I include this article on the blog to highlight the problems SEND parents face in other areas of England and Wales.
It mirrors some of the problems I have experienced with my dealings with Cyngor Gwynedd Council and the Children and Family Support (?) department.
Recently on SNJ's Facebook page, someone accused us of being too hard
on local authorities who were 'trying their best'. Actually, I know
first hand that many, many people working in LAs really are working
diligently and with very large caseloads. I would encourage parents who
have had a good experience to tell us about it, so we can herald good practice.
However - there's always a however, unfortunately - too often parents
are still being told the wrong information or LAs are not playing by
the rules (i.e, the law). Too many in SEND and in social care
departments are still behaving as if the Children and Families Act was
just a bad dream, best ignored. This is very perplexing to me as the law
is clear to read and to follow, so what's happening to make compliance a
bonus rather than the minimum expected?
Recently, I heard about something happening to a number of families
regarding attempts to get social care help, that needs to be
highlighted. Hopefully those who ARE doing good work in LAs can make
sure it doesn't happen in their departments.
Nathan Davies of solicitors HCB, has written to explain what, in his experience, has been happening.
Threatened with care proceedings after asking for support...
It is common, in my experience, for parents of children with autism
to feel that concerns expressed to local authority professionals are
often discarded, or that there is a distinct lack of understanding of
the condition itself. This leads to disputes and disagreements between
the parties. These issues tend to arise once parents have realised that
they cannot continue without extra support or an alternative placement
be sourced for their son or daughter. The request being made is often
the trigger point for intervention in some form by the authority;
usually via its social services department.
The prevalence of social services intervention has steadily risen in recent times. In practice, the possibility of it being
initiated by the authority remains on the increase, despite this being a
highly controversial, and often inappropriate, tactic.
Your word against theirs
The problem parents in this position face is that it is often their
word against that of school staff or local authority professionals and
that is never a good starting position. The root issue however, is the
aforementioned lack of understanding of the condition itself. Those on
the high-functioning end of spectrum often present very differently
across a variety of settings. The fact that a child presents as very shy
and reserved in school and then explodes into one exhibiting
challenging behaviour at home, is very hard for some professionals to
fathom and can lead to them questioning parenting ability.
Parents struggling to cope and requiring additional support in the
family home, are often deterred by the threat of intense scrutiny and
criticism by social services. The possibility of raising child
protection issues or launching even care proceedings (in extreme cases)
are tools local authorities are increasingly using, especially during
these times of austerity and public sector cuts. But cuts can in no way
be an excuse for such unnecessarily heavy-handed approaches being
employed.
Nathan Davies
Professional guidelines
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) has guidelines
relating to standards of conduct, performance and ethics each registrant
must uphold (this includes social workers). One of the pillars of
practice is for the professional to ‘work within the limits of their knowledge and skills’.
Given this, it is fundamental to ensure that each professional is
appropriately trained and/or knowledgeable to a reasonable degree in
autism to discharge their duties to the child and family appropriately.
If this is not done, one cannot expect a proper assessment of their
social care needs to be undertaken; thereby polluting the entire
process. Without such understanding of the condition, the HCPC
guidelines specify that the matter should be referred to another
practitioner if what the chid needs would be beyond the scope of their
practice but this is rarely, if ever, done. It cannot be emphasised
enough how important this is, especially when it is a requirement for
each HCPC registrant to ‘promote and protect the interests of service users and carers’.
Below are some anonymised case examples which show how these strategies are being used by local authorities throughout the UK:
Case Study 1:
This concerned parents in England of a child with high-functioning
ASD. Given her high-achievements at school, the child had attended
mainstream school well into her teenage life (without an EHCP). Even
when concerns were raised over challenging behaviour in the home as a
result of her inability to cope at school, these were immediately
treated as the parents over-exaggerating the child’s difficulties, even
after they had secured a diagnosis for her from a multi-disciplinary
team in the private sector.
The local authority, when requested to assess her additional learning
needs, took action; they proceeded with social services intervention, a
flawed and malicious assessment and subsequently placed the child on
the Child Protection Register. After seeking legal advice, the family
challenged the authority, ultimately leading to a retraction. The child
has now been issued with an EHCP with the SEN Tribunal agreeing that a
specialist ASD placement be named.
