Every 6 months in the UK a child in the looked after system is subject to whats called a statutory review.
This is a get together where an independent social worker gets to look over the case and make sure that everything that needs to be done is being done. Good idea but in practice the reviewing officers are paid by the local authority and to describe them as properly independent requires a suspension of disbelief.
On top of that the one we currently have was allegedly removed from Intake and Assessment as a damage limitation exercise.
The student, that is the one who worked with little D was there as was D's SW and seconds after I had a full on rant about leaving care needing to begin to engage with little D in wandered one of their managers.
The highlight of the day for little D was when the RO asked him how school was going and he replied "OK". Quick as a flash I said no it was not at all OK, that D had come home with a report that when I first read it I thought he had paid someone to forge it!! I said his educational attainments of the last few months had been outstanding. He was well on course to get some quite reasonable grades at GCSE, all he needed to do was get his head down and go for it.
Then of course things went in another direction as mum laid in about him spending weekends with her at home, something the department has resisted with some force and for good reasons too.
I sat there and watched in awe as someone I remember from training courses not long after she qualified. Back then she was young impressionable and a little bit unsure of herself. Today mum started and the reviewing officer was looking round in rabbit in the headlights mode. Quietly and with conviction she challenged what mum said, backing herself up with things from the case file. I was really impressed.
Mum was not going to have her own way so she walked out.
Meeting over and I gave his sister a lift back to West Wales, she had been seduced by the promises from mum then found when she got home the life she was offered was not the one she had been promised or the one she wanted. Leaving care (was there ever a better named team) had supported her moving to Daycastle but would not support her moving to West Wales where she feels she fits in. So she had sorted somewhere to live for herself. Living with a friend whose mother is a social worker, so the team cannot really argue it's not suitable.
It's all a real mess though and somehow this young person must cut her own path.
The reviewing officer is going to try and sort things though, she has had a conversation with little D and thinks he should spend weekends at home. When I asked if she had established whether he said that because he wanted that or because his mum told him to say it, (there is lots of evidence of him saying what he is told not what he wants) she was a bit lost; obviously a question that was way too hard. He has a huge loyalty to his mum and good on him for that. This does not always deliver what he really wants for himself or what is best for him of course.
It's a big ethical dilemma does his right to self determination over ride his need to be protected?
Have we done our job? Have we done all we can to equip him for his world?
He has some of the tools of judgement is it time he was trusted to use them?
R
This is a get together where an independent social worker gets to look over the case and make sure that everything that needs to be done is being done. Good idea but in practice the reviewing officers are paid by the local authority and to describe them as properly independent requires a suspension of disbelief.
On top of that the one we currently have was allegedly removed from Intake and Assessment as a damage limitation exercise.
The student, that is the one who worked with little D was there as was D's SW and seconds after I had a full on rant about leaving care needing to begin to engage with little D in wandered one of their managers.
The highlight of the day for little D was when the RO asked him how school was going and he replied "OK". Quick as a flash I said no it was not at all OK, that D had come home with a report that when I first read it I thought he had paid someone to forge it!! I said his educational attainments of the last few months had been outstanding. He was well on course to get some quite reasonable grades at GCSE, all he needed to do was get his head down and go for it.
Then of course things went in another direction as mum laid in about him spending weekends with her at home, something the department has resisted with some force and for good reasons too.
I sat there and watched in awe as someone I remember from training courses not long after she qualified. Back then she was young impressionable and a little bit unsure of herself. Today mum started and the reviewing officer was looking round in rabbit in the headlights mode. Quietly and with conviction she challenged what mum said, backing herself up with things from the case file. I was really impressed.
Mum was not going to have her own way so she walked out.
Meeting over and I gave his sister a lift back to West Wales, she had been seduced by the promises from mum then found when she got home the life she was offered was not the one she had been promised or the one she wanted. Leaving care (was there ever a better named team) had supported her moving to Daycastle but would not support her moving to West Wales where she feels she fits in. So she had sorted somewhere to live for herself. Living with a friend whose mother is a social worker, so the team cannot really argue it's not suitable.
It's all a real mess though and somehow this young person must cut her own path.
The reviewing officer is going to try and sort things though, she has had a conversation with little D and thinks he should spend weekends at home. When I asked if she had established whether he said that because he wanted that or because his mum told him to say it, (there is lots of evidence of him saying what he is told not what he wants) she was a bit lost; obviously a question that was way too hard. He has a huge loyalty to his mum and good on him for that. This does not always deliver what he really wants for himself or what is best for him of course.
It's a big ethical dilemma does his right to self determination over ride his need to be protected?
Have we done our job? Have we done all we can to equip him for his world?
He has some of the tools of judgement is it time he was trusted to use them?
R
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment