Effect of early trauma on parenting skills - 9/19/2011 - Community Care

Effect of early trauma on parenting skills - 9/19/2011 - Community Care

Early-life traumatic experiences can affect a parent's ability to cope if proper closure is not reached. Gordon Carson explores this often overlooked issue

A deep-seated loss or trauma suffered by a parent or child that is unresolved can have specific implications - and present particular challenges - for social workers and the families they support.

David Shemmings, a specialist in attachment theories and professor of social work at the University of Kent, says parenting problems, such as neglect and child abuse, can occur when losses or trauma experienced by parents have not been resolved.

"'Unresolved' here has a very precise meaning," says Shemmings, who is also director of the Assessment of Disorganised Attachment and Maltreatment (Adam) project in London. "For example, it doesn't mean that the person cries at the thought of their loss. The term indicates post-traumatic stress disorder and/or dissociation."

Jim Walker, an independent social worker and psychotherapist, says in a Community Care Inform guide to unresolved loss and trauma that a traumatic childhood in itself "is not predictive of maltreatment of children. What is predictive is if the adult has not been able to come to terms with their traumatic experiences".

The guide says a common reaction to unresolved trauma is parental dissociation, with parents "likely to neglect the emotional needs of their children and/or have difficulty in assessing risk in their partners".

Walker adds: "There is also a strong correlation between unresolved loss and trauma and disorganised attachment in children. 'Unresolved' parents tend to have children whose behaviour is disorganised."

Social workers need to be in a position to judge if they suspect unresolved loss or trauma is a factor in parenting problems?

One way of identifying whether a person is harbouring an unresolved loss or trauma is the adult attachment interview, in which open-ended questions are asked about childhood relationships and experiences.

Meanwhile, Shemmings' Adam project has developed a Maltreatment Pathway Model which identifies three key predicators of maltreatment from parental behaviour, one of which is unresolved loss and trauma.

Unresolved loss

This model formed part of a training course he delivered to Croydon Council social workers in south London this year.

The course also highlighted the relevance of unresolved loss to the wider children's services sector, particularly those working with young people who may have experienced severely traumatic events in their home countries before travelling to the UK.

Katherine MacLeod, a social worker in Croydon's unaccompanied minors team, attended the course. MacLeod, who has just completed her first 18 months of practice after joining Croydon when she qualified, says the Adam training has "given me the tools to identify unresolved loss".

She says the issue of unresolved loss and trauma might be explored as part of core assessments of unaccompanied young people.

Shemmings says that talking with an "empathetic, non-judgemental listener goes an awful long way to helping" people showing signs of unresolved loss or trauma if they aren't also mentally ill.

"Certainly the evidence from event-based tragedies, such as Hillsborough, the Zeebrugge ferry disaster and the Bradford football stadium fire, is that survivors needed to talk and that helps enormously," he says. "But they need to be given the time to do it, and often they need to go over the same ground again and again. The worker can't rush this process."

Shemmings says it can be more difficult to help people if the loss or trauma occurred when they were very young, and if the trauma is "relationally based", such as child abuse or rape, rather than based on an event such as a car accident.

"The most important thing to emphasise is that practitioners need training in this field of work," he adds, "as people experiencing unresolved loss can start to 'relive' aspects of the trauma in the room with the worker.

"It is sights, sounds and smells that (unconsciously) remind a person of the trauma, but they are usually unaware of the connection.

"This is why, if there has been early loss and trauma which is unresolved, the presence of a baby or toddler can 'activate' the original loss, because the infant's vulnerability reminds the adult of their own."

Walker, in an interview for this article, says social workers "must be prepared to explore in depth any unresolved loss or trauma".

"It takes some courage to do it. You have to ask questions in detail and try to find ways to help people to talk. People can be frightened and anxious about talking about it.

"They might not volunteer information and it may only emerge over time if they feel social workers are trustworthy and resilient enough to take it on board."

Sample questions, says Walker, could be to ask parents to recall three happy and three sad memories from their childhood, or the most frightening thing that happened to them as a child.

"If you keep coming back to questions like that, people may give up more and more information," he adds. "But if you just ask them blandly once, you are not going to get the whole picture. You have to be prepared to keep plugging away. You also have to be sensitive and not just go barging in."

To illustrate his point, Walker cites a child protection assessment he was carrying out, and it was only at the end of the final session with a parent that she revealed she had been abused by her grandfather.

There will be cases, however, that require more in-depth expertise in dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, and psychotherapy could be appropriate.

Behavioural therapy

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) also recommends trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy or eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing as possible treatments.

Walker believes that, though understanding trauma and loss has been given greater priority in the past 20-30 years, particularly in relation to neuroscience and the functioning of the brain, there is still more that could be done to map its impact on child protection.

"I would think that in the majority of child protection cases where I'm assessing parents, there's a significant element of unresolved loss and trauma," he says. "The area of addictions and trauma is important too; for a lot of people who abuse substances it's about self-medication against emotional distress. My guess is that unresolved loss and trauma would be a major factor in the addictions field too."

How loss and trauma can be resolved

In a new book on understanding disorganised attachment, David and Yvonne Shemmings, a continuing professional development specialist, say resolving trauma, without help from a trained counsellor or therapist, depends on four factors:

● The severity of the event and circumstances surrounding it.

● Whether a close, intimate person to the victim is involved in the trauma as a "persecutor".

● The person's circumstances, especially their close relationships at the time.

● The level of security within the person's attachment history.

