To wonder about all the press on Social Services taking children away?

(459 Posts)
goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 22:24:10

From good families and parents for no good reason. It is media hype or is there truth in it?

Talking with friends recently, some say they are careful about what they say to the GP for fear of what goes down on record. For example, they would think twice before saying something along the lines of, "I'm finding it hard to cope with my young children while sick with flu (or whatever illness)".

Amy social workers out there who could comment? Is it true that 95% of children are never returned to their parents once removed?

Scary. I can't believe this could happen.

WorraLiberty Thu 17-May-12 22:38:06

Not so much press, more one spammy poster on MN....

goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 22:47:47

No, I've read several articles in the last few weeks. The Sunday Times, Daily Mail (I know), can't remember where others were posted.

Worra not sure where you're headed with that. Meaning my post?

DuelingFanjo Thu 17-May-12 22:52:28

it's really quite hard to have a child taken into care permanently. My mum was a sw in child protection.

if you were to say 'I am finding it hard to cope with my young children while sick with flu' who would you be saying it to? Unless Social workers are already working with your family I can't see why you would think they would even be aware of a comment like that.

IneedAbetterNicknameIn2012 Thu 17-May-12 22:56:57

My personal experience of SS is that they will do everything they can to keep children with you of you are struggling.

The people I know who have had their children taken from them would say that SS are evil, interfering wankers, who take children for no reason.

IMO most people who have lost their children will 'pretend' or maybe genuinely not realise, that they have done anything wrong.

goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 23:00:21

Did anyone else read about the mum in Wandsworth? Ok I can't remember how SS ended up getting involved but when they did, they usedcomme ts like this given to GP, against her.

And I'm talking about things that most mums i know have said at some point to GP when babies are very young and they're in the depths of sleep deprivation. Examples: I'm finding it hard to cope, I feel really fed up, etc.

Not posting because I personally feel concerned about SS! More wondering if anyone else believes these stories in the press. Apparently SS are cracking down after high profile cases like, very sadly, Baby P.

goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 23:02:30

A friend who is a SW says the same, that she would do everything possible to keep child with parents. And I know that she would.

Maybe I need to link to these articles .... Will see if I can find online

joanofarchitrave Thu 17-May-12 23:03:15

I'm sure there is a link between the press reports and people saying they are feeling afraid. Press reports are designed to elicit emotions.

This press article here states that a majority of looked-after children return home again, so that's at least 50%. A bit different from 5% - where is that figure from?

RightBuggerforit Thu 17-May-12 23:03:16

It's on the daily mail quite a lot. Some stories have been really scary, but that's the dm for you, they don't sell papers by telling it how it actually is!

RightBuggerforit Thu 17-May-12 23:03:49


Devora Thu 17-May-12 23:06:01

I don't believe there is an institutionalised conspiracy to rip children away from loving families in order to meet government targets, no. I don't believe it is 'too easy' to take children into care. I don't think social workers are generally over-zealous in taking children away from their parents.

I do believe that the system is under enormous strain, that there are not enough good social workers, that it is hard for good social workers to do their work well. I think mistakes get made. I also think that social workers who are inexperienced, unintelligent, gullible, cynical, prejudiced, undersupported or overstretched may make bad decisions.

Selks Thu 17-May-12 23:07:53

What 'press'? Other than a couple of threads started on here by the odd poster with an agenda I have seen nothing much in the media.

Some info for you OP -

- Social workers main aim is to keep families together. Much support and effort is given to that end.
- It is not easy to get a child into care. There is a lack of foster places for a start.
- It is not a social worker's individual decision to remove a child. It is done with a court order from a judge.
- Social services are not 'cracking down'. It is true that more children are coming into care now than before, but that is for two reasons - better understanding of child protection by other professionals e.g. teachers etc means more referrals to social services, and some children are not left in abusive homes for so long as previously before they are removed, which is a good thing.
The primary thing is the wellbieng of the child.

So no, don't worry. Social services are not out to child snatch.

goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 23:08:54

The 5% is a number my SW friend said in conversation. Have no idea is she's guessing or estimating but I'd imagine she has a good idea. Been a SW for several years.

fussbucket Thu 17-May-12 23:13:07

This happened to an old school friend. Her twins were taken into care within days of coming home from hospital as they had signs of healing bone fractures. They'd been premature and had spent most of their lives in hospital. Medical evidence very quickly showed that the breaks had almost certainly occurred during their natural birth. However, it took nearly a year to get the children back, during which time the parents were allowed 2 hours supervised contact three times a week. As the whole thing was covered by the blanket news blackout that all such Family Court cases are covered by, we were unable to create a stink about how slow SS were to get their paperwork done.
Can't stand the DM and its scare stories, but I KNOW this one is true.

goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 23:13:49

Oh dear my intention wasn't to 'bash' social workers. I admire the job they do and know I could never do it myself. It must take so much out of you.

I can't find the articles online but The Sunday Times ran a story about 2-3 weeks ago, and there was a similar one in the Daily Mail. Also something in a Sunday paper supplement perhaps 4 weeks ago now. Sorry I haven't seen the MN posts you're referring to.

notforlong Thu 17-May-12 23:48:05

A neighbours child suffered a fracture and the child was taken due to this one incident. A medical reason was found.

The social worker could hardly speak English, so I fail to see how they could interview the parents fairly.

I could not believe the way this case wa handled, the mother and siblings were traumatised.

goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 23:59:18

These are terrifying stories. I can't get my head around how SS could take away your child over a single incident. Don't they talk to extended family and friends of the parents? School teachers, neighbours?

BackforGood Fri 18-May-12 00:18:29

I have worked with dozens and dozens of children over the years, where all the professionals - except the SWs- just couldn't believe the parents were allowed to carry on "parenting" the children the way they were. IMVH (and no doubt unpopular on here) opinion, SC&H are FAR too reticent to think about the way these little ones are being damaged by some truely appalling parenting, and just continually try to keep children with their biological parents when the parents are clearly unfit to look after an animal let alone bring up a child. Of course, none of these professionals are allowed to report what actually happens to these dc, in the media. but the media love a good story where parents tell their side and tell of how their child was taken away by an over zealous soc worker.
That's not to say I don't believe mistakes never happen - sadly they do, and even 1 mistake like that described above, has devastating effects on the whole family, but it definitely is NOT widespread, nor, IMO does it happen often enough.

Sorry for rant blush - I've spent the last week dealing with a very damaged little girl who is still returned to her 'mother' and it just makes me so angry.

Devora Fri 18-May-12 00:23:44

I agree, BackforGood. Cases where children are taken into care for one fracture must be vanishingly rare in comparison to those where children are left languishing in truly horrific situations.

Which doesn't make it ok, of course.

lovelydogs Fri 18-May-12 00:31:18

I've read similar too, although in broadsheets not dm or here. They have targets, apparently, after baby p.

gingerchick Fri 18-May-12 00:38:40

FFS go away woman!

lovelydogs Fri 18-May-12 00:55:12

I'm recalling a similar article I've read, which specifically named that case. What's your problem?

Noqontrol Fri 18-May-12 00:56:59

There's always been targets, same as any government organisation, way before baby Peter. Doesn't mean your child is going to be taken away because you're struggling to cope with the flu though. Social workers are there to actually try and help, believe it or not.

cory Fri 18-May-12 08:01:41

THere have been cases, certainly, where children have been removed from their families because of medical conditions mimicking abuse. But then we're talking something that looks like serious, dangerous abuse, not just feeling a bit overwhelmed by flu. And I don't see how the SW can be blamed for that: surely the blame rests with ignorant medical professionals who failed to spot the real condition. If the SW are told by the consultant that a child is being battered by its parents, you can't really blame them for trying to save the child.

My children have one of these conditions, and I have to say ignorance seems less widespread than it did 10 years ago. I think internet forums like Mumsnet do a lot of good in spreading awareness.

Of the professionals we came across, we found SWs the most level headed and open minded, mental health professionals the second most approachable and male paediatric consultants the most difficult and most likely to jump to conclusions. But of course the sample size is small.

knowotumean Fri 18-May-12 08:12:19

OP yeah I don't know if it was a woman from Wandsworth but I heard a lady speaking on radio 4 recently about a similar experience. It sounded hideous. I think, but I am not sure, that the doctor was a young inexperienced GP and the notes she wrote/her observations were very alarmist-jumping to conclusions as poster above says, a referral got made and it sounded like the doctors initial judgment influenced all the subsequent assessments and it all spiralled out of control.
Also agree with posters who say social workers will generally do all they can to keep children with their parents.

Christopher Brooker in the Sunday Telegraph writes about it frequently.

From a personal point of view my family have seen the best and worst of social workers (one who almost put DNeices into care because of their mothers abuse and refused to contact my DBro, she is currently under review or whatever it is they do, another who has worked her arse off, even traveling to see my DBro and DNeices on her day off to work with them and help and support my DBro).

One problem is the increasing industry of reports from non practicing phychologists (sp) who are making a living out of writing reports on people they have met for a few minutes at all, there have been several of these reported on. In fact my DBro's report was on the whole glowing but ended with 'xxx could in the future possibly start to possibly display mild narsicistic tendancies. ' I wasn't aware these people were fortune tellers too! After complaining to the fab SW this was reviewed and removed.

Like any profession, there are excellent, good, mediocre and bad people. Unfortunately the few bad ones are the ones getting the press at the moment. I will say that the profession is massively underfunded at the moment and that is a major problem, however the majority do do a fantastic job.

BalloonSlayer Fri 18-May-12 08:25:03

knowotumean I think the lady in that case is a Mumsnetter. I have seen posts on here from someone with identical experience to the lady in that case, and quite recently too.

Margerykemp Fri 18-May-12 08:26:23

I know of a case (close friend) where there was a false allegation of physical abuse. Social workers whipped the child away and the innocent mum had to fight and was lucky to get the DC back. There may be procedures that legally should be followed but in this case they ignored the law and took advantage of someone who they didn't think would get a lawyer involved.

Years on the mum still has PTSD from the experience.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere Fri 18-May-12 08:45:30

There is a trend in my area to call SS if someone pisess you off. Ironically they would rather poke their eyes out than grass on real abuse.
I know quite a few people who have had this happen and the cases didn't go anywhere.
I have also found its really hard to get Ss to take legal responsibility for a child.
I also know a fair bit about the law surrounding child protection and it is complicated and very difficult to remove a child

Mrsjay Fri 18-May-12 08:48:25

SS are not the childcatcher they are not at Gp surgeries with Nets , A lot of people are paranoid about things being "noted" down its scaremongering , it is really difficult for a child to be taken into care and really is the last resort IME ,

Mrsjay Fri 18-May-12 08:50:09

I know people who have said what did i do wrong they have stolen my children , they have no right to do that , they are MY children , they failed to realise how dangerous and neglectful it would be to have the children at home , sad

Chundle Fri 18-May-12 08:52:33

I used to attend a children's centre with a woman last year. She had 5 kids. 2 were disabled. She had a higgledy piggledy house out in the sticks that was a tad messy and unkempt as it was an old farmhouse. She had all five of her kids removed and placed with temp foster carers before being placed with her mum due to the state of her house. They never once gave her help to try and gut the place first and I know firsthand that they have been looking for reasons to remove those kids for years just because the mum didn't dress like regular people and because her house wasn't as clean as others!! She was accused by sw of all sorts all of which was proved in incorrect by medical experts!!

Noqontrol Fri 18-May-12 10:01:57

Do you really think that was the whole story though chundle ? social workers don't generally take steps to remove children from a house that is just a tad messy.

Is it true that 95% of children are never returned to their parents once removed

No that isn't and you have to realise that within the figures of the children that have been removed,many will be with family and the parents are happy for them to stay there.

Slow paperwork

Now there are legal frame works to work within and timescales.

Most parents are in denial about the issues, so it is difficult to go on anyone's say so. Also often parents don't get legal representation/advocacy, or turn up forappointments, which slows everything down.

Social workers whipped the child away

The court has to be satisfied that there is a case to answer.

Everything is ran past your manager then legal, then you file for court.

When posts have started off on here from a parent whose child is 'in the system' and i start to ask questions about them being offered parenting assessments etc, they dissappear. I can recognise immediately when they are not presenting the facts.

There is a process to o through before the return f a child, in the cases that i handle, 90% of the delay is because of non co-opporation from the parents, not turning up for appointments, etc.

L.A.'s do perfom differently, guidelines/threaseholds vary between them. The system as it is now, if it is followed, works well. There have been big changes in the last 12months and there will be more from this year.

She had all five of her kids removed and placed with temp foster carers before being placed with her mum due to the state of her house.

I doubt that the case is as simple as that, but it is a shame that the family didn't step in before there was a need to remove them.

SS often pick up what was once the remit of a good close nan/family.

SystemofaDowny Fri 18-May-12 10:46:24

I believe the stories due to my own personal experience with social services. i can post the details if anyone wants to know about it. An independent review found that they removed my child without good cause, which they later admitted, but they then commenced a 9 month 'investigation' to try to find alternative reasons to keep her in care. The process was not in the best interests of the child or family and only aided the social worker (who had made the original incorrect judgement) to cover her own back. The investigation was also found to be heavily biased due to 'twin tracking' the process of looking for an adoptive family before the court has decided the child should be adopted.

I'm sure this doesn't happen as often as the case where the right decision is made. But the secrecy surrounding chid protection procedures and the default assumption by the general public that 'there is no smoke without fire,' i my opinion enables social workers to act in this way, and adds to the trauma experienced by children and families when their experiences are not believed.

I don't think that the public do believe hat there 'is no smoke without fire', i think that most people don't want to think about child neglect being deliberate or damaging.

There are senario's where investigation starts or a removal and it is found that there isn't a case to answer, but the child is returned.

That is better than leaving a child in a potentially dangerous situation. It's a bit like false arrest, or sectioning.

Do we want more than 5 dead children a week? really is the question.

That is probably an underestimation and doesn't include death through neglect etc.

HecateTrivia Fri 18-May-12 11:11:48

There is a person I am aware of, I must be vague for obvious reasons and this will involve fudging a few details, missing a few bits out etc, who social services have been made aware of. This person has a number of children, including sn. This person has a number of personal issues. They are also neglecting the children - in every way. Emotional, schooling, hygiene, state of the home etc

Social services made a visit and told this person what they needed to do, and how to do it and how to access help and support.

They came back. Person had not done it.

They told them again, and warned them that if they continued to do nothing to change any of the areas of concern, then further action would be taken.

They have done nothing.

These are children that are dirty and uncared for. Whose sn are not being met, etc etc.

Social services are still working to try to get this person to change.

Surely, if it was a case of whip 'em away - these children would have simply been removed by now?

tbh, I hope they are. It's awful, the way they live. Heartbreaking. If this person would only try, that at least would be something. But they don't. Even though social services are involved and basically pleading with them to!

So no. I don't think there's any rush to remove children from their families. It really is a last resort.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:03:13

90% of children taken by ss are put for adoption. thats fact look it up people.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 18:11:05

In my limited experience, I don't think SS take children away from neglectful parents quickly enough. I have known children to be left with parents who don't care for the and are abusive in their neglect.

The cases where they have removed children wrongly are going to be few and far between, but they are going to get the most press. There will be mistakes made in every profession, that's just life.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:15:38

90% of children taken by ss are put for adoption. thats fact look it up people

No it's not

Ilovetoridecamels Thu 29-Nov-12 18:16:51

I think you are a poster who likes to spread fear.

Ilovetoridecamels Thu 29-Nov-12 18:17:21

Meaning the op.

90% of children taken by ss are put for adoption. thats fact look it up people.

How about you back it up instead. You're making the claim, so the onus is on you to prove that it is true.

And in response to the OP - social services are not perfect, they don't always get it right. Unfortunately, however, the only time we hear anything about their work is when something goes wrong and this colours people's opinions of them. They're very much damned if they do and damned if they don't.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:27:57

look on the adoption website BE MY PARENT it shows alot of the children taken by ss who are available for adoption.

i know for a fact due to seeing it first hand.

i know of countless children who have gone for adoption this year alone because the ss have stated "risk of future emotional abuse" as the reason the parents cant have the children back.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:29:24 please read this

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:35:06

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:41:36



mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:42:28

ErikNorseman .............what do you mean bull shit.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:42:48

i know for a fact due to seeing it first hand

You have seen first hand that 90% of children removed from their parents' care are placed for adoption? How, exactly?

DeWe Thu 29-Nov-12 18:43:45

States last year there were more than 65,000 children in the care system last year
6,800 children were identified for adoption, but not adopted.
Just over 3,000 were adopted.

