yourselves using internal procedures.
And while your at it, how about those 4500 who are farmed out for adoption every year? Do you realise that many of them have loving parents who are fighting tooth and nail to get them back but having their Article 8 Right to a Family Life trampled on by the courts?
Saturday 1 August 2009
£5.7 million every year - all from Plymouth Taxpayer's wallets!
According to Plymouth City Council Social Worker 'D', who spoke to one of our reporters on the 21st May 2008, there were as of that date 374 of YOUR children in the 'care of' Plymouth Social Services.
In this blog we abbreviate their name to 'Plymouth SS' and the tactics they use to take children from home – often where there is no actual proof that the children are suffering abuse – is quite reminiscent of certain well-known and brutal regimes from the past.
Nonetheless each one of these children in care attracts a foster allowance of around £300/week. This adds up to a massive £5.7 million every year - all from Plymouth Taxpayer's wallets!
No wonder we have a budget crisis!
From a purely financial viewpoint this is a staggering waste of money. However some people hold the view that something far more sinister is afoot, namely, the social re-engineering of society to bring about a submissive and subordinated 'slave' race who's sole job is to service the needs of the elite.
In this blog we abbreviate their name to 'Plymouth SS' and the tactics they use to take children from home – often where there is no actual proof that the children are suffering abuse – is quite reminiscent of certain well-known and brutal regimes from the past.
Nonetheless each one of these children in care attracts a foster allowance of around £300/week. This adds up to a massive £5.7 million every year - all from Plymouth Taxpayer's wallets!
No wonder we have a budget crisis!
From a purely financial viewpoint this is a staggering waste of money. However some people hold the view that something far more sinister is afoot, namely, the social re-engineering of society to bring about a submissive and subordinated 'slave' race who's sole job is to service the needs of the elite.
Young Single Mum - Will the SS snatch her baby?
This blog is aware of a young single mum - we'll refer to her as 'C' - who is under the surveillance of Plymouth Social Services.
Here only crimes are 1) disagreeing with the doctors over something which was not a life and death situation 2) leaving her baby unattended for half an hour because she had to attend an emergency nearby 3) living in a run down and dirty flat - she has since moved - and 4) to quote Social Services themselves, "spending too much time in the library" - maybe she wants to better herself through learning... gosh what a terrible thought!
For these crimes against children she was reported to the SS by a nuisance neighbour and now, guess what? She's in grave danger of losing the child 'Z'.
Upon hearing of her plight a few months ago personnel attached to this blog made urgent arrangements to move mother and baby to a safe haven in another part of the country to prevent the SS from snatching the child.
However, in the end she thought she'd face the music and risked returning to Plymouth. Since then she has navigated the awkward line of partly accepting Social Services 'support' and partly making her own decisions.
How long this will continue is uncertain but, were it not for the debacle of the real child abuse going on at the Social Services Approved Little Ted's Nursery, and the inevitable drain on the Local Authority, not to mention the embarrassment that one of their own approved establishments was a haven for abuse, they would probably have taken Z into 'care' already.
C will just have to hope that the massive damage-limitation exercise presently underway in Plymouth is sufficient to distract the authority from innocent little single mums for a while.
The public need to know that, in the crazy world of the Family Court, a mum can lose her child for up to nine months on the basis of mere suspicion. All the state has to prove is "reasonable grounds to believe" a "risk of significant harm" - that's what the law says.
Be Wise People!
Here only crimes are 1) disagreeing with the doctors over something which was not a life and death situation 2) leaving her baby unattended for half an hour because she had to attend an emergency nearby 3) living in a run down and dirty flat - she has since moved - and 4) to quote Social Services themselves, "spending too much time in the library" - maybe she wants to better herself through learning... gosh what a terrible thought!
For these crimes against children she was reported to the SS by a nuisance neighbour and now, guess what? She's in grave danger of losing the child 'Z'.
Upon hearing of her plight a few months ago personnel attached to this blog made urgent arrangements to move mother and baby to a safe haven in another part of the country to prevent the SS from snatching the child.
However, in the end she thought she'd face the music and risked returning to Plymouth. Since then she has navigated the awkward line of partly accepting Social Services 'support' and partly making her own decisions.
How long this will continue is uncertain but, were it not for the debacle of the real child abuse going on at the Social Services Approved Little Ted's Nursery, and the inevitable drain on the Local Authority, not to mention the embarrassment that one of their own approved establishments was a haven for abuse, they would probably have taken Z into 'care' already.
C will just have to hope that the massive damage-limitation exercise presently underway in Plymouth is sufficient to distract the authority from innocent little single mums for a while.
The public need to know that, in the crazy world of the Family Court, a mum can lose her child for up to nine months on the basis of mere suspicion. All the state has to prove is "reasonable grounds to believe" a "risk of significant harm" - that's what the law says.
Be Wise People!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)