"The second two factors act as buffers against the first two," they write. "If we have a relatively secure childhood and the 'state' of our current relationships and circumstances feel solid and supportive, then we are likely to survive emotionally almost any loss or trauma."

• Understanding Disorganized Attachment: Theory and Practice for Working with Children and Adults, David Shemmings and Yvonne Shemmings, 2011, Jessica Kingsley Publishers,

More information

• Jim Walker

• Professor David Shemmings

• Assessment of Disorganised Attachment and Maltreatment (ADAM) project

• Guidelines on post traumatic stress disorder

What do you think? Join the debate on CareSpace

Keep up to date with the latest developments in social care Sign up to our daily and weekly emails

Related articles

Indicators of disorganised attachment in children

Interviewing children: good practice in Sweden

Inform subscribers

Guide to unresolved trauma in parents and its implications in terms of child protection

Author: Jim Walker, psychotherapist and independent social worker BIOG

Publication Date: 08 January 2008

Published in Community Care magazine 22 September 2011 under heading 'Traumatic consequences'

INVASION OF THE BABY SNATCHERS | Sovereign Independent

INVASION OF THE BABY SNATCHERS | Sovereign Independent

Chris Spivey, Sovereign Independent contributor -

Not so many years ago in cases where children were taken from their parents by the social services the general consensus amongst the public was that there had to be a good reason. Not so any more. Many parents in the UK are now so afraid of the social services that they think twice about taking their children to casualty should the need arise. It’s certainly not unfair to say that the fear, mistrust and suspicion afforded to the social services by some, is akin to that afforded to Adolf Hitler’s S.S.

Quite appropriate then that both share the same initials. Then again, the Nazi SS was extremely well organised and efficient. The same cannot be said for Britain’s SS.

We are led to believe that the SS are here to protect our children from cruelty and neglect. Any decision made by the SS is supposed to be in the best interest of the child. That would be commendable were it true? For what we are seeing now is an organised program of child stealing in order to meet the adoption targets set up under the Blair Government. There are huge financial incentives offered by the Government to ensure their targets are met. Under performing leads to job losses and reduced budgets. It is therefore not an option. This is why Social Workers seek out easy targets. Invariably these tend to be Young single mothers lacking in family support, poorly educated mothers on benefit and children with injuries, which are often no more than minor bruises etc.

Rarely are these children snatched from middle class families leading to the more affluent members of society having the view that there’s no smoke without fire. This inevitably leads to the SS being defended, even justified in being over cautious when cases such as Baby P explode in the media. However in cases such as Baby P and Victoria Climbie, the lack of intervention from social workers is to blame. This lack of intervention stems from the social workers often being intimidated and subject to abuse by the parents of the children they are investigating. Quite often the social worker is even denied entry into the home to check on the child’s well being. Social workers, despite what people are led to believe, have very little authority. Because of this, cases such as Baby P are neglected in favour of easier targets. It is this lack of knowledge on what social workers can and cannot do that leads to a lot of parents losing their children. Aware of the public’s ignorance, a social worker will resort to bullying, duping and scaring parents into signing over their children.

The 1989 Children’s Act meant a veil of secrecy was thrown around court proceedings involving children. These are another reason so few people from the middle classes and upwards know what is really going on. This secrecy and wall of silence imposed around child welfare was supposed to have been put in place to protect the child. However, far from doing so it has allowed the SS to act in a corrupt and totally unprofessional manner. The child’s welfare and wishes are secondary to performance targets. Reporting restrictions on court proceedings mean children are removed from loving and perfectly capable parents on the flimsiest of evidence. The SS can get away with this safe in the knowledge there will be no public outcry. Neither do parents have any recourse because just discussing their case with anyone other than their legal advisers can result in a prison sentence.

More often than not, it will be a parent’s legal team’s incompetence that will lead to them losing their child/children. Invariably the vast majority of child order cases see the parents being represented by legal aid solicitors. Far be it for me to suggest that the outcome of a case is decided before hand or that the SS and Law Society are acting in complicity. However Parliamentary figures show that child care orders average around 8000 a year. Of these only between 0.1 and 0.2 percent are refused.

Ian Joseph, a Monaco based businessman was so alarmed about what goes on in our law courts that he set up a website specifically to help parents who have had their children snatched by the state. The first thing he tells parents who are receiving legal aid is that if they want their children back they have to get rid of their solicitor and represent themselves.

Another outspoken critic and long time opponent of the way family court proceedings are conducted is John Hemming MP. However unless you live in his Birmingham Yardley constituency he can only offer advice to those who don’t. Both Ian Joseph and John Hemming are genuine, good men. Unfortunately, such is the scale of the problem both are limited on what they can do. John Hemming, knowing the likely outcome of court proceedings will often tell parents to be who are in danger of having their unborn child snatched, to flee the UK for either Southern Ireland or Sweden. The fact many couples follow his advice only add credence to their innocence. But does this major, life changing step mean you get to keep your unborn child?

I know of one such couple who John Hemming helped relocate to County Wexford in Southern Ireland. They cannot be identified by their real names so i will call them Steve and Emma. This is their story….

