Social workers involved in sensitive child protection cases are being targeted as angry families vent their fury on blogs
Rachel Williams
The Guardian, Wednesday 24 March 2010
The hounding of social workers by the press for being "baby-snatchers" if they take children into care is a predictable story. But now such persecution has taken a new twist with online campaigns by families protesting about child protection intervention.
A proliferation of blogs and pages on social networking sites have sprung up. In one example, a Suffolk family claim they were forced to give up their child for adoption, with no evidence of abuse. They went to Spain before the birth of their second child, who is now in the care of Spanish foster carers acting on information from Suffolk social workers.
In some cases, the blogs make for uncomfortable reading. Social workers and managers are named and vilified, accusations are hurled at councils, and court injunctions banning the identification of the families and children are flouted...more
The truth is always uncomfortable.
The following is my comment:
I would like to thank Rachel Williams for demonstrating the lack of sophistication in the core of the egregious matters surrounding the child protective services industry, and that is the lack of accountability and transparency.
Interestingly enough, criticizing the United States Constitutional First Amendment Rights of free speech is the first indication that due process and equal treatment under the law is not instituted within the British child protection system.
The reason people have resorted to the internet to voice their situations is because they are not allowed to be heard under the child protection standards of the United Kingdom.
Interestingly enough, Ms. Williams makes vague references to powerful informational repositories such as Legally Kidnapped. She is absolutely correct to see how alarming the stories are being reported in the media of what goes on behind the scenes of child welfare.
Ms. Williams continues her tack of being correct when she makes the statement that social workers are being vilified online. The internet is not the proper jurisdiction to publicly try a case, but, unfortunately, it is the only opportunity a family has to cry for help as there is no oversight.
One assumption that must be immediately challenge is the comment that "these" online groups in the U.S. are presenting false information.
Madame Williams, I invite you and any of your colleagues to challenge my authority, if you can find any person qualified. We will do academic publications.
My position is that social workers are not bad people and do not come to a family with malfeasance or malicious intent, as this is what they were instructed to do through false educational theories and arcane policies of taking and not giving.
I call these theories and models false because the misdeeds and errors are never reported nor incorporated in overall statistics. This is why the online groups came into existence.
Give resources to the families to keep the children in place before situations lead to removals. Give the people the opportunity to speak.
What is there to fear?
I may not be able to speak upon the councils of the U.K. at this time, but whatever I publish on the U.S. child welfare industry, I present with finding of fact and conclusion of law, which is something you have failed to do in this article.
Beverly Tran
An Original Source
For daily global news on the child protection industry, visit Legally Kidnapped
