Daily Mail Has a Point about Social Workers Re: Children's Ref.

OurLadyofKnock

Hate to paint any group with a broad brush and hate even more to agree with the DM. However, in my previous line of work I came into contact with a lot of social workers. I found many of them to be frankly arrogant, meglomanic nutjobs. I met a few really nice ones, but they never seemed to last in the job.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/09/the-terrifying-power-of-the-state-over-families-ireland-beware.html

Remember the social workers’ record so far: between 2000 and 2010, 196 children or young people ‘known to the Health Service Executive’ died. A total of 112 deaths were of ‘non-natural causes.’ This is a small country. One hundred and twelve is carnage.

I think it is a bad idea giving them more power considering just how uncompassionate and arrogant the ones I knew were.

I also think that anything the government tells us to vote on is pretty much no good for us.

geeky

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Hate to paint any group with a broad brush and hate even more to agree with the DM. However, in my previous line of work I came into contact with a lot of social workers. I found many of them to be frankly arrogant, meglomanic nutjobs. I met a few really nice ones, but they never seemed to last in the job.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/09/the-terrifying-power-of-the-state-over-families-ireland-beware.html



I think it is a bad idea giving them more power considering just how uncompassionate and arrogant the ones I knew were.

I also think that anything the government tells us to vote on is pretty much no good for us.

"Known to the HSE" doesn't mean kids in care. It means kids that the HSE/social workers were aware of, but who didn't go into care - largely because of the significant legal restrictions to taking children away from abusive situations, which arise from a constitution that puts the family before children.

As a foster carer, I'll hear many things said about the HSE and social workers. But considering of the situations that some kids are in, we're far better giving the state the power to intervene.

Boombastic

I went looking to see who the author is

According to wiki

In the 1990s Synon became a regular freelance columnist for the Dublin-based Sunday Independent, and was noted for her opinions on asylum seekers, travellers, education and other controversial issues. After one such article [9] an unsuccessful attempt was made by a Travellers Rights Group to initiate a prosecution under the Incitement to Hatred Act. She also attacked Reconstruction and defended Nathan Bedford Forrest's actions during the period, in terms similar to the Neo-Confederate movement.[10] Her tenure culminated in an article penned in 2000 attacking the Paralympics for blind and disabled athletes in Sydney.[11]

In the article, she wrote: 'It is time to suggest that these so-called Paralympics . . . are - well, one hesitates to say "grotesque". One will only say "perverse"…Surely physical competition is about finding the best - the fastest, strongest, highest, all that. It is not about finding someone who can wobble his way around a track in a wheelchair, or who can swim from one end of a pool to the other by Braille.'[7] She advised the disabled and blind to 'play to your competitive advantage' and added: 'In other words, Stephen Hawking shows his wisdom by staying out of the three-legged race.

I think she is one of these sensationalist journalists like our dear friend Niamh


I'll have to find our more about the bill before agreeing/disagreeing.

The number of children MIA from HSE is shocking and procedures need to changed and this issue addressed pronto

OurLadyofKnock

Interesting too how there were no laws to protect Irish children when catholic priests were the biggest danger to them.

Smidge

geeky wrote: »

"Known to the HSE" doesn't mean kids in care. It means kids that the HSE/social workers were aware of, but who didn't go into care - largely because of the significant legal restrictions to taking children away from abusive situations, which arise from a constitution that puts the family before children.

As a foster carer, I'll hear many things said about the HSE and social workers. But considering of the situations that some kids are in, we're far better giving the state the power to intervene.

+1
I think the SW's should be given more power with regard to removing children from dangerous situations.
There can be far too much red tape.

hatrickpatrick

This referendum has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of children, it's merely about giving more power over them to the government.

Allowing children to be involuntarily taken into "care" is partly what got us into this mess in the first place. "Care" meaning some industrial school hellhole or a magdalene asylum.

I want some serious evidence that this dysfunction has been rectified at the HSE level before I will even consider giving them any more carte blanche than they already have. This is NOT a "children's rights" referendum by any logical standards.

geeky

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Allowing children to be involuntarily taken into "care" is partly what got us into this mess in the first place. "Care" meaning some industrial school hellhole or a magdalene asylum.

Quick fact check - are you aware of this thing called 'fostering', where ordinary Irish families take in children to a loving environment and raise them for as long as is needed?

Because you wouldn't guess it from your post mate.

Scruffles

Smidge wrote: »

+1
I think the SW's should be given more power with regard to removing children from dangerous situations.
There can be far too much red tape.

indeed! please make that europe wide so us englanders; with so many cases of SS screw ups can feel the benefit.

am not in agreement with social workers generaly being bad though.
have personaly been in the care of social services learning disability team for many many years and have never had a bad social worker.
they have always done their best,current social worker had actualy been known to self a year before he even became a social worker because he spent a year shadowing the speech and language therapist of mine.
before him had actualy had the manager of the learning disability team as social worker,
god almighty she was awesome,woud not be here today if it wasnt for her putting into respite care then a permenent institution placement after only one days notice-was under serious harm at home from mum.

its easy to get pssed with them if something doesnt go well but its the bigger bosses that control a lot of stuff and its the social workers who get in the crapper from the service users/carers.
dont know what it is like in other teams of social services but over here they are all incredibly over stretched with to many cases its no wonder some bad cases slip through.
there has been a drive for more social workers here but the course is hard to get on aparenrly have had some good past support staff turned down from it.

geeky

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Interesting too how there were no laws to protect Irish children when catholic priests were the biggest danger to them.

Catholic priests were never the biggest danger to children. Abusive families are, and always have been.

MagicSean

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Hate to paint any group with a broad brush and hate even more to agree with the DM. However, in my previous line of work I came into contact with a lot of social workers. I found many of them to be frankly arrogant, meglomanic nutjobs. I met a few really nice ones, but they never seemed to last in the job.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/09/the-terrifying-power-of-the-state-over-families-ireland-beware.html



I think it is a bad idea giving them more power considering just how uncompassionate and arrogant the ones I knew were.

I also think that anything the government tells us to vote on is pretty much no good for us.

Show me something that says those kids would have been better off without social services ever being involved.

super_furry

I pretty much take it as a rule of thumb that anyone writing for the Daily Mail is an empty soulless husk of a person and that everything scrawled in that rag is literally the worst thing ever written, only ever outdone by the following article.

geeky

MagicSean wrote: »

Show me something that says those kids would have been better off without social services ever being involved.

You'll find plenty of stuff mate. But it's riddled with factual errors, rather like Synon's piece.

syklops

geeky wrote: »

Catholic priests were never the biggest danger to children. Abusive families are, and always have been.

Abusers are the biggest danger. Even more so, abusers with some kind of authority over the child. Examples of which are family members and members of the clergy.

YFlyer

Daily Fail nuf said.............:pac:

Stovepipe

Hi all,
having had a fleeting contact with the world of social workers, some are genuine, deeply caring individuals, who always go the extra yard for their charges whereas others are arrogant power-trippers, who want to tot up lots of expensed courses, gain lots of credentials without a whole lot of actual face-time with affected persons. A bit like trade union officials, really. heavy on jargon but not so hot on empathy.

regards
Stovepipe

RDM_83 again

Ok anecdotally what I've heard (and this mainly pertains to mental health social work not children but similar issues apply), is that it is extremely difficult for some one to be placed into care and that social workers are extremely overstretched.

One idea I've heard (by a relative who's research was into routes to hospitalization in NI not the ROI however) is that for good or bad the Priest used to be able to push for persons/children to be able to be taken into state care and this is no longer the case.

Additionally I don;t know what difference the children referendum* will make when you can wander around Dublin for a day and you'l probably spot someone openly off their face and in charge of children and if thats happening in public things can only be worse behind closed doors.

* With the level of resources being equal in both cases.

Smidge

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok anecdotally what I've heard (and this mainly pertains to mental health social work not children but similar issues apply), is that it is extremely difficult for some one to be placed into care and that social workers are extremely overstretched.

One idea I've heard (by a relative who's research was into routes to hospitalization in NI not the ROI however) is that for good or bad the Priest used to be able to push for persons/children to be able to be taken into state care and this is no longer the case.

Additionally I don;t know what difference the children referendum* will make when you can wander around Dublin for a day and you'l probably spot someone openly off their face and in charge of children and if thats happening in public things can only be worse behind closed doors.

* With the level of resources being equal in both cases.

I think therein lay the problem imo.
The church could indeed hold great sway over people(adults and children)being put into care or institutions and sadly this was abused by a large number of clergy.
That, though was the past.
I cannot see how this referendum can be viewed as anything other than beneficial to children at risk.

Pussnboots

geeky wrote: »

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Interesting too how there were no laws to protect Irish children when catholic priests were the biggest danger to them.

Catholic priests were never the biggest danger to children. Abusive families are, and always have been.

Eh, kids were removed from their families because their families were deemed unsuitable to care for them, for the kids to be given to a bunch of rapist and slave masters, where was the care in that? People go on about the sweat shops in India, africa and such places, the catholic church ran similar sweat shops aka laundries in this country for long a time and the most sickening thing is that they were paid by the state to run them!


Ok anecdotally what I've heard (and this mainly pertains to mental health social work not children but similar issues apply), is that it is extremely difficult for some one to be placed into care and that social workers are extremely overstretched.

I work in social care but I am not a social worker, as it stands for a child to be placed in care, there is two options firstly a child can be placed voluntarily into the care system by their parents if the parents refuse to do this a social worker must go to court to seek a court order for the child to be removed from the family home, this can be a lengthy process and in some cases they family may leave the country before the order can be executed

geeky

I left a comment on the dm article pointing out that "known to the hse" means kids in danger that weren't taken into care - meaning the "carnage" Synon cites demonstrates the need for more intervention.

It's been deleted. Fancy that.

hatrickpatrick

geeky wrote: »

Quick fact check - are you aware of this thing called 'fostering', where ordinary Irish families take in children to a loving environment and raise them for as long as is needed?

Because you wouldn't guess it from your post mate.

Of course, the fact that this did and does happen does not in any way negate the fact that the appalling crimes I mentioned also did happen. And I see no reason to assume that without concrete legislation and iron clad constitutional protection, it would be impossible for them to happen again.

Where are the safeguards in this constitutional amendment? It gives the state more power to remove children from their families, but where are the actual rights? Isn't this supposed to be a children's rights referendum? Does it mention anything related to protection from abuse and the vigorous and unrelenting chasing down of those involved in such abuse? Because that's something we desperately need.

I honestly don't understand how this particular referendum could be described as being about children's rights. It's about the government's power to intervene in the lives of children, not children's rights in and of themselves. It's far too vague and leaves far too many fundamental questions totally unaddressed.

newmug

Things in the SS and HSE need a radical shake-up, but I dont know if the changes proposed in this referendum are the answer.


There is a family living across from me. The parents are cousins, and both sets of their parents were also cousins, all from the same extended family. Its worth noting that these people are travellers. Nowadays, you cant even hint at that or you're being a "racist" (towards fellow Irish people:rolleyes:). But I dont care, I'm saying it, because its relevant. Its relevant firstly, because the behavioural norms that are accepted / expected of them among other travellers are NOT the same as those the general populace live by, and secondly because their gene pool is so small, the kids are almost guaranteed to have inherited whatever genetic mutations which may or may not exist within that gene pool, and therefore any mental / physical health shortcomings which may / may not result from said genetic problems.

This family have a large number of kids, from about under 10 years of age to toddlers. It is a regular occurance for them to be playing outside on the street at 02.00am, on a schoolnight. Even the toddlers. There are incessant rows between the parents almost nightly, and usually a drunken fistfight between the husband and wife and their other cousins/ bro / sis in laws who live in the same estate, on a Saturday night. A few weeks ago I was driving up through the estate, and one of the kids stood right in front of me and pulled out a gun, and pointed it straight at me. I had no idea whether it was real or not, but I guessed it wasn't. I just sat there until he got fed up and moved away. 20 feet up the road, there was his mother having a smoke, having observed the whole incident. She never batted an eyelid.

These kids deserve a chance. They do not deserve to spend one more minute in that "family". At the moment, the HSE is not doing one iota to help the situation. To my mind, the parents should be jailed for neglect, and the kids should be fostered out. Its a no-brainer.

Now. Here's the thing. I dont believe this referrendum will change a thing. In fact, I think it could make things worse if it goes ahead. If the HSE cannot handle a cut-and-dried case like the one above NOW, how is handing them the legal power to be judge, jury, and executioner going to make things any better? It would be like letting the irritated passenger fly the plane, or providing bigger bail-out buckets on the Titanic - its just the wrong solution!

Add to that the power the HSE would then have. What if you wanted to home-school your kids, or you started to teach them how to drive in your own fields at the age of 12, or you refused to commit your depressed / mentally ill child, or some other unconventional scenario where you would be at odds with the govt.? They would then have the full and unequivocal authority to take your kids into care. Thats way too much power. And once you give it to them, it's almost impossible to take it back.

This is not the solution. As I said, we do need change, but not this. As much as I hate to say it, I'd rather have one family fall through the cracks and never be sorted than have lots of families torn apart in the wrong.

Smidge

newmug wrote: »

Things in the SS and HSE need a radical shake-up, but I dont know if the changes proposed in this referendum are the answer.


There is a family living across from me. The parents are cousins, and both sets of their parents were also cousins, all from the same extended family. Its worth noting that these people are travellers. Nowadays, you cant even hint at that or you're being a "racist" (towards fellow Irish people:rolleyes:). But I dont care, I'm saying it, because its relevant. Its relevant firstly, because the behavioural norms that are accepted / expected of them among other travellers are NOT the same as those the general populace live by, and secondly because their gene pool is so small, the kids are almost guaranteed to have inherited whatever genetic mutations which may or may not exist within that gene pool, and therefore any mental / physical health shortcomings which may / may not result from said genetic problems.

This family have a large number of kids, from about under 10 years of age to toddlers. It is a regular occurance for them to be playing outside on the street at 02.00am, on a schoolnight. Even the toddlers. There are incessant rows between the parents almost nightly, and usually a drunken fistfight between the husband and wife and their other cousins/ bro / sis in laws who live in the same estate, on a Saturday night. A few weeks ago I was driving up through the estate, and one of the kids stood right in front of me and pulled out a gun, and pointed it straight at me. I had no idea whether it was real or not, but I guessed it wasn't. I just sat there until he got fed up and moved away. 20 feet up the road, there was his mother having a smoke, having observed the whole incident. She never batted an eyelid.

These kids deserve a chance. They do not deserve to spend one more minute in that "family". At the moment, the HSE is not doing one iota to help the situation. To my mind, the parents should be jailed for neglect, and the kids should be fostered out. Its a no-brainer.

Now. Here's the thing. I dont believe this referrendum will change a thing. In fact, I think it could make things worse if it goes ahead. If the HSE cannot handle a cut-and-dried case like the one above NOW, how is handing them the legal power to be judge, jury, and executioner going to make things any better? It would be like letting the irritated passenger fly the plane, or providing bigger bail-out buckets on the Titanic - its just the wrong solution!

Add to that the power the HSE would then have. What if you wanted to home-school your kids, or you started to teach them how to drive in your own fields at the age of 12, or you refused to commit your depressed / mentally ill child, or some other unconventional scenario where you would be at odds with the govt.? They would then have the full and unequivocal authority to take your kids into care. Thats way too much power. And once you give it to them, it's almost impossible to take it back.

This is not the solution. As I said, we do need change, but not this. As much as I hate to say it, I'd rather have one family fall through the cracks and never be sorted than have lots of families torn apart in the wrong.

I think we are seeing the ref from different POV.
I feel that this ref will finally give social services greater powers to remove children from the very circumstances that you outline above.
People don't realise the constraints placed on the SS to actually remove a child from the home as the current legislation is focused on reparation of the "family" problems when clearly in a lot of cases the children should be removed UNTIL the family have sorted out their problems.

newmug

Smidge wrote: »

I think we are seeing the ref from different POV.
I feel that this ref will finally give social services greater powers to remove children from the very circumstances that you outline above.
People don't realise the constraints placed on the SS to actually remove a child from the home as the current legislation is focused on reparation of the "family" problems when clearly in a lot of cases the children should be removed UNTIL the family have sorted out their problems.

Greater powers = Good outcome.

100% ultimate power = Bad outcome, in fact worst outcome concievable.

This ref is about giving the SS 100% ultimate power. Its like trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

If you see the phrases "Daily Mail" and "Social Welfare" in the same sentence, or even in the same paragraph, I think it's fairly easy to predict its general outcome.

Smidge

newmug wrote: »

Greater powers = Good outcome.

100% ultimate power = Bad outcome, in fact worst outcome concievable.

This ref is about giving the SS 100% ultimate power. Its like trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.

Agreed, no "outfit" should have independent power but I dont think the ref or any other piece of legislation could grant that kind of power tbf

MarkHitide

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

If you see the phrases "Daily Mail" and "Social Welfare" in the same sentence, or even in the same paragraph, I think it's fairly easy to predict its general outcome.

Throw in 'Mary Ellen Synon' and you've got a recipe for how to move this country forward-

MagicSean

It's a pointless referendum. Doesn't introduce anything different in regards to child protection and it won't magically make anything different.

A better approach would have been to properly define the term "family unit" in the constitution and prioritise the individuals rights over those of the family unit. This would allow for equal treatment of all children and would eliminate the presumption they are better off with their biological parents.

Of course this won't be done because it puts same sex and unmarried couples on the same footing as married couples and the church folk wouldn't like that.

geeky

MagicSean wrote: »

It's a pointless referendum. Doesn't introduce anything different in regards to child protection and it won't magically make anything different.

Not true. Giving foster families a roadmap to adoption after three years is a huge change. Aside from saving the HSE millions, it'll also encourage more families to go into fostering for the right reasons - and we need that to avoid more kids going into residential care homes.

allibastor

I am with someone doing social care, and from what i read about it and what i hear back from lectures and work etc. i can say my own opinion is that there is so much red tape put in place and so much rights of the fmaily and parents that its the child that comes a dead last in all of it.

Parents have been hauled up in court over being known drug users and alco's and not looking after thier kids, they turn up on the day somewhat sober and tell the judge some sob story and out they go with the kids.

A very similir story to the post above, i live in an estate where there is a family who can be only described as feral. All the next door neighbours have actually moved away and barred the houses this family is so bad. the guards have been called numerour times for drink related issues, and yet there is 5 kids still allowed to live there with the parents, i think a mother and some random men who come and go all the time. I was only last week asked by one of the kids to buy drink for her mom, cause the mom could barely walk in a straight line and was barred from the offie. Where does the social try and protect these people. By the way, i rang the guards about it and waited near the child till they came so she was not left completly in her drunk mothers care.

Dyr

tbh I think the problem in Ireland is that we basically defer far too much to figures of authority and let them away with all sorts, it's not just unique to the church.