quote:
Originally posted by pussycatj:
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
We're invited to draw an image and context from that. All I could think about was the people on forums I 'know' who would fit that description rather nicely.
Blimey Daniel that's a bit below the belt
Or the image they're painting of someone who is an obvious candidate in the common sense view for whipping away the kids may not be that obvious if you're assessing a situation before a known outcome. When I saw the story on the news this morning, the overwhelming impression I was left with was: why was the kid (or kids)left in their care, it should have been
obvious what was going on. The media story was intended to leave that impression, I'd say.
The people who tend to be drawn to social work are probably those with 'soft skills': empathy, sympathy, listening, and so on. I think we have to accept the possibility, the probability I imagine, that those convicted were devious, manipulative, and probably sociopaths to varying extents. Therefore, they were probably skilled at hiding in the 'of concern but monitor' camp.
If I had to make changes (I admit I'm largly ignorant of the system) then I'd put in a system 'champion' whose explicit job is to challenge interpretations. Even then, I think there will be a bias in the system to either keep kids in their home where possible, or to remove kids when there are just suspicions. It seems to me to be that binary, and all else follows from which way the system tends towards. In either case, there will be wrong decisions and in individual cases there is no way of knowing for sure whether the decision was truly the best for the child.