That's roughly 15% identified for adoption 4.6% were actually adopted. The number being adopted is falling each year too.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:47:04

the contact centre that my daughter and myself had to go to while fighting to get my grandson back had 6 rooms all rooms were full from 9am till 5pm with people seeing their children and myself and my daughter are the olny ones that got our children back 905 of the parents that we met their children were going for adoption despite the parents fighting to get them back through the closed family courts.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:47:06

In fact, I would like the number of children permanently removed who are adopted to be higher. Adoption offers more permanence for children than long term foster care. I said bullshit to your entirely made up statistic.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 18:48:14

I think more children should be taken into care, I have know of 2 families where in my opinion the child was at great risk due to the parent's mental health and drug taking but the children were allowed to stay with the parent. If you are pregnant and taking drugs and you don't stop whilst you are pregnant why on earth should you get the chance to raise that child? If you are not going to stop taking drugs when you know thye are damaging your unborn baby you will never stop so why give them a second chance?

There was an interesting documentary series about the work social services do earlier this year, it showed how very hard the social workers worked to keep families together.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:48:42

Not all parents whose children are removed have contact in a contact centre hmm

bradywasmyfavouriteking Thu 29-Nov-12 18:48:58

I second the lovely erik

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 18:50:35

My secret world you can't take personal experience and say that it is fact. You can say 90% of the people I met had their children put up for adoption, but not 90% of children in care are put up for adoption.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:51:15


littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 18:52:43

I am a social work working in Child Protection. I work hard to keep children in their families and provide support or place them with relatives who can care for them. However if needed i will not hesitate to apply to have a child removed. This is a legal process and the social worker does not have the final say. In fact the application is sometimes turned down and the child is not removed. There are far more children who are either returned to their parents or remain within the family than are placed for adoption.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:53:34

you lot are off your tree i supose you agree with the local authority that the foster parents that are members of UKIP should not be allowed to foster any other children who are not white british and i bet you support the local authority for taking the mixed race children that the said couple had been fostering with no problems whatsoever ??????????????????????

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 18:53:59

Mysecretworld, I don't believe that you know the details of all the families using that contact centre on the days you did, but even supposing you are right about those 905 families, it still doesn't make your statistic correct. And taking it further, as you seem to believe what you are saying, did it occur to you that those parents didn't deserve to have their children back? That their children were better off with other people?

Bull shit indeed.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:54:58

Yes I do
But I'm not going to bother explaining why because I think it would be lost on you.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:55:42

ok hows this one ......................Woman dubbed ‘not bright’ enough to marry, now faces baby being removed when she gives birth
November 3, 2009
From Daily Mirror18/10/2009

EXCLUSIVE by Alison Smith-Squire

A pregnant young woman,whose wedding was halted by social workers in an extraordinary row over whether she is bright enough to marry, is to have her baby boy forcefully removed from her at birth.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, was this week told during a meeting with social workers they believe she is also not ëintelligent enoughí to look after her baby, due in January.

She will be allowed just a few hours with her baby, whom she has already named Ben. But she and fiance Mark McDougall, 25, will not be allowed to leave the hospital with Ben and he will then be placed with foster parents.

She said yesterday: “I couldn’t believe it when they told me I wouldnít be allowed to bring my baby home. I feel sick all the time.

”I am so upset I donít know what to do with myself. I know I am having a little boy and so I have already started buying baby clothes and am getting a nursery ready for him. But now I can’t take it in. I don’t want to think about January and I canít stop crying.”

Last month Kerry, who is 26 weeks pregnant, was told her wedding was being halted just 48 hours before she was due to walk up the aisle because, according to social services, she ‘did not understand the implications of getting married’.
Her fiance Mark, an artist, added: “Seeing Kerry so upset is absolutely heartbreaking and I am very worried that all this stress she is under will affect our unborn baby’s health.

“We’re just devastated by this and at the moment we just don’t know how we are going to cope in January. We have both already bonded with Ben and I can’t even begin to think what it will be like coming home without him.

“It seems unbelievably cruel but social workers told us that after an hour or two with Ben, he will be placed into the care system. They added neither Kerry nor myself will be allowed to remove him from the hospital.

“Social services are ruining our lives. They say they don’t believe Kerry has the mental capacity to look after a baby but this is nonsense. Kerry isn’t even being given a chance to prove herself as a parent. Yet, she is enjoying her pregnancy and would be a great mum.”

Mark said he would be happy to take on full responsibility for his son.
He added: “However, social workers just told me at the meeting to be quiet. As we are not married - because social workers would not let us marry - it seems I have no rights as a dad at all.

“Kerry’s grandmother is trying to apply for custody of Ben but social services have already told us it is unlikely she will be successful.

“It seems social services have their hearts set on taking him away from all of us for good. It looks like Ben will eventually be put up for adoption. We feel totally helpless as there seems to be no way of stopping them.”
Advertisement – article continues below »

Kerry, from Dunfermline, Fife, has been in the care of her grandmother since she was nine months old after her parents were unable to look after her, with welfare overseen by social services at Fife Council.

In January, she met Mark, from Arbroath and when she became pregnant, they planned to marry.

But their plans were dramatically halted when in September, two days before their church wedding, two social workers arrived at the flat they had shared for four months and told them because of Kerry’s learning difficulties, their forthcoming marriage was illegal.

Under Scottish law, a registrar may refuse to marry a couple if he believes one or both the parties lack the mental capacity to understand what the institution of marriage is about.

In a highly unusual step, the registrar at Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife Council wrote a letter of objection.

Mark said: “Everything was organised, from the church to Kerry’s wedding dress.
“Yet, despite arguing with the social workers that we loved one another and didn’t want our baby to be born to unmarried parents, they wouldn’t budge and we were forced to cancel our 40 guests.”

However, Kerry, who is still waiting to undergo an official psychological assessment, says her learning difficulties are not as severe as Fife Council make out.

“Last year I volunteered to help disabled children at my local primary school,” she says, “I have friends, a family who supports me and a fiance who loves me. I do everything for myself.”

Meanwhile, Mark points out that whilst his fiance ‘is not terribly academic’, she can read and write.

“She is a loving caring person, who is enjoying being pregnant and would be a good mum,” he says, “I didn’t even know she had learning difficulties until we’d been dating for two months and anyone who meets Kerry can see for themselves she is just a normal girl.

“For the first time in her life Kerry was truly happy. We were both looking forward to having out baby. But now our lives have been totally turned upside down and we are living a nightmare.”

Stephen Moore, Executive Director, Social Work Service said: “Much of the work we do is governed by legislation. Complex decisions are made that balance risk and welfare while supporting people at times of personal or family need.

“We cannot discuss details of individual cases for reasons of confidentiality but give assurance that we will always work with people for the best outcome for all involved.”

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 18:55:55

Mysecretworld - this is maybe a bit personal and you don't want to answer but why was your grandchild removed from his mother in the first place?

nokidshere Thu 29-Nov-12 18:57:14

If ss took children away for having a grubby home, eating crap or being full of cuts and bruises there would be an awful lot more children in the system.

In almost all cases there would be other causes of concern regarding safeguarding of the child.

My youngest spent a fair few hours in emergency rooms when he was a toddler with one thing and another, at 5 he almost lost his life in a "preventable" accident, and at 8 he got knocked down whilst walking to school alone. I have never been questioned about the injuries, or made to feel that they were concerned about our home in any way. If what you say is true then he would have been flagged up and removed from me a long time ago!

The simple fact of the matter is that in most of these cases the people are simply not telling the whole truth about what is actually happening. I don't doubt that mistakes are made but I guess thats inevitable given the nature of the work.

Parents who are involved with SS usually feel the need to make out they are hard done too because the alternative is for them to accept that they are in any way at fault for what is happening to them.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:57:22


littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 18:59:31

Mysecretworld - you have pasted an article giving one (probably very skewed) side of a story. Of course the parents will have reported this in that way. I am quite certain there would have been more to this case than was reported.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 18:59:57

Maybe you missed Erik's answer to your question?

freddiefrog Thu 29-Nov-12 19:00:43

I also think more children should be taken into care, a lot faster as well.

DH and I are foster carers, all of the children placed with us have been subjected to years of neglect and abuse while parents are given chance after chance by social services. All of these kids were 'snatched for no reason'. We have to be totally neutral and non-judgemental but honestly, sometimes I could just cry.

90% of the children in 1 contact centre doesn't equate to 90% of all children in care - some parents don't have contact in a centre, some don't have contact at all, kids over a certain age generally don't get put up for adoption anyway - they're linked long term with their foster carer (which is not adoption).

Of the 3 FCs we've had, 2 have returned home, so if we're using dodgy statistics, 66.6% have been returned to their parents

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 19:01:55

Why are you shouting. I have not responded to the post about UKIP as you seem to be getting very het up and i have not read the full details so will not comment on something i know little about.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:06:26

Erik did not answer the question about the UKIP foster family.

my grandson was taken by the ss because of his father being violent but my daughter had left him and taken the baby with her when she was reported to ss. it took quite a few court hearings to get him back but the things that were put in the file by the ss were all proven to be false or made up. hence us getting my grandson back. " the words RISK OF FUTURE EMOTIONAL ABUSE were used to support the ss asking for an adoption order on him

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:08:34

do you not watch the news the UKIP foster family has been all over the news for days now.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 19:10:58

What has the ukip foster family got to do with children rightly or wrongly being taken away from birth families?

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 19:11:12

I am very glad you managed to get your grandson back and i hope your daughter has managed to rebuild her life. Violence in the home is shocking and it is true that it is emotionally damaging for young children to hear or see this no matter how young they are.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:14:28

mysecretworld There is a MASSIVE post on the UKIP foster carers. Go and read it if you care so much.

I hate people who purposely scaremonger worried parents. sad

As a student social worker, I believe that terrible mistakes do happen. However, I cannot think of one single profession where terrible mistakes do not happen. We are humans, not robots. I am not excusing poor practice. There are some crap social workers. There are also crap doctors, nurses, firemen, receptionists, care workers, vets etc.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:15:03

it shows that the ss dont think of the children as the children were very settled with the family but were taken from them all because the ss found they were members of UKIP.

thats why mt daughter got out within the first few months of my grandson being born.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 19:16:41

But there could have been a risk if your daughter had chosen to go back to her ex, as many abused women do. I don't know why you are stating that as something they were wrong to say.

The UKIP foster parents may have been all over the news, hat doesn't mean everyone has read every detail of it. I haven't. But from the little I do know, I think the children should have stayed put. But I would be easily swayed the other way if I knew more detail to support that.

Erik's did answer you. Reread.

The only person I know who has had their children taken away from them (they have been placed with another family member fortunately) was reported by their own family. They are a drug addict who funds their habit through prostitution (she told me this herself) and was caught using the baby's feeding utensils to mix up drugs. I suspect her version of events would be rather different to the way everyone else saw it.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:17:15

but the ss said in reports that my daughter was on drugs and had mental health problems..... both of which were proved to be false.

she had 2 drugs test which both came up clean

she also had a mental health assessment when gave her a clean bill of health. it stated she DID NOT have ANY mental health problems

so th ss lied in reports which they then subbmitted to court.

WilsonFrickett Thu 29-Nov-12 19:17:44

Tell you what, when your DS goes to school with a child a full head smaller than him with rickets due to malnutrition, who is still living with his chaotic family you really find it hard to believe that ss take children too quickly or too easily.

In the case I am talking about the drug user is a drug user no question. SS didn't need to say it because the drug user said it herself.

I can't comment on your daughter's case.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:24:01

i do admit their are children out there still living with their parents that do need ss intervention and should be taken away from their parents but in my daughers case and alot that i have spoken to the ss should not have taken the children.

as i have said everything the ss put into the case files for court about my daughter was false and it was proven to be false

does anyone think that its right for the ss to put false accusation into reports that they then present to the judge in the family courts during the case ???

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:25:48

if you want to read a blog frm a mother who is fighting for her children please read this one.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:25:52

Are you an experience, trained child protection social worker? If no, then you are in no position to judge. Not to mention that you do not know the outs and ins of every person's history.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:26:46

Ugh *experienced and *ins and outs

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:27:07

i know my own daughters history and i know the whole case as i was involved in it and read every single thing that was put into court.

WilsonFrickett Thu 29-Nov-12 19:27:20

I think, secret, that your family was in a horrendous situation. However, from your threads at the time, I also think you minimised the risk your grandson was under - not from you or dd, but from her x.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:28:40

Yes and let me guess, you were able to be completely subjective too!

You're not a professional, you do not know how to recognise or assess risk in the same way as a trained, competent practitioner.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:29:25

im not a sw and would not want to be one but i know of a afew who have been struck off for things they have done that they shouldnt have done.

there was a social worker who was found with child porn on his computer and his defence in court was it was in research for his job.

do you think that that is ok ???

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 19:29:30

mysecretworld what often happens is that at the beginning of a case you might find a parent who is using drugs, has mental health problems, being subjected to domestic violence and at that point the decision is made to remove the child. Then the parent decides to fight for their child and accepts support and really turns things round so at the point where it might be going to court these things are no longer true - but they have to put all this into the report to give a history.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:29:52

Social services are not baby snatchers. By perpetuating such dangerous myths, you put parents off seeking support. It is dangerous. I won't comment on your case because I do not know the facts.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:30:50

I have clearly said that it is not ok. Where the fuck do you get off suggesting I think bad practice is in any way acceptable? I posted that at the start!

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:32:55

wilson frickett are you saying that my grandson was at risk from my daughter ??? cause if you are then your sooooooo wrong. she left his father and took the child with her to protect him from his father and in the hostel the staff had no concerns with regards to the care that my daughter was giving her son and they had no concerns with regard to her being able to protect him.

the statements from the hostel were put into court but the ss tried to have them removed from the evidence but the judge in our case said no they stay

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 19:33:19

As a social worker i absolutely accept that some are better than others and there is no excuse for poor practice. I think someone already commented that there are bad doctors, teachers, etc etc out there and social work is no different.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 19:35:07

I'm going out but I wanted to clarify, I don't have an issue with people sharing their own stories. I have a massive issue with scaremongering, lying and perpetuating the 'baby stealers' myth as it will put parents off seeking support when they need it.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:35:23

my daughter has never used drugs and has never had mental health problems. BOTH THESE THINGS WERE PROVEN BY 2 DRUGS TEST 8 WEEKS APART AND A MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT LASTING FOR 3 HOURS.

WilsonFrickett Thu 29-Nov-12 19:36:27

No my secret world that is not what I said. At all. What I said was I remember from your threads at the time that I felt you minimised the risk your GS was at from the EX.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 19:38:05

there was a social worker who was found with child porn on his computer and his defence in court was it was in research for his job

do you think that that is ok ???

What a ridiculous question.

Actually, parents can do a lot of harm to their children without consequence. The threshold for court proceedings is significant harm. So to get to the point of removal there must have been significant harm proven. It's almost impossible nowadays to remove a child without evidence of significant harm.

In your daughter's case, that evidence was not forthcoming eventually. Although there must have been some evidence at some point.

I did answer your question about the UKIP carers. I think it was the right decision.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 19:38:29

Yes to the OP SS do get it wrong and these cases are true. My sisters children have all got care orders on them because in a closed court 1 out of 3 bite experts decided that my sisters teeth had caused a bite mark that nursery had spotted on one of her childrens cheeks. That was all it took. Her baby was taken of her a week old last weekend because the judge in the closed court would not let her barrister get a word in edgeways and just excepted the SS side. My sister won't admit to biting her child so SS are refusing to let her have any of her children back. The expert that decided my sister had bitten her child is now in prison for submitting false evidence in another case. My sisters case has cost the SS's council around a million pounds. That is all the detail I can tell you now but yes the SS do screw up.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:39:16

i am not scaremongering i am telling the case regarding my grandson. if i could i would put up the statements from all parties on here for all to read but since the family courts is a closed court i am legally not allowed to copy the statements and post them for the public to read as i will be in trouble with the law.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:42:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 19:44:05


mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:47:07

he has been making false report for the ss for years. professer jane ireland did a report on the so called experts the ss used and named alot that were unfit to do the jobs they were doing in regards to the reports for ss dr hibbert was one of the people she named

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 19:50:51

Don't think names are allowed on the forum message me if you'd like?

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:52:04

i have done wasuup3000

people should read this .............

Around 20 per cent of psychologists acting as expert witnesses for the family courts are not qualified, according to a Channel 4 News investigation broadcast tonight, writes producer Phil Carter.

The findings are based on research published on Wednesday for the Family Justice Council (FJC). It was led by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire.

Prof Ireland and her team were given unprecedented access to psychologists' expert witness reports from three undisclosed courts across England by the FJC, an arm's length body of the Ministry of Justice.

Experts play a critical role in family court cases: research suggests that at least one expert is used in 90 per cent of public law children's proceedings and many cases involve three or more experts.

I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing.
Prof Jane Ireland, University of Central Lancashire
The majority of these experts are psychiatrists and psychologists, employed to provide expert opinion on a range of matters in these cases, typically including questions as to whether parents have the ability to care for their children, display personality disorders or other psychological issues and whether any such diagnoses are treatable within a timescale suitable for the children involved.

Channel 4 News spoke to families across the country involved in court proceedings and heard time and again concerns about the experts used by the courts to determine whether children are at risk and should be removed from their birth parents.


But because of the secrecy of the family courts - designed to protect the identity of the children at the heart of proceedings - the experts used have largely been beyond scrutiny.

This research is the first time these concerns have been to some degree independently substantiated. The research found serious concerns across a range of issues beyond the startling finding that around a fifth of so-called psychologist expert witnesses are not qualified.

The assessments of the expert reports found that some 20 per cent of the psychologists were working beyond their area of knowledge; around a third had no experience of mental health assessments; and some 90 per cent of experts were not in current practice.

The net result was that the research concluded that around 65 per cent of expert reports in the study were of either 'poor' or 'very poor' quality.

Professor Ireland told Channel 4 News: "I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read, not just in terms of qualification but also the quality of the reports that we read ..."


Nigel Priestley, a lawyer closely involved in family proceedings, told Channel 4 News of the gravity of the research's findings. "After the death penalty the most draconian act that the state can do is remove a family's child," he said. "What is at stake for many carers is the loss of their children and on the basis of a report which might or indeed might not be questionable."

After the death penalty the most draconian act that the state can do is remove a family's child.
Nigel Priestly, lawyer
He regularly deals with cases where parents feel the expert evidence is flawed. But it is the scale of the problem revealed by the new research which has surprised him.

He said: "If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified that is not just a mess, that is staggering, wrong ... this is not just about making money, this is about removing children very often or, more importantly, protecting children ..."


One of the more surprising findings of the research was that some psychologists were recorded as assessing parents without ever meeting or seeing them.

Prof Ireland told Channel 4 News: "You should never be in a position where you diagnose somebody, or make judgements on them, if you haven't seen them. It goes completely against code of conduct and ethics and it is impossible. You can’t do a paper assessment on a human being, you have to meet that person, understand their interactions, build a rapport and then take your judgement on the basis of that."

But Channel 4 News has learnt that this is not just a problem confined to psychologists. One mother who spoke on condition of anonymity recently left England after a private law family court case over custody of her children.

This case involved some eight expert witnesses. One, a psychiatrist, provided the court with an assessment of a potential change of residence for the children without meeting the mother or the children. The mother described the family court system and the repeated use of experts as barbaric.

The day after the psychiatrist completed the report on the mother he was suspended by the GMC for a separate offence. Yet, despite the concerns over assessing people without ever actually seeing them, it seems that courts are willing to accept such reports.

The research is the first of its kind and clearly has limitations, which the report itself acknowledges. The sample size was relatively small at 126 reports and the methodology to objectively quantify quality is likely to need further refinement.


But the range and scale of the problems identified suggest that this is unlikely to be explained solely by methodological shortcomings.

Intriguingly, the research also suggests that the problems may extend well beyond psychologists. Indeed, in the course of the investigation, Channel 4 News uncovered serious areas of concern with both psychiatrists and paediatricians as well as play therapists and others providing expert services to the family courts.

"I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing," said Professor Ireland.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 19:53:22

No onw will listen unless it happens to them Mysecret.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:55:06

A long overdue scandal hit the headlines last week when a semi-official report exposed one of the murkiest corners of our child protection system – the way that supposed professional “experts” help social workers to remove children from their parents.

A study by Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist, for the Family Justice Council examined 126 psychological reports trawled at random from family court documents. It found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. Already one psychologist, whose company has made nearly half a million pounds a year from such reports, is under investigation by the General Medical Council.

The picture Prof Ireland conveys is one with which I am only too familiar. I have seen how families can be torn apart largely on the basis of highly dubious psychological evidence designed, as John Hemming MP puts it, to “suit the demands of local authorities”. One mother lost her children, for instance, on the basis of a 235-page report, costing £14,000, which found that she was “likely to have a borderline personality disorder” – without the author ever having met her.

Another woman was found by a psychologist to be “a competent mother” – so the social workers went to a second witness, who found the same. They then commissioned a third, who at last came up with what they wanted: that the mother had, again, “a borderline personality disorder”. On that basis, her three children were sent for adoption.

A married couple lost their daughter because the father, who had had four “psychological assessments”, saw no reason to submit himself to a fifth. The Court of Appeal found that he seemed to be putting his “emotional needs before those of his child”, and ordered that the child be adopted.

Damning as Prof Ireland’s report is, her remit was only to look at psychological assessments. An equally disturbing picture might emerge from examining other groups of medical “experts” who earn thousands of pounds from evidence which parents may not be allowed to challenge or even read.

One contentious area, for instance, is where parents are accused of having injured infants who are found to have small fractures to their bones. A fashionable theory, pioneered by a Dr Kleinman in the US, holds that such fractures are a sure indicator of “non-accidental injury”, ie the child must have been abused. In one case (which I was able to report last year because the judge, unusually, published his judgment) it was clear that all the four medical witnesses had supported this “Kleinman theory”, unquestioningly accepted by the judge.

But other experts strongly disagree, citing studies which suggest that such fractures may quite often arise naturally from a deficiency of vitamin D (as tests had shown was the case with this particular mother). When I showed the judgment to a doctor expert in this field, he immediately recognised three of the witnesses as doctors who “go round from one court to another to support the Kleinman theory”. Since no one was in court to challenge them, the heartbroken mother – like many before her – lost her son.

Several scandals have hit the headlines in recent years involving doctors struck off after making a reputation as witnesses, pushing some theory about “brittle bones”, “shaken baby syndrome” or “Munchausen syndrome by proxy” which was eventually exposed as fallacious. But these causes célèbres have centred on criminal courts, where evidence can be put more rigorously to the test than is required by the much laxer procedures of family courts. As I have observed before, once a court system is allowed to hide itself away behind a wall of secrecy, the chances are high that it will become corrupted. A perfect example is the role played in our family courts by many of these professional “experts”. The good work Prof Ireland has begun cannot be allowed to stop there

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:57:13

thats soo true. they will only listen when they are in that situation. which is a shame cause they can help the families wrongly torn apart by the ss.

who do get bonuses if they hit their yearly adoption rates.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:58:33

watsuup3000 private message me i have sent you one but not sure if you got it

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 20:00:30

My sister kids have too many relatives ready to step in so they are not at risk for adoption, although an orphan herself, something SS maybe didn't figure on.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 20:01:13

Doctor 'distorted diagnoses for local authorities'
A consultant psychiatrist is being investigated over claims that he distorted his assessment of patients to suit the demands of local authorities, it was reported last night.

Dr George Hibbert faces being struck off after he allegedly misdiagnosed parents as suffering from personality disorders, it is alleged. In one case, he is claimed to have concluded that a new mother, named only as Miss A, had bipolar disorder because the local social services department wanted her child to be adopted, according to the Daily Mail.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Miss A confirmed that they had been instructed to begin proceedings against Dr Hibbert and the local authority.
Paul Grant, of Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, who represents Miss A, said: "We believe this distressing case may be the tip of a very big iceberg."
John Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, who has raised concerns about Dr Hibbert in Parliament, said he had spoken to "three or four" other families who had had a similar experience. He has written to Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, demanding a full parliamentary inquiry. Referring to Dr Hibbert, Miss A said: "Nothing will ever make up for what he has done to me and my child."

Mr Hemming told Parliament: "He [Dr Hibbert] is someone about whom a number of people have complained. I am told that at least one person has refused to work for him because of what she saw as his unethical provision of reports to suit the demands of local authorities."

He added that experts such as Dr Hibbert, 59, were often little more than "the hired gun of the local authority".

Dr Hibbert charged local authorities £6,000 a week for every family in his care and £210 an hour to read documents such as medical records. His company, Assessment in Care, made a profit of around £460,000 in 2007 from its arrangement with social services.

In a letter to Miss A, a GMC investigations officer said that Dr Hibbert "has now applied for voluntary erasure from the medical register". "He has no intention of returning to clinical practice in the future," the letter added.
A spokesman for the Medical Protection Society, the indemnity organisation for doctors, said professional confidentiality meant that Dr Hibbert was unable to comment on the allegations.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 20:03:09

Hope the closed courts are opened up soon, it will widen peoples eyes a little.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 20:04:58

thats what alot of people are working on hun even MP John Hemming. he also is backing some people in their fight against ss to win their children back.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 20:08:26

I know we have one of JH's people helping my sister.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 20:16:37

glad to here it hun

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 20:24:02


This stuff scares the shit out of me, my parents fostered and I've experienced good and bad.

My dd is going for an MRI scan this weekend and I got worked up because of all these threads, when I was pregnant with her her head was mishapen because of fluid and I had extra scans. I'm scared they will find something odd and blame me even though I've dome nothing!

I think sometimes SW are scared of the harder targets were they are likely to suffer attack although I get that fully.

I have seen them remove children were there was issues but where the family could have been helped, they got their two year old back but not the newborn.

On the other hand I've seen a ten year old who had been in his GP care since birth while dad was in prison for violent crime and mum in and out for drugs sent back to live in hell with his parents.

I think mostly they do a good job under pressure.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 20:42:56

sigh back ErikSnoreman *

cory Thu 29-Nov-12 20:48:01

So if a doctor is distorting his assessments of patients, mysecretworld, how does that qualify for entry on a thread about evil social workers? Shouldn't that be on a thread about evil doctors? Aren't social workers like the rest of us, forced to rely on the expertise of doctors because we haven't got medical qualifications ourselves?

Making it about social workers rather than doctors seems to me a typical example of going for the softer targets as mentioned by WHistlingwaves.

And no, I am not a SW and don't have any in my family (we do have some doctors though).

choccyp1g Thu 29-Nov-12 20:54:13

My worry is that the experts see their job as backing up whatever social services say, and giving it a medical gloss.

Most of the time, SS can see at a glance that a child is being abused, but because the courts need evidence, they get the expert witnesses to prove their case. On the very rare occasions when SS are mistaken about abuse or neglect the experts will tend to agree with them.

Has there ever been a "controlled test" of these experts, where they are given the details of any old average parent and children, told that there are "some concerns" and asked to pronounce on them? I would hope that the report would come back stating that they can't see any problems.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 20:55:40

the experts in my earlier post were payed for there false reports by ss and the said doctor did the reports to match the reports the ss was using against the parents. the ss used the said experts because they would do false reports for them so they worked together in the fight to get the children put on an adoption order. they worked together the ss and the said experts against the parents of hundreds of children.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 20:59:02

if your actually read jane irelands report you will see that even she says as a professional herself that the said experts do false reports and are unqualified in there said expert catagory .

jane ireland has looked into many many cases for her findings with regards to the said report.

mummytime Thu 29-Nov-12 21:00:41

In my limited experience it has been as BackforGood says, children have been kept with parents who were extremely damaging.

It costs far more to take a child into care than to support a family to cope.

FamiliesShareGerms Thu 29-Nov-12 21:07:34

The worst thing about these threads is that there may be people reading them who believe every word said about the evil child snatching social services and who don't seek help ( either for their children or for themselves) because they are worried bait the consequences. When in fact, in the vast majority of cases, there will be no further referral or investigation of the mother who says that she's finding it hard work at home, or the child who is always falling over and bruising themselves.

And I think it is almost wicked to scare parents who need help away from seeking that because of a myth that social services are looking out for children to take to put for adoption.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:07:46

but when the la meet there adoption targets they get a big fat cash bonus which helps them take more children.

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 21:07:56

mysecretworld - I would have thought you would have some good things to say about the court system. It is only a month ago that you posted a long thread about having a court hearing coming up in relation to your grandchild, and your solicitor planning to demand that the court handed him back.

So presumably the court did exactly what your solicitor wanted them to do? Although you mention having several court hearings. Presumably those weren't all in the space of a month? Had you been at earlier court hearings that you didn't mention on your previous thread?

Your posts could be extremely frightening for anyone going through this process and putting their trust in the court system, so you really should be clear about what happened. Particularly when making claims about things like the contact centre and being the only family to have your child returned to you. I remember from your other thread that you were having extremelly limited contact (once a week I think?) so how could you possibly know such private information about every other family in there every other day of the week?

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 21:10:31

These mistakes or myths as some of you sat in your comfort zones would like to think are carried out in closed courts which therein lies the problem, not evil SW's or corrupt Dr's.

FamiliesShareGerms Thu 29-Nov-12 21:11:39

mysecretworld - the targets for adoption were introduced in relation to children already in care, so that they didn't languish in the system without any clear plan. Not as a financial incentive to snatch children from perfectly good homes.

In any case, have you any idea how much the care proceedings from initially considering a plan for a child through to final adoption actually costs a local authority? Far, far more than any additional payment received by LAs. The economic argument just doesn't stack up

FamiliesShareGerms Thu 29-Nov-12 21:12:21

Believe me, I'm not sat in any "comfort zone"

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:12:58

in some caes there are court hearing that go on for days and also sometimes you got to court on the monday and then again on the friday.

i have copied something that i think you all should read.

Record numbers of young children are being removed from their parents and adopted unjustly because of government targets and the "secrecy" of the family courts, according to the BBC.
Campaigners told BBC Radio 4's Face The Facts programme that there are now more than 100 cases of possible miscarriages of justice where children have been forcibly adopted.

The programme claims the number of parents in England who have lost their children despite insufficient evidence they were causing them harm has now hit record levels. It says 1,300 babies under a month old are now being adopted every year, compared with 500 when the present Government came into power.

Social workers also told the programme that they were being put under pressure to meet the Government adoption targets set in 2000. And parents are not being given a proper chance to challenge adoptions because of the time limit on appeals and the secrecy within the family courts, according to lawyers.

Family law solicitor Sarah Harman said: "Secrecy breeds bad practice, it breeds suspicion. It feeds parents' sense of injustice when they have their children removed that they're not able to talk about it. They're not able to air their grievances. Children have been removed from their families unjustly. There's no two ways about that."

A social work manager with 25 years' experience in child protection said parents had little chance of getting a hearing and overthrowing a decision made by the authorities. The manager told the BBC: "People will find that their children have been removed and freed for adoption without them having had a proper chance to defend themselves and their families and their children."
MPs have also spoken out against the unfair adoption system and are currently campaigning for a public inquiry. John Hemming, Lib Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is also chairman of the Justice for Families group, said: "We're seeing perhaps three to four new cases being referred to us every day."

The programme hears from one mother who claims she was actually giving birth when the authorities arrived to remove her baby, and a father who had his two sons unjustly adopted. He later received a written apology from the local authority but because his children had already been adopted, he will never get them back.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) denied there was a target relating to taking children from their birth parents in order to meet overall adoption targets.

A spokesman said Government policy had always been that children should live with their parents wherever possible and given extra support to stay together if necessary. He said there had been a national target to increase the number of "looked after children" adopted and place children for adoption more quickly

Read more:

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 21:13:49

Good for you famillies

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 21:17:10

So you only had one court hearing? And the court returned your grandson to his mother?

Sounds like the court is doing its job then.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:18:07

i tell you what you should all stand outside a family court and watch all the parents who walk through the court doors fighting for there children and then watch as they come out in tears cause they have lost their children . you would be suprised at how many loss their children everyday in one single court.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 21:18:44

Budgetwise this just keeps going up as SS bosses have to have a reason for spending so much money so cases can get more and more complex.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:20:36

no i had 8 total visits to court but it was a hard fight due to all the lies ss put in their reports. i was very lucky hundreds are not so lucky.

i had to sit in court from 9am in the morning sometimes till 4pm all the while the ss went on about the lies in their reports.

i wouldnt wish that on anyone

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 21:21:53

You are scaremongering. The family court system (and yes, I have worked in it) bears no resemblance to what you are describing, even on a practical level, in relation to how many serious, final hearings take place in a day.

RoadrunnerMeepMeep Thu 29-Nov-12 21:24:42

We have been calling ss for the last 2 months to report incidents regard dh's ex and my dsc. The younger dsc live with their mother but regularly come to us dirty and smelly and have obvious signs of living in bad conditions. They have also been ill but not taken to the gp. There have been other things but don't want to say too much on here. Dh's ex has been known to ss in the past for her house being 'dangerous' to live in but for some reason it has taken 2 months and phonecalls about 7 different signs of her neglect for ss to 'consider' doing a home visit, and that is only because the dsc school has also reported their concerns.

In our experience, it takes a hell of a lot for them to even get involved.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:24:45

in one court building there can be over 25 individual court rooms which each have a judge also there is normally at least 8 floors in each building so you can work out from that how many cases can be seen per day.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 21:27:14

i tell you what you should all stand outside a family court and watch all the parents who walk through the court doors fighting for there children and then watch as they come out in tears cause they have lost their children

I would rather see that than see children living with neglect and abuse.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 21:28:52

i tell you what you should all stand outside a family court and watch all the parents who walk through the court doors fighting for there children and then watch as they come out in tears cause they have lost their children . you would be suprised at how many loss their children everyday in one single court.

