极速赛车168最新开奖号码 Comments on: Councils warned charging parents for children in care will undermine safeguarding and increase costs

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Kim Lou

Kim Lou — Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:38:56 +0000

In reply to Tom. Absolutely this. Couldn't have said better.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Mr Wong

Mr Wong — Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:20:46 +0000

A colleague sent me this article last week. Initially I thought it was a joke.

This is an absolute disgrace. How can the state ask families to contribute when most times it is the state removing the children. As others have already pointed out they often abuse s20 arrangements and coerce parents into signing it.

Generally the families we work with are on the lower socioeconomic bracket. I would love to see them try this with a family from the upper socioeconomic bracket.. They would, and rightly so, get challenged.

Instead of trying to charge families to save a few bucks… Why not address what’s really costing them the money… Expensive resi, Ifa, project and agency social workers.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:24:33 +0000

In terms of under 16’s, implementing this policy will only lead to parents refusing to sign section 20 (because they have no choice, considering the overwhelmingly poor socioeconomic statuses of the vast majority of families with social services involvement; this will in turn lead to more children being unnecessarily looked after, and increased pressure being placed upon the already bulging-at-the-seams family court system.

In terms of over 16’s, I understand the logic in asking them to supplement a part of their living allowances as ‘rent’ (life skills, etc.) however at the same time I believe ethically it’s very rocket ground and doesn’t sit right with me at all.

Is this simply a situation whereby local authorities desperate for cash are looking for any which way to claw back a fraction of their outgoings…if so, it’s a very short-sighted and oppressive strategy in my view.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Victoria Coker

Victoria Coker — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:25:36 +0000

The council needs to appreciate sending children and young people into care, is to predominantly to safeguard these vulnerable children and young people with no voices.
Many of these children and young people will otherwise be at risk and lack protection of sexual assault and abuse. Rich people or other businesses’ men crawling their cars to pick up children and young people. Once captured, they’re used under the basements for all sorts. We have witness many cases in England and Wales. Some children and young people might even need protection from their extended families and parents
How low can the country get, if we can protect our vulnerable children and people for that matter. Why is the cost of everything has to come down to money. Who would be taking responsibility for these children and young people and even their parents who might equally be at risks and vulnerable. Where is our council and government accountability. Obviously, we are paying inexperienced people to give our government and the councils wrong advice and information. When would it end
Some advisers must have advised the government about the cuts in the fuel payments. We need government and the councils with their advisers who are trained adequately in the subject to advice and guidance as to holistic approaches to problems solving in humanitarian approaches to problems solving.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:41:06 +0000

I was placed in foster care under section 20 it caused massive trauma. My parents loved me and desperately wanted help to support my neurodiversity. Social care forced them to give me up.

To expect them to pay for the privilege is horrific.

I went home and have seen how horrifying support for neuro diversity is now and frankly think if LA can’t afford to support parents or house children their position is untenable and putting children at risk

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: wendy smith

wendy smith — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:37:04 +0000

Considering how frequently section 20 is abused to avoid court but not offered as voluntary to parents this sounds like a very abusive practice

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:16:04 +0000

Does make sense especially for first few weeks as parents can still claim the benefits. May encorage more engage with parenting support. If safeguarding…get an Order

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: B

Sun, 22 Sep 2024 14:44:39 +0000

90% of parent are pressured into signing a section 20 and don’t ever clue what they’re signing. Then trying to get there child back never happens due to a full care order is given in court.
If one parent signs it the other parent stuffers.

If the local authority can’t afford to take a child into care they should just be a support or sign post then to a home help support. They should have the rights to have their child removed and then be expected to pay for the privilege of having their children removed.
That don’t just cause the child damage but it causes the parents emotionally and financially damaged as they might lose any source of income. If a parent loses their child there jobs (depending on the position job they hold could be lost)

Local authority shouldn’t be charging parents for taking their rights away to a child they gave birth or raised.

极速赛车168最新开奖号码 By: Mrs N Daykin

Mrs N Daykin — Fri, 20 Sep 2024 21:05:29 +0000

How can I respond to this I feel very strongly that this is detrimental to children and to their families and as a parent who the state thinks has willingly agreed to a section 20 but to me this was a massive decision with a lot of factors to consider let along the psychological distress of weighing up the costs and benefits of this decision for our family. I would like to be able to put my story across to those in charge of this decision and let them assess the mental cost it takes to make this decision and the implications financial payment towards this could have on looked after children and there families. Please inform me who I can discuss this with
Kind regards Nicola Daykin