Parents Against Injustice
Parents Against Injustice
PAIN DATA FROM 2000 ABOUT PERCEIVED ABUSE
. "Perceived" abuse
PAIN's data showed that 88 per cent of its cases arose because of "perceived" abuse rather than any empirical evidence or a direct allegation from a child. The source of referrals and the nature and reliability of the evidence upon which investigations are based are issues about which authorities should be seriously concerned. The Shieldfield nursery case is one of the most recent examples of how hugely expensive and damaging scandals may stem from something as insubstantial as a perception. The subsequent libel trial provided proof of the flawed methods used by pediatricians, child psychiatrists, social workers, police and Barnardo's workers to substantiate what was never more than a belief that abuse had taken place. The outcome of the trial should have raised concerns about the quality and content of the training and knowledge base of child care experts.
Amphlett suggested that research was required into the influence of workers' perceptions, their personal agendas and belief systems upon the outcomes of cases. While the Government provides guidance on interagency child protection procedures (Working Together, The Stationery Office 1999), it does not provide guidelines on the practice of individual professionals on the recognition of child abuse or subsequent care or treatment. PAIN's efforts to persuade the Government to change its mind and produce such guidance were in vain. The outcome of this has been the development of an ad hoc and unregulated expertise. Lessons should have been learnt through the Cleveland affair, but the Government's main concern was interagency co-operation, and the field was left wide open to individual clinicians, therapists and voluntary organisations to promote their own particular theories and practices.
For the lay observer, it is a matter of incredulity that qualified members of respected professions provide official assessments and treat conditions such as mental illness, behavioural disorders and eating disorders on the basis of beliefs that are so often shown to be without any firm evidential base and are matters of controversy within a given discipline. The outcome is that flaws in the system only surface when things have gone seriously wrong. In the absence of official standards of practice, there is nothing tangible to challenge if a person believes that they have been subjected to an unfair or badly conducted inquiry. If an accused parent complains that a social services department has accepted a psychiatric assessment without investigation, since there is no guidance about the appropriateness of this approach, the complaint will not be considered. A complaint may be made about a psychological or risk assessment. But while it may seem far removed from evidence or common sense, because there is no actual standard against which to judge such assessments, a complaint will fail.
PAIN was one of the first organisations to warn about the problems associated with "recovered memory" therapy. But it was left to individuals and the BFMS to uncover practices that have caused so much harm to so many people. Not all members of the medical profession, however, appear to have changed their practice in any meaningful way following the public outcry over "false memory" cases. As a warning against complacency, recent anecdotal evidence from family law solicitors is that the term "attachment disorder" is cropping up with increasing frequency in social work assessments. In essence, attachment theorists identify behavioural and mental health disorders as manifestations of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), dissociation or multiple personalities, the origins of which are traced to presumed maternal abuse and the disruption of psychological development in infancy. Misleading claims are made about scientific knowledge of brain function. Patients receive psychotherapy to help unearth traumatic memories. The terminology and presentation may differ from recovered memory therapy, but little else has changed.
4. Complaints systems and the provision of mandatory local authority funding of independent advocacy services
PAIN identified a statutory child protection system that is a potential source of harm to those subjected unnecessarily to its interventions and suggested that in an ideal world parents should have access to free legal aid from the outset to protect themselves and their children. Their compromise suggestion was that funds should be made available to provide independent advice, advocacy and support from the start of the investigative process. The need for such services has become even more of a priority following PAIN's closure. If a degree of liaison between advocates and local authorities could be achieved, there is also the possibility that the current level of mistrust and acrimony might be reduced to the benefit of all concerned.
While the appearance of accountability and information is provided in the form of an "independent" complaints system, it is unlikely that a social services complaints investigation will provide a satisfactory outcome. Local authorities are required to draw up local systems within a statutory framework including an "independent person" to track complaints investigations. It is this provision which allows the complaints system to justify the description "independent". In reality the system is self-policing, cannot deal with the actions of other agencies, or consider anything other than the administration of structural procedures. The contract for the provision of an "independent person" will usually be made with a national charity such as the NCH. While they will be conversant with procedures, they may well share the same theoretical outlook of the social workers under investigation. It is more than possible that their organisation will have been involved in local child protection training.
