Councils up and down the country have put children at risk by meeting
central government targets. While requests for court orders remain at an all
time high since the Baby P case, social workers have been reviewing all
their child protection cases alongside CAFCASS (*Children and Family Court
Advisory Support Service)*, the organisation that represents children’s
interests in court.
CAFCASS yesterday announced that in reviewing the cases many children who
have remained with their parents have been put at greater risk than if they
had been taken into care.
Chris White, Liberal Democrat Group Leader, said: ‘We have always been
concerned that central government targets to reduce the numbers of children
on the at risk register and in care would put children at greater risk. If a
child is in danger every effort should be made to ensure their safety.
Central government target setting has put councils in an impossible
situation. To gain a good inspection report the numbers on the at risk
register and the numbers in care must be low.
‘We demand that the Government drop these targets immediately and that
children at risk are properly assessed. If they are at risk they must either
go on the “at risk” register or be taken into the care of the local
authority.’
Statistically a child is at greater risk in care than with his parents; on balance, therefore, more children will be harmed by being taken into care unnecessarily than by being left with abusive parents, assuming the number of errors in both cases is the same.
CAFCASS and the social services are extremely poor at identifying risk, and the guidance they have on risk assessment is based on out-moded ideas and on ideology, much of it very sexist. There is also no definition in law of ‘significant harm’ which is thus up to the individual social worker to define. The same applies to the concept of the child’s ‘welfare’.
Until these points are addressed we shall continue to see social workers and CAFCASS getting risk assessments wrong.