Stable Homes, Built on Love Consultation & the Pathfinder Programme

In July 2023, the Department for Education officially announced the Families First for Children Pathfinder.
Dorset has been recognised for the fantastic work taking place with children, young people and families by being selected to be one of only three initial pathfinder sites nationally, testing the delivery of key reforms across the sector.
The tragic murders during lockdown of 6 year old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and 18 month old Star Hobson helped trigger the government consultation called Stable Homes, Built on Love. This led to the trial run of the Pathfinder Programme which introduces four pillars in children’s services. The first of these is Family Help, introducing combined Targeted Early Help & Child in Need support. In essence this means that a social worker will not be allocated to every Sect 17 Child in Need if allocation can be to another appropriate lead professional, whether that is an early help worker, health visitor, teacher or even a police officer. There would still be oversight of the case by social care. The second pillar is enhanced Child Protection carried out by social workers with greater expertise and experience, and access to dedicated and skilled multi-agency input, working with Family Help to protect children who are suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm. One of the key learning points from the Child Safeguarding Practice reviews into Arthur and Stars murders was that the allocated social workers were not sufficiently experienced. The first two pillars of Pathfinder should help to make sure that there will be enough “top tier” social workers available for the highest risk children. Pillar three introduces Family Networks with increased use of family group decision-making and support packages to wider family members. Family group conference in pre-court proceedings & financed kinship care. Pillar four looks at the Safeguarding Partnership and strengthening multi-agency arrangements especially regarding education.

Mental Capacity Amendment Bill

The Mental Capacity Amendment Bill has finally gone through Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent, due to be implemented in Spring 2020 after consultation on the Code of Practice later this year. It has progressed better than Brexit with marginally more agreement but considerably less media interest! The Cheshire West case in 2014 highlighted that the most vulnerable group in our society needed a high level of protection, rather than the watered down DOLs we had been seeing before that. It would appear that the controversy that has dogged the Amendment Bill has been getting the balance between high level of protection and not costing too much in resources. We will see with time how successful this has been.

The role of the care home manager is now reduced compared with early proposals and is now subject to the LA deciding whether to do it themselves or ask the care home manager. Although an improvement, this is likely to be less carefully considered the busier and more stretched the LA is. We have seen this happen so much in safeguarding where enquiries are handed over to the care home not because the quality of the care home and manager warrant this but because the LA has few options with their scarce resources. That is only going to get worse with more cuts to LAs. The other change that has been challenging is the definition of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty. The inability to agree on this has led to no definition and no doubt the argument will continue with the draft Code of Practice. That effectively leaves us with the Cheshire West definition but a more manageable stream lined process for dealing with it. It won't be any easier to get agreement by postponing it and does have the ring of Brexit delays to it.

From probation to ships...

Recently it hit the headlines when a company won a £13.8 million contract to run Ramsgate to Ostend ferries after Brexit. The company has no ships and has never had them but is planning to have ships by the end of March (too late for first post Brexit rush). Amongst other news about Brexit, this is a minor matter. Grayling (now Transport Secretary) said they had been carefully vetted before the offer was made.

Ministers' probation reforms have lead to 50% rise in serious offences (for example murder and rape) committed by offenders on probation. Probation work was outsourced to eight private providers by Grayling when he was Justice Minister. They run 21 community rehabilitation schemes with low to medium risk offenders. Supervision has fallen and staff been cut. A decision has been made by coroners to reopen inquests on three people killed by offenders under supervision which is likely to trigger some debate about the quality of such supervision. The Welsh justice minister accused the Government of "wilfully wrecking the humanitarian principle of rehabilitation" and called for probation services to be brought back under government control.

What do these situations have in common? Both were Grayling's decisions but he and his decisions are not unique. We have had governments for a few years who like to put everything out to commissioning, usually by tender and to then go for the cheapest bid. Various tenders i have observed or been part of talk about quality but it is clear from decisions made they hinge on price and getting the cheapest bid. One example is a training company with associate trainers whom they have never met or seen train. The highest price for training is not the cost of paying the training company but the cost of releasing all the staff to attend training which may or may not achieve its objectives. Price isn't everything and poor training or no ships need to be part of the considerations of those commissioning.

Liberty Protection Scheme

Despite the pressure of Brexit, the Government are making space to legislate for a replacement for the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.  This has been a fated area of law since 1997 when the Bournewood case highlighted a gap in the law. A 49 year old man with autism became distressed at a day centre and was informally admitted to a psychiatric unit. He was not subject to a mental health section and lacked the capacity to consent to his residence in the unit. It was clear in 1997 that this was unlawful as the patient had no right of appeal or protection of his rights.

For some years, there was consideration of the use of mental health sections, but the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards were introduced as an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act. At the time of introduction, it felt as though as much was done as possible to minimise the number of people subject to such safeguards but there was some protection of rights in the bureaucratic process. Then Lady Justice Hale blew the situation out of the water in March 2014 by a judgement which simplified the process - is the person lacking capacity, under continuous supervision and not free to leave? Then that is a Deprivation of Liberty and needs the safeguards. Lady Justice Hale said that this vulnerable group need the highest level of protection. Unfortunately, local authorities were not resourced to deal with the massive increase - applications going from 13,000 a year to 217,325 in 2016-7. The situation could not stay as it was and the Law Commission made some recommendations.

The proposed Liberty Protection Scheme is a watered down version of the original proposals. One of the more concerning areas is the new scheme puts a lot of onus on care home managers to make decisions and arrange assessments. We know some care home providers are outstanding and will uphold rights but others will be daunted and unable to respond to this well. The bill also doesn't include the proposal to provide opportunity for legal action against care providers for unlawful deprivations of liberty. The bill's proposals offer less protection to this highly vulnerable group and seems to be an uneasy compromise.

