AUTISTIC SPECTRUM AND OTHER DISABILITIES

[ange301126]

Dear Parents,AUTISTIC SPECTRUM CONDITION (ASC) AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

ASC and undiagnosed ASC children are increasingly being targeted for removal by social workers. Mainstream nurseries and schools tend to misread behavioural traits and refer families to the CS when they should be contacting doctors and educational psychologists. ASC IS A MEDICAL CONDITION NOT TO BE MISINTERPRETED BY NORMAL EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS.
Social workers are not medically trained. Neither are schoolteachers. Thus, they are unable to make realistic appraisals.

If children are snatched from their parents by misinformed workers and placed into care either under an emergency order or by use of an S20 agreement, children are placed with standard carers who are unable to comment realistically either. The same applies to contact workers, the Children’s Guardian and other assessors. Any assessments they make are misinformed,

Currently it appears general practice for professionals to act on wrong judgments of children made without specialised knowledge of autism and related behavioural issues. So do Magistrates and County Courts.

The fact that our daughter sometimes smeared excrement, fairly common with ASC, particularly disgusted them and they gave a very high profile to it.

When we had consulted the Autistic Society helpline for advice as to protecting our children from harm, they advocated the use of safety-chains to hold them in their rooms at times of danger, particularly at night when we needed sleep. Social Workers reported that we ‘locked the children’ in their rooms for long periods of time even though there were no locks on the doors and that we had deprived them of normal human contact. Consequently, totally contradicting the expert advice from fellow psychologists at the Autistic Society, it was said by an ordinary forensic psychologist consulted that we had acted beyond ‘ limits of normal human beings’. The Judge referred to us habitually ‘chaining the children up in their bedrooms’.

For Local Authority investigations, Child Protection Conferences and Court proceedings, I believe decisions about ASC children should only be made after a full and proper consultation with Autism experts. I regard this issue as a major one. It leads to erroneous decisions and miscarriages of justice. Anyone reading the judgment in our case would perceive us as animals. ‘Chaining the children up’. ‘Going beyond the realms of civilised behaviour’. ’Human excrement smeared on the walls and furniture’. ‘The children were feral when they arrived with us’ That latter statement was from carers who were not informed that the children were perfectly fit and stable when taken from home and had become ‘ emotionally disturbed’ because of CS abuse and mistreatment during five different placements in four days before ‘arriving with her. I have several advice sheets and one particularly comments that the disturbance caused to ASC children by sudden upheaval and removal from their usual routines ‘cannot be over-estimated’. The autism experts reported no improvements but they noted that improvements had ‘been reported by others which may be significant’. However it stated that the reported improvements were not significant to the children’s problems which were wholly physiological. The report went on to say that whilst sometimes the problems can sometimes be caused by environmental problems and parental care, in her case they weren’t.
I believe that matters should be corrected in the Public interest especially for other ASC children who may become subject to the Child-Protection system in the future. ASC is a condition which develops genetically before birth not a disorder caused by environmental or parental factors. Experts recognise this and no longer use the term Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Social Workers look at you as if you are an idiot if you raise the point. As far as they are concerned, they look upon it as a disorder and wrongly ascribe it to a lack of care.
In his core assessment, our initial key social worker stated falsely that our daughter had severe learning difficulties and it was cited as a fact. It was also cited as No.1 on the document presented to Court entitled ‘Facts and Matters Relied Upon to Satisfy Threshold Criteria for Neglect’. To him, our daughter probably seemed mentally retarded but his suggestion that it was due to our neglect was misinformed. There is a clinic letter, withheld from us for the hearings, sent to him by our daughter’s consultant paediatrician who knew our family well, which particularly tells him that she was ASC and did not have learning difficulties.
Contact workers assessing family interaction had no knowledge of the condition and instructed me to engage my daughter in play. Experts had previously advised me to let her to play alone unless she approached me. Thus when she reacted badly to interference workers reported that I was unable to interact with the child normally, that she consistently cowered away from me and I was thus at fault. Her attachment to us was also questioned because she did not address us as ‘dad’ or ‘mum’ which is also common with ASC. No-one can interact with an ASC child as a normal one.
Later on, during care proceedings, we demanded the involvement of autism experts; when they attended two contacts, they reported that my interactions with the children were those of a normal, loving and caring father. For the most part, the expert report was ignored coming late as it did. Care-plans had already been decided. An ordinary child-protection consultant paediatrician commissioned by the Court had remarked before agreeing to concede to the experts that ‘reported improvements’ by social workers since the children had been in care suggested a possible ‘lack of consistency of care’ by us. The Judge reckoned that was enough to demonstrate neglect and removed the children permanently. The reported improvements by social workers were totally unrealistic. Coincidentally, the children’s consultant community paediatrician had stated in her official LAC assessment made prior to proceedings that they had become ‘emotionally disturbed’ since being placed in care. Corruptly, that assessment was ‘lost’ and not produced to us or the Court.
Later on, during contact order proceedings, statements and comments made by social workers, the Guardian, counsel and the Honourable Judge were inexpert and wide of the mark as to the children’s understanding and ability to communicate. Our daughter understands speech and instructions perfectly and has done so from a very early age but does not respond immediately as a normal child. During the hearing, the Honourable Judge, to establish an opinion as to our children’s ability to communicate their views, asked several questions of the key social worker regarding the children and accepted his answers as correct. He gave unqualified answers. If a court requires expert advice or if it has a wish to communicate with children involved, it should order full and comprehensive advice from Autism specialists just as a death and dumb child would have an expert interpreter. I believe all cases involving ASC children should have specialist involvement even before a Court becomes involved.