Neglectful, abusive and unfit parents still cry when their child becomes looked after. You'd be suprised at how many children are damaged beyond repair as a result of SS not acting quickly enough.

FamiliesShareGerms Thu 29-Nov-12 21:30:56

wasuup, no, it's not "good for me", actually. I wish desperately that all children could be brought up by their birth family, but unfortunately that isn't always possible. I don't disagree at all that the current family courts system could benefit from being subject to greater scrutiny, or that mistakes are made.

But, as I said before, it is wicked to put out scaremongering stories that might prevent parents getting the help that they need for them or their family for fear that their children will be snatched away. And I am not saying that from within a "comfort zone", I'm saying that as someone who has seen the good, bad and ugly of SS within the experience of family and good friends.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 21:31:15

Stop scaremongering! I've seen people on here who are afraid to seek help from a disabilities team because they are afraid of their child being taken away. So, they suffer in silence. You're not sharing your story, you are posting biased articles to prove your point. Can't you see? No one here is defending poor practice and crap SWers. Not even those of us in (or entering) the profession ourselves.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:33:02

they cant find families to adopt damaged children most stay in long term foster care, but with newborns or children under 5 who are not damaged they can find parents pretty quick. thats why they go for them so they can meet there targets.

a friend of my daughters was in care herself and was abussed by her foster carer he was jailed for the abuse but 2 years later when she had a child the child was taken aged 2 weeks and ended up being adopted. the reasons being her being sexually abused in the past and being emotionaly unstable due to her abuse.

she is suing her la for placing her with the said foster carer and she has been told she can sue them with regards to them removing her child and usingtheh said abuse against her in order to have her child adopted.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:37:49

there was a case not long ago about a young girl aged 18 who had her child taken and adopted by the la in her area and within 24 hours of the final hearing to which the judge granted the adoption order the girl threw herself off a bridge leaving a note saying that she could not live without her child.

yes this is a sad case but it happens when the parents have done nothing wrong and then they are gagged from saying anything about what happened due to the child being placed for adoption.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 21:42:12

Mysecretworld how do you know the woman had done nothing wrong?

FamiliesShareGerms Thu 29-Nov-12 21:42:34

mysecretworld, the problem with the examples you keep giving is that none of us know all the facts behind the cases to understand why the decision was made to remove / place for adoption.

No-one is denying that removing a child from a parent is traumatic and upsetting for all parties. But grief, sadness, pain... Just because a parent feels these when a child is removed doesn't necessarily mean that the child is best off staying with them

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:43:21

which woman are you talking about the family friend or the girl who killed herself

Devora Thu 29-Nov-12 21:43:34

Oh lordy.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 21:47:18

Don't bother mysecret let them all stay in their bubbles.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 21:47:53

The girl who killed herself. You said this kind of thing happens when parents have done nothing wrong.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 21:49:16

These threads should have a disclaimer: SS do not want to steal your babies or eat them or coast them in batter then deep fry or pin them to their imaginary targets board that sits on every SWer's desks.

crashdoll Thu 29-Nov-12 21:53:16

Dear heavens my spelling! *coat and *desk

Although, actually we don't want to coast your babies either!

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 21:53:28

crashdoll dont throw your dummy out of your pram cause you dont like whats being put THE TRUTH

FamiliesShareGerms Thu 29-Nov-12 21:54:09

Good god, I'm not "in a bubble" either! But if you want to believe that, not a lot I can say to persuade you otherwise, eh.

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 21:57:32

Please stop making sweeping and unsubstantiated claims that are going to do nothing but frighten people.

You clearly don't know what happened to all the other people at your contact centre - and yet you claim that you were the only family to have their child returned.

You clearly don't know what is going on in the cases of other people using the same court complex as you - yet you claim the courts are full of people weeping because their children have been removed - many people every day.

I have no idea which 25 courtroom, 8 floor court complex you attended - the vast majority of family courts are in modest buildings, or incorporated into magistrates' courts. I assume you are referring to the principal registry (I can't remember how many floors it has) or to the RCJ (certainly not 8 floors but an odd layout so you could mistake it for being bigger than it is). If it is the former then it deals with all sorts of cases and you have absolutely no way of knowing the reason why most people are there. They might be upset about contact cases or because they've had to seek a non-molestation order or anything else of this nature. The principal registry is also divided into many little hallways and waiting areas and lawyers don't tend to sit around discussing their client's cases, so you are simply putting your own spin on the whole thing.

You are hugely irresponsible and quite cruel to anyone going through the court process at the moment.

MythosLivetheDream Thu 29-Nov-12 22:00:49

The trouble with the press is that SS can't win. If they take away the children, they are evil children snatchers; if they don't, they are neglectful lazy w***ers.
I really hate this SWs bashing. Try doing their job for a day, then we'll talk about it again.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:01:24


Kleptronic Thu 29-Nov-12 22:05:11

Shouting doesn't win debates.

BeerTricksPott3r Thu 29-Nov-12 22:08:25

We do.
You don't seem to be, mysecretworld.
I am sorry you don't, as it seems to be stressing you inordinately.
Your experience is your experience. you can't extrapolate that into some vast SS conspiracy.

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 22:08:47

The really frustrating thing about this sort of scaremongering and hysteria is that it masks the fact that really quite frightening things can go wrong in relation to child protection, just as in any area of life.

I knew someone who, through absolutely no fault of their own, came to the attention of social services and had a horrific experience whereby it looked as though they might lose their child. It was down to a lack of understanding about a medical matter, but unfortunately the social worker involved was quite frighteningly incompetent. She was replaced, but provided a lot of misinformation to the new social worker which created a lot of confusion and made my friend look as though they were being obstructive or dishonest. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have been sorted out if they had gone to the court of protection as they were advised to do, but unfortunately they were so frightened and disillusioned that they took their child and went back to their home country where they have "surrendered" to the local social services equivalent, been assessed and no risk found.

If people stopped whipping up the constant "all social workers steal babies for cash bonuses" bollocks, people like my friend would feel more confident in the system and feel able to complain and take the appropriate steps to fight back. As it was, they felt that they would just be dismissed as someone else claming that social services were out to get them.

There are always going to me mistakes made, and there are always going to be poor social workers in practice. But the system is a robust one, with good, solid legal processes in place, and the vast majority of people working within it want to make the right decisions.

Point out specific shortcomings, by all means. That is how things improve. But for goodness sake, stop with the baby-stealing bollocks. It's just stirring up fear.

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 22:09:48

I do the job every day- i certainly live in the real world. It is not easy and no-one wants to take children away from their families, but sometimes there is no choice. Sometimes the reasons are not obvious from anyone looking in but if a child has been removed it will be for good reason. Please stop SW bashing. It is such a hard job at the best of time - we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Most of us are parents ourselves and understand that people make mistakes but sometimes it is just too unsafe to leave a child in a home. I love my job and know that every day i can make a difference but it is busy and stressful and the referrals literally pour in every day. We certainly don't remove children just for fun.

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 22:11:19

And if anyone going through this process has been upset or frightened by the misinformation on this thread, please, please speak to your solicitor and ask for a detailed breakdown of the court process.

You will find it reassuring to know just how many processes there are in place and just how strict the various timelimits and procedure rules are.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:11:50 THE UKIP STORY

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:13:09

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:14:42

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 22:15:04

That is exactly my point. Just throwing random mud in the hope that something sticks is neither informative nor helpful to anyone in this situation.

If you have a specific concern about the way you were treated - you, not all the other hypothetical people in the court complex or contact centre - then by all means raise it. Perhaps some of the people on this thread with up-to-date experience can address your concerns.

But just shouting about every remotely social worker related story that the media have ever dredged up doesn't take anyone anywhere.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:15:49

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 22:16:45

Actually, forget it.

I've seen this happen too many times to think that any sort of reasoned discussion is going to suddenly happen.

You are being irresponsible and I hope no-one is sitting somewhere, reading this in absolute terror and thinking the evil social workers are out there trying to sell their baby.

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 22:18:31

mysecretworld i am actually a bit worried about you. You seem obsessed with media reporting of events. The media don't always represent things accurately. I think you need to take a deep breath and go off and concentrate on your daughter and grandson rather than venting your anger on this forum.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:19:50


littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 22:21:19

I won't be shouted at so on that note i am off to bed.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 22:21:46

It is wicked of you to suggest that social workers deliberately target babies for removal in order to meet financial targets. How dare you? I am furious. Do you think we are evil, heartless animals? I'm a mother myself, how dare you suggest that I wish and hope to remove children from their mothers without very good reason? Think about what you are saying for a minute

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 22:23:15

Also i have tried to be calm, reasonable and supportive of you throughout this evening. But it is evident you have no respect for anyone. I understand you are angry but you don't know me and there is no need to be so rude.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:23:22

Social workers took newborn baby from mother by obtaining her consent while she was dosed up with morphine
Mother, 26, wanted to keep baby before taking opiate
Social workers violated right to family life, court rules
PUBLISHED: 09:57, 16 August 2012 | UPDATED: 12:29, 16 August 2012
Comments (121)

Social workers took a newborn baby girl into care within hours of her birth while the mother was still dosed up on morphine.
The mother, 26, had been given the powerful opiate to recover from life-saving surgery after a difficult labour.
Coventry City Council social workers, who hours earlier been told by the mother she wanted to keep the baby girl, then asked her to consent to have the child taken away while she was still under the influence of the drug.

'Violation of right to a family life': A mother gave up her baby for adoption after social workers asked her the question while she was dosed up on morphine, because of a difficult birth (file picture posed by models)
A judge at London's High Court has now ruled that the state officials violated the human right of the mother and baby, which is now seven months old.

Judgement: The High Court in London heard how social workers at Coventry City Council took a newborn baby into care while the mother was dosed up on Morphine
The judge said the council had conceded that social workers should not have sought the mum's agreement when they did and that the baby's removal from the post-natal ward 'was not a proportionate response' to any risk to the child's welfare.
He added that the council - which has started an internal investigation into what happened - accepted that it breached the mother and baby's rights to respect for family life, enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

Mr Justice Hedley has 'serious doubts' over whether the mother legally capable of giving her consent at the time.
Coventry had agreed to pay damages to the mother, as 'just satisfaction' for the breach of her rights, and she has asked that the undisclosed sum be spent on giving her therapy.
The judge said the mother had endured a harrowing childhood and adolescence which left her not only vulnerable but 'devoid of parenting instinct or intuition'.
She has three other children, who have also been taken into care and placed for adoption. The court heard that she had 'previous unhappy relationships with men'.
She is seeing another man at the minute, which she 'believes promises better things'. However, he is a drug addict.
The judge ruled there was an 'overwhelming' case that the welfare of the baby girl also demanded that she be placed with an adoptive family.
But that social workers need to be more careful when asking parents to have their child removed.
Giving guidance for the future, Mr Justice Hedley said local authorities 'may want to approach with great care' the obtaining of consent from mothers in the aftermath of giving birth, especially where there is no immediate danger to the child.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:24:50

IS THIS STORY ALLOWED THEN ??????????????????????

WERE THE SW RIGHT IN DOING THIS ???????????????????????

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 22:25:10

This is just spam

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:25:57


ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 22:26:17

You cannot relinquish a child for adoption voluntarily until the child is 6 weeks old so no, that story is all untrue.

TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 22:26:38

This is complete and utter bollocks.

I've never heard of quite so much happening in the space of a month. And suing a barrister for what they presented to a family court? I would laugh myself sick if I wasn't quite so angry at just how dangerous this sort of misinformation is.

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 22:28:24

What you are missing is that although there will always be stories in the media where things have not been done properly by SW there is never any balance by reporting stories where support has been given and families have done very well. Trust me there are far more of those than the traumatic media reported stories.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 22:28:47

Please stop writing in capitals
I assume from that piss poor piece of journalism that the woman gave consent to accommodation under section 20 of the children act while in hospital and the local authority later applied for a care order. They would have had to have a lot of evidence to get the order and the mother's consent would have been irrelevant.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 22:29:15

Do you need a sick bag Kungfupanda?

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 22:30:23

I really am going now. I am furious with this muck raking which is dangerous and grossly misleading.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:31:15



TandB Thu 29-Nov-12 22:31:52

Me too, littlewhitebag. There's just no point even trying.

wasuup3000 Thu 29-Nov-12 22:36:18
mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 22:38:32

Kleptronic Thu 29-Nov-12 22:39:44

'The judge ruled there was an 'overwhelming' case that the welfare of the baby girl also demanded that she be placed with an adoptive family.'

If I understand this cut and paste job, social services should not have asked for her consent to the baby being taken into care when she was under the influence of morphine.

Nevertheless, the baby would have been taken into care regardless of whether the mother was drug free when she was asked. Or even, regardless of when the mother was asked, and/or what her answer was, ultimately, because this judge ruled there was an overwhelming case that she be placed with an adoptive family. Or is that part not true?

Anyone can copy and paste.

I'm off to bed myself, I don't want to start copying and pasting shocking cases of parental neglect and social workers' failure to act. Because that would be unreasoned and unhelpful. I am ashamed of myself for saying this much.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 22:41:14

We could take any profession and rake up stories about mispractise. Teachers, doctors, nurses we can all search the daily mail to find stories that scare us. But should we not send our kids to school because a teacher runs away with his pupil? Should we not go to hospital because a tired nurse gave a baby an overdose of medicine?

CinnabarRed Thu 29-Nov-12 22:54:02

Did anyone here read the thread in Adoptions from about a month ago where the mother posted claiming that SS had taken her children due to a single binge drinking incident? And then another poster recognised the details from an anonymised report in a family law magazine, and it turned out that the OP had a longstanding issue with alcoholism and DV, but failed to acknowledge either, or indeed her failure to bond with her children (nor the fact that she hadn't taken up opportunities to see them in months and months).

That's why I don't believe SW or the family courts get it wrong 99% of the time.

alcibiades Thu 29-Nov-12 23:11:30

For some idea of how the courts work, this is a link that was posted (I think by Spero) on another thread:

On that website are some of the formal judgements that have been made. I've read quite a number of them, and they are often extremely detailed, and it's quite clear (to me, at least) that judges don't simply rubber-stamp whatever the social workers say.

mammyof5 Thu 29-Nov-12 23:20:37

I am almost beyond words at this post.

the op doesn't seem to want to listen to reason (there has been tonnes on here so wont reiterate it all).

what do you want you tell us

What shall we do shall we sack all the sw teams and the teams that go in to help with parenting,home conditions, budgeting, play etc

Shall we all put our head in the sand and pretend that thousands of children are suffering abuse of some sort on a daily basis. shall we give them no hope that anyone is going to come and rescue them (and i do mean rescue).

or shall we carry on doing our best, being thankful for every single child that has been rescued.


mammyof5 Thu 29-Nov-12 23:21:49

are not suffering

CinnabarRed Thu 29-Nov-12 23:22:07

YY, Alcibiades, that's the reporting I was referring to - thank you.

CinnabarRed Thu 29-Nov-12 23:25:13

Contrary to popular belief, family law decisions are reported - just anonymised, to protect the children.

RabbitsMakeGOLDBaubles Thu 29-Nov-12 23:26:54

Social services have been great for both myself and my children. Will come back tomorrow if I can get out of bed and tell you exactly why. They offer help and support, not just child snatchers.

alcibiades Thu 29-Nov-12 23:27:18

And I have to say that in a number of those cases, it seems to me that some parents, despite all the support given to them, just don't seem to be able to understand the needs of the child, sometimes because they get locked into their own emotional needs. That's understandable to some extent, when a parent feels they're battling against the odds, and that must be emotionally painful. But it is the welfare of the child that's in the balance.

Spero Thu 29-Nov-12 23:33:41

alcibliades - thanks for posting the family law website link. I really worry that most people just don't know that this information is out there - they think that there can never be any reporting ever from family courts. There is in fact an enormous amount of reporting and it is available to anyone who cares to be fully informed.

MummytoKatie Thu 29-Nov-12 23:33:54

Ok - it looks like people are posting their own experience so here's mine.

I am 14 weeks pregnant. Both dh and I are in excellent health. We have high IQs. We have perfect family histories health wise. Dh is an ex sports international. I have never smoked or taken drugs. No alcohol consumed during this pregnancy. Folic acid taken from 3 months before ttc ing. Excellent diet.

Basically if you were looking for a child to adopt to order you would take my unborn baby.

At 6 weeks pregnant it looked very very likely I would miscarry. Very likely. We were sent away for two weeks to see what happened and then brought back to re-scan. During those two weeks I grieved for my lost baby.

And then we came back and the baby was fine. I, on the other hand, was bit of a mess. As far as I was concerned my baby was gone. And all this was just prolonging the agony.

