Dr Connolly and Mr Doolan.

The Government's top social workers say a "culture of blame" over child abuse is driving social workers into taking children from their families to avoid any risk of being blamed if things go wrong.

Now this would really suggest that our social workers do not have sufficient ability, and/or confidence in their ability to realistically and reliably identify potential for harm.

They say "sensationalist" media coverage of high-profile child deaths is making social workers less willing to trust the families of the children referred to them.

Again, 'trusting families of children?' What is required is having the ability and confidence in their ability to reliably discriminate potential cases of child abuse and act on this.

They call for a move away from the "culture of blame" to what they call a "public health model of welfare" which targets the whole range of factors that lead people to harm children.

The number of children and young people in CYFS care has risen by half this decade, from 3533 in 1999-2000 to 5191 at the end of last year, despite an actual decline in child deaths from 1.07 a year for every 100,000 children in the 1990s to 0.79 a year in the first five years of this decade.

Now, I don't think that CYFS have ever been solely judged on child deaths ... more for the quality of their employees, separating families, inappropriate placements ... CYFSwatch would, I believe, attest to this.

This sensationalist reporting has largely, if I recall correctly, related to those cases already under CYFS care, associated with or that have been investgated by CYFS, that have resulted in deaths. That is, it has been indicative of a failure to adequately appraise the situation or assess the risk - a lack of confidence in their ability, or lack of ability, to reliably discriminate potential cases of child abuse and to act on this.

Dr Connolly and Mr Doolan say that every high-profile child death review has led to tightening managerial controls over social workers which have made them less willing to risk leaving children with their families ... But wait, these are the two top social workers, presumably those very people who have driven the policy to tighten managerial controls and over include as a means of protecting themselves and not the children and young persons that they are mandated to protect.

Is this really anything more than a means of avoiding addressing what have become seen as systemic problems within this service. Further abrogation of responsibility and this at a time when the situation has been absolutely simplified for them by the Bradford 'bash the parents' bill - which of course was also driven by their (CYFS') incapacity to reliably discriminate potential cases of child abuse and act on this with minimal over inclusion.

So ... still trying to 'protect their backs?'