Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

[des8]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

But of course if every person respected every other person, if all parents respected their children and acted responsibly there would be no reason to have SWs as we know them.

Parents who abuse their children seem (in certain cases anyway) adept at covering their tracks and disguising the abuse until it is too late.
It is little wonder that some SWs over react.

On the other hand you will always have those who abuse/exceed their authority. Hence the SWs who act like little Hitlers

I don't see that it would matter what the system............ it's the people that matter

[JulieM]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

There is so much to comment on here. The UN convention on the rights of the child is the most ratified convention of all yet it has no legally binding power. It is up to individual states to apply the principles.

It can't help that different standards apply across different local authorities. I can only talk about one county but in that county you can not foster a child if either of you smoke , I'm not meaning smoke in the house but smoke full stop. Equally you can not foster if you ever smack a child be that your own or a foster child.

i think one problem is that social workers need certain qualifications and generally fit certain stereotypes, middle class etc. They can not comprehend what it is to live in poverty so as Kati found she was berated for not having carpets. Maybe for some it's a choice of carpets or food.

What at is needed is action to support parents and lift them out of poverty. There is a strong positive correlation between victims of abuse and abusers I.e those that are abused go on to abuse so maybe prohibiting smacking is a step to reduce smacking in the future.

The law says that smacking is allowed if it is reasonable but doesn't quite say what reasonable is, it does say using an implement, a belt, cane or maybe a wooden spoon is unreasonable and leaving a mark is also unreasonable but almost any smack will leave a mark for some period of time be it seconds or minutes.

Kati , when you were a single mother of two boys in their terrible twos you must have needed the patience of a saint not to lose control.

[wales01man]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

Very difficult for anyone to pass judgement on another more so with children involved I can understand why children are removed from parents but will never understand why efforts are not made to educate parents who have lost children so in the long term they can be families again .

I firmly believe as stated above that Social workers should have had their own children much better than reading it all in a book experience must always be better than knowledge but we must accept that as in everything there are always 2 sides to a story what may be suspected abuse can be malicious rumour the job of others is to find the truth .

Never having had problems with my family but seeing others with problems I have seen that there is no stereotypical bad parent those who abuse must be found but must also be helped where possible

[Kati]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

Kati , when you were a single mother of two boys in their terrible twos you must have needed the patience of a saint not to lose control.

:lol: I've got to admit it was difficult at times ... but I wouldn't change them for the world

[Openlaw15]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

There is so much to comment on here. The UN convention on the rights of the child is the most ratified convention of all yet it has no legally binding power. It is up to individual states to apply the principles.

It can't help that different standards apply across different local authorities. I can only talk about one county but in that county you can not foster a child if either of you smoke , I'm not meaning smoke in the house but smoke full stop. Equally you can not foster if you ever smack a child be that your own or a foster child.

i think one problem is that social workers need certain qualifications and generally fit certain stereotypes, middle class etc. They can not comprehend what it is to live in poverty so as Kati found she was berated for not having carpets. Maybe for some it's a choice of carpets or food.

What at is needed is action to support parents and lift them out of poverty. There is a strong positive correlation between victims of abuse and abusers I.e those that are abused go on to abuse so maybe prohibiting smacking is a step to reduce smacking in the future.

The law says that smacking is allowed if it is reasonable but doesn't quite say what reasonable is, it does say using an implement, a belt, cane or maybe a wooden spoon is unreasonable and leaving a mark is also unreasonable but almost any smack will leave a mark for some period of time be it seconds or minutes.

Kati , when you were a single mother of two boys in their terrible twos you must have needed the patience of a saint not to lose control.

Human rights were just convention too until Labour made it law in 1998. A convention I believe means the citizen, or another head of state can sue another head of state, ie for war crimes. What law states belt, cane, wooden spoon is unreasonable? Are you referring to the Children Act 1989. I remember a Scottish case concerning a school and, I think, that a parent challenged the school that it is should be against the law for a child to be disciplined by cane or slipper. This is likely why the law was changed.

[JulieM]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

http://www.protectingchildren.org.uk...cking-assault/


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/section/58

There is plenty of info out there which I do not have to hand atm.

[leclerc]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

Openlaw15,
Family Law cases work under civil cases where the burden of proof is about the probability.

For example, the father of Poppi Worthington was alleged to have committed a serious sexual assault on his daughter at age of 18 months if memory serves me right yet the CPS did not have enough evidence to criminally prosecute him.

