If Brick http://wallofbrick.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/monro-review-second-act/ believes that the Children Act 1989 was ever or is, as claimed, a “charter for children” then they are barking up the wrong wall.
The Act was a very effective charter for lawyers, Guardians and experts. Within a very short period of time court cases were taking up to two years to complete. I certainly share the concern that local authorities should not be allowed to practice unfettered but then neither should social workers be permitted to ignore policies nor Guardians think they know better than anyone else what constitutes best practice.
And it was nowhere near as bad as suggested by Brick pre the 1989 Act (implemented on 14th October 1991) – Wilt remembers those days too.
The fact is, lawyers got to be very greedy, some Guardians (some with little clue or even less competence) loved and love playing the prima donna of the Court corridors and interfered in casework they sometimes could not understand (let alone practice) – experts instructed by the cartload were set loose and who in some instances actually told one very little or what was already known.
There was frequently no ‘added value’ to best outcomes for children and the poor social worker from the local authority was diminished to the wicked witch of all points of the compass. Playing with children’s lives in this way is dangerous and certainly not giving paramount concern to the welfare of the child.
Promoting justice and it being seen that justice is done does not need to look like this. Suggesting that money is no obstacle within the justice system is tantamount to contempt of the taxpayer.
I have a lot of time for Brick and the blog Wall (http://wallofbrick.wordpress.com/) – its author is well experienced and very eloquent on subjects Wilt feels strongly about. Occasionally the postings cause some great laughter and joy. However, the Act has not worked and it needs serious reforming and to suggest that it is all because Guardians are being fettered or that the Courts are being restricted because of budgets is pure folly. The fact is, Guardians have been too often a part of the problem – not the solution or silver bullet.
And how does Wilt know all this? Well he is an expert witness and has been for many a year; he too is a Guardian and had a former senior management role within social work for longer than he cares to remember – he is also a tribunal chairman in a related field. He has observed the effects of the Children Act therefore from many an angle and perspective. That does not necessarily make Wilt ‘right’ in his opinions but it certainly is not opinion based on lack of experience.
Of course social workers are experts – the fact that they represent the applicant in court proceedings does not diminish that status and are entitled to stand on an equal footing as any other expert, or Guardian – they are just another expert and not as some Guardians mistakenly believe some kind of ‘super’ social worker wearing their underwear over their tights.
When Wilt acts as a Guardian he is, as with other Guardians, frequently consulted by children’s social workers. Wilt has a ‘contract’ with social worker’s that is shaped broadly thus:
i) You [social worker] are the expert until it is shown otherwise;
ii) I am happy to be consulted but I will not be your supervisor;
iii) I will not attempt to case manage the child’s case;
iv) We will treat each other with mutual respect and recognise and respect our different roles;
v) We are all duty bound to hold the needs of the child as paramount;
vi) As I consider you an expert, do not propose instructing another expert on matters that are perfectly within your competence/resources to complete yourself; we must minimise costs and delay;
vii) When completing your written assessment not only should you demonstrate competence but also fairness to avoid the appearance of bias;
viii) This Guardian does not wear his knickers over his tights or have any super human qualities – he too was once a social worker.
Generally, the above understanding leads to reasonably stress free relations. It sets the social workers mind at rest that the Guardian is not ‘off planet’ waiting to invade and sets them free to get on with what they do best – social work. It also creates opportunity for dialogue and debate, and if it comes to it, permission to disagree or arrive at differing views of settling (disposal) the matter at Court.
Unfortunately not all Guardians take that approach – they do wear their knickers over their tights and are simply social workers who not ‘hack it’ in frontline practice. Some others are just simply not of this world and yet others are the prima donna who love sitting around for hours on end in the Court at huge expense to the public purse but to the benefit of their own bulging purse.
It aint as simple as Brick might have you believe – but he/she is an expert too and can have an opinion, just like that fresh faced social worker from the local authority.
It is for certain there are some Dork social workers – you only need to look at the GSCC files to determine that. There are in proportional terms, take my word for it, far more Dork Guardians, lawyers and experts but they are far less scrutinised or evaluated.
Things really have to change – throwing money (we do not have) at the problem is not the answer.
Brick gets 9 out of ten for composition and language skills, 10 out of 10 for spelling but only 4 out of 10 for his/her reasoning and concluding the solution to the test. A good effort but s/he needs to try harder.
Wilt
No comments:
Post a Comment