Emma, now aged 30 was living alone with her daughter (Child A) in Kent when she Met Steve now aged 37. The couple were both delighted when Emma found out she was pregnant with Steve’s baby (Child B).However Emma was ill throughout the pregnancy with Pre-Eclampsia and with Steve out at work, the couple had no choice except to get a babysitter to look after Child A. It was at this time that Child A was found to have a vaginal injury. To their horror, Steve was accused by the SS of being responsible, despite there being no evidence to support this claim. Child A, a month short of being 2 years old was then forcibly taken into care. Worse was to follow when Emma gave birth to Child B on Christmas eve. Barely 5 hours after giving birth, Child B was taken from Emma and handed over to foster parents. Despite no charges being brought against Steve for the injury to Child A, the couple were unable to stop the children being adopted out. When Emma fell pregnant with Child C, she was immediately told by the SS that the baby would be taken into care once Emma had given birth. In desperation the couple contacted John Hemming, who advised them to go to the Republic of Ireland. He told them that even if the Irish SS got involved, the couple would at least receive a much fairer hearing. Arriving in County Wexford on the 1st of June 2009, Emma gave birth just 3 days later. With no Medical records available, The Hospital had no choice but to contact England. In doing so the hospital was made aware of Emma’s previous history. With limited information to hand Irish social services had no choice except to take Child C into care pending reports. On contacting the English SS the Irish SS were told that under no circumstances should Child C be returned to the couple. This despite there being no evidence or criminal proceedings to suggest either Steve or Emma was a danger to the Baby. Thus began the long drawn out legal procedure of preparing reports for a court hearing. Despite this the couple were allowed to see Child C twice weekly at a contact house. During this period, everything seemed to be engineered towards gearing up for Child C being returned to Steve and Emma’s custody. Things were looking so good in fact that the couple were not worried when Emma fell pregnant again. However concerned at the speed things were moving, the couples Solicitor tried to speed proceedings up by asking for a review of the evidence regarding the injury to Child A. This review brought to light the facts that Child A had only been subject to one injury(inconsistent with parental abuse) and neither had she been ‘Groomed’ as had been previously suggested by English social workers. More importantly, the review revealed that the babysitter Emma had used, although a registered child minder who had been working with disabled children, was under investigation for abuse. Emma was also becoming increasingly concerned about the level of care offered to Child C by her Foster carer. Emma voiced these concerns to social workers, which included the complaints that Child C often had head lice, sore looking rashes and the fact that Child C called her Foster carer Mummy. As far as Emma is aware these concerns were never addressed.

When Emma gave birth to her 4th child (Child D) the couple were devastated to learn he was to be removed from their care. However the couple were able to secure a temporary court injunction forbidding social workers from snatching Child D. During the 6 days the injunction was in place Emma says she was made to feel like a criminal. She was kept apart from the other new mothers and supervised while she breast fed and changed the baby’s nappy. When the injunction was lifted, Child D was placed in foster care with his sister. Steve and Emma now get to see him twice weekly along with Child C. They had been categorically told that the SS plan was for reunification. However at a court hearing in April of this year, the couple were horrified to learn that despite what they were told about reunification, the SS intend to keep both children in permanent foster care. Not only does this course of action contradict what they were told by social workers, no one had bothered to discuss it with them and neither has it been discussed with them since. Steve and Emma are now left in limbo. Despite the agony of having their 4 children taken off of them they have stayed together as a couple, whereas most relationships would have collapsed under the strain years ago. Childs A and B were removed on the flimsiest of evidence and quickly adopted out effectively making it impossible to get them back. The fact that they gave up their home, family and friends in order to flee to Ireland, for the sole reason of keeping their unborn baby apparently counts for nothing. The couple were only too well aware that should their Irish children be returned to them, they would be forever under the scrutiny of the social services. That fact alone would be enough to ensure that Steve and Emma were nothing short of perfect parents. Unfortunately, without the financial backing, it’s hard now to see where the couple go from here.

So, is there anything that couples in a similar position to Steve and Emma can do? To answer that you have to understand that Steve and Emma put their faith in the British legal system. When that let them down they followed the well intention advice of John Hemming. They then put their faith in the Republic of Ireland’s legal system and that too has let them down. Therefore, in theory the answer is no. In reality however there is but you have to take command of the situation from the start. You cannot afford to show any weakness in your resolve. To do so will result in you being bullied into submission. Firstly, never trust a social worker. I’m not saying they are all bad, but by far the vast majority are. Do not be fooled by their friendly approach this is quite often a trick. Remember they have no authority to do anything without a court order. Film and/or record everything. They will tell you you’re not allowed to but you are allowed to film who and what the hell you like in your own home. Be polite but not friendly. Offer no other information than what they ask for. If they try to get you to sign consent forms to take your child tell them to do one until they have a court order. Check that you are dealing with a fully qualified Social worker who is registered with your social service department. You can tell them to leave at any time. If they do feel they have a strong case against you then the chances are they will return with a court order. This being the case there is nothing you can do to prevent your child being taken. However as the statistics have shown, you’re wasting your time employing a solicitor. You must represent yourself in court. No one will fight harder or argue more passionately for the return of your child than you will.

If your child is unborn and you’ve been told your baby will be removed from you at birth, there is little you can do at that time to prevent it. However you will soon be told that you have to register your baby for a birth certificate. Flatly refuse. No one except the parents can register a baby’s birth. If they could, the SS would do it rather than subject an already heartbroken parent to more mental torture. Refuse to Do this because there is emerging evidence to show that an unregistered child cannot be snatched by the state. No doubts you will be threatened with all kinds of things including prison but stand your ground. No charges will be brought against you if you do not consent. It does pay however to be clued up on the workings of Admiralty law before you adopt this course of action. Without a birth certificate the SS have no choice but to return your baby. The most conclusive evidence to support this followed a request submitted to Torbay Council under the freedom of information act. The request was in the form of a question asking that, if a child is not registered at birth, do they have the authority to remove the child. Torbay Councils answer? No they don’t. However, you should be aware that having no birth certificate could present problems for your child later on in life. Never the less, these problems which are mostly financial can be overcome and are secondary to keeping a loving family together.

Post by Michelle Anthony from Google Reader - ‘Investigator’ jailed for report as court contempt…

Post by Michelle Anthony from Google Reader - ‘Investigator’ jailed for report as court contempt…

The Political Diagnosis: Psychiatry in the Service of the Law:

The Political Diagnosis: Psychiatry in the Service of the Law

By James L. Knoll IV, MD | 13 May 2010

Dr Knoll is director of forensic psychiatry, associate professor of psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, and director of the Forensic Fellowship Program, Central New York Psychiatric Center, Marcy. Dr Knoll reports that he has no conflicts of interest in the subject matter of this article.

---

Perhaps one of the positive things to come out of the Kansas v Hendricks wave of sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment laws during the past decade is that our knowledge base on sex offenders has grown tremendously. Much of the research of value in this area has focused on better delineating characteristics of this heterogeneous group of offenders.¹ Our experience with sex offender treatment has also gained ground.^2,3

I begin this article with a silver lining, and bypass the dark cumulus clouds that have been gathering since the US Supreme Court issued the Hendricks ruling in 1997. Presently, there are significant limitations in the field, and the ones causing most of my apprehension lie in the area of sex offender risk assessment and SVP commitment hearings. But the most troubling matter of all has been how these laws have intermingled psychiatric science with public policy.

Sex, violence, and politics

The cause of my apprehension is what the late Michael Crichton referred to as bad science “tricked out” for public policy ends.⁴ To date, there are no rigorous scientifically established means of detecting high-risk sexual re-offending, or of determining whether an individual is a “sexually violent predator.”⁵ Although a variety of instruments have been developed (psychopathy checklist–revised [PCL-R], Static-99, phallometry, Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool, and so on), these tests are often challenged in court as not meeting admissibility standards (ie, Frye or Daubert legal standards for admitting expert evidence and testimony). So while the research database has grown, the question remains: is it reliable enough to be proffered as expert testimony? Approximately 10 years ago, a nationally recognized expert in the area did not think so.6 Experts in the field continue to have serious reservations and express caution about the (mis)use of these actuarial instruments for expert testimony.^7-9

Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act

In March 2007, the state of New York enacted the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act.¹⁰ The new act, Mental Hygiene Law Article 10, is patterned after the sex offender commitment act in Kansas.¹¹ In New York, the jury must find by a unanimous verdict that the sex offender has the now infamous nonpsychiatric diagnosis of “mental abnormality.”¹² What exactly is a mental abnormality? The New York definition states that it is “a condition or disease that makes an individual behave in a way that causes the individual to commit a sex offense and causes that person to have serious difficulty in controlling that behavior.” Thus, embedded in its very definition is that mental abnormality “causes” the proscribed behavior.

So we see that mental abnormality is actually a somewhat tautologically defined legal term. But because forensic mental health professionals are the ones who are tasked with SVP evaluations, they have attempted to give this term meaning within their science. Have these attempts reached a consensus? It would appear that they have not. There continues to be substantial disagreement, for example, about whether antisocial personality disorder alone is a qualifying disorder for commitment under SVP laws.^13,14 In current SVP evaluations, qualifying disorders frequently end up being personality disorder or paraphilia disorders “not otherwise specified,” diagnoses that may be associated with questionable validity and reliability.^15,16 At the very least, this seems to raise concern about civil commitment based on some of the weaker links in psychiatric diagnosis. Furthermore, let us acknowledge the reality that SVP commitment is no ordinary civil commitment. The quid pro quo of liberty in exchange for treatment has been transmuted into indefinite confinement in exchange for treatment efforts.

Since Kansas v Hendricks, many individuals have been committed under SVP laws by the courts, yet the error rate for commitments is unknown.¹⁷ In the business of sex offender risk assessment, false-negative and false-positive errors carry serious consequences, such as miscarriage of justice, violation of individual liberty, stigmatization with the label “sexually violent predator,” or possibly endangering the public. Although the following is only 1 example, it illustrates the tragic circumstances of the very first offender to test New York’s new SVP law.

Junco and junk science

The first individual to test New York’s SVP law was a Mr Douglas P. Junco.¹⁸ Mr Junco had just finished a 15-year sentence for attempted first-degree rape and second-degree assault. For unknown reasons, Mr Junco chose to have a jury trial at his sex offender commitment hearing. Some have noted that juries in SVP commitment proceedings “typically vote to civilly commit, whereas judges tend to form opinions based on the merits of each individual case.”¹⁹ (For a different view on judicial deliberations, see “Blinking on the bench: how judges decide cases.”²⁰)

Despite his unpolished courtroom demeanor (he snickered and yawned throughout the victim impact statements), a 12-person jury found that he did not have a mental abnormality.²¹ Of interest was the observation that “conflicting testimony from mental health experts played a big part in the decision.”²² Jurors, perhaps concerned about the decision they had made, asked the judge to deliver Mr Junco a special admonition: “They wanted me to tell him not to throw away the opportunity they had given him.”²³ Soon after Mr Junco’s release, he traveled to Savannah, Ga, where he was required to register as a sex offender. Other than that, he had no other requirements or necessary supervision. Six months later, in February 2008, Mr Junco found himself facing new charges and a possible life sentence. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and incest, which allegedly involved an unidentified female in the Savannah area. At the time of this writing, Mr Junco was awaiting trial on the new sex offense charges.