Case Study 2:
This related to a family in South Wales, who again experienced great
difficulties with their local authority. The child had a diagnosis of
Pathological Demand Avoidance but the parents had been unsuccessful in
securing a specialist placement for their son via the Tribunal process,
with the assistance of an advocate.
Given the extreme levels of aggressive behaviour in the home
environment (and his inability access a school at all), it was
imperative for the authority to accommodate the child, pursuant to
section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The authority did so, but
thereafter sought to target the family with a variety of unfounded
allegations, unlawful s.47 investigations and blame for the child’s
behaviour was attributed to perceived ‘bad parenting’, a manifestly
unreasonable position to hold.
These issues were appropriately resolved in the parents' favour, who
were issued with a comprehensive and unreserved apology from the
director of social services. The child now attends a suitable local
provision and is thriving.
We need to be aware...
Unfortunately, scenarios such as the above are becoming more common
and intimidation of parents who are simply trying to get help for their
child is often difficult for many to comprehend. Parents being penalised
or vilified for seeking support for their disabled child is not right
in any society, yet it appears that in 21st century Britain
this is perfectly acceptable in some LAs. Awareness of this issue being
made known to the public can only help parents in similar situations.
Unlike the report last year authored by Margaret Kenealy Jones, this report has not been used to revise history nor used as a vehicle to whitewash unprofessional behaviour and systemic failings within the children's department of Cyngor Gwynedd and this is to be welcomed.
Saying that the report does appear to have some glaring ommissions and anoma-lies -
"Over the years, the Customer Care Officer have successfully managed to establish close working links with the teams, managers and the legal section as a means of discussing and resolving issues. This is reflected in the low number of complaints reaching Stage 2 of the Complaints Procedure.
It is fair to say that there has been a clear trend over the past 3 years, that theChildren and Family Support Department have not had a complaint escalate toStage 2. This is down to the professionalism the Team Managers and SeniorManagers show when dealing with complainants; they understand theimportance of a local resolution and by discussing directly with the complainant they are able to address matters as soon as possible..."
Er...but Mrs Hughes there is a stage 2 complaint ongoing against Children and Family Support Department raised on the 25th May and due for completion any day now. Why has the complaint not been included in your report figures ?
I notice the Adult services acknowledge there is an ongoing stage 2 investigation and though not completed is included in their figures.
Marian Parry Hughes also crows that the department have had no complaint escalate to stage 2 over the past three years.
But that is down to one senior manager, Aled Gibbard, closing a complaint - without informing the complainant and your department refusing to escalate another complaint to the second stage, hence the intervention of the Ombudsman.
And knowing that to then go on and write -
"In comparison with other Local Authorities in North Wales, it is understood that Gwynedd have been successful in managing complaints at Stage 1 whereas other Local Authorities have a higher proportion of complaints progress to Stage 2".
and diss the conduct of other LA's in Wales is...distasteful to say the least.
I notice Cyngor Gwynedd appear not to have updated their website and still make no mention that one of the cases that they reference has been ongoing for years.
Earlier post here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/gwynedd-council-services-scrutiny-needs.html
First contact with the Gwynedd Children and Supporting Families Team was in 2007/8 and was appalling.
The family had to endure missed appointments, staff that were untrained and abusive comments from those involved in the child's care.
MSBP and poor parenting were all thrown at the family.
One so called professional, Dawn Wimpory, failed to diagnose the child and so many years have been wasted because of it.
Perhaps you should have tried engaging him with music therapy, Dawn.
That would have taken longer than the 20 minute consultation you gave the child.
A comment from one of the service managers in a review meeting "If he was my child....." led to the manager going off sick when the Independent Investigators tried to interview him for an explanation.
An illness that lasted for months and so the report was published without him being interviewed.
The report does mention Llyr Ap Rhisiart's absence and the fact that when he does finally return from illness he would not be in the same job.
But the question remains, Mr Ap Rhisiart.
What would you have done with the child who has Autism, PDA and other complex issues if he was yours ?
Someone even suggested clearing the child's bedroom and locking them in.
The child was 7 years old.
The Investigators found 16 points of complaint and bad practise - including lost correspondence and files - all upheld.
That was in 2010 and nothing has changed. In fact, the situation is far worse.
So I say again to Cyngor Gwynedd raising a complaint does not make people unreasonable - it simply means that unprofessional standards and bad behaviour should always be challenged.
