There's no doubt that Salford has an official problem with extremely vulnerable children, with the second highest rate in Greater Manchester. A total of 1,077 youngsters are either subject to a Child Protection Plan (492) or classified as Looked After Children (585*). And the numbers are growing.
In the last year alone the amount of kids living under a Child Protection Plan has risen by 130, from 362 in April 2015, to 492 by March 2016. Ninety per cent of these children are within the categories of `emotional abuse' (48%) and `neglect' (42%).**
Some of the increase can be put down to a tightening up, or `redefining' of the Salford 'thresholds of need for intervention and prevention', while a new Neglect Strategy has also been launched this year.
Salford Social Services and the Salford Clinical Commissioning Group have made Neglect and Emotional Abuse (usually `children suffering or likely to suffer significant harm due to living within a context of domestic abuse') `priority areas'.
While it's an incredibly complex area of social work and health, the Salford Star is being contacted by more and more families either fighting social services' attempts to take their kids off them, or they've had their kids taken off them, or are subject to a Child Protection Plan. All say they are being treated unfairly.
While child protection and other issues prevent many people speaking out, particularly if they have ongoing cases, one family is determined to have its tale told. They believe that they have been discriminated against because of their disabilities.
The couple, in their early twenties, have recently had their child taken off them and were targeted by social services before the baby was born, with a pre-birth assessment that classified them as `high risk'. The father has moderate learning disabilities and hydrocephalus, the mother has mild learning disabilities and short term memory problems.
"They were discriminating before the child was even born" says the mother "They said it would impact the baby which was a load of rubbish."
The baby was born prematurely and quite ill but within four days of being discharged from hospital social services were already contacting the Council's duty solicitor with concerns about welfare and the parent's abilities to manage his needs.
The `concerns' were mainly about not completing feeding charts, not implementing advice and not `engaging with social services'. The family had previous bad experiences with the department. Other concerns were that the house was too warm, regular feeds weren't happening and that the couple slept in until late.
"Some statements said that the baby was always lethargic, always dirty, never fed and never played with or dressed properly" the mother explains "Other statements said that he was happy, and was well fed because he always had food around his mouth, and that he was always properly dressed and clean."
One time when social services called round to the house unannounced they found nails and tools on the floor, as the father was putting up shelves while the baby was out with his mum. This was subsequently reported as `concerning home conditions', as were plastic pine bits from the Christmas tree that had fallen on the floor.
There were also `concerns' about the parents' and grandmother's `drug use', when there were no illegal drugs and absolutely zero proof. Another time the couple were blamed for a bruise on the baby's head which was subsequently officially proved totally unfounded...
...And yet another time social services reported that the grandmother, who supported the couple, was found asleep on the couch during the day, when she had actually been awake all night cleaning up after the Boxing Day Flood.
In court the couple lost their case to keep the baby "They said that we didn't have a good support network and that we had mental health issues" says the mum
"Other people have still got their babies because they haven't got social services around them but we have; and we've lost him" she adds "I kiss his picture every night."
The baby is now with a member of the father's family. And there's no appeal against the court ruling..."The only way we can get him back is, apparently, to have another baby and prove we can look after it" the mum concludes.
Meanwhile, other families have told the Star of over-zealous social workers adding one plus one and making three; while some have reported draconian and sometimes ludicrous conditions imposed to get their children home. Others speak of Child Protection Plans almost being handed out like confetti.
The whole area of child neglect and abuse is fraught with difficulties and one person's word against another. Up until five years ago, Salford Council had an appalling record on safeguarding children, constantly being given an `inadequate' rating by OFSTED**.
Now it has a `good' rating. But some feel that the safeguarding pendulum has swung the other way and that, in order to meet new `thresholds' and `strategies', families are being broken up or put under stress unnecessarily...
The Salford Star would have liked a comment from Salford City Council on this issue but the Council hasn't responded to such requests from this publication for over four years.
*The Looked After figure is the latest published, for 2015
**The other categories of abuse are Physical (5%) and Sexual (5%)
*** For more details see previous Salford Star articles – click here and click here
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