This case seems to be a prime example of when “science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out.”⁴ Who can blame jurors for being confused when experts in the field have yet to clarify a legal construct that was “designed to satisfy legislation without any concern for diagnostic criteria that are currently acceptable within the confines of mental health practice”?²⁴ Science must stand on its own to remain meaningful. When science is mixed with public policy agendas, policy invariably dissolves science. The resulting cloudy solution obscures what can be discerned with certainty.

Policy versus psychiatry

When psychiatry—the medical specialty concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness²⁵—becomes co-opted by a political agenda, it creates an unhealthy alliance. For science-based fields, it is science that will always be the host organism to be taken over by political viruses. In the case of SVP laws, once psychiatry has been taken over by “public policy DNA,” the autonomous functioning, and thus the reliability, of the science is in jeopardy. Furthermore, psychiatry may come to resemble a new organism entirely—one that serves the ends of the criminal justice system.

As technology advances, there is the potential for a neoplastic growth of “risk assessment industries” that will cling to, and feed off, such political trends like scavenger fish on a great white shark. This will lead to more collected data, resulting in greater concern, which then justifies more risk assessment and commitment. Indeed, forensic mental health professionals now have a vested interest in this public policy agenda. It was reported that in California, forensic evaluators “billed the state for millions of dollars” in sex offender commitment evaluations, “with one psychologist bringing home $1.5 million. State officials defend the expense as necessary to defend public safety in the face of inadequate staffing.”²⁶ Note how the public policy emphasis has excluded any arguments about the scientific reliability of the methods, rendering them irrelevant. One trusts (and hopes) that in the United States, sex offenders will be the line at which public policy ceases to shape science. Yet this is not the first time psychiatric science has been drafted in such a manner, nor is the US alone in this tradition.

Dangerous and severe personality disorder

A recent article in Current Opinion in Psychiatry, “Assessment and Management of Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorders,” gave me a chance to further reflect on the phenomenon of political diagnoses.²⁷ Just as in Kansas v Hendricks, high-profile cases led the British government to adopt the term “dangerous and severe personality disorder” (DSPD) to protect the public from individuals who had committed serious crimes but in whom only a personality disorder could be diagnosed. Australia followed suit in the 1990s, after an episode of extreme violence was committed by Garry David. Preventive detention laws were directed, it could be said, at specific-named individuals to protect the public.²⁸

Unless you are already familiar with DSPD, you may be saying to yourself (preferably in a civilized British accent): “Right! What’s all this then about a dangerous, severe personality?” Well, the UK Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health have given us the proper definition. The diagnosis of DSPD can be made if “(1)(a) the patient is more likely than not to commit an offense that might be expected to lead to serious physical or psychological harm; (b) the patient has a severe disorder of personality; (c) there is a link between the disorder and the risk of offending; (2) severity of the disorder is defined as having (a) a PCL-R score of more than 30; (b) a PCL-R score of 25 to 29 with at least 1 DSM-IV personality diagnosis other than antisocial personality disorder; or (c) 2 or more DSM-IV personality disorder diagnoses.”

As you might guess, “there is no agreement in the scientific literature on how to identify those with severe personality disorders.”²⁷ Equally predictable is the conclusion that “evidence for the effectiveness of any intervention for dangerous and severe personality disorders is limited.”²⁷ Of course, despite this limitation, individuals who have been adjudicated as having DSPD can be detained for potentially indefinite periods of time for “treatment” in a secure forensic hospital. If you are developing a strong feeling of déjà vu at this point, do not be alarmed. The similarities between the DSPD commitment programs of the United Kingdom and the SVP commitment laws of the United States are striking and are listed in Table 1.

Taking these relatively recent “political diagnosis” commitment acts into consideration, it is not difficult to delineate the historical trend in the criminal justice system during the past 50 or so years. That trend can be summarized as: rehabilitation gave way to retribution, which is now giving way to preventive detention—albeit after full retribution has been achieved. In our current preventive detention stage, one may be inclined to wonder about the reliability of the evaluative instruments and/or tools we currently use to justify such commitments. Given the seriousness of the consequences—indefinite detention—this curiosity does not seem misplaced. The PCL-R, the purported gold standard of tools being used in court hearings, is the subject of debate, revision, and controversy.^29-32

Experts in the field have noted the ease with which PCL-R scores may be “presented in court” in a manner “biased toward the side that called the examiner to testify.”^33(p178) While the PCL-R has found support for its ability to assist in assessing risk of violence and/or criminal behavior in the community, it is also used in ways that are not scientifically supported. Myths and scientifically unsupport-ed uses of the PCL-R are listed in Table 2.³

To be clear, the PCL-R is a well-researched tool, which has spawned innumerable scholarly articles. It is certainly a well-respected instrument and, if used correctly in an objective manner, may be helpful in a forensic and correctional treatment setting. But this is quite different from using it to proffer expert witness opinions in court, where methods must be reliable and data run the risk of being biased.

Conclusions: science and social control

Given the distinct similarities between the SVP laws of the United States and the DSPD laws of the United Kingdom, is it too outrageous to speculate that a psychopathy, or DSPD-equivalent, commitment law might be on the distant horizon in the United States? While this is too hard to predict, it is not at all inconceivable. Remember, the driving force behind such initiatives is usually only 1 highly publicized, egregious offense away. The question will then be, Can American psychiatry embrace yet another political diagnosis at the behest of the criminal justice system? We have the technology. We have the “tricked out” science. We most certainly have the greed. Once bending psychiatric science into a shape that fits public policy becomes acceptable, one more twist or bend in the name of “social control of perceived dangerousness” becomes effortless, and even commendable.