PAIN identified that the complaints system did not offer parents or children any hope of holding individual practitioners or agencies accountable for their perceived failures and suggested a multi-agency complaints system administered by the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC). But with the current state of ignorance about the workings of the ACPC and its ambiguous legal status, the task of setting up a complaints system that would be required to pinpoint the failings of different professionals engaged in interagency investigations would be formidable.
5. General Social Care Council
A General Social Care Council is the one proposal made by PAIN to have come to fruition. However, the organizationA is not yet fully operational and it is far from clear that it will be able to provide complainants with the redress that they seek. What it will do is add yet another complaints system to the present labyrinthine process. There must also be concerns about how a code of practice will be drawn up, who are the experts giving advice, and how good practice will be defined.
With the advent of Human Rights legislation and the Data Protection Act 1998, present day campaigners should be better placed to pursue the goals set by PAIN. The appointment of Margaret Hodge as a dedicated Children's Minister may also offer new opportunities. Where previously responsibilities have been spread across four different departments, the new appointment brings responsibility for coordinating children and family policy under one roof in the Department of Education. In the light of the Government's avowed intention of delivering effective and accountable public services, it is reasonable to expect that a minister with overall responsibility for the operation of child protection and welfare processes should have access to reliable data about the day-to-day performance of the child protection system.
PAIN and its trustees understood that the key to reform lies in persuading government ministers to evaluate and "safety-check" the child protection "system" - a process which would make visible the vulnerability of parents and child care workers drawn into a system intended to make the world a safer and happier place for children. The Government's failure to collate national data from child protection cases and to evaluate the workings of the child protection system is irresponsible and negligent and the time for calling child abuse "experts" to account for their practices and opinions is long overdue.
Amphlett, S. 1998. The experience of a watchdog group. In G Hunt (ed) Whistleblowing in the Social Services. London, Arnold
Department of Health. 1995. Child Protection - Messages From Research. London. HMSO
Department of Health, Home Office and the Departments of Education and Employment. 1999. Working Together to Safeguard Children. London, The Stationery Office
Gibbons, J., Conroy, S., Bell, C. 1995. Operating the Child Protection System. London, HMSO
***
PAIN's data showed that 88 per cent of its cases arose because of "perceived" abuse rather than any empirical evidence or a direct allegation from a child. The source of referrals and the nature and reliability of the evidence upon which investigations are based are issues about which authorities should be seriously concerned. The Shieldfield nursery case is one of the most recent examples of how hugely expensive and damaging scandals may stem from something as insubstantial as a perception. The subsequent libel trial provided proof of the flawed methods used by pediatricians, child psychiatrists, social workers, police and Barnardo's workers to substantiate what was never more than a belief that abuse had taken place. The outcome of the trial should have raised concerns about the quality and content of the training and knowledge base of child care experts.
Amphlett suggested that research was required into the influence of workers' perceptions, their personal agendas and belief systems upon the outcomes of cases. While the Government provides guidance on interagency child protection procedures (Working Together, The Stationery Office 1999), it does not provide guidelines on the practice of individual professionals on the recognition of child abuse or subsequent care or treatment. PAIN's efforts to persuade the Government to change its mind and produce such guidance were in vain. The outcome of this has been the development of an ad hoc and unregulated expertise. Lessons should have been learnt through the Cleveland affair, but the Government's main concern was interagency co-operation, and the field was left wide open to individual clinicians, therapists and voluntary organisations to promote their own particular theories and practices.
For the lay observer, it is a matter of incredulity that qualified members of respected professions provide official assessments and treat conditions such as mental illness, behavioural disorders and eating disorders on the basis of beliefs that are so often shown to be without any firm evidential base and are matters of controversy within a given discipline. The outcome is that flaws in the system only surface when things have gone seriously wrong. In the absence of official standards of practice, there is nothing tangible to challenge if a person believes that they have been subjected to an unfair or badly conducted inquiry. If an accused parent complains that a social services department has accepted a psychiatric assessment without investigation, since there is no guidance about the appropriateness of this approach, the complaint will not be considered. A complaint may be made about a psychological or risk assessment. But while it may seem far removed from evidence or common sense, because there is no actual standard against which to judge such assessments, a complaint will fail.
PAIN was one of the first organisations to warn about the problems associated with "recovered memory" therapy. But it was left to individuals and the BFMS to uncover practices that have caused so much harm to so many people. Not all members of the medical profession, however, appear to have changed their practice in any meaningful way following the public outcry over "false memory" cases. As a warning against complacency, recent anecdotal evidence from family law solicitors is that the term "attachment disorder" is cropping up with increasing frequency in social work assessments. In essence, attachment theorists identify behavioural and mental health disorders as manifestations of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), dissociation or multiple personalities, the origins of which are traced to presumed maternal abuse and the disruption of psychological development in infancy. Misleading claims are made about scientific knowledge of brain function. Patients receive psychotherapy to help unearth traumatic memories. The terminology and presentation may differ from recovered memory therapy, but little else has changed.
4. Complaints systems and the provision of mandatory local authority funding of independent advocacy services
PAIN identified a statutory child protection system that is a potential source of harm to those subjected unnecessarily to its interventions and suggested that in an ideal world parents should have access to free legal aid from the outset to protect themselves and their children. Their compromise suggestion was that funds should be made available to provide independent advice, advocacy and support from the start of the investigative process. The need for such services has become even more of a priority following PAIN's closure. If a degree of liaison between advocates and local authorities could be achieved, there is also the possibility that the current level of mistrust and acrimony might be reduced to the benefit of all concerned.
While the appearance of accountability and information is provided in the form of an "independent" complaints system, it is unlikely that a social services complaints investigation will provide a satisfactory outcome. Local authorities are required to draw up local systems within a statutory framework including an "independent person" to track complaints investigations. It is this provision which allows the complaints system to justify the description "independent". In reality the system is self-policing, cannot deal with the actions of other agencies, or consider anything other than the administration of structural procedures. The contract for the provision of an "independent person" will usually be made with a national charity such as the NCH. While they will be conversant with procedures, they may well share the same theoretical outlook of the social workers under investigation. It is more than possible that their organisation will have been involved in local child protection training.
PAIN identified that the complaints system did not offer parents or children any hope of holding individual practitioners or agencies accountable for their perceived failures and suggested a multi-agency complaints system administered by the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC). But with the current state of ignorance about the workings of the ACPC and its ambiguous legal status, the task of setting up a complaints system that would be required to pinpoint the failings of different professionals engaged in interagency investigations would be formidable.
5. General Social Care Council
A General Social Care Council is the one proposal made by PAIN to have come to fruition. However, the organizationA is not yet fully operational and it is far from clear that it will be able to provide complainants with the redress that they seek. What it will do is add yet another complaints system to the present labyrinthine process. There must also be concerns about how a code of practice will be drawn up, who are the experts giving advice, and how good practice will be defined.
With the advent of Human Rights legislation and the Data Protection Act 1998, present day campaigners should be better placed to pursue the goals set by PAIN. The appointment of Margaret Hodge as a dedicated Children's Minister may also offer new opportunities. Where previously responsibilities have been spread across four different departments, the new appointment brings responsibility for coordinating children and family policy under one roof in the Department of Education. In the light of the Government's avowed intention of delivering effective and accountable public services, it is reasonable to expect that a minister with overall responsibility for the operation of child protection and welfare processes should have access to reliable data about the day-to-day performance of the child protection system.
PAIN and its trustees understood that the key to reform lies in persuading government ministers to evaluate and "safety-check" the child protection "system" - a process which would make visible the vulnerability of parents and child care workers drawn into a system intended to make the world a safer and happier place for children. The Government's failure to collate national data from child protection cases and to evaluate the workings of the child protection system is irresponsible and negligent and the time for calling child abuse "experts" to account for their practices and opinions is long overdue.
Amphlett, S. 1998. The experience of a watchdog group. In G Hunt (ed) Whistleblowing in the Social Services. London, Arnold
Department of Health. 1995. Child Protection - Messages From Research. London. HMSO
Department of Health, Home Office and the Departments of Education and Employment. 1999. Working Together to Safeguard Children. London, The Stationery Office
Gibbons, J., Conroy, S., Bell, C. 1995. Operating the Child Protection System. London, HMSO
***
© 2024 Created by Alison J Stevens.
Powered by
