The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were designed to protect vulnerable individuals, ensuring that any deprivation of liberty is legally justified and, in the individual’s, best interest. However, recent reports have raised concerns about the potential misuse of DoLS in child care settings, particularly when coupled with coercive practices by some social workers as denoted in the BBC article MORE THAN A THIRD of social workers are not trained on coercive control. Not only is this unfathomable. These issues can lead to a significant disregard for the legal rights of parents, including court-appointed contact arrangements, such as postbox contact.

Coercive Practices and DoLS

The existence of coercive practices within the child welfare system is alarming. If social workers are engaging in coercive behavior, it raises the risk that DoLS might be misused to restrict or eliminate contact between parents and children without sufficient legal justification. This misuse might occur under the guise of protecting the child’s welfare and the use of horrific molestation of child human rights? Which places children at risk with sedative drugs like Propofol) or psychological restraint, but it can result in the unjust denial of parents’ rights to maintain a relationship with their children. Quite frankly the child has no capacity for contact due to the restraint. This usably comes out as social Services mantra she or he does not want to talk to you. Which has a hidden meaning.

Disregard for Court-Appointed Contact

Under Section 34 of the Children Act 1989, parents generally have the right to have contact with their child when the child is in Local Authority care. However, there are specific circumstances where this contact might be limited or controlled, despite the legal right. The application of DoLS in care settings can sometimes be used to justify restrictions on contact that would otherwise be protected by law. For example:

• Postbox Contact: A method where letters or cards are exchanged between parents and children through a third party, usually the Local Authority. This arrangement can be crucial for maintaining emotional ties. If care home staff or social workers believe that even indirect contact might harm the child or destabilize their care or coercive control, they might not be able to provide this contact or disregard postbox contact, potentially citing or not DoLS or other welfare concerns as justification.
• Coercion and Power Dynamics: Social workers or care home staff acting coercively might prioritize their judgment over established court orders, mistakenly believing they are acting in the child’s best interests. A seemingly straightforward case of childhood depression could be escalated to invoke the Mental Health Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty, leading to the disregard of parental rights as outlined by the court. In such scenarios, the voices of the children are often unheard. These actions not only undermine the legal process but also create a power imbalance that could jeopardize the child’s long-term well-being. The article raises critical questions about the conditions under which these children are held. Are they being placed in specific facilities? If so, what are these facilities, how are they managed, and what safeguards are in place? This issue underscores a significant welfare concern that might affect thousands of children, warranting urgent attention and transparency.

What Evidence exists.

The use of Sertraline is an antidepressant that belongs to a group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is this a “gateway drug” refers to a substance that may lead individuals to be given more dangerous or addictive drugs such as at risk with sedative drugs like Propofol) or psychological restraint. Coercive control has a well-documented history in the context of drug use. This concept often involves a manipulative and dominating relationship where one party exerts significant influence over another, sometimes driving them toward substance abuse. In such dynamics, the controlling individual may use various tactics—such as intimidation, isolation, or psychological manipulation—to coerce the person into using drugs, which can then reinforce dependence and further entrench the control. This form of abuse can significantly impact the victim’s ability to make autonomous decisions, leading them into a cycle of substance use and increased vulnerability. Understanding the interplay between coercive control and drug use is crucial for developing effective interventions and support systems for those affected.

Protection exists under the Care Act to safeguard children in care home environments and address bad practices. However, if these care homes are replaced by alternative settings, such as a facility termed a “college,” it raises important questions about the legal rights and protections for children in these new environments. The legal framework designed to protect children must be adapted to ensure that these alternative settings also comply with safeguarding standards. The rights of children boarding in such facilities must be upheld, and robust oversight must be in place to prevent any potential neglect or abuse. We believe this legal loophole is being exploited to confine children in a so-called “college,” which operates with just three reception staff and one head social worker, and lacks fundamental elements such as a Parent-Teachers Association, counseling services, or a principal. All attempts to engage with the facility are met with legal statements refusing dialogue unless legally challenged. How can a facility of this size—equivalent to a football pitch—be effectively run by so few people? Are the children being neglected, or is it possible that they are effectively invisible in this environment? The absence of transparency and evidence about the facility’s operations raises grave concerns about its true nature and the welfare of its occupants.

Addressing the Issue

To address these concerns, it is essential to ensure strict oversight of how DoLS are applied in child care settings. Legal safeguards must be enforced to prevent the misuse of DoLS, and social workers must be held accountable for any coercive practices that violate the rights of parents and children. Advocacy, legal challenges, and public awareness are crucial tools in safeguarding against these abuses and ensuring that the best interests of the child are genuinely served.

---

If this article has impacted you, please be courageous and comment on the page. If you have faced legal frustrations, consider adding your case to those who feel the system is broken. Please note that this is on a secure server and requires validation data, which will be compared with the Family man database to ensure submissions can be verified. Do not hold back your emotions; this situation is truly horrific and evil. If you are not seeing the survey below this might mean you need to try a different Internet browser: