'It's
getting worse for vulnerable parents'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Telegraph
- 19th October 2004
Lord
Filkin, an education minister, is examining cases of children with Asperger's
(high-functioning autism) whose behaviour has been ascribed to bad parenting
...
Two months ago,
health.telegraph explored the problem of children being taken into care
after their parents had been falsely accused of ill-treatment. Since
then, reports Cassandra Jardine, more than 40 couples have defied the
rules of secrecy to tell of their own experiences.
Since the acquittal
of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel, a large question mark
has hung over the belief, held by some paediatricians and social workers,
that there is a hidden epidemic of child abuse in this country.
Help needed:
'it is getting worse for vulnerable parents and vulnerable children'
Those three women, whose children died sudden, unexpected deaths, had
never been in trouble with the police or social services, yet they were
accused of murder. The overturning of those verdicts may have left people
with the impression that such miscarriages of justice no longer occur.
Unfortunately, that confidence seems to be misplaced, as more cases
are arising all the time. Nor does a child have to die for parents to
find themselves accused of abuse or neglect. Children who have come
to the attention of social services are being taken into care and then,
possibly as a result of the Government's drive to speed up the adoption
process and increase the number of children adopted, sometimes permanently
parted from their parents.
Two months
ago, The Daily Telegraph highlighted this problem in articles which
included the story of an Essex couple, Emma and Martin. Emma had taken
their baby, Peter, into hospital to have a bump on his head checked
out. The child was put in foster care and a case was brought against
them. Even though, after the final hearing, they received medical evidence
that indicated their innocence, they could not bring an appeal
and Essex social services would not bring one on the child's behalf.
At that time, they were dreading a letter telling them that Peter had
been legally adopted. Their case encompassed many of the complaints
parents commonly make about social services: the seeming hostility of
social workers; the reliance on medical experts with pet theories who
have not examined a child, let alone met the family; the construction
of cases without regard to parents' good points and parental fears that,
if the social worker and a child's court-appointed guardian (usually
an ex-social worker) take against them, the outcome in the family court
is a foregone conclusion. The case also focused attention on problems
connected with the family courts: the secrecy that prevents parents
discussing their case or questioning expert opinions and prevents
journalists reporting proceedings; the judgments made on "probability"
rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", and the obstacles to
bringing an appeal.
The articles
prompted more than 40 parents to defy the rules on secrecy and explain
their own experiences of the system. Some said they had become involved
with social services because of their children's medical problems accidents,
brittle bones or undiagnosed illnesses only to find themselves
accused of shaking, hitting or attention-seeking as a result of Munchausen's
syndrome by proxy. Others, whose children have behavioural difficulties
or are on the autistic spectrum, found themselves accused of mistreatment.
A further group had asked social services for help related to illness
(physical or mental) or violent relationships, only to find their children
taken from them and kept even when they recovered and felt
able to cope. A fourth group claimed that accusations of abuse had been
made against them in retaliation for pointing out abuse or negligence
by professionals. But parents were not the only ones to respond. Lawyers,
politicians and academics came forward with analyses and suggestions
for improving the system, as did the organisers of the fast-proliferating
parental support groups who, between them, are hearing of several thousand
new cases each year.
A few
Lord Hanningfield, leader of Essex County Council, Felicity Collier,
chief executive of British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF)
and one guardian defended the status quo. Sadly, neither Margaret
Hodge, Minister for Children, nor Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the president
of the Family Division of the Royal Courts of Justice, responded, despite
being sent the articles. Many of those who gave their views were pessimistic.
Beverley Beech, who runs the Association for Improvements in the Maternity
Services, said that she can no longer concentrate on the main aim of
her organisation because, in the five years since increased and speedier
adoption targets were set, she has been "dragged in" to one
case after another of babies taken from their mothers. "It is getting
worse for vulnerable parents and vulnerable children," says Jan
Loxley-Blount, who runs Parents Protecting Children, which advises parents
entangled with social services because of problems such as refusal to
attend school and ME. "Local authorities don't have the money for
support, only for children on the child protection register." Bill
Bache, the solicitor who brought Angela Cannings's successful appeal,
sees "no new dawn of open-mindedness", despite several subsequent
cases in which parents have been cleared of false allegations. "We
are facing closed minds in the judiciary and no assistance from any
official source. It's Blair's distributive eugenics: if social services
find a child in a situation where the adults are less than perfect,
they put the child in care."
Some, however,
are cautiously optimistic for families in the future, though not for
those currently entangled in the system. The constitutional affairs
select committee is investigating whether or not the family courts are
providing an adequate service. Lord Filkin, an education minister, is
examining cases of children with Asperger's (high-functioning autism)
whose behaviour has been ascribed to bad parenting. The Scottish Parliament
has just announced a review of Munchausen's cases. Sir Liam Donaldson,
chief medical officer, is reviewing the use of expert witnesses. Margaret
Hodge is reviewing 30,000 cases involving medical evidence in the family
courts and, any day now Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, is expected
to announce which further cases will be sent to the Criminal Cases Review
Commission as a result of the review following Cannings's acquittal.