CAFCASS: The Law About Children - CARE

Care: The Starting Point

When a local authority makes an application for an order to safeguard the welfare of a child the cases are usually referred to as public law cases. There are a number of different orders that a local authority can apply for but the most common are care orders, supervision orders, emergency protection orders and secure accommodation orders.

In these proceedings, the child is automatically a party and is represented by a Children's Guardian appointed by Cafcass. The Children's Guardian is an independent person who is there to promote the child's welfare and ensure that the arrangements made for the child are in his or her best interests. The guardian appoints a solicitor to act for the child. Occasionally the child and guardian will not agree on what is in the child's interests and if the solicitor decides that the child is of sufficient age and understanding they will be able to instruct the solicitor.

Public funding (legal aid) is usually available for the parents to be represented in these proceedings.

The Welfare Checklist - section 1 Children Act 1989

When a court is considering making any of these orders it must have regard in particular to:

a) The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of his age and understanding);
b) His physical, emotional and / or educational needs;
c) The likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
d) His age, sex, background and any characteristics of his, which the court considers relevant;
e) Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
f) How capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
g) The range of powers available to the court under the Children Act 1989 in the proceedings in question.

For all proceedings under the Children Act 1989 when the court considers a question of the child's upbringing the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.

Emergency Protection Orders (EPO) - Section 44 Children Act 1989

These orders are obtained from the court to ensure the short term safety of a child. Any person can make an application including a local authority or other authorised body. The court will only make the order if they are satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if:

1) he is not removed to accommodation provided by the local authority or
2) he does not remain in the place where he is currently being accommodated e.g. in hospital.

A local authority has to show that their enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 are being frustrated and access to the child is required urgently. An authorised person, which includes an officer of the NSPCC, will have to show the same urgency in a situation where their enquiries are being frustrated.

In exceptional circumstances a local authority can apply for an EPO without notice to the parents.

In circumstances where the applicant believes that the child will be safe in the interim period, an application for an EPO will be made on notice to the parents. This gives them an opportunity to come to the court and advise the court of their views and plans to safeguard the child. When the court makes an EPO, the court can also make an exclusion requirement under s44 A where:

a) there is reasonable cause to believe that if a person is excluded from the home, the child will cease to suffer or cease to be likely to suffer significant harm and
b) another person living in the home is able and willing to give the child the care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him and consents to the exclusion.

The exclusion order may require a person to leave the home where he is living with the child, prevent him from entering the home or exclude him from a defined area. A power of arrest may be added to the order.

An emergency protection order is only a short order granted for up to a maximum of 8 days but can be extended for a further seven days. The order grants the applicant parental responsibility but only permits him to take such action as is reasonably required to safeguard the welfare of the child.

The court can give directions it considers appropriate with respect to the contact the child is to have with any named person or any medical or psychiatric examination or assessment of the child under S44 (6). If the child is of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision he may refuse to submit to the examination or other assessments.

Care Orders - section 31 Children Act 1989

These orders are usually sought by a local authority (although the NSPCC can bring proceedings it is extremely rare for them to do so) in respect of children who they believe are suffering or are likely to suffer significant harm and:

a) the harm is attributable to the care being given to the child not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him or
b) that the child is beyond parental control.

No care or supervision order may be made with respect to a child who has reached the age of 17 (or 16 if the child is married).

Care orders continue until the child is 18 years, unless discharged earlier. Once a local authority has made an application for a care order the court can make a series of interim orders under s38 which gives the local authority parental responsibility and the power to remove the child from home. Further investigations and assessments are carried out before any final orders are made by the court.

While a care order is in force with respect to a child, the local authority designated by the order shall:

a) have parental responsibility for the child;
b) have the power to determine the extent to which a parent or guardian of the child may meet his parental responsibility for him.

The local authority can make decisions as to where the child will live and with whom, and how the child will have contact with named people.

There is a positive duty on the local authority to allow reasonable contact between a child in care and their parents. What is reasonable is sometimes in dispute and in those circumstances, the court can be asked to make specific directions about how and when contact should occur.

If the local authority want to suspend or stop contact for a period longer than seven days they need to obtain a court order to do so. If there is a dispute between the local authority and parents about contact, either party can seek a court order to define contact. If the local authority believe that there should be no contact between the child and his parent / guardian the court can make an order authorising the local authority to refuse to allow any contact.

Sometimes children who are the subject of care orders will remain at home being cared for by their parents, however it is more usual for children who are the subject of care orders to live with foster carers or in residential establishments.

Although the local authority has parental responsibility there are some decisions which require everyone with parental responsibility to agree including:

1) agreeing for the child to be adopted;
2) causing the child to be brought up in any religious persuasion other than that which they would have been brought up if the care order had not been made;
3) allowing the child to live outside the UK for more than 28 days

If agreement cannot be reached then the court can make an order.

Where the plans for the child are for adoption or to live outside England or Wales, further court orders specifically permitting this are required. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 and supporting regulations require local authorities to give early consideration to applying for a placement order or obtaining the consent of birth parents to placement.

Children who are the subject of care orders are the subject of regular reviews by the local authority. Each child will have an individual care plan that sets out how all their needs will be met. These reviews will consider amongst other things the arrangements for contact with the family and others, as well as the child's health and educational needs. All local authorities must appoint Independent Reviewing Officers who must work to ensure compliance with care plans. The local authority has responsibilities to ensure that plans are made and preparations in place before the child is 18, to enable the child to make the transition to independence, and the local authority continues to have duties towards the child until they are 23 years old.

Supervision Orders - section 31 Children Act 1989

These orders are made on the same basis as care orders i.e. that the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

These orders do not confer parental responsibility on the local authority, but when there is a supervision order in force it is the duty of the supervisor to:

1) advise, assist and befriend the supervised child
2) take steps that are reasonably necessary to give effect to the order and
3) where the order is not wholly complied with or the supervisor considers that the order is no longer necessary, to consider whether or not to apply to the court to vary or discharge the order.

A supervision order may require the supervised child to comply with directions given by the supervisor to do things such as:

1) live at a place specified by the supervisor;
2) present themselves to specific people at specific places or times e.g. to meet with the social worker;
3) to participate in activities specified on certain days.

A supervision order can also require the child to submit to medical or psychiatric examination as directed by the supervisor. This requirement will only be included where the court has been satisfied on evidence as to its need.

Initially a supervision order lasts for one year. The supervisor can apply to the court to extend supervision order, but the supervision order can only be in place for a maximum of three years.

Secure Accommodation Orders - section 25 Children Act 1989

These orders permit a local authority to place a child in secure accommodation.

The court can make a secure accommodation order where:

a) A young person has a history of running away, is likely to run away from any other kind of accommodation and if he runs away is likely to suffer significant harm; or
b) If the young person is not kept in secure accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other people.

A secure accommodation order can only be made with respect to a looked after child: if they are not subject to a care order an order can only be made for a child who is under 16 years, if the child is subject to a care order they can be placed in secure accommodation until the age of 18 years. Children under 13 can only be kept in secure accommodation with the consent of the Secretary of State.

The court's authority is not required for the first 72 hours that a child is placed in secure accommodation. However if the local authority believes that the child needs to be in secure accommodation for longer, an application must be made to the court. The court cannot make the order unless the child is legally represented in court.

The court can make a secure accommodation order for up to three months on the first application, and then for periods of up to six months on subsequent application. However, where the child is on remand to the local authority from a criminal court having been charged with a criminal offence, different rules apply.

Regardless of the length of the court order, if during the course of the order the child no longer meets the criteria for an order, the local authority must remove the child from secure accommodation.

The local authority must make arrangements for contact between the child and their parents, or seek a court order to suspend or stop contact if they believe that it is not in the child's interest for contact to take place.

There will be regular reviews of the care plan for the child and to monitor the child's progress whilst in the secure setting. These reviews should also consider the future plans for the child, once they have left the secure setting. Whilst in the accommodation the child must receive education.

Related articles

• Fathers4Life (cutie79.wordpress.com)
• CHILDREN: Public Law Update July 2011 (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• A Cafcass Fact (cutie79.wordpress.com)
• local authority family support (cutie79.wordpress.com)
• How Social Workers Steal Children: Abuse of Power & Bullying (vickyhaigh.wordpress.com)
• Best Performing Family Court in the Country 2011 08 12 [Community Care Online] (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• Contact Activities: Parenting Information Programmes (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• Ofsted concern as 10 councils' child safety inadequate (cutie79.wordpress.com)
• CAFCASS: Law & Children - HUMAN RIGHTS Home Page > About Cafcass > The law about child (michellelanthony.wordpress.com)
• Media access a 'threat' to family court workers (cutie79.wordpress.com)
• A THANK YOU letter to Vicky Haigh's Supporters (vickyhaigh.wordpress.com)
• Parents who have been reunited with children being honored in DC this weekend (alisonsgypt.wordpress.com)
• Case Rigging Tactics - Email or Comment to Add a Line. Thousands of Tactics Used. More Lists to Come... (carvercountycorruption.wordpress.com)

Memory and thought, How you baby thinks and remembers - toddler/1-year-old | Bounty

Memory and thought, How you baby thinks and remembers - toddler/1-year-old | Bounty

Memory and thought

Your toddler is remembering more and figuring out how things work.

At around a year, most toddlers:

• Are able to wave bye-bye.
• Search for a lost toy because they can remember it.

Find out more about your toddler at 1

Around 18 months, most toddlers:

• Are able to point to their eyes, mouth and nose as you name them.
• Go back to a game if interrupted.

Find out more about your toddler at 18 months

At around two, most toddlers:

• Are able to ‘post’ simple shapes through holes.
• Remember daily routines; sit on the bottom step when it’s time to put shoes on, fetch a book for story time.

Find out more about your toddler at 2

By three, most toddlers:

• Are able to do large-piece jigsaw puzzles.
• Act out versions of the real world; pour a cup of pretend ‘tea,’ take toys for a ride.

Find out more about you child at 3

Pro-riot care worker suspended after Facebook comment - 8/12/2011 - Community Care

Pro-riot care worker suspended after Facebook comment - 8/12/2011 - Community Care

Pro-riot care worker suspended after Facebook comment

Kirsty McGregor

Friday 12 August 2011 12:36

A care worker has been suspended after posting pro-rioting messages on Facebook.

John Hannan, a former support worker from Merseyside, left comments on the social networking site's 'Lets Get The Riots To Liverpool' page, inciting people to join in with the violence and looting.

His comments were brought to the attention of his employer, Sanderling House, a Liverpool-based care home for people with acquired brain injuries, on 9 August.

The home suspended Hannan and asked Facebook to take the comments down. The page has now been taken off the website.

A spokesperson for Voyage, which runs Sanderling House, said: "Although the material did not refer to Voyage, its staff or service users, we were extremely concerned about the nature of the comments.

"We have a clear policy on the use of social media and all staff members are briefed about this.

"We will not tolerate what we perceive to be unacceptable behaviour and that's why we took swift and immediate action once this matter was brought to our attention."