The European Case law is YC v. The United Kingdom: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"appno":["4547/10"],"itemid":["001-109557"]}

I would look at section C paragraph 108.

I am not gonna comment on the subject of social workers being "family specialists" because otherwise I think the censorship of my swearing would be horrific. Kati knows some aspects of what my sister went through at the hands of social services. I educated myself a lot in family law and on the issue of "significant harm", the process of law in terms of balance of probabilities, pool of suspects where there is an injury to a child, the way in which a child taken away from parents might be adopted depending on the age of the child and the age that the local authority go through the adoptive process ie Looked after in Care review(6 monthly). I could dig out my Independent Reviewing Officers manual(they are social workers as well). The legal process of adoption and the fact that the child has to be with the adoptive parents for a minimum of 10 weeks prior to adoption etc etc

There is a wealth of information in this field. I could say about children with special needs and the fact that many times local authorities immediately want children in "special schools" where mainstream schools may well be more acceptable. In which the rights of the child are overlooked because a court case is ongoing or even suggest that parents are clearly disadvantaged because a social worker's viewpoint carries more weight in court than a parent. I could suggest recording a social worker could be used against the parent to suggest that they were paranoid and unfit to have their child with them. You give me a sensible scenario and I'll provide you with a social worker's mindset if they are determined to remove the child.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

http://www.protectingchildren.org.uk...cking-assault/


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/section/58

There is plenty of info out there which I do not have to hand atm.

Section 58, Children Act 2004:

"Reasonable punishment

(1) In relation to any offence specified in subsection (2), battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(2) The offences referred to in subsection (1) are:

- (a) an offence under section 18 or 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (wounding and causing grievous bodily harm);
- (b) an offence under section 47 of that Act (assault occasioning actual bodily harm);
- (c) an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12) (cruelty to persons under 16).

(3) Battery of a child causing actual bodily harm to the child cannot be justified in any civil proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) “actual bodily harm” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

(5) In section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, omit subsection (7)."

So, reasonable force defences for social workers/ family court investigations must meet criminal law standards. It seemingly requires at least battery of such as severe nature that it must amount to Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). A bruise is not ABH for instance - ABH is far more serious than 'battery.' So, smacking a child on the bottom hard leaving a bruise is therefore not 'ABH' but a power may social worker won't even look at that am sure.

[JulieM]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

Is there a definition of ABH, it seems to be a matter of interpretation. I am thinking that the level of common assault may be enough as well.

I am am continuing to dig

[des8]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

CPS guidelines:

• An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.
It is a summary offence, which carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. However, if the requirements of section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are met, then Common Assault can be included as a count on an indictment. Refer to Summary offences and the Crown Court (Criminal Justice Act 1988 sections 40 and 41; Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 51 and Sch.3 para.6, elsewhere in this guidance).
Where there is a battery the defendant should be charged with 'assault by beating'. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)
Common Assault or ABH?

In law, the only factors that distinguish Common Assault from Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861) are the degree of injury that results and the sentence available to the sentencing court. But this latter factor is only relevant in the Crown Court. The magistrates' court is able to pass exactly the same maximum penalty for both offences, namely six months' imprisonment.
Where (as will often be the case) battery results in injury, a choice of charge is available. It is very important that such decisions are made on a consistent basis and having regard to the two key factors:

• The level of injuries that have resulted; and
• The likely sentence that the court will pass.

Injuries

Although any injury that is more than 'transient or trifling' can be classified as actual bodily harm, the appropriate charge will be one of Common Assault where no injury or injuries which are not serious occur.
In determining the seriousness of injury, relevant factors may include, for example, the fact that there has been significant medical intervention and/or permanent effects have resulted. But there may be other factors which are also relevant and these will need to be carefully considered when deciding whether or not the injuries are serious.
It should be borne in mind that Parliament created the offence of Common Assault specifically to cater for those assault cases in which the injuries caused are not serious.

[JulieM]

Re: Child intervention; Right to family v Social workers

Interesting stuff there des which continues to beg the question of who decides. Looking at the guidelines and the law, a bruise means it is not transient, therefore ABH , therefore against the law. Of course scores that mean that if someone bruises easily the force needed to make it illegal is less.

I know that it is all academic because there is no case here but it shows how very difficult it is to lay down regulations.