To think (hope) Eastenders portrayal of social services (Lexi & Lola story) is wrong?(346 Posts)
I am watching it at the moment and am finding the Lexi/Lola storyline quite disturbing, I can't imagine social services really carry on like this and think it's an unfair portrayal.
fuck me i just started this exact same thread in chat
you are right, I think it's misleading and very unhelpful as it will make people afraid of sws. Is it a sw? or a hv?
It doesnt sit right with me either,from my limited experience of them.
But social services are made up of individual people and everyone is different.
I was a fairly young single mum and didn't have a social worker. I spent a lot of time on the phone to my health visitor who was absolutely fantastic and gave me so much support.
I have no idea if it's right or not but I find the whole story with the Michael thing juxtaposed with it very depressing.
But then I am mum to 15 week old ds so even a recorded baby cry sets me off.
(Sorry I ment depressing in the sense of how much Lola loves her baby and the sense of impending doom that the baby might be taken away).
She has had loads of social workers since lexi has been born
Would the social worker be so judgey about some alcohol being on the side?!
Also the social order was really mean when Lola told her out taking lexi to go and see the lights....saying she won't remember - made me feel really sorry for them
I was thinking of starting a thread like this.
That sw is totally unbelievable - looking all prissy at a tiny pile of washing up .
Yes Fairy. I noticed that too.
The whole thing is strange. And very uncomfortable viewing.
there is something very strange going on.
I think Lola gets her baby taken away this episode... Really awful message for any young mums out there who may have dealings with SS...
I think the sw storyline is a bit far fetched.
No way would a sw be that negative, especially when Lola is such a fab Mum
I think something very bad is about to happen.
Eatenders has been shite for years and years. It doesn't portray the east end I know, so I haveno trouble believing it doesn't portray SS accurately.
well it's not real life is it - I never understood Bianca being so skint - she worked, she had 79879797 kids - she would have got TC and other benefits yet she didn't seem to know this
Lola has a SW because she was in care and is still 'looked after' to some extent but the SW is completely OTT and unrealistic
sw are nothink like that. I think they are just making it over the top.
Please tell me if something bad, without going into too much detail, is going to happen to baby Lexi because I have just had to turn it over (Mastermind - an emergency choice) as I can't bear to watch it. Disclaimer: I am aware it is not real but have a 6 month DD and I can no longer watch stuff like this.
I think it's a horrible storyline actually. It paints all social workers to be unfeeling unintelligent idiots. When this just not true. Yes there's a few bad eggs but that's the same with any job.
The other social workers Lola has had have been brilliant and supportive though haven't they? So I don't think it is portraying this woman as the "norm" in regards to social workers.
I think her story in relation to Michael and Scarlett's is quite poignant. Scarlett seems to be quite unwanted yet nobody gives a hoot, but Lola has been a great mum who loves her dd to bits and is trying so hard despite her young age, yet she is the one who ends up in this situation.
I don't think they are showing Sw in a very good light tbh It is shocking the way that sw is speaking to lola and billy , I know it is just a telly programme but some people think Sw snatch babies or make life hard for people I don't think it is true,
what Jamie said
NB not watched for YEARS, not once Kat N Alfie drove orf into the snow*
*may be misremembering the snow
Fucking hell, my mum was a LA sw and was far too busy dealing with all the teenage mums on heroin to worry about some washing up and day trips.
I don't watch EE. For many reasons, I am glad of this.
There was snow! It may have been from a snow machine though
I've only just started to watch it again after turning off with the whole Ronnie Mitchell stealing baby Tommy scenario.
It's made me turn straight back off.
Same with Hollyoaks and post CS Nancy - no drip, no bed pad, no sign of a MW anywhere, no catheter, no compression socks. Also Riley's dad demanding that Myra hand Bobby over for him to take to the US - its seemingly been ignored that as his parent, Mercedes would have to consent to him being taken out of the country. That's made me switch off again too.
We were just discussing the same thing...I gave up and came on here instead. No wonder SW get such a bad press. Irresponsible or, if accurate in any away, scary!
God, I'm sobbing watching this, and I don't actually watch EE, its just on in the background most days.
I really hope that part of the story is that this SW is shit.
Jesus christ I'm in floods and had to get 14 week old Dd out of bed just to hug her
Really awful storyline.
I know people get children taken away. But not for those reasons. Some washing etc. Ridiculous.
SW can and do get things wrong and at times lie to cover tbeir tracks.
This social worker seems to be a bit of a bitch who has taken a dislike to Lola. The other SW's she had were nothing like this so I really don't feel it represents Social Services as a whole.
Total load of dangerous nonsense. It's actually made me feel really rather angry.
I am crying too :-(
Did Lola bit social worker?
And did anyone else wonder if sw strapped baby in seat properly as drove off very quickly?!
perhaps she is just really rubbish at her job Billy makes a complaint SW steals baby sounds like an E E story
I have been thinking the exact same thing!! Surely it would be obvious to anyone the baby is loved and cared for. Aren't all new mums told to let the housework slide. Dishes don't mind being neglected etc yet she's being lambasted for washing up not being done. Scarily bad portrayal of SS I hope.
I found it upsetting. Can social workers really do this!!!
Terrible terrible script writing
i would have bitten her as well.
That was absolutely awful to watch.
I had to go and hide in the kitchen as I was so upset.
OH i have recorded it has she had lexie taken from her ?
Oh gawd I haven't watched tonight's yet - is it going to make me sob and clutch 7 wo dd a bit closer?!
I reckon I would have done more than bite her in that situation
"Lola is a good actress."
I totally agree!
Don't watch it Whatevertheweather. Congratulations on your DD
I read somewhere that the actress that plays Lola is a newbie and this is her first ever acting role.. don't know if that is correct or not. She was amazing.
Its all a bit weird and horrid isn't it? It reminds me of that old urban legend about people pretending to be from ss in order to nick babies
Horrible storyline and wildly inaccurate
Social care are so stretched they wouldn't want to pay out on an expensive foster care arrangement when grandad could care for the baby
She hasn't even been charged or found guilty so grounds for removing the baby at all
The writers should be ashamed
Fantastic actress, the new Lacey Turner ( played Stacey Slater)!
Sobbing at this pile of rubbish. Obviously Phil will now some how end up with the baby! Poor Lola
@ Chickydo - I'm not watching it, but a social worker cant just walk into a house and take a child. They have to get a court order
They should be thoroughly ashamed, it worries me the amount of people who might take it seriously and not seek the help they need
Bawled my eyes out - and yes, I am a sw - and sadly this sort of thing (not quite so extreme) does happen. Some SW have dreadful boundaries ......
I've just broke down at that. It's really upset me.
DeenaDee - Really??!! Wouldn't it take a group decision?!
Moonlight - yes and a court order
They can't take a child without a court order.
They are also legally obliged to exhaust all possibilities of the child being cared for by a relative, before placing with foster Carers.
deena, i have it in my head that shes a ex sw gone crazy. or am i just really hoping?
some years ago a client of mine had a sw like that dreadful woman but she was dismissed, i thought the safeguards were better these days
In all my years of working alongside children's services I have never met a SW like the one portrayed. Sure, there are some that have been in the job far too long than they should have been, but no one so blatant and judgy, never known it to be so easy to take a baby away either, EE got it so wrong.
I am a health visitor and work very closely with social workers and they are nothing like eastenders are trying to make out. This is a really worrying story line as it is going to make parents very worried about social services. The way that social worker reacts in the programme terrible. There is nothing wrong with the way poor lola is trying to care for her baby and a little bit of a messy house does not make you a bad parent.
There are supposed to be "team meetings" - sometimes you get a nutter who will act as an a lone gun in the name of child protection ( I was certified/living in the usa) I do hope that this is unrealistic for the uk (or anywhere) but it made me sick to my stomach
DeenaDee,yes I thought that was the case.
Quite rare i think,but nonetheless true.
Wasn't lexi taken because Lola had been arrested and billy was deemed to "drunk" to care for her . Awfully upsetting and agreed Lola was wonderful in the role.
An Emergency Protection Order allows the local authority to remove the child from where he or she is living or to prevent removal, for example from a hospital or a foster home. Execptionally, these orders can be made without telling the parents or carers, first. The Order can only last for 8 days but it can be extended for up to 7 days. An EPO can only be made where this is necessary for a child's welfare and there is no other way to ensure this . In most cases an emergency protection order will be followed by care proceedings
Hi all, I'm glad to see that people here have the same views as me.
I am a social worker, firstly, yes Lola would probably have been monitored, as she was on tag and a care leaver, however, the job of a social worker is to support and encourage parents to enable them to look after their children effectively, of course ensuring they are safe first and foremost, but obviously, the best place for the child is usually with their parent. It really annoys me that Eastenders paints SS in such a bad light - it happened first with Roxy having Amy just taken and put with Jack, and now with Lola - if I was her social worker I would be commending her efforts and being supportive! Not making snidy comments about washing up. Also - I'm not sure how her case load is so small but I have way too many people to look after to be at somebody's house day in day out!!!!
I find it completely irresponsible that they broadcast these story lines - we get a bad enough reputation as it is without the BBC jumping on the bandwagon!!!
im sorry but this eastenders storyline is very acurate. i have been involved with a family who are very nice and caring with there family was put in a horrible council estate by the council for a year and the kids next door had asbos and was being anti social and social did nothing as they was scared of them yet the parents that do care for there children do get picked on as there easy targets. you cant have dirty dishes in the sink otherwise they think your a bad parent even childrens toys around the house is untidy to socail services, you cant show any tpye of negative emotions otherwise your depressed. this episode does show the truth of social services. they only care about the child even tho the adult has to care for the child therefore they need to make sure the adult is coping to be able to lok after said child. theres not even enough info online about the bad times with them its all very hush hush but there are bad social services and good ones as it depends on the area you go to which is very disapointing it should be universal with all departments
I'm afraid my experience of SWs (note: I'm not saying ALL SWs, just a few I've encountered), is that they are ineffectual, with no idea how to prioritise cases.
I've sadly been witness to a situation where IMO the baby should've been removed and the parents at the very least given guidance and strict supervision. Instead the SW walked into the house (which I would be kind to describe as a shithole), told the parents she had seen worse and the baby was well cared for. This was not only wildly incorrect, but it was so incorrect that the SW was either blind with no sense of smell, or fucking lazy and not wanting to file another case. And just to garnish shit with shit sprinkles, she exposed the details of the anonymous report to the parents of the child.
So no, I have to say that in my experience of SWs, I can't say that I saw any element of realism in the Lola/Lexi storyline. It was heartbreaking and ridiculously inaccurate.
The actress that plays Lola is bloody excellent though.
Fairy - I totally agree with you. It is worrying that people who might wish to seek help will now be too scared to in case they lose custody - the BBC really needs to sort this!
I'm a cp social worker and if it was that easy me and my colleagues would not have so many sleepless nights! Unless the mother signs a section 20 ( voluntary accommodation) then either an epo (emergency protection order) or an interim care order would need to be gained from court. Both include proving to the court that the child is at risk of significant harm if left in the care of its parent, both are not easy to gain!! Eastenders should do there research before they broadcast unrealistic shite!
the sw i refered to before, removed the child of a young woman with no real reason (dv case ex partner in prison mum cooperating compleatly) lied and was highly respected and practicly given free reign obviously denyed it
well untill she featured on video proving what every other agency involved was saying. it was over 10 years ago she was sacked (after a fashion).
and i have never come across one like that since or before for that matter, she seriously was rogue. thats why i think she may not be real (obviously shes an actor but you know what i mean)
Errr the police can remove a child without a court order...
this is only because there is not enough evidence on the web to show what happens, yes the social worker proberly wouldnt of mentioned the dirty dishes but they would have it in there case notes, and gather enough evidence to put forward a case, social workers care only on the child but parents need the help they need the sw to give them the support and guidance, even with the bbc programme they aired about sw on the job yet you did not see one time they went okay well get you a cleaner to tiody this house as i can see your a bit down with the state of the house and help you with how to maintain a house. these services need to be offered to help parents as some people dont have a mum and a dad to show them how to maintain a housewhole they need to be taugh
I was going to start a thread about this. That was horrific to watch, I was in tears. It was totally unbelievable, I think they've been really irresponsible with their inaccuracy. I also think that in light of recent events in the news this really shouldn't have been shown.
Very rarely do the police use their powers and still the social worker would need to go to court quickly to gain an ico.
grasshopper the child would need to be at immediate physical risk and they would have to justify that to a judge pronto.
Isn't that a little OTT cbeebies?
I can understand how TV shows can be emotive, but 'horrific' to watch and you were in tears?
Why didn't you switch it off then, it's not real you know
Also, what recent events do you mean?
If you mean April Jones being abducted while playing out in the street, I don't see a connection at all?
Unless you mean a different story?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
they can go for a emergency protection order, in the episode the social worker got concerned when lola shouted at the baby that would of been when she went for the order and it would of been granted that day to put the baby in temp care for 72 hours. as lola was already on a child protection plan so it can easily be granted its a private court
Well, I thought the whole thing was a crock of shit, and the producers should be ashamed of themselves for portraying the profession so poor and inaccurately. What a way to scare the shit out of young single parents with social work involvement
athenie that would not be enough to get a epo, judges are not stupid.
Having never had any contact with sw's I hope to god this isn't an accurate portrayal. I have tried to reassure my dd who was watching the tail end of ee that is was just a silly story that was totally made up. She was quite upset by the story line. Maybe as well as commenting here complaints should be made to the Bbc then their researchers may think twice next time. Doubtful.
the icing on the cake was when she punched the girl and reported her, so they would of gone back and got it. judges arnt stupid but they deal in that subject only so.
Yes worra that is what I meant, probably ott but I have a 6mo dd and it upset me. Obviously I know its not real but thats how it made me feel.
I cried watching that. The sw is a bitch in the programme. Tutting at a bit of nappy rash.
Also how the hell did the sw strap Lexi in the car and drive off so quickly? I want one of those car seats!
Sockreturningpixie - the police don't have to justify to a judge, Police Protection Order aren't court ordered. Not that it matters, all just adds to the crapness that is eastenders
Maybe it's an isofix seat with one of those maxi cost belts. They're very easy to close.
it is upsetting because within different districts the social services do act differently and in the end its the manager that gets the fainal say even tho they never see the family and just read on a peice of paper but it does happen. good parents do get the brunt of it as they are compliant and let them in in any case record record record anything said in your home for acurate conversations as not all social workers get pad and pen out and thats very worrying they go off memory and considering they have about 30 cases each it has to be a must for noting convos down
i think a dominos pizza is in order of this horrible tv episode
Whenever I see social workers on a programme I always automatically think of baby P and Victoria Climbe, and how they weren't saved.
We used to have a case load of 136 families for a team of 4 - I used to put in 70 hrs a week to keep up with home visits/paperwork. I know for a fact that I had colleagues who would fudge their paperwork without having contact visits -I understand why they did it, but I could never have lived with myself if something happened to one of my clients due to my lack of attention. I am shocked that Lola's worker had the time to keep showing up!
i was refering to this perticular storyline, it will be challenged course it will. hence the judge comment no chance they could get away with saying it was required.
in rl its really rare for the police to remove a child unless they actually directly see a danger,thats why if a sw asks them to in advance they will usually expect the sw to deal with it via the court. the police removing would not be used unless the child was in actual danger right then.
re the car seat. i expect she didnt have one and will claim it was a short journey and a emergency
I stopped watching EE tonight because I was so upset by it.
The baby storylines arevtoo much for me at 34 and a bit weeks. Won't tune in until all over...
That and the kat and Derek storyline makes me billious....
Well I have a very challenging child with ASD and I was advised by someone on the SEN board to be very careful about asking SS for a care assessment because her child was taken away.
Also that recent thread on here where a child was taken because of a bruise??
It doesn't make me feel trusting of SS tbh. The Lola storyline was deeply upsetting - I totally agree about the irony of Michael being the one who really needs SS because he doesn't actually want his own child!
Sorry, I meant to say nearly taken away
In my limited dealings With SS I found the SW judgemental, factually incorrect and also downright deceptive in her report (I am the innocent parent of a victim), her factually incorrect, offensive report, took me to the edge of suicide. To add insult to injury - she had signed the report off as being authorised by her manager - when her manager was actually on leave and had never seen it.
DH and a close family friend met with her manager, who promised an "addendum report" correcting all the errors in the initial one - we have never received an amended report.
I have had contact with parents where a social worker has made stuff up, even when the parent produced paperwork from independent people at the school to prove the social workers notes were incorrect they weren't changed. Another family had a social worker look round their house, the whole house was spotless and the social worker looked at every room apart from the parents bedroom, in the notes it made no mention of how clean the house was, just that the parents bedroom was messy, except the social worker didn't look in that room
I was told by a solicitor specialising in children's law that since Baby P over-reactions and bullying and intimidating behaviour by social workers is par for the course
So I do believe a social worker would tut over washing up and nappy rash
I dont watch EE. What is the storyline?
I actually came on to say exactly the same thing.
The way that social worker has been behaving would probably see her sacked (or at least spoken to by her bosses) in real life. Child protection is NOT about fucking nappy rash, washing up and whether great granddad has a job. If it was, most babies in the country would be on the CPR.
In real life, Lola would be getting glowing reports at conferences for her care of Lexi.
My sister is a social worker - and honestly, this portrayal is the polar opposite of how real social workers behave. They are there to help, not judge, unless there's very serious cause for concern.
This storyline has really made me furious.
Whenever I see social workers on a programme I always automatically think of baby P and Victoria Climbe, and how they weren't saved.
That's understandable. But you are ignoring the many thousands of babies & children who HAVE been and continue to be saved. That there are shit SWs (& nurses, doctors, police officers etc) is without question - but the vast, vast majority are conscientious and dedicated.
You were right McPhee proper sobbing tears and dd now out of her basket and back in my arms
Do parents have the right to see all social services records about them?
yes so true wibblywobbler ive had a family that the social worker asked if the dvd they had in the paraents bedroom porn, as they saw a bit of flesh actually it was smallville with supergirl on the cover mistaking it for porn whish isnt iligal to have in a adult bedroom
SoleSource - I should hope not! But as I described somewhere above, the situation I was witness to, the fucking useless SW showed the parents the report anyway, giving the details of the 'complainant' away.
perception "Also that recent thread on here where a child was taken because of a bruise??" if you followed that thread carefully you would have seen that there was a great deal more going on and the "bruise" was suspected to be an adult bite mark.
Assuming its the same thread I read.
Sole In theory, I think they do, yes. But I'm pretty sure that SS have the right to censor some of the material if they decide it would not be in the best interests of people to see it, or if it might inflame a situation.
I was brought up in care, and went to read through my file some years ago (as an adult). There was so much censored, because it was information about my mother that I wasn't allowed to read. Made me a bit since she's been dead since I was 12.
yes SoleSource the parent can ask for the files as part of the data protection act of 1998 everyone has free right to get them for free. what you say is im requesting my files within the data protection act of 1998 and then you show them your documents to prove your you and then they have 40 days to comply otherwise they are breaking the data protection act
you cant get third party information but anything socail services right you can see, so anything the health visitor or school says if they want it quiet they can have it that way
Eastender could of redeemed themselves by pursuing the best intrest of Scarlet. Father is not coping and her mum has vanished into thin air.
I think you can access information once you are 18 (maybe 16?) but they will censor anything about anyone else involved due to data protection.
santais it is wrong about micheal but no one is reporting him and if they dont it wont get found out but because lola is already been in care so billy have socail they are aware of the situation but i would never put social on my worst enemy
Ok thank you for answering would be intetesting. My DS is disabled and we have had disability SW. They have been good but very judgey at times.
that is the thing you need to get a social worker who understands disablites as some are quite young not saying they are bad but they dont have kids or understand except from a text book so you always have the right to request a social worker who understands i do have to say tho word of causion, they want you to carry on with what your doing when they visit dont feel the need to be polite and talk with them they want to see you in a normal enviroment also be formal with them, any kind of negative emotion to them is a bad sign just ask and talk about formal things they ask dont talk about your past or give them amunition sounds bad what im saying but if you do as they ask and be formal they will be gone in 3 months tops
My DS SW likes to sit and chat. We talk about everything. I think she feels I do a good jov and I have not seen her since February. I called her. She is coming out this Tuesday. She said she doesn't like to bother me much.
She seems a lovely Lady but I cannot help being chatty and friendly. Being formal with her would be strange. I feel sge deserves a warm welcome abd a chat. Maybe Iam wrong and the next SW we get I should be more formal and less open.
yes i know what you mean but i have talked to a protection social worker and he told me off the record they like to see you doing things not to sit and chat but if you have a good conection and you can ask questions you get a good answer out of them the sw will be fine, a change in sw is worrying unless it to be put on a lower level they should keep the same worker otherwise you have to get to know them all again, jusdt make sure they have a note pad and pen for convos as they cant do it of memory with so many cases if they dont have one you right it down and ask if this informations is correct as they can write stuff you didnt say (not saying all sw are bad depends on situations)
thats the problem the family i new had you think your being nice but they accused there family of not socialising with the kids and when they ignored the social and iteracted with the kids they got good reports
For those saying about the actress that plays Lola -do you remember the Jamie Oliver programme a couple of years ago -Jamies Dream School or whatever it was called for troubled youngsters? Well she was the girl that got stuck into the biology lessons and impressed Jamie and the tutors.
From there she started drama school I think.
i feel a change of topic happening :P
Sorry! But a few people in the thread had asked if it was her first acting job!
I have never been under SS's radar for bad parenting etc etc. But my Mum is a foster carer, and has her own (who is fabulous) and experienced many many others.
One thing EE is quite accurate about is the fact that the social workers change a lot. Awful when you think that one person may be the only stability the child has when moving to and from homes, and spending time with them.
However, many of the social workers I met and was around, were very warm and friendly, and were there to support as best they can. Many would have started on the washing up, not stand there tutting.
My partner (he doesn't usually watch EE) said today angrily 'why doesn't (Michael) get investigated by social services?!'
We all know why don't we? Suppose it's also another fairly accurate approach by EE... reflecting on stereotypes.
I am absolutely disgusted with the BBC and Eastenders producers for running this inaccurate and damning portrayal of social workers. I'm a CP social worker myself and our job is difficult enough as it is without soap operas buying into and reinforcing the negative spin that has been whipped up by the media over the years. Lola's social worker is completely unrealistic and is a caricature of what may be perceived by some people about social workers. I really believe it is harmful for the BBC to be broadcasting this inaccurate representation of social work as it is likely to heighten fear in those who may need support and as a result prevent families in need from engaging and receiving help and advice which will equip them in caring for their children. Believe it or not, social workers want parents to succeed. Eastenders really need to conduct far more comprehensive research and take more responsibility for the consequences of the backlash that their storylines may create.
Gets people chatting and dispelling myths. bBC are good at that.
I am also a CP SW and i am annoyed at the portrayal of services.
Most annoying is the ommission of Lola having her own SW from the 'Leaving Care Team', who would have accessed funding for her, which would have meant that she wouldn't have had to find work, or do Community Service whilst recovering from giving birth.
What Lola was allowed to do was illegal, as the Community Service Supervisor knew that she had given birth within a short space of time.
Why they stated that Billy losing his job was any cause for concern, was another issue that i have.
The mentioned team meeting would have had to have been attended by Lola.
In fact i could write a few paragraphs about each time we have seen a SW on the screen.
Lola would have a whole package put together by the LCT, seperate to the CP plan that Lexie is on.
sadly i know of familys that have gone through this, a really good friend has them on her back at the mo and they are trying to get the kids,they have told her the baby will be adpoted if they get them they give her a list of things to do she does them and they find other faults 7 months now shes been jumping through hoops.
a friends sister had her kids removed yes she did wrong but she got herself sorted they gave 2 of the kids back to the dad who use to beat her up,younest went to his dad who then while lo was in the car beat his g/f and even now 9 years later shes still fighting to get him back out of care,ss wanted him to be adopted but never got that far thank god yet when she went to them when her dd had been abused by a neighbour ss didnt want to know!
Lola is a very caring, loving Mother. I was surprised.
ss have agreat knack of twisting things and lying sorry i have no time for them.
I think it's awful tbh. Not only does it give social workers a bad name it means those that most need help are now going to be less likely to seek it. The Bbc shoud be ashamed of itself and it's unrealistic portrayal of social services. It's really annoyed me!
*Horrible storyline and wildly inaccurate
Social care are so stretched they wouldn't want to pay out on an expensive foster care arrangement when grandad could care for the baby
She hasn't even been charged or found guilty so grounds for removing the baby at all
The writers should be ashamed*
Err, she doesn't have to be charged with anything. Family court burden of proof is lower than criminal court, kids can be taken like that, yes. Kids get taken seconds after they have been born.
FWIW i hate them but even i think that SW was OTT. She reminded me of the first one i had so much i felt sick. The writers should be proud they are showing the darker side of SS. The ones who have only read it in a book or studied it at college and think they can then apply it to a real family..
I think it's awful tbh. Not only does it give social workers a bad name it means those that most need help are now going to be less likely to seek it.
Sorry but last time i checked, services were so stretched they werent available till after the child was either in care or on the CPR.
I remember being told this and begging in tears for DD to be put on the register so she could access services but they refused. No point seeking help that isn't there.
They can't take a child without a court order.
No, they get their buddies the police to do the deed instead and rarely if ever, get refused. The police don't need a court order.
They are also legally obliged to exhaust all possibilities of the child being cared for by a relative, before placing with foster Carers.
Pfft. Yeah but they don't bother and how is a parent supposed to do anything about it, being as the parent is nothing in these cases, 'the child is everything and only thing that matters' well helping the parent would help the child.
May i also bring your attention to this Link
:: In children's social care, the focus was on younger children at risk of abuse from family and household members, rather than on vulnerable adolescents; yeeeeessssssss because teenagers won't help to fill that adoption quota will they. Of course its babies they're interested in.
Shot themselves in the foot though in my case, investigated during pregnancy with DS2, despite hearing nothing from SS for years unless it was to do with DD, they weren't even interested in DS1 unless i played my face on the 'child in need in the area' card, trying to get him some help to accept that they had removed his sister and not allowed him contact for years (he was 5 when she was removed)
They had gone all out to prove i was a rotten mother come what may and eventually settled on the fact that as i and DD had both been sexually abused, i would be at risk of causing her emotional harm, so it was agreed between them all that i was capable of parenting DS1 effectively, but not abused DD. Thats because they read books on abuse and thought they understood more than i did being an actual victim, i suppose.
So when they were hovering waiting like stinky vultures to take DS2, at the slightest inkling of wrongdoing on my part, i reminded them of this. Surprising how quickly they left me alone after that really.. I don't think they fancied fighting against someone who had the balls to fight back again. I cost them the price of a reasonable sized house (well the taxpayer) don't think they could have justified doing that again. Not that they have to justify expenditure anyway.
One wonders how SW's would behave differently if the family courts weren't secret... If they could be held accountable, if the complaints procedure wasn't a completely internal affair, with no real prospect of going further than a panel comprised of people closely linked to the SS themselves?
Its like me robbing a bank, arresting and questioning myself, and deciding that i'm not guilty, then releasing myself.
THATS why SS are not trusted, not because of T-FRIGGIN-V .. not trusting SS is hardly a new phenomenon
Yanbu for thinking that but with experiences that I and also people I know have had, I can safely say that some of them (well, a lot of them) really, really are just like the one on eastenders. I thought it was an accurate portrayal of some social workers
THOUGHT EXACTLY THE SAME!!!
fuckers, really upset me last night
its not real, repeat x 1000000
I was a bit when the SW was so judgy about the little pile of washing up. I hope they never come to my house. [shock
and kisses to thingsthatmake you go, i have read your other thread
It is an accurate portrayal of 'some'
I have also come across some that would roll up their sleeves and help
But its a lottery what you get
They should have a mass consultation with parents asking what would make parents comfortable with dealing with them
I would ask for them not to act like they have the power to take your kids even though they do
To stop lying
To know when to apologise that they've made a mistake
That the initial SW who makes accusations against a parent is NOT the one who undertakes the following assessment because they just go all out to prove themselves right and won't back down till they do
We're not after SW's who agree with us or get on with us 100% of the time, my best SW ever used to argue with me, disagree, we used to swear at each other, but she didn't just take, she gave as well, admitted openly when she was wrong or thought that other people were wrong, openly said she was happy that she met me first and i quote 'to flying fuck with the paperwork i know most of it is made up SHIT i am a social worker of 30 years i know what goes on'
I loved that woman
((hugs)) thank you for the kisses my lovely x
I hope and have contacted the beeb to make sure they don't back down
Why oh why are we willing to accept that SW's in rochdale and in other care homes islington and all that, turned a blind eye or even their back but won't accept the portrayal of one on Eastenders?
Oh and if one came into MY house saying stuff about the washing up, or that baby could do with a fresh nappy, she or he would be
wearing a washcloth handed a washcloth or a nappy and told to get on with it.
Make your mind up, social workers. Is a too clean house a bad thing, you like to see toys strewn about, don't you? When i was a new mum, i had piles of washing and ironing taller than me!!
Or is it that a messy home doesn't float your boat?
And WHY should parents have to give a toss what you think of their home, unless its strewn with dog poo, with washing up covered with mould, no food in the cupboards, which is obviously abusive and disgusting.. why should they be part of the lottery they get where you might be a clean freak, or you might be one of those 'a grubby child is a happy child'
Bit hit and miss isn't it? How is that fair?
I've never watched East Enders before, but as Social Services have been giving us a hard time, after reading this thread I watched this episode.
I found the East Enders episode reasonably convincing, though with TV drama they often have to condense things ridiculously for the drama to work.
I think that the storyline is highlighting a real problem in this country with Child Protection that the Social Workers will intervene far too frequently in cases that are not dangerous and also still sometimes fail in the dangerous cases.
It is not very scientific and they seem to accept reports of trivial stuff (like a pile of washing up) being "part of an overall picture" of neglect. They are looking for risk so they find it.
They seem to be trained not to trust parents.
My experience is that the Child Protection Social Workers put together a biased innacurate risk-averse report based on information that the parents have had not chance to see or correct - and from then on it is hard to get the record put straight.
It must lead to hundreds of heart-rending cases not so unlike the one portrayed in East-Enders.
I think the latest challenge coming from Slovakia (surprisingly) is a good thing
UK law badly needs changing to say there must either be "actual harm" having occurred, or the there must be a "significant risk of harm" (which needs to be defined much better than as a Social Worker's "judgement" or a pile of washing up and some nappy rash or an anonymous report from a member of the public -who may have a grudge).
See www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2128987/Children-stolen-state.html which I think is spot on.
so distressing to watch. I was in tears watching it whilst feeding my 3 week year old. No idea if accurate as no experience of social services. However, if not doing washing up was a crime heaven only knows what midwife and HV wolud make of my untidy house with carpets in need of hoovering.
Oxford try not to worry, they aren't all bad, this coming from someone who has been through the mill with them..
They came to visit after my DP beat me up (DS was 4 months old) after i confronted him for cheating.
They ignored the washing up, ironing pile ect. Its part and parcel of having a new baby.
They paid for me to go to hospital in a taxi when it was thought that i had cerebral fluid leakage, and were very kind to me given what had happened.
Problem was when i went to the CPR (child protection review) and whilst the SW was ok, there was a police officer there who was the very same one that had threatened me with violence and harassment by the police five years before, and had been present at the taking of DD.
I felt that was extremely unfair. Apparently until she saw me, she was sympathetic. During the meeting she said i was minimising the assault. When i pointed out that i had been to hospital, cooperated with the police and SS, DP had been removed from my home and i was pressing charges, until the police had said that the CPS wouldn't take it to court, she was forced to shut the hell up.
The abuses of power that go on are ridiculous.
Basically they invited DP to the meetings despite the fact i didn't want to be in the same room as him, then told him he couldn't have contact at all with DS until they had arranged anger management for him. I never saw them again...
There are many failings, and abuses. There is no consistency, plenty of lies taken as gospel simply because they are spoken by a 'professional (i stated to the judge that something was a lie and had proof of it, she simply said 'are you saying that a SW would lie? I don't think so' and ignored the evidence i had which was written by another SW.
Some of them are excellent, i had two that were. Unfortunately they helped me and so got moved to other jobs, one nearly lost her job for uncovering what had really happened and put her neck on the line.
Family courts should not be secret, they should be open, with certain things being censored, but IMO if the SS have the courage of their convictions, they would not need to be behind a veil of secrecy and maybe it being open would make them more likely to be trusted.
As things stand, they don't even need to produce hard evidence.. they can simply say in their opinion the child is at risk of emotional abuse.
Its the one threshold reason for taking a child, the use of which has soared over the past few years. How vague can they be? And to prove it they get 'expert' witnesses, usually clinical or forensic psychologists who have, in their CV, a past history of working closely with SW's. Given that the SS funds the witness, and gets to ask all the questions it wishes to know of the parent, its hardly surprising they always get the answers they were hoping for.
What people (i didn't) don't know is that they can refuse .. refuse to submit to the psych test that could result in the loss of their children, because its a human right not to be forced to undergo medical treatment if you don't want it.
That is their right, yet the SS use your children to strongarm you into it.
Anyway i notice the thread has tumbleweed in the social worker corner now, wonder why that is?
Feel free to read my story HERE
And tell me please, what parent, after having a child taken from them, WOULDN'T miserably fail a psychological test of any kind?
Oh here's another little diamond used, apparently i was 'intimidating' because i was TALL, and they felt threatened by me.. i'd never so much as raised my voice to them.. then i was banned from the case conferences, and lac reviews, because i had allowed DD to watch something they deemed 'inappropriate' but i passed a sheet of paper given to me by one of them and said 'do you recognise this?' Yes, she replied, i gave it to you. 'Well can you tell me what it says'
And she read it out, and it said 'You should watch the news with your children, things will come up such as child abuse, rape, murder. You should discuss what you have seen with your child'
Well they didn't bloody like it and for the following 6 years i wasn't invited to LAC reviews, given school photos, effectively written out of my daughters' life, no school reports, i didn't even know what my DD's favourite colour was FFS. I wasn't invited to give views via the SW, because most of the time DD didn't HAVE one and if she did they didn't bother contacting me.
This is despite the fact when they are in care under a full or interim order, you share parental responsibility. I wasn't allowed to have a say in what school DD went to, when she was moved from one school to another, and back again.
And contact! Contact is a JOKE. Sitting in a dentists waiting room with your kids? Think its torture? Imagine doing it every week twice a week, not having anything to talk about because the SS have removed all trace of you from the childs life and vice versa. You're not allowed outside in case you do a runner with the child. The places you go have toys. What good is that if your child is a pre teen or teen?
Imagine being watched, every word recorded. Words ADDED. You can't see the reports, oh, no, they're confidential! Every action.. Oh yes, don't forget when your child asks you, when they can come home, you have to be robotic and answer in the right way. You can't say soon, because it gives false hope. You can't say i love you/miss you/ want you home, or cry, show any real emotion, because it all goes against you and if you do any of them you're likely to have contact STOPPED.
THEY hold the power, THEY call the shots, and you can do nothing about it. You are voiceless. and even if you can prove that they've done wrong by you and your family, you CAN NOT sue them.
<sigh> Wish i could say i feel better for typing this but i don't. I wish things were different.
SAD, BUT TRUE
Unfortunately, there are individuals within Social Services that have been known to abuse their power of authority, much like that shown in Friday's episode of Eastenders
Although, it must be noted that not all SW are alike, and there are great, family oriented SW out there: However, there are countless reports of social engineering and children being removed for Forced Adoption.
Much of the Kafkaesque practices remain unreported and concealed by England's veil of secrecy within family courts.
It was only last week that there were reports of Slovakia bringing Britain to the ECHR under allegations of Forced Adoption of Slovakian children
A parent, whose child is wrongfully removed, is subjected to the most traumatic torture one can imagine.
They are extremely vulnerable and are further taken advantage of by money-grabbing Family Solicitors.
"Children" are a big-money business, yielding millions of profit for agencies and Law firms worldwide. It seems as-though the only people that don't profit from it are the Parents and Children themselves.
Adoption is a life sentence, and those vetted thru "baby farming", social engineering and Forced adoption are subjected to the most indescribable pain and torment - without reason. Unfortunately, few (if any) are ever brought to criminal prosecution for wrongful doings under the HRA, harassment, and misfeasance.
The whole remit needs a serious overhaul, but instead - adoption is being pushed to speed up the process...^by a PM who left his child in a beer garden nonetheless^
I don't recall reading about Social Services conducting a core-assessment on him & his wife!
Like i've said before, i could have brought a home for my children with the legal fees for my case and thats all public money, that the public isn't allowed to question. Times that by all the kids in care and you see how much it all costs.
That money could be better spent providing services for vulnerable children and their familes.
yes things, the SW who upset me was supposed to be investigating whether SD had been abused by her brother, she NEVER met me, she NEVER met DH, she spent 15 minutes with his exw, less than 5 minutes with my SD, and then she wrote pages and pages of a tirade about me.
She did not do what she was supposed to do, which was investigate SS.
She refused to let DH know when the investigation had been passed to her, overriding his parents rights.
She sent her inaccuarate report to numerous people, then she went onto long term absence so she was un-contactable, I assume this was stress related.
We were promised a new report, by her manager, correcting the first one, it has never come.
She issued a half hearted apology to me, no-one else who received the inaccurate report was contacted to let them know it was full of errors, and also some out and out lies. If I issued something as being authorised by my manager, without my managers knowledge, it would be a disciplinary offence.
No investigation has ever taken place into whether SS has indeed abused his sister.
And why do I think SW did this???
DHs ex wife works for a different branch of Childrens Social Services, within the same county, so I believe the SW had pre-conceived ideas before she ever wrote the report.
But the singular most concerning aspect is she was supposed to carry our a delicate investigation and it took her less than 5 minutes to conclude that a SD was indeed not a victim of abuse, despite the fact that numerous family members were well aware that SS had at the very least hit and punched his sister to the point that they were unable to be left alone together for a significant number of years.
In addition, she only went to the house where SD lived, despite the fact that for 7 years her contact with SS took place at a different location as he was estranged from his mother.
Friday's episode was so very upsetting, but you could see it coming couldn't you?
I fully agree with people on here, seems to be wildly inaccurate portrayal. I said to dp that I'd be very surprised by a sw banging on about nappy rash and a pile of washing.
And would a sw really be that judgemental of Billy having a few beers? Not like he was responsible for Lexie at that time.
The actress playing Lola is doing a grand job, she was fab last night and the night of Lexie's birth.
Hope she gets Lexie back. I kind of assumed that Lexie was being taken just whilst Lola was at the police station?
YADNBU I have been thinking the exact same thing. Iwork for childrens services and they are absolutely nothing like this.
Shockingly irresponsible of EE. They represented SS as childsnatchers, something to be feared and ridiculously critical. I hope that SS complain en masse.
Of course mothers are terrified of social workers! In response to calls from the government to increase the number of adoptions the "SS" armed with adoption scorecards are desparate to fulfill their targets.Since "baby P" the number of children taken into care for physical abuse has DROPPED as a proportion of the whole ,not increased as they would have you believe . No,although the number of children taken into care has more than doubled in the last three years,that is thanks to their win win formula, "Risk of emotional abuse!".The number of children taken for emotional abuse has increased by 70% in the same period because these are undamaged children ripe for adoption.Mothers cannot defend themselves against predictions by highly qualified and highly paid experts that they MIGHT emotionally abuse their children in the future so babies are snatched at birth to feed the ever more powerful adoption industry,headed by Barnardos and others similar .The National Fostering Agency (founded a few years ago by two social workers) was recently sold for £130million !! With big bucks like that in the mix and thousands of "do gooders "with snouts deep in the trough don't expect the industry to give up the goodies without a long hard struggle !
Before anyone doubts that emotional abuse is as damaging as any other type, head over to the 'Stately Homes' threads in 'relationships' or the MH boards.
Argue it out with the adult survivours of emotionally abusive parents.
The increase in adoptions is to save children from languishing in the foster care system.
The foster care system has many faults, especially as the young person reaches the teen years, it is often better to go down the adoption route than long term fostering.
I have both personaland work experience of this and am supporting a relative that i didn't know exsisted, who's mother wouldn't put her up for adoption, but still now at 16 doesn't want to be a part of her life.
"Imagine being watched, every word recorded. Words ADDED. You can't see the reports, oh, no, they're confidential"
If that is happening now then it is illegal.
The contact sheet has to be gone through with the parent and signed, with any comments added, which includes them not agreeing or putting their side to any issues.
Most contacts give an unreal picture of the relationship between parent and child, because many, until they start to have contact don't spend one to one time and don't play with their children, tbh.
In ten years time some of those children currently being snatched will start to sue the authorities concerned and publicly disclose the stories where the law has prevented their parents from doing so.
Hopefully the current Slovakian case will offer hope to thousands of British born children who don't have the luxury of a foreign government to ask the relevant human rights questions against our current system.
There's a lot of corruption, groupthink, predjudice and politics that goes on in Children's services. SW's should be in the same professional position as teachers - with their actions subject to public scrutiny. CP is too damn important to be left to the whims and fancies of cluesless politicians.
It needs to stop becoming the last lunatic bastion of every lunatic pop pyschology theory related to child development that comes along, and return to a purely evidence based practice model.
This would help the good SW's no end actually as it would enable them be judged on their own merits & not on those of the corrupt & regain the trust of ordinary parents.
The Rochdale case should have demonstrated to the nation to what extent subjective political thinking and not proper objective descision making has badly impacted the quality of Child Protection Services in the UK.
The whole system needs to be refocused so that it becomes about child welfare, based on evidence based practice & the family court system opened to public scrutiny.
When I had SS involvement the twisting that was done behind my back was shocking.
My HV was 100% on my side. She knew I was a good mum and she stuck up for me repeatedly. If it hadnt been for her, I dont know what would have happened.
I have had SWs say my child wasnt read to because she brought the SW a book when the SW asked her to.
I have also had it noted that DD was subjected to "adult programmes" because the SW arrived in the middle of DDs nap and Gilmore Girls was on
I know that many SWs do a wonderful job. And its not easy. And I dont agree with the portrayal on EE.
However, anyone who thinks that dishonesty and cover ups arent widespread within SS are kidding themselves. The whole service needs an overhaul. We need transparency.
Eastenders is a fucking pantomime.
This is almost the same as my experience with social services although my children werent taken. I was threatened with it often though. When i moved house i was a lone parent with 3 young children. The health visitor came round to visit (my buggy wouldnt fit into the clinic) and weigh the twins. The house was a bit untidy but wasnt too bad (few toys lying about) and there was dishes needing washed. She asked if i would be interested in a nursery 1 morning a week for a couple of hours.
I said yeah that would be a great help. Turns out it was run by social services (nobody told me this till they started interfering). I got told off because DT2 had a dirty nappy when he arrived even though it was obvious his nappy had just been changed because it was completely dry. I had them giving me hassle when he got nappy rash which turned out to be a reaction to the nappies we were using.
Then im not sure if anybody remembers a thread i started asking for advice on how to stop my twins taking their nappy off and smearing crap everywhere. Well i stupidy asked the HV for advice on what to do and the next thing i know is i have 2 social workers at my door wanting to do a full house inspection.
I will never ask a health visitor for any help or advice again and i want nothing more to do with any social workers again.
This Is where lola was discovered
birds what contact sheet, what parental involvement?? And I ask that as a family who has been involved with SW across 2 counties.
They were both a disgrace.
A contact sheet is the recording of the contact between the parent and the child.
At the end of contact the FSW or SW goes through the sheet with the parent (or visitor) and the parent adds their comments and signs it if they agree to the contents.
If a complaint is made about the SW/FSW in my LA, then all meetings/visits are done in pairs and the parents see/sign all of the notes.
I caught the tail end of the episode and was stuck by how orange the actress playing Lola was.
She looked ridiculous.
Birdsgottafly I hope yoy donot mibdme asking but what do SW want to happen when they visit a home?
Clean, totally tidy houses?. Parents sitting abd chatting or up on their feet makibg fiid whilst talking?
My Sons SW is diaability team abd rarely see her, about three times a year at my request mostly.
Nobody dies of emotional abuse or gets crippled by it! Certainly no babies should be taken for "risk of it ".Clever pseodo intellectuals adore to prattle of it ,but honestly would you prefer to have parents who shout at each other a lot ,or be beaten until you are permanently crippled or dead?
Birds, OK, that is something that hasn't happened in our case, I assume it should have.
Many do die through 'Emotional Abuse' by taking their own lives
I agree - emotional abuse is as insidious and damaging as any other form of abuse
ss do walk in and take your children then forced adopt them out what happened to lola happened to me with my son i have a recording of a ss manager telling me i was shafted and if u dont believe me then watch my video on you tube its called My Illegally kidnapped son Darren-Jay Lee and when u do go on there look at the side were all other videos of other familys are going thought the same thing also google forced adoption John hemmings the mp is involved in helping us expose what ss are doing to Innocent familys they have a target to adopted children out and they can not adopted the children out who have been abused or not looked after so they take children from familys that love and look after there child ss get paid bonuses for reaching there adoption target this is no lie plz open ur eyes and see what ss are doing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L89oYc8D530
But surely emotional abuse can also be evidence based?
I think the issue is that the process isn't working, for children who are abused & families who are innocent. Ss record keeping, processes and criteria are chaotic, variable and shrouded in mystery, which doesn't serve the children, families or ss itself. For a start it pits them in a position which allows speculation & blame, it allows the bad social workers to abuse their powers, & the good social workers to be tarnished by this.
It seems anyone who challenges ss is dismissed as having a grudge, unstable or 'there's no smoke without fired' type of thinking. This is outlawed in law for anyone else but when it comes to our most vulnerable children, why do we let this continue? We get hysterical when trying to protect children, and it's not helping anyone - not even the children.
I think the Beeb should portray ss however they want, there is good, there is bad, & why should ss be allowed to have their image artificially white washed? It doesn't inspire trust - trust would be about clarity, openness & the ability to see eastenders as a story, not propaganda for or against them.
ss do walk in and take your children then forced adopt them out what happened to lola happened to me with my son i have a recording of a ss manager telling me i was shafted and if u dont believe me then watch my video on you tube its called My Illegally kidnapped son Darren-Jay Lee and when u do go on there look at the side were all other videos of other familys are going thought the same thing also google forced adoption John hemmings the mp is involved in helping us expose what ss are doing to Innocent familys they have a target to adopted children out and they can not adopted the children out who have been abused or not looked after so they take children from familys that love and look after there child ss get paid bonuses for reaching there adoption target this is no lie plz open ur eyes and see what ss are doing www.youtube.com/watch?v=L89oYc8D530
I thought Mercedes signed over her rights though?
It's a soap opera. It's not supposed to be real life. Most programmes are the same, unless you're watching a documentary.
They have half an hour to show it, they aren't going to go through team meetings and court orders because it is pretend.
I'm sure there will be people thinking that's how it's done but there are people who can't distinguish between the actors and the real person as well.
Like,somebody has already said, Lola was being arrested and the sw wasnt leaving Lexi with Billy because he was 'drunk'.
That's really interesting about the actress being on Jamies school thingy.
Most contacts give an unreal picture of the relationship between parent and child, because many, until they start to have contact don't spend one to one time and don't play with their children, tbh.
Most one to one stuff takes place in a family home though, or out swimming, or cycling, having fun.. i used to play with DD, so i didn't have to keep carting all the stuff about that i needed (craft items, colouring books ect) i asked if i could leave them in a safe place at the centre (no towing stuff around on three buses twice a week) they allowed me to but kept 'losing' the stuff.
All the paperwork to do with contacts i was told i wasn't allowed to read.
Emotional abuse, i agree, can be and is damaging, but it can only be proven in certain ways, one of these is the psychological examination, which isn't science based, its not definative. And outside influences, such as my own (i was in court re my own abuse the day before one of the two tests) can sway the results.
100% of the time, the Cli.Psych always gives a timescale for treatment of the 'borderline personality disorder' they just diagnosed you with, of 2 years or over. I forget what the terminology is offhand, but this is outside the timescale they give for the child to be returned to the parent, so they turn to the adoption proceedings (for young babies and children) that they started running concurrently, and i would say they have a 100% success rate in obtaining the orders they need.
But their 'care' is so substandard for older kids and teens, that any of them daring to give birth to their own child whilst in care or under 21, has to undergo a parenting assessment. This often leads to removal of the baby, those girls don't stand a chance. Its baby farming at its worst.
DoubleLifeIsALifeHalved i totally agree with your post.
Neil you don't have to keep repeating the link people will look at it if they want to, most will read the entire thread.
To say emotional abuse is not a valid reason for removing children makes me really sad and makes me question that particular poster's video.
I think what gets abused is the 'likely' to suffer part which the accuser then goes all out to prove is real and not imaginary.
Problem is, they can accuse you of what they like, even if you see the statement the false accusation is on, its too late to demand it be changed, it has already been seen. And when you demand it be changed, you are told that you have to prove that it isn't true. Proving a negative is extremely hard.
SW's word is taken as gospel by all and you are left looking a rotten to the core parent
Even my own solicitor at the EPO stated, he was glad that he met me (i had only had 24 hours to source them) and upon reading the statements made he said 'If i hadn't met you i would have thought 'oh my god what am i representing here' but as i have met you and discussed in detail, i totally understand.'
He got the EPO thrown out so in the early stages at least four people believed, myself, my solicitor and the three magistrates. Following this the case was moved to high court where i suppose one judge is easier to sway than three
I'm not sure what the motive is to make things up. Most SWers are small cogs in a big wheel and aren't out there to 'steal babies' aka make their workloads bigger.
I don't think they are all the same, just a fair few.
The motive is usually because they have accused you of something terrible, and are then compelled to find evidence to prove it. Coupled with the fact that their word is often taken because they are a professional, leaves the system open to very serious abuses.
But what is their motive to accuse you of something in the first place? I dislike the language 'accuse' too.
Social workers can do no right in some people's eyes. The abuse I've received on MN for daring to couteract some people's sweeping statements has cemeted my thoughts that I will never work in a safeguarding children's team as a SWer.
The idea of some nationwide conspiracy to steal childen is laughable. Individual cases do go wrong, and I am certain there are plenty of badly handled cases, a small number of miscariages of justice. But if SS were as incompetent as people claim, they wouldn't even be able to organise a local child stealing conspiracy, let alone a national one.
Someone linked to Ian Josephs forced adoption site. He is a complete loon. He is the one who thinks child sexual molesters/rapists should not be reported to the police. And women with depression and mental ill health should not do anything about it. If you agree with his stance on sexual abuse, by all means link to his site and spread the word. Women who have contacted him have actually complained about him making them ill with worry for nothing
And by the way, the idea that neglected/physically/sexually abused children are not being adopted is stupid and demonstrably false. There are those children, then there are the children who were exposed to drugs and alcohol in the womb and whose birth parents had severe mental health and learning disabilities. I have never ever ever met or been told about an adoptive child who does not fit into the above categories, with the very minor exception of the few children who are voluntarily relinquished. And I have been involved in adoption a long time (over 16 years), and know many adoptive parents as well as having looked through many profiles of waiting children. SS do get abused children adopted, every day. Adoptive parents are prepared for taking on an abused child, how well is up for debate, but they are left under no illusions as to the backgrounds of the children by the time they are approved. They are talked to almost constantly about attachment issues, behavioural problems, abuse etc, thats aside from all the reading on it you are asked to do
I am not saying there are no miscarriages of justice, because they are inevitable in any system. The criminal justice system sees enough of them as well. Some SW's are very incompetant and make bad decisions and have stupid ideas. I am sure quite a few cases are mishandled. But I am not, and never will be, a conspiracy theorist
It took two years to remove DS from his birth mother.
I was there and I saw what happened.
Some things were unfair e.g. she got written up for allowing baby to sleep in her bed (all mine have slept with me)
Written up for not washing up her plates quickly enough
However she also had prolonged and frequent contact at which she ignored the baby. She would change his clothes and that was it.
After 12 months of this he was unable to roll over or sit up. His development was severely delayed by a system that allowed this to carry on.
She wanted to put fake tan on him to make him darker.
She said he would 'shame her up' if he didnt win a local baby competition.
She didnt feed him (why the HELL didnt the contact worker insist she did?)
So she was watched closely for a long time. Very difficult for her but damaging for DS.
The idea of SS swooping in to remove a child from a dippy but loving and well meaning teen mother is the polar opposite of what happened to DS.
It's also the polar opposite of what happened to my children. And nearly every adopted child I've ever heard of, and all the children my good friend has fostered
well if the agenda of social workers is to take babies unfairly who haven't been neglected or abused just in order to get easier adoptions through then they are doing a pretty bloody piss poor job of it.
67,050 children were in public care in March 2012.
3450 children were adopted from care in the year to march 2012.
The average age of a child at adoption is 3 years 8 months
There were 70 adoptions of children under 1yr
Any child taken into care incorrectly is a tragedy and more should be done to improve the system and the workload of social workers. But the vast majority of children are in care or their own safety and are not considered suitable for adoption, and of those who are on the adoption register, a tiny proportion of adoptions are very young children.
The system and social workers may not be perfect but the numbers just don't support some of the wilder conspiracy theories that abound every time this subject comes up.
That average has risen by a year hasn't it?
I thought it was around 2 years old.
I haven't watched EastEnders in years, but overheard a bit the other night when my Dad was watching it . . . . something like, "worried about the state of the flat" or not been cleaned or similar . . . . I asked my Dad if she had a baby & he said yes, so I told him that's utter bollocks, because a HV sign for PND is a clean & tidy home.
So I don't know the whole storyline, but YADNBU.
Not to mention the fact, that that line will scare lots of women already susceptible / suffering PND.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
There are many good sw's i'm sure, but i certainly haven't met many and neither have a lot of other people.
Sure adoption targets and bonuses were scrapped some time ago.
However what i have heard is that up until then white babies were highly sought after for adoption, given that there used to be a gamut of adoptable babies in the days of shame to be a single mother, now there is none of that shame so there's less available babies unless taken from 'incapable' care leavers of which the OP speaks (Lola is a care leaver)
So it apparently makes sense to take older children from families and leave them in long term care, eventually they will have babies and then the baby will be 'harvested' for adoption.
Unless adoption targets haven't been scrapped (and the related bonuses) i see no reason (no financial gain to be made) for SW's to target babies specifically. Potential adopters do not to my knowledge pay for these babies or children, do they?
That is why i'm not a conspiracy theorist. However, care leavers' children ARE being taken, someone should question why this is so, if the SS are to be believed, their 'care' is good enough for thousands of children, yet not good enough to make them capable mothers?
My own story is my own story. I try to tell it without bias .. of course its hard, but i am no longer so angry, a few years down the line, so its easier not to rant and rave.
In answer to the question why they would accuse me of something in the first place, read my post properly.. we were involved with them, they saw a 'bruise' i rubbed it off as it was a dirt mark, in front of them, and they weren't very happy (sore losers) so having whipped themselves up, they decided (i am only surmising) because they didn't want to back down and say 'sorry, we were mistaken' that they wanted to start the 'at risk of physical, emotional, and neglect' route, making things up as they went along and all because they could not just say 'SORRY we made a mistake.
I have my own issues with the system.
I really do not think it is cohesive enough to support any sort of conspiracy
One of the biggest issues IMO is the poor communication (even after the Lamming enquiries). How the hell would 'they' arrange thousands of workers to pull together to steal babies?
It doesn't make any sense.
they are BAAF figures so reputable but I'll see if I can find 2011 figures.
I just thought it was worth emphasising how few very young children are adopted in this country and just how many young people we have in care - some people seem to think that every child who is taken into care is on teh adoption register and the truth is very very far from that.
things one of the other issues I have is the seeming inability of SS to change their minds once they are set on a course of action.
I agree with you.
It can work both ways though. Trying to get them to reopen a case they have decided is NFA is impossible if you are not another SW.
I don't think anyone is thinking that the character on EE has PND
Kew I dont know why I had 2 years in my head. I must have heard it somewhere and it stuck because DS was 2 when he was eventually freed for adoption.
MrsDeVere - I'm actually under the impression that the average age has dropped somewhat in the last few years. It was 4, then 3 yrs 9 months for 2010 I think, it might have dropped a little further now
Kew it is definately, most of the kids i heard of inc DD were in LT FC.
That should be the real reason for adoption targets not taking more kids necessarily but dealing with the ones you have already and are in danger of letting down.
MDV.. i know.. its one of the things i moaned with my fave SW about.
the other issue i have is the support services that are not available to a child or family that hasn't been put on the CPR..
It must be frustrating when they have decided NFA and you KNOW that a family needs support Sorry..
Found the figures!!
3 years 8 months for the year ending 31st march 2012
Parallel CP and AP are the reason children are getting freed for adoption sooner
Just think though how frightening that is for the birth parent, knowing if they don't 'win' they have this shadow lurking over them.. those that decide to fight that is.
I can't imagine that fear.
MrsDV previous average age was 3yrs 10 months so its actually gone down slightly. I think you are thinking of how long children wait on average before being placed which was 2yrs 7 months
Realistically though, the 60 and 70 babies adopted realted to finalisation, not placement. We will not see a large rise in this figure because of the time it takes to get an adoption order. 10 weeks from placement, followed by several months of waiting, means the baby has to be placed aged under 7 months ish, 8 months at the latest, to get legally adopted by their first birthday. So the media will continue to get their news headlines of 'ONLY x babies adopted' for years to come
Anyway i have ordered DD not to have a child until she is clear of them. On her way out to come home to me they were still having little stabs in the dark at ADHD and aspergers, something i had raised during the CP and they emphatically denied. Without actually taking her to see if she DID have them. It seemed they were adding to her paper trail, just in case of something.. but then after what i've been through with them i am overly suspicious now of anything they do and their motives for doing so.
I'm not aware that there was ever targets for the number of children being "taken" for adoption. The targets were to get those children who already had a "best interests" decision placed as soon as possible - Ofsted have said agencies won;t get a good rating unless they can place within 12 months of a bewst interests decision. But I'm no expert on this.
yes Lilka thats a fair point - I'd love to see placement figures.
Neither am i to be honest, my experience is one of LT FC ..
I would be interested to know of those babies taken from the delivery room, still covered in birth matter, right from their mothers' arms.. they would surely be adopted sooner?
yes presumably they are in the 70 under 1 yr. My understanding is that children on the at risk register (don't think its called that anymore is it?) at birth go into foster care. Even those who go into a foster/adopt type programme wouldn't be placed for adop0tion before 6 months would they - at least thats not my limited experience.
My own experience is that they hovered about holding meetings and stuff while i was expecting DS2 but got told straight that all the paperwork was clear that i was a good mum to DS1 and the only reason i couldn't parent DD effectively was bc she was abused and i was abused.
If that hadn't been the case i know they would have tried to take him. They told me they considered adding him (unborn) to the CPR
They might not be in the 70 under 1. It depends on the circumstances. Concurrent planning/foster-adoption should be decided on before the baby is even born. so it will go to concurrent carers at birth. I suspect concurrency accounts for quite a few of those 70
If not, and the baby needs normal foster care, it may take a long time. It takes some LA's 8 months to over a year to place relinquished children placed in care at birth, let alone children who have been taken away and therefore assessments required, several court dates required etc
A baby taken into normal foster care at birth may be 2 years old before placement, easily
I can't believe that they say BF is good for these children and then take them so the mum can not even try to feed them, in the case where they are being assessed i mean. I hope things have changed now regarding that.
Obviously there are parents who should have the baby removed at birth (drug addicted babies ect) but i am positive i'm not the only person who has had a child taken under dubious circumstances. there should be more MBU's where these people can go and be observed. Most people do not deserve to lose their baby. Some, yes, but not that many as in your figures, surely something could be done to lessen that figure.
Its not always relinquished (given away willingly) babies though, i know one personally who had a male SW in the room with her as she gave birth and she wasn't even allowed to hold the baby. she wasn't drug or alcohol addicted, just a young care leaver. In what world is that right.
I know Things, relinquished babies are very rare, nearly all children are taken away
Then something needs to be done to lower the number. the best place for most not all, but most, children is with their birth family.
Most definately more assessment centres with properly trained staff.
More options I.e. shared care, support workers at home etc.
Because a lot of parents do not deserve to lose their children. Most don't.
But the majority who get involved with the system have significant issues . I do believe that some get untangled for ridiculous things, I can see hw it happens.
But there are families with huge problems. So how do we keep them together whilst protecting the children?
Interventions cost a lot of money and they require the parents to accept help.
There is little money and I can't see this government backing any innovative interventions
AND I know how I would feel if someone marched in and started telling me I was an inadequate parent.
I actually asked for a support worker to come in and was refused due to DD not being on the child protection register.
I asked that she be returned home during the time she was on the interim CO and asked again for a support worker and was refused.
Assessment centres should be staffed by workers totally and utterly independent of SS and should not be funded by them, and having someone standing over me telling me how to parent would also make me turn like exorcist head and tell them to eff off lol.
MBU's have their place but the one i went to visit prior to being told myself and DD would be placed there .. the staff were waffling on about testing bath water with your elbow ect, DD was 10 years old! I had made arrangements to give up my job as they told me i would have to be there for three months, then at the last minute i was told that i couldn't take DS. It would have meant moving their schools, everything.
It is a total joke.
And interventions cost money? Well so does a court case/proceedings.
MDV do you know that the average court case costs about enough to be able to buy, say, an ex council house outright?
What intervention would possibly cost that much?
Not having a pop at you by the way lol
I find the only thing SS are interested in these days is if a child is on CPR, otherwise, a family can be struggling and in crisis, and they simply dont care.
Yes I do know.
Like putting a child in foster care costs thousands.
Yet if a child is placed with friends or family carers SS usually does all it can to avoid paying a decent allowance despite outcomes being so much better for the child
Short term solutions causing long term problems for families and society.
I still think the entire thing is in need of overhaul following consultations with service users, parents, foster carers. Because i read the FC forum sometimes and despair of how they are treated, too.
They wouldn't place DD with my mother because even though her assessment to do so was favourable at the beginning and again near the end of the CC, they said she would 'allow too much contact' and also she was 'the mother of the abuser' (stepbrother) even though he didn't live there.
She wasn't bothered about the money but yes i agree with you, have known kinship carers and they don't get any support and nowhere near what they deserve to get, FC's don't fare much better either.
No the money goes to the agencies.
When I took care of my son the LA were paying up to £800 per week to FC agencies.
I had to give up my job.
They offered me £50
Social workers out there please!
Can they set contact arrangements without discussion with parent and parent's solicitor?
They just had a scene in which Lola turned up for meeting with single SW who told her that she would have 3 x week contact visits with baby.
I remember all that happening at court and BM's solicitor got it upped from 3 to 4 just by asking before we went into court.
Surely the contact would be more often than 3 weekly?
Good practice would be daily.
Which is why I am about no visible court involvement at this point.
But BM in our case was going to get 3 x a week and it was upped to 4 and he was only 8 weeks old.
No visits at weekends because contact supervision was too expensive.
i personally do not engage with people who post like you.
clash, not all of the surely?
Fuck off clash, there's a love.
"thay should be flogged till dead" WTAF!?
Do you actually realise how many kids would me much worse off or dead if we didn't have social workers?
Freudian slip there, be* not me.
And that the families that harm their children think they are in the same category as those that have been badly done by....
"And that the families that harm their children think they are in the same category as those that have been badly done by.... "
^^ That, in my experience is very true.
Flogged until dead?
I don't think so.
Clash at the risk of sounding like i have a whole chorus of violins behind me, i've been through the most suck-shit experience you could possibly at the hands of the SS. But even i don't think that.
'Tis crackpots like you that ruin it for everyone who wants the family court system opened up and the SS and childrens act 1989 overhauled and scrapped and rewritten respectively.
I have reported your post.
*Social workers out there please!
Can they set contact arrangements without discussion with parent and parent's solicitor?*
Yep, they did with me.
Oh annoyinnnnnng i still haven't worked out how those stars work <sigh>
I only know how to do it word by word
Where they following procedure?
It sounds like you had a terrible experience.
What did your solicitor say?
I hope it's ok to ask. You don't have to say.
I'd be very upset to be flogged till dead especially as I don't work with children.
And you know what they say about two sides of every story.....
I don't think ** works around and enter or if you put a space next to them...
Social workers out there please! Can they set contact arrangements without discussion with parent and parent's solicitor? Should work...
yes it does - I removed the new line [enter]
In Lola case, the child was removed after she was fighting while she was caring for her child. She knew SS was keeping a very close eye on her so it was a very stupid thing to do.
She could of phoned the police or went to get help.
But breaking it down, why would working or not working be an issue. Hasn't any one of eastenders ever heard of benefits lol
When Lola read the notes the reasons were
Nappy rash, suspected hangover and late to three meetings.
I would like to think that these things are not realistic grounds to remove a child from its mother.
Lexi was removed BEFORE Lolas account of the fight was taken.
It simply doesnt ring true.
Interesting response if anyone cares to have a read
Social workers out there please! Can they set contact arrangements without discussion with parent and parent's solicitor?
The court sets the contact arrangements, so an iterim care order would have already been obtained and contact probably wouldn't be set until the outcome of the police questioning was known.
It is usually prefered in my LA, than a Emergancy Protection Order.
In my experience that was very little contact, but it wouldn't be set and told to the parent in that manner. Parents don't always have solicitors and often refuse to engage one, it is between the parent and court, but can be changed on a weekly basis.
Where was her HV? A multi professional meeting would be called and overseen by an Independant Reviewing Officer, who would oversee the whole case.
That is what looked odd to me.
IME the court set the contact, taking advice from both parties.
It was declared at court.
This storyline just reinforces dangerous myths about SS interventions.
They have to set contact of some sort up before they go for the interim care order if it's going to take some time.
My solicitor wasn't happy about the promised contact that was missed (by DD being taken back to the FC's after school and no one bothering to tell me, leaving me waiting outside the contact venue)
So the court doesn't always set them. They are agreed upon if possible by discussion between the parent, and the SS, and presented to the court. In my case DD was in voluntary care and i had open access, then when the epo was refused and the interim CO applied for, i had to wait to see her. Once they applied for the order, they set out twice a week contact, at first in the SS offices, then in the area the FC lived so DD wouldn't have to travel far.
Problem with that theory was that DD was attending school 2 mins walk from my house and there was an easily accessible family centre about 20 mins walk away or one bus ride, but no, they chose to make it hard and applied to use one miles away which was three buses for me. I only once was late to a contact in all the years we had to do it, and one time the contact clashed with a painful court appearance so they prevented it, because emotions were 'running high' only forgot to tell the supervising worker who sat at the centre for hours, waiting with a very distressed DD.
Then because they couldn't contact her, they sent the FC to the centre, who told DD that 'your mum couldn't be arsed to turn up'
I never got an apology for that.
Yes they do fuck you about and try to get away with as little contact as possible, in my own and all the other cases i've hear so i'm not making things up.
If you complain the first thing they do is cut the contact and say its because there is a risk you will project your anger onto the child.
Other people, maybe, but i never did, although i often got accused of talking to DD about the case (at 7 or 8 years of age yeah righty..)
In fact i got so pissed at the lies, i ended up saying to DD one time, i've been told not to say i love you, or that i want you home. But thats not right. I do love you, i want you home, i am fighting for you.
I told the court when i was dragged up on this, that i was accused, i may as well do, and i had a right to free speech as long as it wasn't harmful to DD..the judge said 'i agree you have no recourse to the accusations made, you can only deny them, true or not. They are not proven facts. Any mother would want their child to know they are loved and wanted, and the child needs to hear it. I want the statement rewritten to show that the mother has not (talked about the case at all) but has exercised her right to free speech and utilised it to reinforce to the child that she is very much loved and wanted'
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, SW's :P
People, if your child is in care ignore the threats of not telling your DC's you love or miss them. Its your right to say, and their right to hear it.
And in regard to contact, the recommendations of the SS if they don't agree with the BP, are always acted upon.
So they STILL win either way. You can discuss till you're blue in the face, but if they don't agree they stamp their feet, lie about you a bit, and get contact down to the bare minimum and of course they ALWAYS say the 'in the best interests of the child not to be unsettled by too much contact with family'
We had the opposite.
They set four weekly, four hourly contacts in BM's borough. This meant DS had to travel on the tube during rush hour from 8 weeks old.
SS refused to change the venue.
BM refused to change because 'why should I have to get on the train?'
SS was down to funding
BM was selfish
DS suffered considerable distress.
I almost had a breakdown due to sleep deprivation and exhaustion.
No way on this earth was the child the centre of that particular assessment process.
So isn't it the fault of the SS for moving the child out of the borough they know that they have to facilitate contact and are supposed to make it as easy as possibly for both the parents and child, after all, they have taken the child so why should the BP have to pay twice, losing child and having to travel to see them.
Ok most and inc myself would go for option b which would be to place less stress on the child, i would walk to the ends of the earth for any one of mine and tbh i walked the route often because i didn't have the money for buses.
Did you have to travel with DS or was it a contact worker.
They should have used a car not the fucking tube.
Might have saved time and stress all round.
Sorry you asked earlier about my experience.. here 'tis, lol
My experience with SS
We were a twenty minute tube ride.
She doesnt work.
She had nothing to do all day.
She asked me to care for her child.
If I had refused the child would most likely have been placed out of city let alone out of borough.
I understand you had a terrible experience with SS but you need to understand this is a woman who refused to get out of bed to feed her newborn.
I had to take him. Until someone gave me the nod about contact workers.
Only after I had been doing it for months.
BM also refused to change timing of contacts to allow DS to spend a decent part of his day in one place. She thought it unfair that she should be expected to get out of bed before 10am.
No one came out of that experience well. Least of all DS who is still paying for the neglect inflicted by his BM and the system that was supposed to save him.
They were going to pay for her travel btw.
I had to pay for mine.
I used to turn up at hospital appts via the tube with a heavy pram and a newborn.
She would turn up in a cab with a social worker.
How does that work?
I don't know tbh, i guess everything they fail on needs to be brought to their attention and hopefully acted upon.
I can't believe that you had to do all the running around, to be honest, and not get anything for your time and travelling, i think would be bound to taint the whole thing for you. hope things got easier after contact workers were used.
FWIW are you surmising she didn't want to get out of bed/want to change the contact times to better suit the child, or were you told by her personally, or the SW? To be fair she probably gave not a shit about your situation, probably wanted to make the SS suffer, giving no thought of the knock on effect on you and DS.
I don't think for one moment that all parents are good and all SS interventions are evil/conspiracies to remove a child to give them up for adoption ect ect.. I'm not that biased or gullible.
I think the outcome may have been changed if you had been able to speak to her personally, without SS there, i know most of the FC's i dealt with were more than happy to deal with me direct and it was a lot more relaxed and i could see the others' point of view better than getting it third hand with bits added on.
I've heard lies told about FC's who have explained the truth when i have spoken to them, and i believed them 100%.
Anyway, i agree you shouldn't have had to do all that, you should have been told about contact workers from the beginning. Fact is you weren't and i would have kicked up a right stink, because you are not only your own voice but also DS's.
Oh were you a kinship carer sorry i just read your post properly i do apologise
Don't apologise I didn't make it clear
I only got involved because I wanted to make sure she had the best chance of getting him back.
I was working with parents with LDs at the time and had seen some horrible bad practice. I stepped in never dreaming we would end up adopting DS!
I can't work out what she was up to. Self sabotage? Total lack of self awareness? Undianosed personality disorder?
Who knows. But I would sit open mouthed at the things she came out with, not able to believe how she was ruining her chances of ever getting him back.
But I have seen it since. Not everyone is sure they want thier children back but they can't just give them up. So they foam and fight but at the same time manoeuvre themselves into a situation where the dcs are 'taken'.
It's very sad and very complicated.
I don't judge. People do these thing for reasons that even they cannot work out.
The fact in my dS's case is that if his BM had wanted to keep him, he would be with her now. She was given so much help and opportunity. At the expense of DS.
For what ever reason she just couldn't do it. Same with contact. She doesn't see him now. It was supposed to be open and frequent. She managed to sabotage that as well.
It's very sad. She isn't a 'nice' person and she has been vile to me but I still wish we could have maintained a relationship for DS's sake.
I understand what you say, totally.
I suppose there may have been a chance that she felt she had been pitted against you. Can't have been easy for either of you. I clearly remember one of the SW's saying 'Refuse to let your DM have DD, or you will lose DD and DM will control contact' .. and 'If DM applies she will get DD and you won't, tell her to back down'.. I didn't think about it rationally at the time, and given that we had had a very difficult relationship in the past, i made snap decisions. In the cold light of day DM would have allowed totally free open ended contact. Another thing to kick myself over They made me feel like i was pitted against my own mother.
I'm sorry to hear about situations such as yours, because i know women who have walked out and left DC's, then come back years later and created problems by saying 'you were forcefully taken from me, i didn't want to lose you' to ease their own guilt.
I don't know why people choose to self sabotage, then lay the blame at others' feet despite being given every aid, every opportunity.
Sure you can make mistakes...
Are you sure that she hasn't got this rotten view of you, and believes you 'won' her DS, and can't now bear to see him with someone else? Not saying that feeling is right, or unselfish, she should be able to swallow those feelings, to visit DS, even if she doesn't like you.
I'm sure you don't hang around during contact telling her what she's doing wrong ect? So she would have no reason to feel the way she does.
I've also known very manipulative kinship carers, (passive aggressives) and they make contact so difficult in the end the BP walks away and says 'I can't cope with this abuse i'll wait till DC's are old enough to come and see me, i'll explain then'
Very complex. Very complicated. And yes, each case is very sad.
This was a suggestion made a while back, not sure if it ever made it close to being considered as a viable option.
Any social worker who has worked in child protection know that the
only way that social services can protect children legally is either
with an EPO [ Emergency Protection Order] which lasts a few days or
with an ICO [ Interim care order]
The former gives you very limited time to judge whether the local
authority needs to take over the care of a child to make them safe and
the latter for anyone who has been through it is long winded and
traumatic, and a far cry from supporting families.
When I mean anyone, I include in this, the child, the parents and the
Most social workers want to support families and want to keep children
at home with their parents. There are a few that revel in care
proceedings but they shouldn't get publicity it's the good honest ones
Some children are placed on interim care orders after very little is
known of the family, others after social services have known the
family for some time.
