Edited 17/02/2021
FUMING doesn't begin to describe how I feel!
mysti
December 3, 2017 07:23
We placed our middle ad into care in October following years of aggression and unable to meet her needs.currently she is under Section 20, but on Tusday we go to court and she will be placed in permanent Foster Care. I have today received the forms that have been submitted to court. We are battling currently over contact with our ad as we and her sisters want to see her over Christmas, as does she. However the forms that have been completed by the Social Worker have portrayed as as unfit parents. We are physically and emotionally abusive towards her, we have excluded her and not been accepting of her hence she has never found her place in our family alongside her siblings.She was placed under section 20 as her safety was a concern to my husband.none of this is true! we have spent 9 long years of suffering with her where she has dealt out verbal and physical abuse to us and her sisters. The evaluation they have made is untrue and not accurate, it is a distortion of the facts.Apparently we refer to our other children as mummy/daddy's girls, but we have not 'claimed' her!Rubbish, as we have always been careful not to use such words with any of them as they each get so jealous of the other one. No where, apart from one tiny paragraph, does it mention the difficulties we have faced with her aggression and violence and relentless need to be the one who gets all the attention. And the suffering we have all experienced as a result, the stress that has sent me into therapy, given me panic attacks and put me on anti-depressants.And the bit that does mention that we have struggled, they turned it around on us, blaming us for lack of support. We have a meeting with our solicitors on Monday, but we now feel like we should just give up and let her come home as we cannot face being wrongly accused. It does feel like they are doing this to strengthen their argument about the need for contact workers to be present during each contact, and the fact that do not have any over the festive period.we have been let down by the system since the beginning of our journey and it continues.Has this happend with anyone else?
pluto
December 3, 2017 09:07
I have the impression from reading someone elses post on another forum that S20 is no longer allowed to be used long term and that it needs to be changed to one or other permanent order. It is so quick the change of order, that's strange. Talk to your solicitor what strategically the best move is. If you have any fight left in you see or you can sue them.
Edited 17/02/2021
Bop
December 3, 2017 09:28
I believe that the English legal system does not allow for a "no blame" option - it has to blame the parents for the child to be accommodated and as pluto says there had been a change of policy recently that s20 can no longer be used for longer term care. There was a petition posted on here recently asking for this to be changed. We're in Scotland and here there is at least the option of "Outwith parental control" which is less blaming (although SW still like to blame the parents...!)
Edited 17/02/2021
Johanna
December 3, 2017 09:36
Hugs coming your way. There is not the wording/expertise/ tick boxes in the system that allow for loving parents to use Section 20. We had it written that we had no boundaries and did not give boundaries to our littly. This becomes the reason for being in Section 20 ( there has to be a reason that fits with the tick boxes). However when in the Care System the sws were falling over themselves getting an EHCP and tailored packages for both education and fostering as it is now agreed that she has non compliance in the extreme, most probably Pathological Demand Avoidance. Unless there is a return to family within weeks then the Review of Arrangements states that a permanent foster placement meets the child's needs. Again this is tick box bureaucracy. Our girl is now said to be in Shared Care ....once she was not with us, it was the only place she wanted to be. I have been able to take her on holidays. It was written that after giving birth this year she spent at least 10 says back with us. It was nearly 3 weeks but she did have birth complications. She is not a tick box young person, nor are we. We have SGO rather than Adoption. If we did not keep PR then birth mother would have to be involved and she is a negative person in Littly 's life. You know what You are and how You have given the best of yourself. Please do not let tick boxes distress you. You have shared PR and this can only be removed if the Court grants a full care order and even then you should be consulted on important decisions. I recently involved the Children's Rights Officer in aspects of her care regarding sws attitude to the time spent with us as there are monetary implications which bureaucracy did not like. Take a deep breath , curse the tick box mentality and become part of the movement for change in attitude and language. You can always make a report of your own and ask for it to be kept on file as there are assumptions made which you strongly disagree with. Also take advice from the Potato Group. Johanna x You can make it work.
Edited 17/02/2021
mysti
December 3, 2017 09:53
The change of order is due to the fact that she was placed under section 20 last year.we felt pressured into her returning home, but all the problems are still there, we had to make the agonising decision that she needed to be away from her siblings and somewhere where she could thrive without the reminders of her birth family.
