st_ouennais

For the first time in more than a decade I went to Fort Regent this week. The Jersey Care Leavers’ Association public meeting there on Saturday precipitated this rare occurrence. 

 

The first half of the two hour meeting was taken up with short presentations from people experienced in various aspects of dealing with abuse in child care settings and institutions. They Included Jim Goddard from the UK Care Leavers’ Association, Liz Davies senior lecturer in children and families social work, Fay Maxted who is Chief Executive of the Survivors Trust, and Valerie Sinason who is the director at the Centre for Dissociative studies. After the presentations, questions and comments were invited from the audience.

 

There was way too much information to recall it all, so I’ll just pick up the main points and impressions I got from the meeting. The overriding point is that the key requirement is that services and support for the victims and survivors of abuse in the child care system are independent services. Quite naturally and understandably, people who have been abused in care, usually by those in authority, have massive trust issues, and a near complete mistrust of authority. Victims and survivors will not come forward for help if they believe or suspect the services are not genuinely independent. A key campaign of the UK Care Leavers’ Association is to have an independent home inspection system lead by care leavers themselves.

 

It follows from those trust and authority issues that many victims and survivors will self medicate – alcohol and other drugs are an effective mechanism to cope with trauma. I was very surprised to hear that councellors, nurses and GPs do not receive training in trauma as a matter of course.

 

The experiences of survivors from other institutional child abuse investigations in the UK show remarkable similarities to the Jersey. In Powys the director of social services had said something like: it is a small community, everyone knows everyone else, it’s like a big family, abuse could not happen here. They were soon dismissed, and we now know North Wales was the biggest scandal up to that date. Since we know most sexual abuse is perpetrated by people who know the victims, often in families, it follows that family like close communities are if anything more likely to harbour abuse. It is in such communities that things can more easily be hidden.

 

Liz Davies gave us an insight into just how widespread are the organised paedophile organisations, and how they used the children’s home in Islington. Liz blew the whistle on the goings on there, the negative impact of Particia Hodge M.P. the obstructions and closing down of official support, the ‘disappearance’ of records and duplicate records, involvement of senior council insiders, and clear links to Jersey. 

 

One of the difficulties in detecting and pursuing abuse in the care system is the attitude of those in authority. A police complaints investigation in Leicestershire into why childrens’ complaints had not been acted on is revealing. “They considered the police officers who dealt with them did not believe their stories. They were justified in that suspicion. To most of the police officers who dealt with them, they were no more than juvenile criminals who habitually tell lies”. As Jim Goddard pointed out only 5% of those in childcare are there because of their own behaviour. The majority are placed in care to protect them from a negligent or abusive behaviour by parents, family etc. In recent cases police were the best allies of the abused because the police are quite used to hearing conspiracies and lies, and can tell when stories are real and when false. 

 

There were some good questions and points raised on the floor. In particular someone from a mental health group asked about the link between abuse and mental health. There is clear evidence of both care leavers and abuse victims/survivors having significantly higher incidence of mental health problems. It is very likely extra resources would have to be found to deal with this locally. So why have we closed the relevant hospital ?

 

A teacher who had trained in the USA commented that it is a legal requirement there to report abuse. There was also a compulsory element of the teacher training there that dealt with identifying and issues around abuse in children. The panel gave the impression the reporting requirement and mechanism in the UK is very messy.

 

There was a comment from a local therapist with specialisation in trauma, who commented they had offered assistance via the States but had been declined. I had the strongest impression that independent therapists would be very high on the list of things the victims and survivors would like to see in place, and its far from clear we have enough therapists to deal with the people. As someone pointed out ,getting a slot once a week for a specified hour doesn’t really fit with how and when traumatised people feel they can speak. The system has to work for the victim/survivor, not geared to the convenience of the therapist. Someone from Brooke Advisory reported they had been approached by a number of survivors for help because they are known to be independent.

 

A couple of people from Time for a Change spoke, referring to a demonstration they had organised, but didn’t say anything else of consequence that I could tell. I spotted a few elected politicians present Senator Syvret, who spoke briefly, deputy Le Hérissier, and I think deputy Pitman, and Senator Perchard (see below). Where were all the others? Surely not all on holiday at the same time? I saw someone who I think was senatorial candidate magistrate Le Marquand.

 

Jim Perchard (minister social services) spoke. He referred to the specialist therapist who spoke and confirmed they had been in contact, but said the States were not going to pay paying for someone who is in business for themselves. He also outlined the current States policy for childcare, which is to close children’s homes and promote more fostering. Both points are rather astounding really.

 

I would have thought the independent therapist would be exactly what is needed right now, provided their experience and bona fides are checked out. As for the States not paying people who are in business for themselves, that’s risible. Did Senator Perchard oppose the hiring of Oxera for the many reports they have done for the States, or the hiring of architects for the new incinerator building or for the Water affront masterplan? Did he, when he was a dairy farmer and in business for himself never take an area payment or any of the other grants for slurry handling facilities etc that are made under the States rural initiatives? I fully expect the occasional whiff of bullshit about a former dairy farmer as an occupational hazard, but not enough to feed an anaerobic digester.

 

As for closing the homes and promoting more fostering, what can I say? It gives Mr Perchard a chance to say were doing something about children’s homes, and be seen to be doing something. Obviously if we close homes than there can be no abuse in children’s homes. You can apply that logic to all sorts of problems. Close hospitals and your hospital acquired MRSA problem is gone. Close schools and you have no school bullying problem overnight. Close roads and your traffic congestion problems vanish. In truth closing children’s homes in favour of fostering saves the department money, that’s what that policy is all about.

 

Does Mr Perchard really believe there is no abuse in foster homes, or family homes? Does he not realise that there will always be a need for homes, not least because we need a diversity of supply in order to meet the differing needs of children who need care from the State.   Closing homes does not treat the core problem. As the panel rightly pointed out there is such a thing as a good children’s home.