Went to my booking in scan at the midwife. Tried to explain my mix of emotions. She was lovely. Made me feel better.

Anyway, today had my scan grin and so got hold of my notes. The midwife had written "Planned baby. Delighted. Very distressed over PV bleed. Concerned about future bleeding. Husband supportive."

So that is my experience. I went to a medical professional for support. I got it. She didn't try and steal my child.

It is only one person's experience but I wanted to post it - just to give a balance really.

Spero Thu 29-Nov-12 23:51:41

What a brilliant thread. I feel like I can ease off my drum banging a little.

I would also be interested to know where this 8 storey family court is. You make it sound like some evil factory. The Principal Registry must be the largest family court in the UK and it is definitely not 8 stories. But there are about 25 courts. But that I think is unique to London.

In my view we desparately need more courts and more judges. Delay is one of the worst things about the system, particularly because if things go wrong we need to correct them swiftly.

I hope if you have had dealings with a barrister who lied that you do succeed in having that person disbarred. Because that would be terrible. I may have got the wrong end of the stick in court but I would never lie - why would I? What's in it for me? I get paid whether or not I win or lose a case. Difficult in most cases to work out who has 'won' anyway.

WilsonFrickett Thu 29-Nov-12 23:51:57

Here's what I think:
The secrecy or perceived secrecy of the family courts does them no favours when it comes to public opinion
I could not be a SW and I deeply admire SWs who are out there every day, under pressure, under stress and under-resourced trying to do their best.
When things do go wrong the consequences are enormous and on a societal level we struggle to cope with them - see the first point above. What we do not know, we fear.
Sometimes, even when the system works, families resent the intrusion, fear and upheaval of being involved in the system. I hear that and understand it. But honestly? In that case the system has worked. In secret's case, the court was satisfied her Dg was safe and he was returned. I'm glad he was. But her DD's ex was a nasty bastard (knowledge from previous threads). And I'm glad someone checked up on that child. Sorry it was tough for secret and dd. but glad for their child.

So, cap lock on secret?

Spero Thu 29-Nov-12 23:58:37

I agree that the perception that family courts are 'secret' rather than 'private' is a massive problem. It enables Hemming et al to keep on riding their creaky bandwagon.

I have now sadly come to the conclusion that so great is the damage done by this irresponsible and dangerous scaremongering, is to throw the doors open wide to all.

I say 'sadly' because every time children are asked if they would be in favour of more access to court hearings about their cases, they say 'please don't'.

But maybe there is some way to allow more public involvement but tightening up on any identification of the children. But probably a pipe dream. But leaving the situation as it is doesn't seem to be a winner either.

It was interesting to me that Camilla Cavendish suddenly stopped writing about one of her pet cases after she did attend a court hearing. I think she commented after hearing an expert report about the family that 'maybe' the parents hadn't told her everything. There are always many versions of the 'truth' and anyone who looks no further than the Daily Mail, frankly does not deserve any respect.

BoomBoomBoom Fri 30-Nov-12 00:18:25

SS are not child snatches. Yes there would be mistakes made by some SW just like every proffesion (DR's, Teachers, office workers etc).

If SS are child snatchers and want babies to meet adoption targets why are my children with me?

I give birth to a little boy when I was 19.
He was my second born. My first died of cot death 19 months earlier.

My little boy was removed from my care aged 1day old. It was a long drawn out process lasting all pregnancy. My little boy has now been adopted. Looking back it was the best thing for him. I couldn,t look after myself let alone a baby. SS protected him.

I sorted myself out after the final hearing and got counseling.

I then fell pregnant. I phoned SS and a SW came out. I went through all of the assesments again. DD was placed on child protection under risk of neglect.

When DD was 1year old SS closed the case.

I'm again pregnant and SS have been out when I was 10 weeks pregnant. There is no risks and once again the case is closed.

Yes SW can make mistakes but most of them(cant say all) want what is best for the child. It is the courts that remove children not SS.

Some posts on here might be putting people off asking for help. So I just wanted to say not all SW are bad and most of them hate removing children. Yes when I had my little boy removed I hated the SW but he was doing his job which was protecting children.

WilsonFrickett Fri 30-Nov-12 00:29:12

Thank you for that post Boom

sashh Fri 30-Nov-12 01:33:48


did you read what you posted?

*The judge said the mother had endured a harrowing childhood and adolescence which left her not only vulnerable but 'devoid of parenting instinct or intuition'.
She has three other children, who have also been taken into care and placed for adoption. The court heard that she had 'previous unhappy relationships with men'.
She is seeing another man at the minute, which she 'believes promises better things'. However, he is a drug addict.*

She does not sound like a fit mother to me. If a drug addict for a partner 'promisses better things' how bad were her previous relationships.

TandB Fri 30-Nov-12 07:31:58

Boomboomboom - thank you so much for posting that. I think that if anyone is reading this thread and getting frightened by all the hysteria, your post is the one that is most likely to make them stop and think. If you are in the middle of the system, and already fearful and mistrustful, it would be very easy to dismiss all the posts by people who work, or have worked, in this field as just people trying to protect the system they work for. But your very honest post can't be dismissed as that and hopefully it might provide a good counterbalance to all the rubbish on this thread.

I think you are a very brave and generous woman - I can't imagine many people in your position have the courage and insight to reach a place where they can speak so positively of social services.

Spero - I'm glad it isn't just me who is wracking my brains about the 8 floor, 25-courtroom baby-stealing factory. I haven't been to the PR for years and couldn't remember how many floors it had. In fact, the only court building of that height that I know of is Camberwell Green magistrates' court which has 7 floors! There are probably plenty of court buildings which have 25 rooms, including numbered consultation rooms, but if family courts had 25 judges sitting on a daily basis then I would imagine that the whole process would run a bit more smoothly and speedily.

FamiliesShareGerms Fri 30-Nov-12 07:41:16

Boomboomboom, thank you too

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 08:24:55

Anyone that lets John hemming get involved really need to look at the decision they are making. He advocates people lying to as and hiding. Which can put the children in physical danger and increase likely hood of them being removed. It is disgusting.

mysecretworld I am glad you have yourself clued up as during your last thread you had no idea what yup of facility your dd was in when she left her boyfriend. Which would suggest to me you didn't know the details. Glad you seem to know a bit more now. But you are scaremongering. There could be someone reading this that needs help but doesn't ask for it because of why they have read here.

And a lot of it is false. Please think about a possible child that you are helping put at risk because the parents are scared by your posts.

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 08:42:47

mysecretworld I am very sorry to hear your daughter and grandson had such a horrific experience. No one is denying mistakes happen nor accusing you of sharing your experience inaccurately. However, obsessively spamming posting these links is not helping your case. Reasoned debate over how child protection policies and procedures could be improved? Definitley! Spamming and one-sided stories from the Daily Hell? No, thank you. It won't engage debate, it will outrage everyone.

dashoflime Fri 30-Nov-12 08:51:45

I was going to post my experience with social services but not sure I should now as this thread is SO unproductive at this point.

FlangelinaBallerina Fri 30-Nov-12 10:05:38

Mysecretworld I can see that you're hurting so I'm not intending to argue with you, but I feel I ought to warn you about your daughter's intention to take action for libel and slander. It is true that local authority legal reps aren't exempt from libel and slander laws, but I can't imagine them being in a position where they'd be able to say anything defamatory. It's not defamatory for them to put their client's case, to eg say to a parent something like 'you did neglect/beat the child, didn't you' even if it later turns out they didn't. The only way I can really see this happening is if they were claiming to have personal knowledge of the events, in which case they shouldn't have been doing the case anyway. If they were, you should complain to their professional association. I find it hard to believe the judge would allow it though.

I only mention this because I know a lot of people in your daughter's position want to bring defamation cases, but it's extremely expensive and difficult. I have heard anecdotally of people being fleeced by unscrupulous lawyers who take money from people in this position without telling them they don't have a case. People who've already been to hell and back don't need this too. One more piece of advice- if she does decide to try and bring a case, you mentioned that drug tests had shown she'd never taken drugs. I don't think this is the case, they would only show she hadn't taken them for X period. I've never seen a test sensitive enough to give an entire lifetime. Was it a hair strand test? I'm not saying your daughter did take drugs btw, but if she does try and bring a case for defamation she should be very careful about saying the drugs test proved she'd been clean for life.

FlangelinaBallerina Fri 30-Nov-12 10:17:02

Oh and fwiw, I say this as someone who does have reservations about the system. I worked for a year in a family law firm as a trainee, mostly on care cases. In that time, I did see one case that everyone involved agreed was fairly borderline, and where the social workers concerned did seem to have it in for the mother. This was in 2008. The others, though, were pretty much no brainers. A lot of the parents were just useless. I don't mean that in a pejorative way, though obviously it sounds like it. I just mean they couldn't parent anymore than they could go to the moon. It wasn't their fault, they were just inadequate. Many had very low IQs. The case of the learning disabled woman upthread sounds terribly cruel, but some people geniunely have such low capabilities that they wouldn't necessarily know to deal with a medical emergency, or prepare baby food/formula in a safe way. Not their fault and no blame whatsoever should attach to them, but there could be fatal consequences. I have a sister with SEN and she would be such a person, so I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance here. Anyway, sometimes the social workers in these cases were unnecessarily obnoxious and antagonistic, in my view, but it made no difference when the parents just had no chance at all.

People are mentioning medical conditions causing fractures etc. These do exist, but they are rare. And the tests for them are quite painful, I was told. If a child is at A and E with an unexplained fracture, or several, the unfortunate truth is that statistically, it is not very likely that this happened because they have brittle bones. The vast, vast majority of the time it's because somebody did it to them, either by accident or design. With that in mind, it is questionable at best to put an already injured child through painful tests to rule out a very rare and unlikely disease, when the more obvious explanation is staring you in the face. It's not an easy one.

For the record, I have a cousin training to be an SW and I love her dearly, so I am not in the 'all SWs are evil' camp.

CinnabarRed Fri 30-Nov-12 11:22:50

Flangelina - your posts were very interesting and balanced - thank you.

goralka Fri 30-Nov-12 11:26:04

well IME SW exaggerate, twist facts, are not impartial between parents, choose vocabulary to paint the worst possible picture, and outright lie to make themselves look good.
Of course it must depend on the individual and their area, and what they are up against.

RabbitsMakeGOLDBaubles Fri 30-Nov-12 12:42:19

I've had contact with children's social services three times since I had my son seven years ago. I've also had contact with adult social services.

My experience is that they are very reluctant to assess without concerns for neglect or abuse, because they are so overstretched in my area that those children who need support due to high risk are the one's getting help.

The first time I met them (CSS), they came out in error as I had been referred by a midwife as I was pregnant with my second, with a toddler, and quite disabled by what was then considered to be SPD. They did an assessment any way and were quite happy that I had plenty of support and did me a referral to adult services to be assessed for care to make my life a bit easier. Adult services assessor was lovely, and I did get some care, but it was not suitable for my needs really and ended -unfortunately with my only unpleasant experience of a social worker, but that was more to do with my mental state at the time, and with the fact that the care agency complained that I wasn't in when their carers arrived, I'd given up waiting most of the time, they were very hit and miss and I was basically accused of not deserving of the care, I asked them to leave.

Over the years it has become apparent that actually I have multiple illnesses which have left me pretty much disabled. As my daughter grew it has also become apparent that she has behavioural issues, particularly a lack of risk awareness. I asked again for an assessment from adult social services and met my lovely social worker and two trainees. When we discussed what my needs were it was apparent that I was struggling with my children in some ways so we decided to refer again to children's services. Meanwhile my lovely social worker managed to get me twenty hours care in direct payments and supported me to employ a carer, she has also helped me to make adjustments along the way, taking two and a half hours worth of care and turning it into funding to hire a mobility scooter, then adding a further seven and a half hours on to the twenty when my arrangements for the morning collection of my children fell through.

The children's services came out on a day I was really ill, with my best friend here for support with the kids, I was on a drip at home and ill with a kidney infection, and the lady was really very patient and kind. They had some concerns about my ability to care for the children, but stated they were happy as I have obviously called for appropriate support with this. The outcome of that assessment was a recommendation to refer my DD to CAMHS, something I had been trying to have done for a while without luck. I was able to take the report along to my GP and show him and finally get it moving.

The second time I begged the school to contact them for another assessment, my carer independently contacted them after talking to me about concerns she had about my DD, and the police contacted them due to my DD escaping the house in the middle of the night and eventually knocking on a strangers door. I wanted the assessment because of my daughter's risky behaviour, I was struggling to keep her safe and had no real support other than the care I was getting, and that wasn't enough as she needed watching round the clock obviously, given her night waking and the fact that I cannot take her out and guarantee her safety due to my mobility issues and her running off. I also had housing issues at the time and so they assessed me and found me needing support, but bounced me back to the school as I wasn't high risk enough to warrant my daughter becoming a looked after child. They have left an open door for support regarding appropriate housing and support though, willing to make phone calls and write letters of support, so in my mind they have been as supportive as the can be in the circumstances.

There has never been any mention of taking my children away, or even them being better off with their fathers, they accept that I am disabled but have arranged appropriate support, so despite any concerns have ruled me fit and able to care for them. They have always been exceptionally kind and approachable, and they have opened up doors to get the support I needed. At some point in the future I am considering asking for some respite care for the children, that is how unconcerned I am about them being child snatchers. A lady who has been very helpful to me is a respite carer for them, and she suggested it to me actually, and she has no concerns about them either.

FlangelinaBallerina Fri 30-Nov-12 12:59:55

Thanks Cinnabar. I do think this is a very complex issue, and there are lots of problems with the system. Buggered if I know how to solve them, mind. On balance I'm in favour of the family courts opening up, but that brings its own issues too. Additonally, the fact that a child is obviously suffering at home doesn't mean they'll do any better in care, sadly.

Spero Fri 30-Nov-12 13:42:09

Really interesting posts flangelina and rabbits. I am glad to hear of positive experiences and I hope that is reassuring to others.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 14:20:53

more like false hope to others from my experience with child social services

mamamibbo Fri 30-Nov-12 14:35:31

i damaged my back and was really struggling with my 4 children, i told dds nursery head teacher, she rtang sure start who offered to take dd to nursery, nursery kept her 15 mins longer so someone could pick her up, sure start rang home start who gave me an emergency support person. i was told social services may help me i rang and asked them, i didnt, but i didnt get a social worker

CinnabarRed Fri 30-Nov-12 14:51:10

mysecretworld - how arrogant of you to assume that your experiences are somehow more valid than those of, say, rabbits.

Spero Fri 30-Nov-12 14:59:08

The odd thing about these kind of threads is that those who have had good experiences are able to recognise and sympathise that some people haven't while those who have negative experiences often seem to offer them as proof positive of a corrupt system and just can't or won't accept any other perspective.

Is that because a bad experience is just so traumatic?

NicknameTaken Fri 30-Nov-12 15:14:46

I'll chime in as somebody with a positive experience of SS. My exH made malicious complaints that I was neglecting/abusing my DD. They investigated thoroughly, but were always pleasant to deal with. They found his allegations unsubstantiated. He has made all sorts of allegations against SS as a result, and if you listened to him, you'd be told they were biased etc. He said stuff that wasn't true, and he's furious they're not taking him at his word.

littlewhitebag Fri 30-Nov-12 15:25:41

SS are actually over run with referrals from ex partners who make false accusations. It is such a massive waste of time and resources as most of them are unfounded. The terrible thing is they are often child protection type referrals which involve the child being interviewed by police and SW and it is so unfair to the children to be dragged into this type of situation.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:30:05

most children who end up adopted are under the age of 3 so most will not have been spoken to about anything due to their age. alot are adopted before they reach 12 months so they to cant voice anything to anyone.

FamiliesShareGerms Fri 30-Nov-12 15:31:03

Another dangerous aspect of threads like this is that parents who are already involved with SS may choose to believe that it's all a big conspiracy, rather than them facing up to the fact that their addiction / violent boyfriend / complete lack of parenting skills means that unless they sort themselves out they may lose their children. And it is so much easier to believe that the world is out to get you than to make some big - maybe scary - decisions to change your life. But not the best for the children.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:32:58


FamiliesShareGerms Fri 30-Nov-12 15:35:47

Actually, the average age for adoption is [[ nearly four] years old, with only 2% of children adopted in England being under one year.

So large numbers of children are able to talk about their experiences. And also have been profoundly affected by their experience of living in an abusive or neglected family.

And why are so few children under the age of 12 months adopted? In large part, because the end to end process for removing a child and placing it for adoption is so lengthy, convoluted and subject to multiple review points. Surely if there really were a conspiracy to snatch children they'd be a darn sight more efficient about it?

FamiliesShareGerms Fri 30-Nov-12 15:36:32

Link fail - here

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:41:45

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:43:05


mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:45:16


I know this is an emotive and terrible subject. I worked for SS for a few years and the SWs I met certainly who worked with families weren't interested in removing children without very good reason. It wasn't like there were lots of places for them to go immediately.