I would welcome comment from parents and Suzie as to this issue. I end by quoting the Law. Parents should consider it and ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in your case. Do not let them stitch you up as we were. Firstly, enquiries should be made within the framework of the Children’s Act and on realistic and informed appraisals.
To decide if a child is suffering harm or likely to, Children’s Act principle directs that a comparison must be made with what could be expected of a similar child of the same intellectual and social development (Re O (A Minor)(Care Proceedings: Education)(1992).Surely, when a child is known or suspected to be ASC, comparisons should be made with other ASC children.To comply, surely strategy meetings and Child-protection Conferences should not take decisions without expert input. Unqualified social workers, guardians and paediatricians cannot supply realistic evidence thus their evidence does not comply with the Children’s Act frameworks.
Secondly, there is another Children’s Act principle. Under s 31(2) (b) (i), it has to be shown that harm suffered by a child is attributable to ‘the care being given to the child’. Lancashire County Council v B [2001] 1FCR 583. This normally means parents but where care has been shared by strangers (e.g. the social care department) and it had not been clear who had harmed the child, the threshold criteria would not be made out.
In our case, descriptions of the children four days after removal into care were used as evidence the children had suffered harm. Unusual autistic behaviour displayed by the children at and after contact visits as interpreted by inexpert professionals was used as evidence similarly. Although it was likely the children’s development had been affected seriously by removal, it was not established clearly whether it was the parents or the Local Authority who had harmed the children.
I advise all those parents with autistic children or even those who suspect it to apply to a Court immediately for directions if the CS fails to follow Children’s Act principles in any way, even if the department has not instigated legal proceedings itself yet. It could well put ‘unlawful’ evidence to a Child-protection Conference to establish your child is at significant risk. That wrong decision could lead to the permanent dissolution of your family.

 

[blueplain]

During the early stages of my intervention my childresn difficulties were blamed on our parenting skills. It took a long time for diagnosis and the mind set of children services to change from unfriendly attitudes towards us to them having pitty for us. All children who seem delayed and have difficulties should all go through the CDC in my opinon. Beofre an actual picture and opinion is formed.

[Basil]

my child was taken in foster care, I was put through hell and back, he has ASD just been diagnosed. now don't even hear from them as I am taking it further due to lies told and written,

[ange301126]

Dear Basil, do you mind me asking what action you are taking?
My children are now in permanent foster-care and I am thinking of taking action for failure in 'duty of -care; maybe if I win that one and the judge confirms their perjury,I will have a chance of going to the family court and getting the care-order discharged.What do you think? .

[Basil]

I am taking them to court, I asked for an apology from them and records to be corrected but received none. but most of all my son did not get any help and still hasn't received any. I cannot go into a great deal of detail on hear as I know the social worker checks. my child was more damaged in foster care and they are just trying to cover there own backs. m y child was put on cpp none of it happened, yet it was me who asked them for help over a number of years but received none then, as soon as I had an illness they the called cpc on grounds of neglect, within 5 days of me telling them they are a waste of space. so I guess that was my payback as you shouldn't say things like that to them. cpp was not carried out, I agreed for my child to go into foster care for 6mths. a year later hes still in foster care, asked questions then didn't see my child, wasn't told about medial appointment had no contact with my child. they said he didn't want to see me,which was a lie, he nearly died in foster care, and yes they rang me to ask what can they do do I have any ideas, two years later he walked out of foster care and came home, they tried everything bribs you name it to get him back and away from me. but it hasn't worked. so now im back to where I was before I asked them for help. one help they gave to my child, was confusion. for me made my health deteriate faster. a lot of reports parents don't get to see, but if you get you file under the freedom of information the whole stinks even more. a parent is expected to be gratefull and believe and trust them. never trust them always record and have an outside witness.

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear Basil

Have you used the Looked After Review process to raise your concerns with the Independent Reviewing Officer responsible for your child's care plan?

Furthermore after accessing your records have you then exhausted Children's Services's formal complaints procedure (s)?

Best Wishes

Suzie

[Basil]

yes been down that road, we are still waiting for a reply as everyone seems to have gone on long term sick, its now been 5months waiting for a reply all my solicitor has been told is no one can help as they are away ill. even managers.

[ange301126]

Dear Basil, the failure to respond after 5 months is in breech of guidelines as I am sure Suzie and your solicitor will acknowledge. Of course, we know by now it is a common tactic of the CS.
The question now is rather an important one to you.How will they advise you to respond?Will the solicitor take more decisive action?

Might I suggest that when you finally get your voice heard ,either before an independent panel or at court, that you point out the two legal principles I have cited in the first message on this thread.

[ange301126]

Dear Parents, Since this thread started a number of new cases have appeared on the forums concerning autistic children or similar. Perhaps parents involved could tell us whether the social workers are getting expert advice as they should or not?

[ange301126]

Have you received a reply yet to your official complaint,Basil?