Dilemmas for Children’s Services

John DalyAssistant Director Staying Safe

Bolton Council

2010

Don’t believe him.

Social Workers are not to be trusted!

Dilemmas for Local Authorities

"I am very conscious of the criticism that social workers are damned if they do and damned if they do not."

“arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system – trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process".

Lord Justice Wall – April 2010

Current Challenges for Local Authorities

John DalyAssistant Director of Children’s Services

Bolton Council

2012

Dark Energy and the Entropy of the Event Horizon of the

Observable Universe.John Daly

Assistant Director of Children’s ServicesBolton Council

2012

Gil Scott Heron - (April 1, 1949 – May 27, 2011)

Etymology : From Ancient Greek ὀκτώ (oktō, “eight”) and Latin octō (“eight”).

Local Authority Practice Issues

John DalyActing Statutory Director

Children’s ServicesBolton Council

2015

Ironic Process Theory

John DalyActing Statutory Director

Children’s ServicesBolton Council

2015

We are really, really sorry but….

• Greater Manchester Local Authorities have lost £1.5 Billion in funding cuts since the austerity measures were introduced in 2010.

• Local government in the North West has been hit harder by spending cuts than any other region in England. - BBC News

Cuts in Children’s Services Budget in Bolton

• Children’s Services Budget 2011/12 = £54,485,000

• 2012/13 Cut was £12,937,000• 2013/15 Cut was £5,465,000• 2015/17 Cut was £3,020,000

• Total Cut £21,422,000 (39.31%)

Numbers of Looked After Children

348380 389 404 421 436

481521 517

539 529571 591

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

LAC Numbers April 13 onwards

541 541548

534 533538

534

523530 530 532 529 532 535

542538

547 549542

537

549541

548

571567

574

591

490

510

530

550

570

590

LAC Admissions and Discharges

11

1517

9

27

22

17

9

23

8

24

40

11

21 22

9

12 12 11

1821

24

1412 13

17 1715 14

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15

Admissions (54 Total 2015/16) Discharges (34 Total 2015/16)

Increasing Costs

Weekly Cost Annual CostBolton Foster Care £339 £17,637

Agency Foster Care £797 £41,438

Bolton Children's Home £2,470 £128,431

Agency Children's Home £2,676 £139,145

Secure Accommodation £5,109 £265,668

Total Cost of Extra Children this year £577,000

Did something strange happen in 2013?

Ironic Process Theory• It’s a paradox. You struggle to delete from your thoughts

something you are thinking about now while, at the same time and at some level, remembering not to think about it later!

• Ironic process theory suggests that we achieve this trick by means of two processes.– First we seek to banish the thought from our consciousness through

distraction by focusing our attention on other matters.– Second we subconsciously monitor our thoughts to alert us should the one we

want to suppress arise.

• Which is what makes the process ironic. We are actively engaged in watching out for the very thought we want to forget.

Adoption Leadership

An ironic process!• 2013 revised statutory guidance on adoption• 26 Weeks!!!!!!!!• Re B-S (Children) [2013]• Re B (A Child) [2013]• Re W (A Child) [2013]• Re H (Children) [2013]• Re B (A Child) [2014]• Re M-H (A Child) [2014]• Re M (A Child: Long-term Foster care) [2014] • CM v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2014] • Re Y (Children) [2014] • Re R (A Child) [2014]

• Adoption Mythbusters

Re B-S and endless clarification thereof!

“I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law.

He is the JudgeHe is the JudgeEverybody knowsThat he is the JudgeDewey “Pigmeat” Markham 1968

Impact of Court Judgments on Adoption What the judgments do and do not say - Mythbuster

• The national Adoption Leadership Board, Family Justice Board, and the Department for Education have heard regularly that these changes are a response to a number of high profile court judgments on care and adoption order cases, notably Re B and Re B-S1. Some of this feedback suggests a degree of misinterpretation of these judgments. This appears to have resulted in inaccurate assumptions being made about the judgments which, in reality, do not alter the legal basis for the making of care and placement orders.

• In response, the Adoption Leadership Board has developed this short guide with support from an experienced Queen’s Counsel to clarify the meaning of the key court judgments.

Impact of Court Judgments on Adoption What the judgments do and do not say - Mythbuster

• “Nothing else will do” does not mean settling for an option which will not meet the child’s physical and emotional needs. Nor does it mean that adoption should be dismissed because a child might otherwise be brought up in foster or residential care.

• This was set out by the Court of Appeal in Re M-H, (October 2014). This stated that: – “the fact that there is another credible option worthy of examination will not

mean that the test of “nothing else will do” automatically bites. It couldn’t possibly.”

• In the same judgment the Court of Appeal also stated that: – “the terminology frequently deployed in arguments to this court and, no

doubt to those at first instance, omit a significant element of the test as framed by both the Supreme Court and this court, which qualifies the literal interpretation of “nothing else will do”.”

Nothing Else will do Vs Realistic

• The courts do, however, need to see expert, high quality, evidence-based assessments of all realistic options: only after evaluating all the pros and cons of such options can the court conclude that only adoption is consistent with the child’s welfare throughout his or her life. (Mythbuster)

• '[61] What is meant by "realistic"? I agree with what Ryder LJ said in Re Y, para 28: "Realistic is an ordinary English word. It needs no definition or analysis to be applied to the identification of options in a case."‘ (Re A)

Martin Narey’s Speech to the ADCS• There were more than 1,500 new placement orders between

July and September 2013. In the final quarter of 2014 this had fallen to 740 (a drop of 52%)

• “But these are not as a result of the court rejecting placement order applications in vast numbers. The drop is overwhelmingly explained by a drop in local authority PO applications. They have dropped from 1,830 to 910 a decrease of exactly half…..”

• “Unless you believe that all those adoption decisions you made last year were not in the interests of those children, I urge you to ensure that your SW’s and your lawyers have not lost their nerve, and that the president’s exhortation that you must pursue adoption when that is in the child’s best interests is followed”

Friends & Family Carers

• “There have been a number of cases where the care plan has changed in the final stages of proceedings where the message is to Panel; the carers must be approved or the Judge will make a SGO. This allows no time for additional work which could clarify the issues or provide additional evidence. This means panel are at times unable to fulfil their quality assurance role. Some Panel members are so concerned that they believe the panel role is, at times, pointless.” – Independent Chair of Fostering Panel

Re R (A Child) [2014]

• Where adoption is in the child’s best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders.”

• “Re B-s does not require the further forensic pursuit of options which, having been properly evaluated, typically at an early stage in the proceedings, can legitimately be discarded as not being realistic.”

• “Re B-S does not require that every conceivable option on the spectrum that runs between ‘no order’ and ‘adoption’ has to be canvassed and bottomed out with reasons in the evidence and judgment in every single case.”

Re A 16.12.2014

• I add a final observation. On 11 November 2014 the National Adoption Leadership Board published Impact of Court Judgments on Adoption: What the judgments do and do not say, popularly referred to as the Re B-S myth-buster. This document appears to be directed primarily at social workers and, appropriately, not to the judges. It has been the subject of some discussion in family justice circles. I need to make clear that its content has not been endorsed by the judiciary.

Any Questions?