I now live in Canada and the situation is far worse. There are next to no supports for parents who are struggling, children are removed far more and the system is slow and heart-breaking. I don't think the British system is perfect, far from it, but it is worse most other places.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 15:47:53

mysecretworld really over the last 12 months?

A few weeks ago you had no idea how any social service worked or the system in general.

Now you know what's been going on, in details over the last months?

Something isn't right here.

And posting in capitals is just rude.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:56:31

i have met alot of people since it all started with my grandson. all have lost their children to adoption in the last 12 months (some are still going through appeals to get the adoption order revoked) all of their children were under 3 years old when adopted. some have lost 2 children (some of which the youngest was taken from them when they were only a few hours old).

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 16:08:06

And you know what about their cases?

I am sorry, but I don't believe and have reported your posts to mn.

In the last few weeks you have gone from someone who doesn't even know what type of facility your dd and grandson are in to someone who knows it all.

In the last few weeks while battling to get your grandson back, you have been getting involved with all these families that are in the next room atcyhe contact centre.

Sorry but I have reported and am out.

My experience like Chundles is where disability comes into it. It is almost like there is a second-class and unscrupulous service.

Possibly because it is less clearcut and more expensive to sort out I don't know.

A mother with ADHD had her daughter removed. I was very close to the case for some time and knew the mother well. She wasn't a brilliant parent tbh but her biggest problem was that her ADHD caused her to play to the attention she got from services with SS in particular.

So, for effect' she would tell the SW that she gave her daughter quavers for breakfast when I KNEW that was untrue and told the SW.

The consequences of all this was a parenting assessment finding her an unfit mother and removing the child. The child's gran stepped in temporarily and wanted to adopt, but SW seemed to have already got so involved and committed to adoption that it took a huge legal battle to keep this child with the gran. One of the problems was that the gran used the foster money to rent a 2 bed place instead of a 1 bed place so that her grandchild could have her own bedroom. This was used against her as abusing the money as it was supposed to be spent on the child.

It was a mess and SS acted appallingly, because it would have been a heck of a lot of work to get to the bottom of the parents ADHDness and give her the support she needed not to lie to social workers for one thing.

I don't know what happened in the end because I was in the midst of my own battle with professionals which meant I had to flee, twice, but I wonder what happened and hope that there was a reasonable outcome for the poor child and her mum.

parsnipcake Fri 30-Nov-12 16:18:39

Hi, I'm a fc and have fostered lots of babies and children. I haven't had a single case where the children's parents haven't been given loads of chances and support - about half my placements are children whose families have been under SS supervision at home, but after an incident have been taken by the police, who are usually bemused that children could have languished so long in the homes they have visited. I would also add that whatever the circumstances, most SWs are very distressed by taking children into care, I have had many in tears as they fill in the paperwork. Sadly, the vast majority of children that are returned to their parents end up back in the system, more damaged than ever.

In my experience, parents are given home support, money, washing machines, furniture, nursery places, phones, new housing and many other things to help keep the family together. Children are not stolen, anything but, and I work with an LA who are seen as strict.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 16:45:07

They don't just run in and grab babies. I hate all the negative press and scare mongering you hear about social services.

Personally, I only ever found social services to be very supportive, and I have a series of health conditions which do affect my ability to parent. When I was first told they would be involved during pregnancy, because of my mental health condition, I was terrified. They couldn't have been nicer, more reassuring, or more practical about things.

A also have a friend who had her child removed in very dramatic circumstances. I was horrified for a long time, still get upset about it now, and do believe that the health visitors fucked up, and that the first social worker broke several rules. However. I do also think, after a lot of thinking, that the child is probably better off being adopted.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 16:53:05

so what your saying is they DO NOT take new born babies from their parents within a few hours of birth ??????

if you are saying the above then you are most definatly mistaken.

this does happen and will continue to happen.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 16:54:41

to sirboobalot ...............

so your saying that your friend should not have had her child with her....

im sorry but if you was a friend of mine and you said that then you would no longer be a friend.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 16:58:06

They don't just take children without reason, is what I am saying. They do everything they can to keep families together. Removing children from parents is the last resort.

I love my friend, dearly, and I have been supportive of her throughout. She's recently gone completely off the rails again, however, and so yes, I now feel that SS actually made the right call.

FamiliesShareGerms Fri 30-Nov-12 16:58:59

Yes, SW can remove babies within a few hours or days of birth, but only where they have legal authority to do so.

WilsonFrickett Fri 30-Nov-12 17:07:59

So mysecret, essentially you are saying that ss should never take children from their parents, it is never the right thing to do and Sir Boobalot is simply wrong to conclude ss acted appropriately in her friend's case? Can you not see that you are wrong? Things may have gone wrong in your case (although I still maintain that ss were right to investigate) but you can't possibly say that ss should never intervene or remove children?

littlewhitebag Fri 30-Nov-12 17:10:10

Babies can most certainly be removed at birth but not without very good reason and as already pointed out, not without a legal order. This will usually be done after lots of pre planning during the pregnancy.

ErikNorseman Fri 30-Nov-12 17:12:35

some are still going through appeals to get the adoption order revoked

You are talking out of your arse entirely. You cannot appeal against an adoption order, it cannot be revoked.

Some babies are removed at birth. Some children are adopted. Some parents are a danger to their children. I'm not sure what you are struggling to comprehend here.

I posted earlier about the woman I know who had her children removed. The second was removed at birth because she was still a drug addicted prostitute (which was the reason the first one was removed). As I said in my previous post it was her own family who told social services to remove the child because they didn't want to see a vulnerable member of their own family be neglected and possibly die. The children are with other family members.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 17:23:19





MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 17:31:28

They are appealing to have adoptions revoked?
Spero can that actually happen?

I thought that .once an adoption was granted it was impossible to revoke it?

Spero Fri 30-Nov-12 17:37:04

You can apply for a placement order to be revoked if you can demonstrate sufficient change of circumstances since placement order made.

You cannot apply to revoke an adoption order. You can apply for leave to contest it or you can apply to appeal against the making of the adoption order.

Placement orders replaced freeing orders in the 2002 Adoption act. The gov, in it's infinite wisdom thought it was a good idea to give parents two bites of a frankly non existent cherry and hold out false hope that they might get their children back. A child cannot be adopted without a placement order being made.

But as I say so often, in my view the care proceedings are almost always exhaustive, thorough and fair. So once a judge has made a final care order I think it is verging on the inhumane to set up another two lots of proceedings which some parents feel they must contest. But unless the have made pretty radical changes to their lifestyles after the cate order, they are likely doomed to fail.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 17:39:01

after the final hearing when an adoption order is given the parents can appeal it until the child has been placed with its adoptive parents but if the child has not been placed with the adoptive parents the birth parents can appeal.

the can use the childrens act..... human rights act....... to support their appeal

they could even quote the magna carta as that to is still law.

Spero Fri 30-Nov-12 17:39:02

And btw it is not 36 weeks it is 26 weeks. That is our new 'deadline'. It is laughable. Without doubling the numbers of social workers and courts, it will never happen.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 17:41:10

ok sorry i got the amount of weeks wrong but if people dont fight the against the system (which is corupt) then yes it will happen in that space of time.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 17:42:38

Oh I see the same argument is running on this thread. How annoying.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 17:43:24


SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 17:44:15

I don't think the system is corrupt. Its made up of human beings, who make mistakes, just like all of us. But to say that the whole system is corrupt is unfair.

Theicingontop Fri 30-Nov-12 17:45:15

I've had a really positive experience with social workers. My son was two weeks old when my OH was changing his nappy, and actually dropped him off the side of our bed onto a hardwood floor angry.

Crack went his head, straight to hospital. We were distraught. X-rays came back, he had a tiny tiny fracture in his skull sad but he was fine. Loads, and I mean loads of interrogation questions from hospital staff, doctors, nurses all asking us what happened at different times, together and separate to see if we were making the story up. One woman doctor actually told me I was far too young to have a baby (I was 21) and shouldn't let OH hold him for a while, because he's clearly too nervous around children and is a danger to our son. Nice.

We were discharged, and a week later we had a visit from a SW, a lovely American lady whose family originated from Guyana like OH. All she did was come in, had a chat, looked at our house, wished us luck in our lives and left.

There are two sides to every story, and no two SW are the same. You just don't know the full story of these people, probably never will, which makes it impossible to judge.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 17:46:28

glad to hear it icing, I assume your DS was OK sad

ErikNorseman Fri 30-Nov-12 17:59:55


You have mentioned a 'PPO' several times. Do you mean a 'police protection order'? Because that doesn't exist. There are police protection powers but no legal order.

RabbitsMakeGOLDBaubles Fri 30-Nov-12 18:01:05

I agree with the lady who has pointed out that a lot of people who have negative dealings may well be in denial and not see that they were causing risk/not engaging and making the improvements.

Having met some people, I can say this is quite common, that they see their life as normal, perhaps because they were raised that way. Or they have an addiction that they will not admit to. Or they choose to be with risky partners.

My health was raised as a risk factor, and it's only because I make a concerted effort to ensure I am supported and able to look after their best interests that it wasn't an issue. They look for people who help themselves, even if they aren't perfect.

Of course there will be bad social workers, and perhaps even poorly performing sections of the social services, but I would think that the majority are there to help keep children safe and help families to help themselves.

'They look for people who help themselves, even if they aren't perfect.'

In my personal experience they look for people who do as they are told regardless of the parenting ability or their own lack of qualifications in the matter that is raising concern.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:06:08

ppo are still being used to this day. i know of one which was done 6 weeks ago in the greater manchester area.

my x brother-in-law is a police officer and he is still asked by the ss to go into hospitals and do ppo`s on newborn babies.

thats fact.....................................angry

So if a child is adopted, that's not final?

How awful.

So if a child is adopted, that's not final?

How awful for all involved. shock

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:08:49

so your saying we should be like sheep and follow there full instructions and all will be well and the children will come home ?????????????????????? sorry no.

as stated the sw in my daughters case lied on more than one occasion in court and put false reports into court.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:11:09

until the child goes to the adoptive parents no its not final.

there are lots of parents fighting adoption orders as we speak but most can say much on the internet as they are gagged (legally barred ) from talking about their children by the courts.

its called a gagging order and there are many many people who have been serve these.

aladdinsane Fri 30-Nov-12 18:11:49

Are they really called the anonimus family army? Can none of you spell

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:12:45

no its me who cant spell.

google it and see what you come up with.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 30-Nov-12 18:21:29


My best friend in the whole world is a mother of 4 but she has some issues that occasionally prevent her from actually parenting.

When this happens if she won't willingly hand her children over to either me or her mother we call ss then with ss mediation she tends to hand them over until she is better when we agree she is ss asses her then the children go back.

Being a good friend is about trying to help sort stuff out even if its an emotive subject like piss poor parenting and still being a friend and loving the person.

It's not about saying " ohh nasty sw she's telling lies you did nothing wrong"

Is it possible that you are mistaken with your viewpoints towards your dd's parenting skills because you think that's being more supportive?

ErikNorseman Fri 30-Nov-12 18:22:40

It's not an Order
an Order is a legal power granted by the court. Police have powers that they can exercise without requesting anything of the court. The Police have far more powe than social workers in fact.

You are completely blinkered and know nothing about the reality of the lives of the children you are supposedly concerned about. Your assertion that social workers snatch children deliberately from safe parents in order to meet targets is disgusting and makes you appear quite irrational. You simply won't accept that hundreds of thousands of parents are not safe to look after their children and that those children should be placed with alternative carers, in permanent homes if possible.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:26:07

my daughter did nothing wrong she left the babys father as he was the violent one.... all police reports for the dv stated in them that he was the aggresser not my daughter.

i am not blind i can see when people have a problem in bringing their children up.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:29:57

no i admit there are children who should not be allowed to stay with their parents who the ss should take into care but from what i have see with my own eyes its not them children who the ss are taking.

thats what annoys me they dont take the children that need taking they take the children that are loved and wanted and cared for.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 18:32:44

I think you are unwilling to lay any blame on your daughter here, which I do understand on an emotional level.

But SS do not just turn up and take babies away because they fancy it.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:40:32

no they came because of the dv which had happened at the house they were sharing and the 1 incident where after she left and came to mine her x turned up and started on both me (who is a wheelchair user) and my daughter which the police were called to, after the one dv at my house my daughter went into a hostel for both hers and the babys safety.

the hostel hed no concerns about my daughter with regards to caring for the child and protecting the child but the ss came with the police and took my grandson (i was there when this happened).

if my daughter had of put the baby at risk i would have been the first person to say something.

i am not the sort of person who would leave a child who IS AT RISK from abuse in the family home at the family home.

i would indeed try and help the child.

but in the worst case situation i would call ss if that was the only way to keep the child safe from REAL FACTUAL HARM OR RISK OF DEATH...

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 30-Nov-12 18:41:52

You say all the police reports,

Well there in lies the problem, DV is a child protection issue its not just a cp issue because of the person committing the violence it's also a cp issue due to the person on the receiving end.

I'm wording this directly because you do not appear to understand the nicer ways of phrasing things your daughter created a secondary child protecting problem by allowing there to be more than one incident,and if she's anything like you come across chances are she didn't accept help or advice due to not wanting to be a sheep and do what she was told.

If you cannot understand the risk your children are at due to DV then you will have problems with ss

dashoflime Fri 30-Nov-12 18:43:04

OK here's my positive social services story.

I got referred to social services having "missed" some antenatal appointments.
Social services investigated, found the appointment letters had been sent to the wrong address, spoke to me briefly and then closed the case.

However, NHS staff continue to view me as someone with a history of "not engaging" who has had contact with social services because this is what is written in my notes. Add to this low income and "deprived" area and the net result is a VERY high handed and interrogative attitude in every interaction with me.

At the 6 week check I was asked whether I was having difficulty clothing the baby. DS was wearing just a nappy and a (too big) baby-grow because he'd just come from the midwife's room where he was weighed (naked) and the midwife said not to bother dressing him as doctor may want to weigh him herself.

When we came into the health centre he was wearing vest, babygrow, cardigan and hat. The babygrow was large because he was between sizes IYSWIM. I am certain his notes now mention he was inadequately dressed.

Before wrapping up the case, the social worker asked if I had any problems I needed support with. I always think if I'd have said yes, the file would still have been open when the babygrow thing happened, the doctor would have reported it back and that would have been another reason to keep an eye on me.

So while personally I found social services OK, I can see how mistakes can happen. Once the stigma is there it colours peoples perceptions of your parenting, then those perceptions get fed back to social workers and so on...

I had the social worker give me a letter stating there are no child protection concerns. It is my prized possession and I feel VERY lucky to have it.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 18:47:14

there was only one after the child was born and that was after she had left him and come to my house.

the other dv`s were before she found out she was pregnant


i know more than most exactly what seeing dv can do to a child, i witnessed my mother beat my father black and blue and she put him in hospital on more than one occasion and yes it damanged me but it also made me more determind never to let my children ever see that type of thing.

its also took 2 years of counciling about my childhood to make me truely aware of the rue extend of the damage it did to me.

Strix Fri 30-Nov-12 18:51:39

Anyone want to talk about Fran Lyon? I suppose Molly must be coming up to 5 years old now.

Now that was a horrific story with a lucky escape.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 18:53:31

mysecretworld I hope you will remember from your original thread that I did not dismiss you and I gave you details of orgs that could help your DD.

I mention this because atm you seem to feel that everyone who doesn't see the system the way you do is living in another world.

I see the same people on these threads all the time and ime they are knowledgeable and give a balanced view of what is happening in the system.

I understand your anger but you must see that the people you are talking to at contacts and the court are all as angry as you. The sort of half-right info re the law etc you are picking up is not helpful to anyone.

I understand why people seek out the company of others who have been through what they think are similar experiences but do you really think that any of those other parents are going to be totally honest with you?

I have been in the position of being a family member involved in proceeding from very shortly after the birth right up to the adoption 2 years later. I was made party to the proceedings, was the foster carer and was present at most of the contacts, all of the review meeting and the court hearings.

The parent involved would tell you that she was treated unfairly, that SS stole her baby and that she was a good parent and there were no issues what so ever. She would believe it too.

But I was there. I was there to support her and I did. But even I became terrified that she might somehow slip though the net and get her child back. I was also witness to the terrible damage done to the child by the protracted assessment and court processes.