Hannan told local newspaper The Liverpool Echo: "I never meant to incite hate or for people to burn down houses. I was saying about the way police treat us, like what happened to Mark Duggan [the man shot by police in Tottenham, whose death sparked the London riots]."

He added: "What I was trying to say was if you riot you should riot against the police and not anyone else. What is the point of burning cars and houses?"

What do you think? Join the debate on CareSpace

Removing assessment deadlines 'could hinder funding' - 7/20/2011 - Community Care

Removing assessment deadlines 'could hinder funding' - 7/20/2011 - Community Care

Molly Garboden of COMMUNITYcare [online]

Wednesday 20 July 2011 15:02

Removing assessment deadlines will make it more difficult for children's services to secure funding from councils, according to a former director.

The warning follows the government's pledge to remove the statutory duties on assessment deadlines and the distinction between initial and core assessments.

But today Deborah Absalom, former director of young people's services in Bexley, Greater London, said although targets had hindered social work practice, they had helped directors fight for money.

"They have made the need for funding very clear in local authorities where you have to fight for resources in that area," she told the CIPFA conference on social care funding.

"On a practice level, Munro rightly recommended we lessen that target-driven culture, but I think children's services will have a much harder time arguing their case when they don't have those hard numbers to fall back on."

Absalom, now a children's services consultant, said she did not know of anything children's services departments could do to prepare for this change, adding "it's very wait-and-see".

But there was some hope in Graham Allen's reports on early intervention. "There is good work going on about cost models in early intervention," she told Community Care. "People are looking at how we get some hard evidence together about services. That's really positive."

Related articles

Child protection assessment deadlines to go by end of year

The Munro Recommendations on Child Protection in England

Inform subscribers

Guide to risk assessment of child neglect

Social Work and the Rights of the Child - page 1

Social Work and the Rights of the Child - page 1

http://issuu.com/theifsw/docs/social_work_and_the_rights_of_the_child/1?mode=a_p

A professional Training Manual on the UN convention produced by International Federation of Social Workers

Family Law Week: Independent social workers attack Family Justice Review plans to oust them from courts

Family Law Week: Independent social workers attack Family Justice Review plans to oust them from courts

Home > News

Independent social workers attack Family Justice Review plans to oust them from courts

CISW Conference demonstrates depth of opposition by ISWs to proposals

Independent social workers (ISWs) have expressed their anger at proposals to reduce the reliance on expert witness testimonies in family courts. Speakers at a conference hosted by the Confederation of Independent Social Work Agencies (CISWA) described the reform plans, set out in an interim report from the Family Justice Review (FJR) published in March 2011, "as a victimization of ISWs".

Addressing the event, Dame Gillian Pugh, a member of the FJR panel, defended the proposals as "necessary in light of the shocking delays that damage children". But ISW critics said proposals such as ISWs only being employed to provide new information to the court that cannot be provided by the local authority social worker or guardian suggests a lack of understanding about the work independent social workers undertake. One ISW told Dame Pugh: "This reads as change for change's sake and shows a lack of awareness, understanding and evidence about the role of ISWs in court proceedings."

Other speakers at the CISWA event in Birmingham on 24 June lined up to add their criticisms of the reform agenda. BASW professional officer Nushra Mansuri told the event:

"ISWs have been singled out again in a discriminatory manner which is disappointing – a broad-brush approach has been taken that should not be applied across all cases in court."

Ms Mansuri suggested that the current fiscal climate was behind the FJR plans.

"Allowing budgetary issues to dictate what happens in cases involving vulnerable children is risky and unacceptable."

Dr Julia Brophy, senior research fellow at the Centre for Family Law and Policy at the University of Oxford questioned the basis for the reform proposals:

"There are issues with the evidence submitted for the Family Justice Review, with regard to claims of delay, duplication and lack of added value we would like to see a full evidence based evaluation as soon as possible."

Conference chair Philip King, director of ISWA, broadened the debate to encompass the separate decision to cap ISW court fees to £30 per hour, £33 in London, a move that came into force in May. He told ISWs:

"Now is the time to stand up for ourselves and refuse to offer our expert services in exchange for so little."

---

Codes of practice - General Social Care Council

General Social Care Commission [GSCC]

Codes of practice

What are the codes of practice for social workers and employers?

The first ever UK-wide codes of practice for social workers and employers were launched in September 2002. The codes provide a clear guide for all those who work in social work, setting out the standards of practice and conduct workers and their employers should meet. They are a critical part of regulating the workforce and helping to improve levels of professionalism and public protection.

To date, the GSCC has distributed more than two and a half million copies of the codes to employers and social workers across England.

Section 62 of the Care Standards Act 2000 requires us to produce the codes and to keep them under review. The codes were developed following extensive consultation with social care workers, people who use services and carers in 2002. They build on existing good practice and the shared values of the sector. Many people rely on the honesty, integrity and professional skills of social care workers and these codes spell out the standards people can expect of them.

Every social worker and employer should have a copy of the codes of practice. The codes of practice can be downloaded from our website. They are also available in various languages and accessible formats, which can be downloaded for free from the website or ordered online.

Enforcing the codes of practice

The codes mean that the social work sector have similar regulation to doctors and nurses. Registered social workers who breach the codes could be removed from the Social Care Register.

• If an employer feels an issue brings a worker's registration into question, a registered social care worker can be referred to the GSCC, which will investigate and consider whether their case should be heard at a conduct hearing.
• The CQC (Care Quality Commission) and Ofsted take the Code of Practice for Social Care Employers into account when enforcing care standards.