@wandeljw,
back
oh, just so much, my head is spinning
a lot of good, some not so, but a lot of good
out with the old, in with the new
got there and brother arranged for photocopying to be done. 6 pages x 10!
my lawyer turned up - we talked for a while whilst I shook
everyone turned up... went in... handed out my agenda & questions and...
first thing that happened was "oooooooh I know you" - the new social worker knew my solicitor
- they had both worked together on a child protection case a few years back, on the same side - yay - he says she is really nice...
good omen
new social worker is young, hip, with it - excellent for R - no stuckuppedness! She asked the right questions... she wants to get to know R. It was agreed that this will be done very, very carefully with the keyworkers support - it is crucial for R to engage with her, she will have to make the effort because he is not able to. The carers told her the things he would do and say and how he would react, they said she will need to be patient - he will not trust her, he will not be able to communicate properly with her for a long time. We asked her not to say she was a social worker... use different words, don't use trigger words.
I asked them to give R the option of who his personal adviser should be until he is 21... they need to talk about this because the crossover with carer/keyworker and personal adviser is... hmmmmmmm.... gotta be careful with crossing boundaries. If he engages with social worker, she is the one who can "help" him
NO ASSESSMENT has been done. Not worth telling y'all about - hasn't been done - point was made... many times... they know they got it wrong, they admit they got it wrong.... lots of "in hindsight".... can't change it... points were made.
MrP and I had a bit of a set-to - I had written he was not to have anything to do with R's future plan, in Beth's words - he said he was soooooooooo professional - blah blah blah - I said I did not wish him to place any negative connotation about R or his behaviour on the new social workers shoulders and a few other things (so did the carer, yay for him, backup) - she assured me she would not let that happen. She hasn't met R yet. She said she is used to angry kids, she won't let it phase her.
long and short...
the difference in law - as they made very clear to me - the word "should" means "we do not have to do anything nyahnyahnananyah" whereas the word "must" means they have to.
In other words - they do not have to support R post 18 legally. He has 'capacity' - therefore, on your own buddy. However, given the overwhelming evidence (my and the carers information and points of law re assessment, mental health needs etc) - they realise that R will need huge support, flexible support, and this is to be discussed at a further meeting they will arrange, including R in the meeting and him saying what he will need help with. I will be out of the loop but the carers will keep me informed - I never thought I would say this again - but I trust the carers, especially his keyworker - he was fab - he had on a luminous pink watch and sat with his knees up and feet on the chair - I can imagine how him and R talk - it was so lovely to meet him. Manager was great too - terrific backup - understands R, WANTS to help - LIKES R, warts and all. New Director was there - he's the money man - but even he was good - they know as a company they cannot support R long term .... no crystal ball, just got to hope that they can sustain support for a minimum of 6 months, and with SocS commitment to funding, post 18, 12 month floating support...
The Law - the law states one thing, but in reality something else happens. This came up so many times, I questioned, my lawyer questioned - I said that the inconsistent approach will not register with R - they tell me one thing, they are telling R another, the housing people will say another, the carers will say another, the benefits agency will say another - R needs to be given the "what actually happens" not the "well, we don't have to do this but as we are so up ourselves and are nice people we will do this for you" approach.
So - no minutes were taken - they do not have to do this, BY LAW. It is not a must. However... having started the meeting with "R has capacity"... by the end of the meeting the Head of the Care Leavers Team <I have a grudging respect for this man
... he did seem to be really worried about what is going to happen to R and admits that this is not a good scenario) ... and everyone else in the room ... agreed that they were very concerned about how things were going to work, not sure that it would work, and that R will need more than a little support. A contingency plan is not in place. It will be by his review date - so they say. Now, I have to leave them to formulate that plan of action because the carers know better than anyone what support he needs, I've advocated for him and got them to confirm a lot of stuff - and I have to hope that R will engage with the new social worker and that she, along with the carers, will help R live independently. They now say it will take a few weeks and of course, the flat may be rented before then - though they would hope the landlord would not do that.
My lawyer was brilliant - he just kept scribbling notes which I had to look away from him because I could see he was doodling - they took me seriously because he was there - that's what I needed him to do for me. Love my lawyer.
Lots of things not confirmed ... but I cannot force them to do anything - have.to.work.with.them....
I only got upset once when they said "normally a child has his family supporting them" you know, with that tone and look ... at which stage I responded like ice but with venom and then laughed as I turned to lawyer and said "we wondered how long it would be before they made me say R would not see or be in contact with me"...makes them feel very powerful. That's fine - you lot be powerful , be as powerful as you like with me- just make sure my son stays safe and help him when he needs it.
nem'mind - for the record they will ensure that the words about me stating R could not come back to his birth family would be changed, with apologies...
much was achieved - though everyone agreed that R does not have a clue at the implications of moving and independent living, at least they all recognise that and .... though they do not HAVE to support him, they have committed to providing support post 18 - where he will have his keyworker and hopefully one other, seeing R on a daily basis and being a support when required. No details - they have to figure out how to do it but all agree this needs to be done immediately so that R knows who to turn to and he needs to know it before he moves. It has to be agreed and in writing before R moves.
Living in the city is going to be horribly horrible for him. They know he will probably spend most of his time in the Town which could lead to another whole host of problems... can't even go there... we just don't know how he is going to cope, no-one knows how he will manage, but... there's nothing I can do to change that - R is going to leave and will be on his own.
Review meeting - R and the local authority on 19/5 - again, carers asked that they do not use trigger words, do not read reports on him as tho he is not there, give him some respect and dignity, treat him like an individual and not just some kid in care, and he will more likely engage...
The carers were brilliant. My lawyer was brilliant. The new social worker seems to listen and is looking forward to meeting R - she asked for "tips" - I gave her lots of info.... so did the carers. She seemed to listen. I have a kinda good feeling about her...
Mr P..... who?
NEW START
<going to lie down now... oh so verra tired>
thank you all so much.
)