Harmful behaviour between children in schools

We are hearing all the time in the media through the #metoo movement about adults who misuse their seniority/position to sexually offend against staff who feel they have little choice and seldom report the offences.

There is increasing research to show this is not simply an adult to adult problem. Firmin et al (2018) found that sexually harmful behaviour between children in school was being normalised by young people. The young people felt it wasn't too serious and didn't want to risk losing friendships. The victims also were afraid of being blamed themselves for such events. There is a continuum of sexual behaviour both on and off line  and many behaviours are now tolerated at  lower levels.  

Certain children are more vulnerable to sexual violence including  special education needs and  LGBT children. it is vital that young people take seriously the safety and consent of others if we are to change the culture and protect everyone from unwanted sexual contact.  The research shows that children will only tell adults if they think it will be taken seriously including lower level sexual banter. Adults need to demonstrate their trustworthiness and act on all sexual activity which is unwanted. Schools also need to give very clear messages about consent and respect.

Homeschooling consultation

The Government has just announced a consultation about homeschooling. The consultation is considering whether homeschooled children should be registered and the quality of their education monitored. There was a 20% increase in children educated at home from Jan '16 to Oct '17. Some of the issues about radicalisation include concerns about children moved out of the school system. There is also a concern about excluded children being off-rolled and moved into "home education".

Parents homeschool for a variety of reasons - some with excellent intentions about offering a more varied curriculum. Other parents homeschool when they fall out with their children's schools or want to avoid safeguarding measures eg. Kyra Ishaq, whose mother refused access to visitors and Kyra eventually starved to death.  Children who are homeschooled certainly miss the regular monitoring that school provides. Although the Local Authority offers a visit, at the moment they have no right of entry (unless the child is at risk) or duty to monitor quality of education. 

Across the world, and even within Europe, there are varying practices around this. In Iceland, it is only legal to homeschool your child if you are a qualified teacher. In Finland, the homeschool child is subject to a written and oral annual exam. In France, there are mandatory inspections and in Germany it is only legal to homeschool if it would cause undue hardship for the child to attend school. 

The questions that now need looking at in the UK  are -

• Is it the child's choice or the parents?
• Is it a way of avoiding safeguarding concerns and if so, how can the child still be protected effectively?
• How can quality of education be assured when it takes place at home?
• How can the child's social interaction needs be met? 
• In today's complex society, can home schooling by a non-teacher give the child sufficient skills and knowledge?

Mobility and accessibility

I have had the interesting experience of limited mobility recently after a foot fracture. Coupled with the snow that has got me thinking about access, and how hard we make life for people who have limited mobility. So many places have steps and it can be painful and difficult for people to access public buildings. Although it is gradually changing, the fact that people in London can't use every station is incredible in 2018 when disabled access has been expected since 1970.  

If we also think about accessibility in terms of the spoken word and hearing and seeing, the challenges are even greater. There are so many people who deny their hearing loss and then bluff, often missing quite a bit of what is being said. As trainers, we are very aware of sight and hearing loss issues but are not always prepared in advance for these which can create some challenges.

Services and public buildings are less prepared and disadvantage many people. There is unlikely to be progress on any of these issues while austerity cuts bite even harder up until 2020. New legislation that is not Brexit appears clogged up by Brexit so although the Government have accepted the Liberty Protection Safeguards in principle, we are stuck with DOLS and no new legislation for the foreseeable future at least.

Kiri

The 4 part drama Kiri was entertaining and at times poignant. In some ways, it avoided some obvious stereotypes - it was neither the black father nor the adoptive mother with mental health problems who killed the child. The portrayal of the adoptive family as far from perfect with some secrets and hidden issues was helpful. Kiri's attachment and interest in her birth family was demonstrated.

The portrayal of the social worker and her working life was mixed. Social workers bringing dogs to work and drinking on the job stopped about 20 years ago. The viewer was shown the pressure on the social worker and the challenge of making the right decision in impossible circumstances. The social worker's deep felt anguish when it went wrong is realistic. The emotional investment in her job was true to life as was the lack of support from the organisation.

When the child was murdered and an inquiry took place, the line manager was seen to very quickly distance herself from decision making. This is sadly not unusual. Social workers are line managed and work in a hierarchical local authority system. This often makes other agencies despair that social workers can't make decisions without consulting their managers. However, when thing go wrong, it is still the front line social worker who is put through the mill by both the media and their employing organisation. The attempt by Lord Laming to ensure chief executives and heads of service carried the responsibility has still not worked in practice. 

Hidden abuse - Californian abuse victims

The news today of the Californian family who hid their 13 children in their home, imprisoned and abused, has triggered the normal reactions. How could this happen in an affluent road? How did no one know it was happening? Despite the monstrous appearance of both parents, the neighbours remained unaware. One of the factors was clearly that it wasn’t a poor area and people didn’t expect abuse and neglect.

The other factor was the children were home educated. In the US one can set up as a private school and evade monitoring. This wouldn’t be an option here in the UK but any parent can pull their child out of school and say they are home schooling. They are offered a link and visit from the local authority but if they decline this, there is no obligation for them to demonstrate the quality of education. Some conscientious families home school but many opt for this as a way to avoid monitoring of their children’s welfare.

Kyra Ishaq in Birmingham was such a child who died of starvation with no monitoring. The Californian children could have had the same experience here in the UK and if they were home schooled could have been unmonitored. Thinking that caring neighbours will always observe and ring social care is an unreliable assumption here in the UK too.