The professions, too, are examining their own practices. Baroness Kennedy's
review for the Royal College of Pathologists has established better
procedures in cases of infant death. Recently, three Family Court judges
have started waiving the secrecy requirements. And last week, Harriet
Harman, Solicitor General, announced that the Children's Bill would
include provision for the secrecy surrounding the Family Court to be
changed, so that parents can discuss their cases with MPs and advocates.
Now that guardians are accountable to the courts, they are behaving
more independently of social services. And, as a result of the Daily
Telegraph articles, Essex County Council is conducting two inquiries
which are due to report later this month; already, some Essex parents
are reporting a greater willingness to release papers a major
bone of contention for those trying to prove their innocence. Many activists
do not believe these measures address the core of the problem. "Not
when social workers have so much power and the belief in parental abuse
is so ingrained in doctors' and social workers' minds," says Penny
Mellor, who advises parents accused of Munchausen's and other abuse.
"Why can't we have the public inquiry which Earl Howe, Conservative
health spokesman, is calling for?"
Charles Pragnell,
a former social worker who is now an international adviser on child
protection cases, believes that the Government has good reason to avoid
an inquiry. "The health, education and social services have diverted
children and their families into the child protection system,"
he says, "blaming the parents for causing harm to their children
to avoid providing them with services. "Why do we not, in Britain,
have similar legislation to the Irish Republic, where accusations of
false abuse are a criminal offence?
More than 85
per cent of reports of child abuse are subsequently found to have no
substantive basis and have been made for largely mistaken, mischievous,
malicious or monetary reasons. Every year, more than 450,000 children
are unnecessarily drawn into child protection investigations which cause
them severe and long-lasting emotional harm." Some in social services
appear to think the occasional unnecessary removal even adoption
is a reasonable price for preventing child abuse. "You don't know
what it is like when you return a child to parents and that child dies,"
says Felicity Collier of BAAF, who experienced that anguish when she
was a social worker. But the practice of accusing parents without substantial
evidence is expensive. Expert fees, fostering, assessments, preparing
adopters and legal fees mount up: a single Munchausen's investigation
can cost £2-£3 million. It also prevents social workers
investigating real cases of child abuse, which is usually carried out
by people who don't take a child to hospital or call social services
for assistance and very rarely by parents who have otherwise normal
lives. A father, whose nine and 11-year-old daughters were taken from
him when his wife suffered from mental illness, says: "Cases like
ours are the very reason why there are insufficient resources and why
the truly serious cases are overlooked. It would be more logical, simpler,
cheaper and more humane to provide families with support when they need
it in a non-judgmental way than to over-zealously guard children from
their parents." John Gumbleton, a former social worker, now runs
Resolutions, an agency that can be called in to see whether rehabilitation
is possible. "I don't look at whether accusations are true or false,"
he says. "I look at whether a family can be reunited. In three
out of four cases, I find it can. It takes time, gradually building
up contact again sometimes, the parents may need educating
but, in the four years I have been providing this service, no child
returned to a family has been reabused." Emma and Martin might
have been a perfect case for Gumbleton. Sadly, his services will not
be needed. Three weeks ago, Emma could no longer bear not knowing what
had happened to her son, so she wrote to Essex Social Services and received
a one-line reply confirming that he had been legally adopted. But their
story does not end there. Solicitor Bill Bache is so shocked that they
could not show the court medical evidence that might have led to a reunion,
he has offered to take their case, for free, to the European Court of
Human Rights. "Why would the court not reopen that case?"
asks Bache. "Because a whole raft of cases would follow. That would
make the family courts look foolish and open up a lot of claims for
compensation." Until the Government shows a willingness to address
the central issues, more and more such cases will continue to pile up.
Submissions
from the public commenting on the work of the Family Courts should be
sent, by November 1, to: Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, House
of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA.
Fresh thinking
that could keep families in one piece. What could be done to make it
less likely that normal parents are accused and families torn apart
without letting real abuse go undetected?
Penny Mellor,
an adviser to parents accused of abuse, suggests: "A child should
remain at home while investigations are going on. That way, he or she
is not parted from every source of security - home, family, friends,
school. If necessary, the alleged perpetrator could be removed from
the home or, if both parents are accused, a social worker move in. "While
investigating suspicions, social services have to work on the basis
of probability. But, before a child is taken into care or put up for
adoption, criminal standards of proof, 'beyond reasonable doubt', should
apply." One solution would be a separation of powers. Social workers
find it difficult to get parents' trust as they have a dual role: they
are the source of support, but they also take children from families.
A specialist child protection agency to investigate abuse would leave
social workers free to help those in need. They could try to keep more
families together without risking the "over-optimism" which
Felicity Collier of British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering believes
leads to children being returned to abusive parents. Britain seems to
lead the world in false allegations, but in America many children have
been taken from parents through poverty rather than deliberate neglect:
a child might be left alone while a parent goes to work. In Alabama,
however, the system has been rebuilt. Social workers now support rather
than threaten families and the result is less abuse, and fewer families
rent apart. A similar approach could work here. Cathy Ashley of the
Family Rights Group believes the extended family should be allowed to
help more often - in preference to foster carers. Even if a child has
been taken into care, and families have become estranged, keeping them
apart may not be inevitable.
