I have a client currently being supported by Social Services (sect 17 payments) Children's Act. She is a British National who has recently returned to the UK. Social Services are supporting her whilst her benefit claims are assessed (subject to Habitual Residence/ Right to reside) Social Services have provided emergency accommodation for her and child (4 years old) Hostel provides breakfast only. She has no other resources to pay for lunch, evening meal, milk, toiletries etc. Social Services are refusing to provide any more subsistence on basis that client has some gold jewellrey that she could sell, they also checked through her bag, coat etc to see whether she had any other money. Client was upfront about jewellrey, and explained that it holds sentimental value ( v small amount of jewellrey) Can Social Services insist on client selling jewellrey? Are they in breach of Human Rights Act by searching client?

I have to say I am appaled at this sorry tale of woe...

Section 17 payments are for the child(ren), and not for the parent/adult carer. S.17 payments are made by an LA's (or CC's) Children and Families section and these payments are made regardless of the Nationality or Immigration status of the Adult.

Social Workers are supposed to be, and not act in any way, that is not 'ethical'. BASW have a code of ethics that social workers should sign up to, but that is 'best practice' and has absolutely no statutory force at all. It might be worth finding out if the Social Worker(s) is BASW registered, (British Association of Social Workers), and make a complaint.

From next April, ALL social Workers have to be registered with the GSCC (General Standards Care Council), and have a registration No. to be allowed to continue to practice. They are allocated a PIN, and can be 'struck off' like Dr's and nurses if the act in the way that you have described. It will be an offence to call your self a Social Worker from April without registration. So, it might also be worth your client's time to contact the GSCC, as many Social Workers are already registered, and many more have registrations pending.

However, depending on the circumstances of the 'search' (was it done forcefully, or coerced, or was your client freely expressing the desire to be searched), then a breach of the HRA may well have occurred, (Art 14, engaged by, and with, section 8 as well as Article 1 of the 1st Protocol). As an local authority, (CC etc), is bound by the HRA as per S. 6 of the HRA), so you seem to have grounds to pursue this matter further...

John Barrett (Social Worker - BSc (Hons) Social Work & Dipsw) !

I have today been contacted by the Social Services Department in response to the above message. They have requested that I retract the statement on the basis that it appears to be a statement of fact, and have categorically denied the allegation
I have discussed the matter with my client to clarify her version of events. She has indicated that her bag was not actually searched, but demands were made to search the contents of her bag, which she refused. I would stress that this was a misunderstanding on MY part. However she maintains that she was told to sell her jewellery in order to meet her daily expenses before Social Services could consider subsistence payments.
Clearly I am in no position to say exactly what happened during the course of the assessment, as I was not present. However as an advisor acting in the interests of my client, I accepted her version of events.
As this is by far the first allegation of this nature that I have come across, I felt that it would be worthwhile to post this scenario on the website to see what the legal framework is in terms of Human Rights Act/ Children’s Act. In particular I wanted to know how section 17 (8) of the Children’s Act 1989 (Social Services shall assess any means available to the parent/ child) should be interpreted/ applied and whether such alleged conduct would fall within this remit to enable me to make an informed complaint/ challenge.

I hope that this clarifies my position.

well! it at least proves that social services departments are capable of rapid response, after all!

maybe we'll have to make with the 'allegedly' word round here, at some risk of resembling Private Eye.

i'm wondering whether there has been any movement on the subsistence payment issue, and any advice from social services on their position on the selling of personal possessions. it would be rather maddening if the sum total of any legal advice it obtained was directed to obtaining your retraction, imho.

many many years ago, when i was a DHSS visiting officer ( i'm that old!), the department was in a phase of being rather keen on take- up of supplementary benefit by pensioners. it's amazing, when once an idea has entered into the collective psyche, for want of a better term, how long it lingers. a fair proportion of my visits in the early 1980s involved persuading pensioners reluctant to claim because it was means-tested, that the days of the evil and much hated 'means-test man', who told you to sell the piano, were long gone. this went way back to the depression and days of mass unemployment of the 1920s and 30s, and the department was well aware of the obstacle it presented. Folks like me were charged with a responsibility of scotching the 'myth' and showing how warm and cuddly social security really was. : ) i met many elderly people who demonstrated the greatest reluctance to undergo means-testing - because of the 'sell your piano' legacy, and i also observed the utter horror, and underlying fear, found in two even older 'collective memories' - of the pauper's burial, and the workhouse. it was left to my imagination to contemplate just how much damage and trauma was caused to working class communities by 'the system', to have such a long term impact.

you try telling that to 'kids' today and they just won't believe you. : )

this is a long - winded way of saying i doubt that the means assessment by social services could be more stringent than the income support approach, which disregards the value of personal possessions ( unless there is a great deal of wealth tied up in jewellery, which you suggest otherwise), but i don't know. it is difficult to see how a different approach could be argued without it being discriminatory,,,

oh, and a week is a long time in politics, but the memory lingers on. class... race... plus ca change...

jan

The issue that I was raising in my first post, was that S.17 payments are made for the child. Social Services has a duty to safeguard and protect the welfare of the child. Section 17 payments are only made to 'children in need' (which is a legal definition, and has case law interpretation), and therefore the SS dept. should interpret that situation very liberally indeed.

Any payment must be made to safeguard the welfare of the child, not the adult carer. Therefore, the resources of the adult have a bearing on the amount of assistance provided, but that is not really the issue, as S.17 monies are paid to alleviate 'immediate' need. Asking a person to sell personal possessions (which I would consider to be in breach of Art 1 of the 1st Protocol anyway), would not meet that immediate need, (obtaining valuations, obtaining the best price etc).

Unless the Social Worker could say that your client had a gold bar or some other such instrument carrying substantial value (and that could not be classed as a personal possession), then S.17 payments should be made so long as the Child remains a child in need, and at whatever rate alleviates that need.

From what you have said, I would still be recommending BASW and GSCC complaint procedures as social workers making decisions such as those described above should not be in practice, and in no way allowed near members of the public ! The Department of Health have been publishing materials and guidance on matters of children in need under the banner 'Quality Protects' (now transferred to Department for Education), however...

The social Worker MUST have completed an assessment of the child’s needs under the 'NATIONAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK'. This is likely to have been an 'initial' assessment, (there is also a CORE ASSESSMENT, but that is only completed if the INITIAL ASSESSMENT warrants it). You starting point to pursue the matter further is to obtain a copy of the initial assessment, as that will give details of the Social Workers assessment (including financial considerations), of the child. You client should have been given that initial assessment, if he/she has not been given one, or if one has not been completed, it is very likely that the SS Dept. will be in breach of the assessment framework, and you should be contacting the Ombudsman as well as BASW and GSCC....

Hope this helps... (sorry for the long rant, but seeing poor Social Work decisions really gets my goat, now where did I leave it???)!