Some of the SW were foul, some were indifferent and some were great. They were all bound by very strict protocols. The biggest mistakes they made were not presenting the court with correct and sufficient information thus making the process longer. The courts would simply not accept a badly put together case.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 19:01:55

Well put, MrsDV.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:01:55

tell that to someone who has not been involved and they would believe you but sorry i dont.

we were lucky with the judge we had ss had to prove everything they had said and put in their reports

which they could not do.

so thankfully we got my grandson back.

i really really wish that you people could see it with your own eyes at to what really happens to some families and see what the ss really do do in cases.

i know afew people who would gladly post there entire court case on here (every single thing that was put into court) but they are not allowed to by law.

this is why most people do not believe just exactly what goes on inside these secret closed family courts.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:04:41



MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 19:08:02

mysecret well that mythical child is upstairs now with his little (adoptive) brothers.

He goes to special school because of his significant SNs.

His birth mother has no contact with him at all. She knows where we live. She has had plenty of opportunity to see him and play a part in his upbringing.

She hasn't. She did however threaten to disrupt my DD's funeral and regularly tells people that she died because I stole her baby. Karma and all that.

She would also swear blind that she was a loving, caring mother and never put a foot wrong.

I am so glad I bothered to take the time to share my story with you. How nice of you to call me a liar because my experience does not fit in with your version of events.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 19:10:08

'we were lucky with the judge we had ss had to prove everything they had said and put in their reports

which they could not do.

so thankfully we got my grandson back'.



So actually what you are saying is that your experience IS as I said.

'The biggest mistakes they made were not presenting the court with correct and sufficient information thus making the process longer. The courts would simply not accept a badly put together case'.


SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 19:14:41

The woman in that video refused SS involvement, that is always going to trigger alarms.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:22:10

can you please google the name of the woman in the video please.

she is a well known figure and was nearly a member of parliment

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:23:08

she was a tory mp

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:24:15

she also worked on the fostering panel till the event in question happened.

please read above link

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 19:24:36

< invisible >

JaquelineHyde Fri 30-Nov-12 19:25:21

Good God I really hope that no children's lives are put at risk because of the utter rubbish being spouted on this thread.

I understand the anger, the upset, the sheer determination to feel you must avenge any wrong doing that you feel you have been a victim of.

However, your scaremongering is putting innocent children at risk and that mysecretworld makes you worse than any SWer you have mentioned on this thread. You should be ashamed of yourself!

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 19:27:09

Yet another Daily Fail link.

If you can link to a reasonable newspaper, I might believe more than a few words.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:28:03

read my last link and then tell me i am lieing about what ss do when taking a mother/father to court

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 19:29:28

What about the stats I linked to, and my assertion the figures are not fiddled in any way?

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:30:09

Every year, 200 mothers or fathers are jailed for ‘contempt of court’ for breaking this silence — while the same family courts request the removal of 225 children each week, 97 per cent of whom are never returned to their families.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 19:33:23

And why are they not returned? Really?
You're just whipping out ths sensationalist headlines

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:34:09

In another extraordinary case, after a woman was found by a psychologist to be a ‘competent mother’, the social workers are said to have insisted on commissioning a second expert’s report. It agreed with the first.
They then commissioned a third, which finally found that the mother had a ‘borderline personality disorder’. All three of her children were taken away for adoption

in another case, an expert was paid handsomely to write a report based on the observations of a social worker who said a five-year-old girl was ‘monosyllabic’.
‘By failing to put in a regulatory framework, we would argue that the state is failing to protect families under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which says everyone has the right to a private and family life’
Paul Grant, legal adviser at Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors

Yet we are told a secret tape recording of the social worker’s interview showed the child chatting away about school, her family and her home. The little girl has since been removed from her mother.

We have also been told about a gregarious 47-year-old business adviser in the north of England who had to fight to keep her five-year-old daughter after being labelled a ‘totally isolated schizoid’ by a psychologist, who we understand is trained only to treat children, and should never have been involved in the analysis of adult behaviour.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 19:34:18

Secretworld, I would suggest that you are too involved emotionally to see things rationally right now. Its very easy to feel that the whole world is against you when you are dealing with a trauma.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:36:25

this is the type of thing that the ss should be fighting

sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 19:37:26

It is about protecting the child. In many main cases it is always about working with a struggling parent/s to ensure the children can stay at home with their family. However sometimes where the child or children are at risk it is our job to remove the risk and unfortunately that may mean taking the child to a different home.
Of course anyone who has been through ss and has been deemed unable to give their child the proper care required will no doubtfully hate the ss and always will do.
However no child would be removed unless it was required for their own safety. Lack of proper care or in more sever cases abuse.

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 19:38:17

Where are you getting these stats from? Links please!

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:39:46

The families say they are forced to flee because they will not get a fair hearing in the UK in the family courts. They turn to shadowy networks, often based online, and run by other parents, many of whom have already lost their children to the care system.

The scale and sophistication of the networks is extraordinary. We were told of safe houses across the UK where parents and their children could lie low before heading overseas, of fake birth certificates and of keys for rented homes in foreign countries that are exchanged in the middle of the night by strangers connected only by the networks.

As to the numbers involved it is impossible to verify, but we were told by one woman central to several groups that help parents get out of the country, that there has been "anything [from] 300 to 600 families in the past year that have left [the UK] from the involvement of social care".

The most popular destination is the Republic of Ireland, but the networks extend across Europe, Mediterranean countries being the other main destinations for families on the run.

From UK foster care to Cavan

We went to Cavan, a small town in the Republic of Ireland and one of the hubs for the network. There we met a mother who described a meticulously-planned snatch operation to steal her four-year-old son from foster care in the UK. At an organised contact session, she arranged an untraceable car, fake ID papers and even had a wig waiting in the car. "I knew I had to get him and get to the boat straight away. I knew that if I got caught, I would be done for kidnap," she says.

Her son had originally been put into voluntary care after she had a breakdown. She insists she got better but they refused to return him - leaving her, she says, with no choice but to run.

Having made it to Ireland she turned herself in to the authorities in the belief – shared by many in these networks – that she would get a fairer hearing from Irish social services. "They are not idiots over here but it's the way they act [and] work completely differently," she says. "They took him, completed the assessment and decided what was in my son's best interests."

For this mother that decision turned out to be that she could keep her son. Having been helped by the network herself, she in turn began to help others. This is how the networks regenerate themselves and grow.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 19:40:11

Right well that is bollocks. I have Borderline Personality Disorder, have numerous suicide attempts on my medical history, along with a period in a psych unit, and every self destructive behavior you can think of. I am under the most intense out patient hospital unit, and attend group therapy once a week, with a one-to-one session weekly as well.

And there has never been even the faintest suggestion of it even being considered that my son is removed from my care.

All of my psych reports comment on how good my parenting is, and how wonderful my son is. He has attended quite a few of my one-to-one session as well as psych sessions when I haven't been able to get a babysitter.

So its total bullshit to suggest that you are diagnosed with a mental health condition and instantly have your children removed.

You are obviously dealing with a lot of your own issues right now, understandably, but please stop the scaremongering, because that's all it is.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:41:18

The charge levelled against the parents we spoke to was not physical or sexual abuse but emotional abuse or the risk of future emotional neglect or abuse. They say it is a charge that they cannot defend themselves against.

We met one British couple, Julie and Andy (not their real names), hiding out in a southern European country [pictured above]. The network helped them flee from the UK earlier this year when they discovered she was pregnant. They are now a couple in hiding.

Like many parents we met, their argument was that they were not given a fair hearing by a system that was too quick to remove children. Their child was removed at birth because the mother, who suffered pre-natal depression during her pregnancy, and the father, were assessed as posing a risk of future emotional neglect.

According to the couple, the local authority "just pressed the nuclear button". Talking about their daughter being placed in care they told Channel 4 News: "We hadn't hurt her. We were punished for something that we hadn't done."

While they accept the need for action in some cases they insist that parents can be accused of something that it is impossible to defend themselves against: "We recognise that that the child protection system is important but you can be convicted of the potentiality of causing harm or neglect."

They are now in hiding. "Once you've lost one you have no chance at all...after our experiences of our first child we have absolutely no confidence at all in the system."

Mr Josephs and the other networks say they screen parents and do background checks into their histories before offering help. But how much can they really know about the parents and children they help flee the UK and the safeguards of the child protection system?

It all poses profound questions about who these networks are helping and whether they are not in fact putting some children in further danger. It is a view shared by Professor Corinne May-Chahal, the co-chair of the College of Social Work. "It is clearly saying that there is something very wrong with the system, if the only option people have is to run then there has to be something that needs to be looked at," she told Channel 4 News.

sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 19:43:59

Well hand on heart nothing that has been declared on here tonight has EVER happened in my department and never would!
We have strict guidelines for one we have to go through channels we can not just randomly start demanding that people hand over their children it is not like that at all. The media are totally wrong!

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:45:23

channel 4 news

An investigation reveals how flawed expert testimony from paediatricians and psychiatrists is having a profound and disturbing effect on some family cases as they move through the system - at its most extreme, ending with children being wrongfully removed from their parents.

Last month we reported on startling new research which raised a number of serious issues about the quality of evidence given by psychologists in family courts. Among the findings was the fact that some 20 per cent of psychologists were not deemed qualified and that some 65 per cent of expert reports were judged to be poor or very poor quality.

At the time, the Family Justice Council - which part-funded the research - said that it didn't believe that the failings identified would lead to perverse decisions being made by the courts.

It has sparked a huge debate about the role experts play in the family courts - and not just pscyhologists. We have spoken to a number of families where "perverse" decisions have indeed been made on the basis of expert assessments, including one woman, Sharon, who lost her children for years, only to win them back when the expert testimony was deemed to have been disproven.

Sharon's story

The secrecy of the family courts means we cannot relate precise details of Sharon's case. But it hinged on experts appointed by the family court.

Struggling with four young children, Sharon turned to social services for help only to find herself in court her threatened with losing her children. Soon after, her worst fears came true as the court ordered the removal of the three boys and hardest of all - the adoption of her youngest child.

Sharon told Channel 4 News of the moment of her farewell meeting with her youngest child. "I wasn't allowed to say goodbye, I wasn't allowed to say you know I love you, I miss you...I had to go into the room with my four year old little girl, give her a cuddle just act normal....when I came out of there, Social Services told me that I wouldn't see her again.

But she never gave up fighting the experts' opinions of her and in an exceptionally rare case won her daughter back from the brink of adoption and gradually regained contact with the three boys also placed into care by the courts.


The debate around the role and quality of experts on the family courts is welcomed by SOME experts themselves.

Dr Shazad Amin, a consultant psychiatrist and an expert witness for the family courts, told Channel 4 News that there are improvements to be made in the way experts are used and the quality of their work is scrutinised. But he also told us that experts are only one part of a complex process and that their role should not be seen in isolation.

"It is not the role of the expert to decide whether or not the child is removed or sent back to a birth family or is put up for adoption. That decision is solely for the judge," says Dr Amin. "A whole plethora of information is used by the judge to decide whether or not a child goes back to their parents or is put up for adoption."

Meanwhile, the Government says that reforming family justice and child protection is a critical priority. It wants to speed-up the process and ensure that it is focused on the needs of children - and it wants to improve the way experts are used as well and is working with others such as the Legal Services Commission, experts groups and local authorities to develop quality standards for them..

But any reform comes too late for Sharon as she tries to rebuild her life with her children. "I was ...punished very, very badly," she told Channel 4 News. "I lost my children for mistakes that the experts felt that I have made during my parenting and I'd like to ask the experts um what's going to happen to them," The experts have "absolutely ruined a whole family... and I'd like to know ...where's the justice."

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 19:46:21

Stop spamming!! And you're ignoring me, where did you get the stats from?

sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 19:47:52

What a load of rubbish really!!!

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:48:12

which stats are you on about ?

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 19:50:00

Every year, 200 mothers or fathers are jailed for ‘contempt of court’ for breaking this silence — while the same family courts request the removal of 225 children each week, 97 per cent of whom are never returned to their families.

WilsonFrickett Fri 30-Nov-12 19:52:45

Oh god, I just can't engage on this thread anymore. Secret, you are blinkered and dangerous. Your grandson was taken because his father was violent. Your dd proved DH could protect him and he was handed back. The system worked.

I understand you are angry but I can't keep arguing when you continue to scare manger and spam. I'm out.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:55:05

thats in a report thats on the channel 4 website

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 19:56:12

Can you link please?

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:56:34

so all the papers and tv programs that report on the wrong doings of the family court are all liars ????????????????

is that what you are all saying ?????????????????

sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 19:57:15

Can you link all your posts??
I mean by putting the webpage links on here. As I think if someone is writing all this rubbish it needs to be sorted out as it is false.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 19:58:26

Every year, 200 mothers or fathers are jailed for ‘contempt of court’ for breaking this silence — while the same family courts request the removal of 225 children each week, 97 per cent of whom are never returned to their families.

this is from the link below with regards to lucy allen who was a tory mp and who also used to work on the fostering panal .

RabbitsMakeGOLDBaubles Fri 30-Nov-12 19:59:13

I have a personality disorder, recurrent depressive disorder, obsessive neurosis regarding harming or harm coming to me and my children, inflammatory joint disease, and kidney disease in one kidney, and been deemed to be fit to parent because I accept treatment, actively seek out support and engage with social services in a positive manner.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:00:34

i dont know how to do the link so you can just click on it.

but if you copy and paste the links i put on you can find the said story that i mention.

all the stories that i have put links on cant all be false

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 20:02:01

Media is a business. The two you keep linking to, Channel Four and the Fail are especially renowned for liking to stir up trouble. No one is going to watch a programme that says "We found everything to be perfect". People want their to be issues, they want to watch or read something that says how terrible these people are.

And so, just like any business, there is supply to meet a demand.

No, the system isn't perfect. But all of the cases you have linked to are concerning for several reasons. Right now you are too emotionally invested, you won't possibly see that what has been done has been in the best interest of every child involved - including your own grandson.

They are not child snatchers, they are not malicious liars, they are not people who enjoy pulling families apart. Sometimes they have to.

I really hope you can see somewhere down the road why your grandson was removed until they were certain it was safe for him.

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 20:02:09

LOL at just because it's in the media, it's true! It's the daily wail!!!!

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:03:23

so when the dispatchers did a show on it they were lieing too ?

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:04:41

i suppose the eastenders story line about baby lexi is totally wrong aswell ? so why are the bbc not being sued for misrepresentation????

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:05:07

mysecret well are you calling me a liar?????????????????????
Is that what you are saying???????????????????

Are you calling sirboob a liar???????????????????
Is that what you are saying????????????????????????????

And that mother who left her child alone who you reckons should be sorted by SS - do you think she wouldn't start a thread like this one?

And while you are at it LEARN TO DO LINKS. Its really not difficult.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:05:33

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 20:05:52

Also your quote looks silly taken out of context! If you break the law, you pay the price.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 20:06:02

There has actually been a bit of an uproar about the Eastenders story line.

And of course its wrong, its a soap opera, they have to blow things out of proportion.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:06:53

You are using Eastenders to prove your case now?


So do you think their baby swap storyline was based on fact do you?

And who would sue them for misrepresentation? The same lawyers who are telling your DD its a good idea to sue SW for defamation I assume?

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:08:29

i suppose the eastenders story line about baby lexi is totally wrong aswell ? so why are the bbc not being sued for misrepresentation????

I know i was leaving but really.

Eastenders is a fictional programme. Thats why.

Its statements like above (and lack of actual evidence) which make you come across manic and totally unreliable as someone who should be advising people on SS.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:08:38

i am reporting the facts as can be found in the news and from my own case and other cases i know in person.


MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:09:59

YOU called ME a liar.

I am calling YOU rude.

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 20:10:58

We are asking for proof. Stop spamming and shouting if you really want a decent debate. However, I expect you are just trolling.

Veritate Fri 30-Nov-12 20:11:25

What you have to remember when you read these reports is that you can never hear the social services side of the story because they are bound by duties of confidentiality. Therefore you only hear one side of the story and there is no way of checking the truth. So, for some parents who have had their children taken away entirely justifiably, it's a glorious opportunity to get lots of publicity and sympathy knowing that no-one is going to contradict you. I've never yet seen one of those reports where the parents have waived the duty of confidentiality in relation to themselves so that we can all check out the facts more thoroughly. I therefore read them all with a high degree of scepticism.

sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 20:12:11

I am actually getting really peeved at the thread now. So the last thing I want to say is simply this.
I LOVE my job. Not because I am taking children away from anyone hmm
but because every single day I go out into different family homes and I make a difference. I help struggling families and I love to do it. I love to help. With all the bad things that are being said make me feel crap. I know what my daily duty is and I know I do it the best possible way I can. YES sometimes it is not always a good day. I do have to go into homes who do not want to listen to me when all I am trying to do is help them. But I would not change my job for the world !! If you have had a bad time you need to speak to someone who can help you rather than looking for someone else to blame it will not solve your problems I'm afraid.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:14:23




sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 20:17:55

lol ok

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:17:57

i dont know how to do the link so you can just click on it.

but if you copy and paste the links i put on you can find the said story that i mention.

all the stories that i have put links on cant all be false"

What would be the chances? Ooh about 1000 times higher than all social workers and thir support staff being involved in a giant child snatching cover up. Yet you seem to have no problem believing that. hmm

ErikNorseman Fri 30-Nov-12 20:18:36


SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 20:18:52

This is absolutely pointless.

