News: Demand for child protection services increasing
National demand for child protection services is continuing to rise, according to new research from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services.
The research found national increases in demand for care and protection services, with some local authorities reporting increasing of 100 per cent in demand. However there were wide variations, with demand dropping by 30 per cent in other areas.
Early help services are proving a valuable resource in helping to reduce demand on child protection social workers and is thought to have contributed to the drop in demand in some areas. Other factors contributing to localised drops in demand included increases in the efficiency of local agency work.
Debbie Jones is president of the ADCS. She said:
“The key message of this research is that services for protecting children are part of a wider system, from early help through to permanent homes for children in care. It is necessary to consider the whole system, rather than piecemeal reform, in order to successfully manage budgets to cope with increasing pressure.”
|
Share this post
|
Get free family law updates
|
Marilyn Stowe’s new book: expert advice on all aspects of divorce, for just 99p!
Divorce & Splitting Up by Marilyn Stowe is the essential how-to book for anyone who is getting divorced or splitting up from a partner. Read more >>
"A must buy that really opens your eyes to what is involved if you are considering or going through a divorce." - Amanda Brown
"This will answer your questions in a way that non-lawyers can understand." - Miss P.
"This really has helped me to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel and I will come out of it a stronger person." - J
Awards
IAML
13 Comments
That Guy on October 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm
The reason why “demand” for child protection services is “increasing” is because the people running those services are “creating” the demand, ie they are taking more children into care. It’s a good job they aren’t running a shop. They’d be buying all of the stock themselves. If anyone asked them how the shop was doing, they’d say fine, business is booming.
Anon. on October 29, 2012 at 8:32 pm
That Guy
Children are taken into care as a last resort; it is far from the preferred choice.
Authorities are criticised whatever they do. When tragedies occur, they’re accused of being negligent. When they take kids into care, they’re seen as being over-zealous.
What’s the alternative? What would you suggest?
My objection is the regionally different ‘proactive-ness’ adopted by different LA’s.
That Guy on October 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm
If I was in charge, the professionals, medics and social workers etc, would only be allowed to remove children who had actually been harmed, ie proactiveness would be banned.
Anon on October 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm
So you would remove the word ‘likely’ from s31 CA 1989?
I think that would be short-sighted and there be a huge spike in avoidable tragedies.
That Guy on October 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm
I don’t think there would be a huge spike in avoidable tragedies. I think very few children will be significantly harmed “out of the blue”, ie ongoing harm will become known about as it happens. The child could then be removed from the situation.
Anon on October 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
That Guy
So what you’re saying is “close the stable door once the horse has bolted”?!
I can see how that may be preferable for parents, but what about the children? It’s certainly not in their best interests and that’s the main thing. The needs of the parent should always be secondary to that of the child(ren); like it or not.
Some of these kids have been so badly let down by not only their parents, but also society, so let’s not add insult to injury.
Observer on October 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Above all, children need to be protected from a system that forces their parents to work 16 hours a day, criminalizes separated parents, places them in poverty, deprives them of proper education and opportunity, feeds them junk, glorifies illegal warfare and belligerent foreign policy, rapes the environment, privatizes health care, etc.
Who are the real criminals here? Let’s get real.
In my mind, the child protection services are sort of like the police – simply thugs employed to do the jobs of the organized crime outfit that calls itself government.
That Guy on October 31, 2012 at 12:16 pm
What I’m saying is it would be appropriate for there to be some evidence that a parent has actually harmed a child in the past, before the parent is found “guilty” of being likely to significantly harm a child in the future.
Anon on October 31, 2012 at 7:08 pm
That Guy
It’s not about guilty or not guilty it’s about safeguarding children.
The LA will only intervene if there is or is LIKELY to be harm to a child.
There will be evidence which is why the LA becomes involved – they don’t select at random.
Either the family will already be on the LA’s radar (for good reason) and known to services and agencies, or Safeguarding will have been triggered due to evidence; for example, this could be clear signs of neglect, verbal disclosures or a non-accidental injury say.
The civil standard of proof is used and so you’re looking at a 51% likelihood of harm, so more likely than not in effect. This is considered reasonable given that we are dealing with the welfare of some of our most vulnerable members of society.
That Guy on October 31, 2012 at 10:54 pm
What you should have said Anon is a 51% liklihood of SIGNIFICANT harm. But, would the professionals be willing to let a jury decide, eg based on anonymised “evidence”?
Anon on November 1, 2012 at 9:43 pm
That Guy
Apologies. My omission. ‘Significant’ is of course missing in my thread.
Nonetheless, I stand by what I said.
As for a jury – no! This is not a criminal process. You are not comparing like with like.
You must appreciate how delicate some of the issues are which are bing dealt with. This is not like a criminal court where you are judged by your peers and the information is in the public domain, you’re dealing with vulnerable children.
Some of them will have endured horrendous experiences; eg neglect, sexual abuse or violence. Their start in life has already been compromised, they’re already on the back-foot through no fault of their own. Why should they have all of their very private details laid open? This should be seen and dealt by he fewest and most able/experienced people. What’s more, often domestic placements, schools and the like are discussed, this can’t be open for all to see.
Would you put each jury member through the enhanced CRB (the very highest level of check) process? This is very costly and time consuming – I’ve had one and it took months to come back. If you weren’t to do this, these poor kids would yet again be let down – think of all the unsavoury / predatory characters who would want to get onto a jury.
What’s more, these kids need somebody with a wealth of experience to make the right decision in their best interest, not a group of people, well-meaning or otherwise to offer their views in the hope that they are right.
I appreciate that the way in which the family courts operate are not to every bodies taste, but you’re dealing some very difficult issues and there really isn’t another way.
Observer on November 1, 2012 at 9:55 pm
That Guy,
What I’m saying is that 99 % of children have already suffered significant harm in this country even before they are born, so it’s a bit rich for anyone to come along and try and blame this on parents long after the fact.
If anyone in this industry cared anything for child welfare, they would not be abducting children, but lobbying for better distribution of land, resources, wealth, opportunity, as well as better education, more commitment to environmental issues, etc.
Anyone in this industry who thinks what they do has anything to do with morality is delusional.
Jan Harrison on March 27, 2013 at 12:08 pm
The demand for Child protection is increasing nationwide http://www.childprotectiontraining.uk.com The important issue is the quality of the training