Edited 17/02/2021
pingu123
December 3, 2017 17:51
It really surprises me that nothing has been done about this. It must have snared lots of non adopters as well e.g. Parents who get ill for instance, and their kids have to go into care. See Important adoption petition in Adopters forum page ( at the moment it's about two third of the way down the page, could it be pinned ? ) if we all sign it and ask auk to raise it, as it seems a highly important issue to a lot of people. We need a no blame designation for entering care. Folks should also speak to their mp.
Edited 17/02/2021
rhubarbfool
December 3, 2017 18:47
I'm a social worker and unfortunately over the past couple of years there have been several court decisions around s20 which have led to it being seen as short term only and if LAs do not down the care proceedings route in a reasonable time this has been seen as denying young people the opportunity for their case to be considered by the courts. In one case a young person was awarded £40, 000, even though her parents were in agreement with her being looked after. It is also fair to say that LAs have misused s20 eg 'persuading' parents to agree to s 20 when there were grounds to start proceedings and then letting cases drift. Here is an article giving some background information http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed151539 But as Pingu says this then leads to parents who need their children to be looked after because of parental illness, adoption breakdown or a child's disability requiring full time specialist care being faced with adversarial legal proceedings as s31 Children Act says A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfiedâ (a)that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and (b)that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable toâ (i)the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii)the childâs being beyond parental control. There is no 'no blame' option for asking for a care order, and without one legal proceedings are likely to lead to a very difficult relationship between parents and social workers- just when we need to be working together Parents don't have to agree with the statement/analysis submitted by the social worker. I wonder if it is possible to argue that the significant harm was caused by pre adoption experiences resulting in long term emotional damage and cannot be overcome within the current family?
Edited 17/02/2021
Raven2
December 22, 2017 08:12
Hi Mysti. I'm so sorry to read of the troubled times you are going through. Sadly your story is remarkably similar to our own. We adopted 8 years ago & have suffered 8 years of physical & verbal abuse from our AD, with our BD being specifically targeted & repeatedly harmed & threatened. You can probably find my previous posts ' end of the road..Considering section 20' & 'update - considering section 20' Our AD is at present still with us, but the plan is for a placement to be found for her early in the new year. We had a visit yesterday from L.A. team who asked us how we would like to proceed. Did we want section 20, with a view to lur AD returning home or was tjis the end of the road & did we wamt them to apply to the courts for shared care. We had previously requested section 20, but hadn't realised there had been changes which meant that section 20 couldn't be used for long term/ permanent placements. If I'm honest, we are petrified of the shared care option. I understand very little about it so perhaps you would be kind enough to share your knowledge of how it works. We still want to see our daughter, we want regular contact & in the future to perhaps have the option of overnight stays at home with us & short breaks away to visit grandparents & extended family. I'm scared shared care would mean we would lose the right to this?? Xx
Edited 17/02/2021
Pear Tree
December 22, 2017 08:45
Just to say, these lies by ss are due for correcting. Glad solicitor is involved. Think that sometimes thereâs an order in court given that your dd can be made a ward of court. The s20 isnât ideal but the ward of court thing is better as the ss are under scrutiny of the court. With s20 they are not. Our AD was s20 for 6 years so itâs not true that it isnât used long term although itâs not ideal Raven2 s20 is not shared care It is where you hold FULL parental rights Itâs just sometimes ss need reminding of that fact
Edited 17/02/2021
Raven2
December 22, 2017 11:18
Thanks. Yes.. that's why we originally requested section 20. We wanted to retain full parental rights. I understood that there were some recent legal changes where section 20 was no longer used for longer term placement arramgements. This was also mentioned on a post by Mysti. Who is in a similar situation. We were offered shared care as an alternative. It's all so confusing!!!
Edited 17/02/2021
Madrid
December 22, 2017 23:57
Do not allow these people to blame you for damage that was done to your child before she came to you. The fact that sheâs incapable of living within a close loving family is not your fault. Donât throw in the towel. Do involve a solicitor. Fight this with all your strength. S20 means you have full parental responsibility. It is NOT shared care. Be aware that SWs will not be in the business of helping you to maintain any family connections with your daughter. We were treated extremely badly by so called âprofessionals â.
Edited 17/02/2021
Archived
This topic is archived. New posts are not allowed.