I really hope you don't show your grandson this vicious attitude, because that's the last thing he will need right now.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:20:06


And apologise for calling me a liar while you are at it.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 20:20:47

Sunshine, please don't get upset about it. Everyone apart from secret on here is full of praise for social workers and for the system.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:21:04




MummytoKatie Fri 30-Nov-12 20:21:49

Have you ever seen an Eastenders story on something you know a lot about? It is never quite right. Partly because it is made more dramatic for effect an partly because the writers just don't know everything.

The whole "Libby and Tamwar applying to Oxford" annoyed the hell out of me as they kept getting it wrong.

Another example is Holby City last week. Jac commented that "St Barts is the place to go." Which is fine except that I can remember my friend who went telling me it is either St Bartholemews or Barts. Never ever St Barts.

sunshine401 Fri 30-Nov-12 20:23:04

Thank you smile

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:23:32



SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 20:25:29

Yes... I think you actually do. This amount of anger and hatred is not healthy.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:26:12


crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 20:26:25

Can you quote the person who called you stupid and a liar?

ErikNorseman Fri 30-Nov-12 20:27:22

I said you talk out of your arse because you do
You have said several things that are factually incorrect putting it mildly and presented them as fact, such as that you knew people who were challenging adoption orders.
You have insulted social workers in the vilest terms by stating that they intentionally and maliciously remove children from safe parents for financial gain.
You are blinkered and irrational and ridiculous.
Stop spamming with daily fail links
Eastenders is made up. There is nobody to take them to court and nobody who would be stupid enough to try.

nokidshere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:27:27

The fact that you are yelling again shows how het up you are about all this. And you may well have cause to be. But you can only go on your own case and not on others because you will never know the details.

As others have said, no-one is going to tell people that they failed their children and had them removed from home. They will almost always find someone else to blame - thats human nature.

Having worked alongside SS for many years I have seen only a handful of emergency removals and they were for children in grave and immediate danger. All of the others had a long history of SS involvement prior to the children being removed. Meetings, planning, care plans, support networks had all been tried and exhausted before any decision to remove a child.

When I was younger I remember feeling absolute horror and outrage at some of the situations that children were left in "with support" and felt that they should have been removed immediately.

Many mothers were in difficult DV situations but were reluctant to give up the partner in order to safeguard the child/ren and so the children were removed to foster care and possible adoption to protect them.

There are no easy answers to this. The only people who really know what goes on behind closed doors are the people living behind them and their care workers.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:27:51


Because its a fictional programme, which means its can stretch the truth and make stuff up. because it is known to be fictional it does not have to accurate. Because ofcom feel people should have enough sense to know as its fictional its not true.

You do know eastenders isn't real don't you?

Individual social workers may be upset by it, but eastenders can not be sued as they are not claming its real.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 20:28:12

Because story lines like that fuel the mindset you are encouraging sad

ErikNorseman Fri 30-Nov-12 20:28:45

Social workers are 'up in arms' about the storyline because it is an entirely false representation of how social services operate and contributes to the culture of fear that prevents people from accessing support or services. Much like you are.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:29:34



WHICH I DONT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:30:04


MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:30:46

>>>>>>>>tell that to someone who has not been involved and they would believe you but sorry i dont. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


YOU called ME a liar.
Unprovoked, after a nice polite post in which I shared MY story.

So apologise

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:32:03

I told her I don't believe her. I don't.

In one month she has gone from someone who has no cluse what is going on to apparant expert in forced adoption. For the last month, while fighting for her grandson back (baring in mind she didn't even know what kind of facility her GS was in when removed, so really didn't know what was going on) she has not been concentrating on just her GS case.

She has also become an 'expert' in several other cases. Quite a busy month.

Also the lack of evidence and the fact that she thinks eatsenders can be sued for making something up.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:32:58


bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:33:03

oops eastenders

I didn't call her liar as I am unsure if she is very misguided or lives under the metaphorical bridge.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:34:30

Her last thread was very confused.
She made all sorts of odd claims.
I tried to work it out and gave her info to help.

Charmingly she now tells me I have made up my story. I must be totally psychotic because I am sure there is a 9 year old in the bedroom next door hmm

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:35:22

Do you get Tje principle of eastenders being fiction? If not, there isn't much point in us going any further. And you need help. Seriously

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:35:44

Why would I lie?

Tell me? Why would I? You can see my posting history. So I have been cleverly building this story up for years and years just for this moment?

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:36:11

Its like its a completely different person posting.

mrs are you sure there is? grin

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:37:15

Actually I believe she believes it all.

Because she is clearly unwell and having some sort of crisis.

Poor kids.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:37:38

WHY WOULD I LIE ?????????????????????????????

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:37:40

mrsdevere you have been playing the long game.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 30-Nov-12 20:38:09


When you do a link just put a tick in the small box that says " convert links automatically" it's under then message box to your left.

then your links will be clickable

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:38:56

Well he just told me he 'loved me the total best' because I handed him a Dr Who magazine.

And there are dirty socks on the floor I am pretty sure he is real grin

Unlike the OP's grandchildren.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:39:43

I dunno, why would you.
But then WHY WOULD YOU SHOUT ALL THE FUCKING TIME???????????????????

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:40:04



bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:40:22

The dirt socks are a definite give away.

amillionyears Fri 30-Nov-12 20:40:53

I think she believes everything she is writing.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:40:55

SO NER NER NER!!!!!!!!

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:40:56

As I said on the other thread I don't think you're lying. I think you are down right wrong and dangerously deluded.

amillionyears Fri 30-Nov-12 20:43:32

mysecretworld, do you think EVERYTHING that is on Eastenders and the other soaps is real?

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:43:46

You on the other hand mrsdv are clearly a long term troll. I suspected for a long time and now you've admitted it. I KNEW it.

That was a wink by the way. To indicate I'm teasing mrsdv. Who is not a troll. Just to make that absolutely clear for anyone struggling to understand.

Kleptronic Fri 30-Nov-12 20:44:42

Stop shouting, it's really unfriendly.

I've followed this thread but really, you are being unreasonable. Children are not taken into care for no good reason. I have personal experience of this.

Some of the things you say come across as rude, angry and browbeating.

What is it you are hoping to achieve by posting in this way?

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:46:50

Amillion are you trying to tell me that some people in the east end do have a washing machine and don't trek to the laundrette every time they need clean pants? Well I never did!

amillionyears Fri 30-Nov-12 20:48:38


MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:51:29

Just to send the trolldar into overdrive.....


MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:52:59

You got me bang to rights five
Its been a good long run though. I even got people believing I had five kids and am a raving leftie and am inordinately fond of pink.

Oh, and a woman.

Veritate Fri 30-Nov-12 20:53:56

Frankly, I would never take a Daily Mail story as evidence for anything without checking very carefully. They have their own agenda, they don't hesitate to present the story to fit that agenda, and they're none too careful about fact checking. So if you want to produce evidence, go for proper statistical evidence not Daily Mail links.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:54:12

Oh my god mrs how did you manage this. You built a story over years and years just to upset secret and moved to the East end as you knew 8secret8 would drag east enders into it.

Well played mrs <applause emoticon>

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 20:55:08

I am the Master


mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:55:10


Kleptronic Fri 30-Nov-12 20:55:24

MrsDeVere, were you once monikered OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere?

Kleptronic Fri 30-Nov-12 20:57:19

Apologies if that's impertinent.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:57:19





bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 20:59:12

There is cake?

Where? I would be willing to share my wine for some cake.

Kleptronic Fri 30-Nov-12 20:59:26

Ah. Hello again secret. What, exactly, though, is your argument? In your own words, without linking to anyone? Not that you've answered me before, but I live in hope.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 20:59:41

" So if you want to produce evidence, go for proper statistical evidence not Daily Mail links."

Tried that, I supplied stats showing less than 10% of children who came into contact with social services in 2011/12 were removed from their parents , and presumably only a small proportion of those will go on to be adopted. I got told the stats were fiddled. I pointed out that I'd had a job where I was responsible for supplying the stats and am fairly sure they never went through the fiddler. No response to that. Wonder why.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 21:00:03

I was kleptronic

Maybe that is why the OP thinks I am a big fat liar. Because when I helped her I may have still be called that.

Who knows?

and technically OP you have not done any links. Just lots of unclickable urls.


bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 21:00:42

So all eastenders is fictional, apart from this storyline.

Well that neatly proves what you say is true. Its doesn't you know.

SS are not suing because its made up, it is known that its made up and no one (apart from you and possibly John Hemming) think its true.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:01:20

my argument is that the la ans sw lie and do false reports for the secret family courts in order to get adoption orders on children from families who should have their children with them...........

nokidshere Fri 30-Nov-12 21:01:35

Even if some people on this thread have never had dealings with SS and so don't know the real workings of it, there are plenty of people who have had personal dealings with them along with people who work for SS telling you that this is not the case in their experience.

And in any media there is still only one side to a story because SS will always comment "we cannot go into details of a particular case because of confidentiality" so any speculation is just that.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 30-Nov-12 21:04:42

If I suffered a ss related miscarriage of justice reading this thread would actually make me think I had no hope of solving it,I would worry that the only people who believe me are stark raving numpties who try to make there point by shrieking or yelling and actually believe the daily fail to be fact.

So anybody who does feel ss have taken action unjustly and against the best interests of your child please get proper legal advice and support from people who are not batshit crazy.

SirBoobAlot Fri 30-Nov-12 21:05:20

I am actually concerned for you, secretworld. Really think that you could do with someone to speak to.

The things you have been reading are also not good for you. If you want to believe the world is a horrible place, no one can persuade you not to, but all of these articles and horror story encouraging articles are only going to make it harder for you to move on from your experiences.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 21:05:33



FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 21:05:45

Well I worked for an la. And so, though I realise you won't believe me, I know what you're saying is a pile of Crap.

I have no loyalty to the place. Hated the job. But thwir professionalism and commitment really impressed me.

Lilka Fri 30-Nov-12 21:05:56

I'm not entering into any arguments. I am just posting so I can just say a couple of things about the debate a few pages ago about adoption orders

There actually are a very few circumstances when an adoption order can be set aside/voided

This is very very very rare, although it has happened. The circumstance I have read about was that the birth mother was not informed of the time and date of the final hearing, as she legally must be. That doesn't mean the child is returned, just that a new adoption order should be made with their full knowledge. I belive there may be one or so other reasons you can set aside an adoption order, but no knowledge of this happening. If you want to read the case, it's here

MySecretWorld was confusing an adoption order with a placement order. Very different things, please don't mix them up, because it's very confusing for the reader

<leaves thread>

Kleptronic Fri 30-Nov-12 21:06:21

Cheers MrsDeVere.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 21:07:08

I would worry that the only people who believe me are stark raving numpties who try to make there point by shrieking or yelling and actually believe the daily fail to be fact.

All jokes aside (well some) this is my concern. That and people who need SS help will not ask for it out of fear and they and their kids will be harmed.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:08:10

thats also why alot of parents cant talk about their cases even after they have finished because they are not legally allowed to do so

which is why 99% of the adoptions in which false reports are made cant be published in detail by any paper or spoken about in detail in any tv program.

the result of talking about your case (if found out by the ss) is a gagging order and if you still continue to talk about your cases or your children that you have lost to adoption you are then more than likely to be imprissoned by the courts for breaching the gagging order prohibiting you from talking about your cases or your children

this is fact

i know of 4 people who have got gagging orders on them and they have been told to take the pictures of their children off their facebook profiles or risk prison.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 21:10:06

So where do these stories and stats come from?

God you know alot of people to say this has been going on a month. secret remember these people won't always be telling you the truth.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:20:24

my grandson was taken on the 14th october 2012

i have met alot of people in that time either at court or at the contact centre or through the meetings that myself and my daughter have been going to.

out of the people we have met there is only 2 others that have got their children back (both after over a year of fighting the ss)

i have also done searches on the internet about ss, child law, family law, hra, childrens act and also the magna carta.

i have soo many documents relating to the above which are very interesting to read and some are horrid.

i have gone through things with a fine toothed comb

oh and i ate all the cake lmfao grin

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 21:22:11

Its really odd how similar OP's posts seem...quite uncanny

crashdoll Fri 30-Nov-12 21:22:39

Then, I guess you would know it's the Children Act, not the Children's. <pedantic>

amillionyears Fri 30-Nov-12 21:23:02

I am wondering if we can clear up one thing for you.
The building where you say there are 8 floors, with court cases help all over it. is the building in London? Can you name it or the address, so that hopefully someone can put your mind at rest about how many cases are heard daily in it?

amillionyears Fri 30-Nov-12 21:23:26

heard not help

WilsonFrickett Fri 30-Nov-12 21:24:44

I can't believe I'm back... I would imagine if I'd had my children removed for neglect I'd tell every single person I knew that I was under a gagging order, leaving me able to blame ss without either telling the truth or facing up to my own culpability. Denial is an extremely powerful emotion.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:25:46

no its in manchester

Spero Fri 30-Nov-12 21:25:49

I think secretworld and I are talking about the same thing - until a child I'd adopted you can apply to revoke the placement order or you can contest the making of the adoption order.

But please, anyone reading this who needs to know, do not go into court and start relying on the Magna Carta. It will mark you out as someone who has probably signed up to the Fremen of the Land stuff. I don't want to be unnecessarily rude but can think of no diplomatic way to put this, you might as well go into court wearing a T shirt saying 'I am irrational and obsessive'.

There is much more relevant and recent law you need to grapple with. The Children Act 1989 and the European Convention of Human Rights is probably all you will ever need.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:28:15

to wilsonfrickett ................
are you saying that gagging orders do not exsist ?

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 21:31:28

i have also done searches on the internet about ss, child law, family law, hra, childrens act and also the magna carta.

There is your issue. Internet information is pretty useless and unvarified.

secret I am involved with a charity thats helps people convicted of crimes they haven't committed.

Its takes ages to decide who to support. Some many people and their relatives ask for our help and it is obvious it was them. They are just hoping we will find a technicality.

Often the relatives really believe their family member is innocent. Some of the criminals believe they are not at fault, although admit what happened.

Not everyone person you meet who is involved with SS will be telling you the truth. The evidence they have will only be half truths.

We took a case on. Helped the convicted family (wife and three kids) lovely family. Just a normal family man, who was accused of something he didn't do.

The charity spent £1000s. We even arranged childcare for the kids so the mother could work, some of us babysat. Attending appeal hearings.

I believed them 100%. They were talking bollocks. Came out he did do it and she knew all along.

Even people like me that are used people trying to manipulate me into helping them got burned.

I know by believing them it solidifies your case. But you are in danger of being sucked in by less than honest people and getting burned.

MrsDeVere Fri 30-Nov-12 21:31:44

Exactly Spero.
And that is what I was trying to tell the op politely earlier on in the thread.

But what do I know? I am making it all up apparently.

These pressure groups who spout all kinds of nonsense give false hope at best and at worst make parents look like idiots. Giving them inaccurate information, telling them keep fighting long after adoptions are made final etc.

I put the OP in touch with a fantastic organisation. They give accurate, non biased information and really help families involved with SS.

Trouble is, if some people don't hear what they want to hear they just keep looking until they find someone who will tell them what they want.
There are always those ready to drag others into their own screwed up world. They don't actually care about the welfare of those they are deluding, its all about them and their agenda.

WilsonFrickett Fri 30-Nov-12 21:33:10

To secret: no. I believe my post is clear.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 21:35:44

I am not usually so open with people that eat all the cake. grin

But honestly secret i do worry for you. I think you are believing to much that you read without verifying the source.

Nothing you have posted is factual evidence. Its all opinion and heresay.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:35:57

then you are very very wrong.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 21:36:48

A gag order (also known as a gagging order or suppression order) is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public, or in some cases, passed onto a third party, for the purpose of "hiding" or "covering up" or "white-washing" compromising, questionable, deceptive practices, fraud, or other illegal activities with the help of the legal process itself, or to protect the privacy of victims or minors. Gag orders are most commonly used to conceal information from the public. In some cases, gag orders may be used, for example, to keep legitimate trade secrets of a company. Or, to protect the integrity of ongoing police or military operations. Conversely, as their downside, they are often also abused as a useful tool for those of financial means to intimidate witnesses and prevent release of information in a legal fashion without resorting directly to violence, or other methods of more heightened intimidation. Sometimes corporations or other entities of financial means will also use Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to prevent potential witnesses from speaking against them.
Legitimate claims for use of a gag order include, for instance, a criminal court may issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes, or claims to believe, that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case. Another example might be to ensure police a