What Fostergate tells us


This weekend many of us have heard disturbing reports that suggest that Rotherham Social Services have decided that a couple who have been providing long-term foster placements for three children are now unfit to foster these children due to the ethnicity of the children and as a result of the news that the couple have joined a political party. On face value this story is a concern on many levels.

Being a corporate parent places huge responsibility on Local Authorities, particularly because the first parental failure for the children concerned has usually occurred by the stage such jargon comes into play. Some of the decisions taken on a daily basis by Directors of Social Services are bound to be called into question eventually by an otherwise silent assembly of ‘wise’ heads who have no reason to ever thank these professionals for their 100’s of good decisions. Whatever the rights and the wrongs of this case and the many others today that have not been made public across the UK, the righteous indignation from Nigel Farrage and David Cameron, more distanced response by Ed Miliband and nonsense from Michael Gove promising legislation will certainly not help three young children who are suffering from yet another set of broken relationships.

It seems incredibly ‘convenient’ that this case, no matter how tragic has emerged in the week before the Rotherham By-Election which raises all sorts of questions about how it was brought to our attention and by whom. It is hard to imagine that this story will have helped the electoral prospects of Sarah Champion, the Labour candidate hoping to replace disgraced MP Denis MacShane. However Sarah’s distress is of no real consequence when placed alongside the possible disaster for these three children.

As corporate parents any Social Services department will use a set of well defined criteria to determine who they allow to Foster or Adopt their children. As with any system that relies on human beings, personal prejudice and occasionally cultural bias will impact on the decisions being taken. Some who have been involved in such a process will be able to recount the occasions when the questions appeared to take a line that seemed irrelevant or for unexpected factors to emerge as part of the assessment process. However the idea that merely joining an official political party would on its own merits lead to such an action by the Council simply beggars belief unless this follows other actions which have not yet been made clear.

Sadly the early morning response by Joyce Thacker, Strategic director of Children and Young People’s Services for the Council on BBC Radio 4 did nothing to quell the idea that this was a reaction to a party political spat and she seemed to focus on defending her department rather than the well-being of the children who she is responsible for. This is just as disappointing as the pathetic posturing by Farage and Gove.

Unknown's avatar

About ianchisnall

I am passionate about the need for public policies to be made accessible to everyone, especially those who want to improve the wellbeing of their communities. I am particularly interested in issues related to crime and policing as well as health services and strategic planning.
This entry was posted in Community Safety and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What Fostergate tells us

  1. Great post. There’s quite clearly something else going on here which the council aren’t able to reveal – which must be immensely frustrating for them as they are pilloried through the media. I didn’t hear Thacker’s interview, but I imagine she’s unable to discuss the details of the case, hence finds herself defending the only parts of the story which are in the public domain.

    • ianchisnall's avatar ianchisnall says:

      I agree, there has to be a large subtext to this story. I suspect it will come out after the election!

      • Phil Dore's avatar Zarathustra says:

        Indeed, and here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/30/ukip-row-many-reasons-children-removed

        The likes of Gove, Farage etc owe people an apology, but I doubt they’ll provide one.

      • ianchisnall's avatar ianchisnall says:

        Having just stood in an election (Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner) as an Independent several modest attempts were made to damage my personal credibility by sources close to one of the major parties. When I raised it with people after the election it was clear that ordinary people recognised this is as normal behaviour during Political contests. Assuming the Guardian story is right the damage appears to have been meted out to social workers in an attempt to give UKIP political advantage at the election and the Government a chance to bring in more laws. Do these people not realise that every inch of ground they try to take in the short term will ultimately erode public trust against all of their work in the long term. Are they really that stupid?

Leave a comment