But in most cases there could be an alternative if only the legal
profession advised it and that is that the local authority [social
services] could share parental responsibility with the parents for a
temporary period of, say, 6 months during which time they could really
get to know the family and work out ways of supporting the parents.
The court process is not only a horrible experience for everyone
concerned but is time consuming and extremely costly. The time and
costs of a case also has a knock on effect on supporting other
families and giving resources to them. With an ageing population we
cannot afford to have such poorly cost effective systems that often
lead to greater conflict between parents and social workers.
I realise the subject of this topic has moved on a bit now but I'm a social worker and so subscribe to Community Care which is a website/magazine full of social work articles and found this - http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/09/10/2012/118586/fury-over-eastenders-misleading-social-work-storyline.htm
Which at least proves that a hugh proportion of social workers were unhappy about the unfair and dangerous portrayal of social workers on easties!!!
Of course they're not going to be happy.
But how do you think parents feel every time they're demonised by the actors on tv portraying the parent/parents and showing them as drug users/alcoholics/child beaters/abusers? And that this is the reason they lose their kids?
Because not every child taken is taken from an abuser.
Mistakes ARE made.
I had to when even my friends who knew me 100% were well kids don't just get taken for no reason do they, don't they have to prove the allegations??
How dya think we like being tarred with the same brush as whats shown in TV land?
Suck it up, buttercup.
thingsthat im gobsmacked but youve changed my mind.
in your last post you make a really valid point
The British Association of Social Workers also condemned the storyline, accusing BBC producers of being "too lazy and arrogant" to get their portrayal of the child protection process right.
One social worker in a looked-after team said the soap's portrayal of her profession had reduced her and a colleague to tears.
Well your profession reduces kids and families to tears
And how are the Beeb supposed to get it all right? Most of it is held behind closed doors, there's no transparency.
LOL i have my moments.
Even my family asked and asked 'Was there more to DD being taken'
They just couldn't believe it, i didn't drink, didn't take drugs, she wasn't covered in bruises scars or cigarette burns..
TV isn't always an accurate portrayal but it IS powerful
Sadly not always in the way that makes everyone happy.
Be thankful most soaps show SW's as people who come in nicely and kindly asking 'Is there anything we can do to help' and not 'sorry we can't offer you that there's no money unless its for a LAC.. so we'll take the child, then they will be entitled to it' and thats the truth as i've lived it.
Yes the procedure has been very badly portrayed. Disgustingly so.
However I think the social worker is very realistic. Turning up late, no apologies, the patronising manner..
All rang true to me.
The rest of it has been pants.
Well its almost blow for blow as what happened to me.
Does this mean i have a right to be disgusted?
DD wasn't a baby though, frighteningly she COULD speak for herself and still wasn't listened to..
Sort of Its aimed at anyone interested enough to be reading.
I'm sorry SW's don't like how they're being portrayed but life's unfair sometimes.
Sure their profession has lasted many many years without being troubled by such trivial things as soaps and sure it will carry on for years to come, maybe though, just maybe, some watching it will buck up their ideas if the SW reminds them of the person they see when they look in the mirror.
And if it affects just one of those people then it has helped many service users, IMO
you get to feel how you feel. No one has the right to tell you not to.
More than one group can feel disgusted at the same thing for different reasons.
The reason I feel the depiction is disgusting is because it is misleading. What happened to you sounds bloody awful and wrong.
What is being shown happening to Lola is misleading because of all the inconvenient stuff they are leaving out. They are perpetuating the myth that a SW has the power to walk in and remove a child. No mention of the paperwork, evidence gathering, court dates and hearings.
So say a SW is a nasty, power hungry, prejudiced piece of crap? Say they do want to cut corners? This sort of storyline gives them more power over those influenced by it. 'ok better do as they say, I should sign that s.20 because they can take the baby anyway, no point in getting legal advice. They will just turn up and take him. Its better if I give in now'
Thats very true.
It makes people more frightened you mean, that is a good point, they are also less likely to seek help.
But if it happened to me, i can't be the only one and this stuff has simply got to be happening all over the place.
Most of these people feel alone. If not for the internet and groups like Families For Justice ect, i would have felt very alone, not being able to disclose a lot of things,
that program and the internet may have the effect of raising awareness whether in the right or wrong way, it will have different effects on different people.
But the fact is that many people think you have to tell a child every day that they're worthless, or stupid, or hit them, sexually abuse them, leave them in the same nappy all day, burn them with fags, have them crawling round in needles and tin foil wrappers, that is simply not the case.
So maybe it will enlighten people who think that injustice doesn't happen because the family court is closed so they (the victims) are not supposed to tell anyone, they can't sue, they can't go to the papers..
They have to rely on a self regulating complaints system, staffed by people who work closely with the people you're complaining about...
Well the Lola and Lexi storyline carries on true to form. An over bearing SW who procured a baby illegally.
1) Social worker assaulted Lola and baby - lunged towards her and snatched baby off her. Common law offence of assault. Lola acted in self-defence and in order to attempt to prevent her baby being stolen illegally.
2) Police Emergency Protection Powers under Children Act 1989 S46 were not properly utilised. Mother was not informed that baby was being taken under PPO, and no contact by police appears to have been made with mother over the weekend to explain the situation:
CA 1989 S46 says:
Removal and accommodation of children by police in cases of emergency
(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after taking a child into police protection, the constable concerned shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform
(a) the childs parents;
(b) every person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and
(c) any other person with whom the child was living immediately before being taken into police protection,
of the steps that he has taken under this section with respect to the child, the reasons for taking them and the further steps that may be taken with respect to him under this section.
There was no emergency. There was no adequate attempt to place the baby with a family member. Billy certainly couldn't be regarded as incapable because he had drunk 'a couple of beers' - this would probably not be enough to make him unfit to drive a motor car, so why would it make him unfit to care for a child? Many parents have 'a couple of beers' of an evening!
3) PPO under S46 has a maxium duration of 72 hours.
CA1989 S46(6) says:
(6) No child may be kept in police protection for more than 72 hours.
On the assumption that Eastenders works in 'real-time' (how else can it work, when the plot stretches over decades?) the baby needed to be returned to Lola by 8.30pm Monday evening, yet she went to Social Services offices on Monday afternoon, to be refused return of baby and told that she should attend court for an ICO hearing tomorrow. The baby is now illegally held by Social Services.
4) Under CPR 23.7 (b) the period of service for an Interim Care Order is three days:
(b) except where another time limit is specified in these Rules or a practice direction, must in any event be served at least 3 days before the court is to deal with the application.
This can be abriged by a judge, but we see no evidence of this.
5) Indeed, there is no service of a sealed court document at all, just a social worker telling her she has to attend court tomorrow. This is not proper notice of a hearing, and the court will not have the jurisdiction to make the order sought by Social Services, though it undoubtedly will.
Maybe they applied for an Ex Parte emergency protection order
I believe that is missing from the list
And as for assaulting the mother and child i have seen them drag a mother who wouldn't let go of her baby.
Carry on denying it happens and turn a blind eye to it. Where have i seen that before, oh arrrrrr in the case of the very well know sleb who is now plastered all over the TV (JS)
Sorry but the law is not always adhered to.
I was not informed that DD had run away until 48 hours later when they found her.
No school reports or photos,
I was excluded from discussions regarding her health care.
I wasn't told she had been assaulted or disclosed sexual abuse to the SW and contact worker until the court statement appeared in front of me some time later.
The police turned up to serve a PPO on me .. they didn't even know why just blindly signed and delivered it, they had to ask me wtf was going on.
No attempt at all on the part of the SS was made during the entire proceedings to place DD with any relative.
Hell i'm just now figuring out that EE are selling my story albeit changing a few bits and bobs, wonder where my royalties are..
Have just read the article that Fairy linked to - and the BBC response to a complaint from a social worker.
In part, it says (as justification for Lola having Lexi taken):
In the last few weeks the social worker witnessed a series of unfortunate incidents, including Lexi wearing a tea-towel as a make-shift nappy, reports of Lola not taking Lexi to the mother & baby group, a messy and unclean flat and the discovery that Billy had lied to her about having a job.
wearing a tea towel as a makeshift nappy NOT a child protection issue
* Reports of Lola not taking Lexi to the M&B group* So? NOT a child protection issue
A messy & unclean flat Not really. There was some washing up in the sink - nowhere near enough of a mess to become a child protection issue
Billy lied about having a job Again - so? Billy would be entitled to benefits so could still support Lexi & Loa, so where's the emergency?
For fucks sake - EastEnders have made a right pigs ear of this. If I was a SS, I'd be absolutely furious.
I'm guessing a lot of the SW's i have dealt with over time will be looking at the programme and thinking 'ooh thats me'
I believe there was a tiny bit of sauce on the edge of the sink which billy quickly wiped up, maybe that was the 'crime'
I think people are missing the point here
Sometimes, what is written in those reports does not exactly lend itself to the actual situation
i've known them take photo's to prove things are as bad as they're saying
IMO they should do tape recorded interviews at all times and have photographic evidence or otherwise to back up their statements
However a lot of them will then, horror of all horrors, have to stop embellishing the truth
Equally i'm hoping that our last SW is looking at it and thinking 'I made a difference'
I would be horrified if that was the case, i don't like that they are all being tarred with the same brush but the fact remains that the SW on EE does exist..for real, in a SS near you, badly trained, power crazy, out of touch with the reality of life for most working class people these days
Sorry to be busting the bubble
And the beebs explaination must be as frustrating as a response from the SS comment, compliments and complaints people <remembers distinctly tearing hair out>
Yeah - I think you're right, bump.
But, what I mean is, EE seem to be under the impression that wearing a t-towel as a nappy is a child protection issue & that justifies the SWs actions. And that is clearly bullshit.
In real life, you could indeed have a less than nice SW inflating something minor into an issue, but that's not what's being portrayed here. And that's just wrong.
(Horrified if that was the case that they are all like that) sorry
All my kids at one point or another have had to wear a teatowel.. DD especially, after i split with her dad i had to wait a long time while claim for benefits went through.
Ran out of nappies and didn't eat anything except toast for about three weeks, maybe four, so that DD could eat.
DS had to wear one when i forgot to take nappies out with me to my mums
DS2 had been lucky really but then he saved me a fortune in nappies being as he likes to be a naked baby
I don't believe for one minute its a CP issue, but added to a few other minor things, it points to a case of neglect or, more to the point (SS operate on the balance of probabilities, or possibility) not repeat not proof so the sequence of things she saw is cumulative as well as lola being rude to them on visits, and would be enough after the assault on another girl (recorded on a mobile) for them to move in and take the child.
I remember that I used to pinch nappies from the Tescos M&B changing room when I was really skint, bump. They had a dispenser so you could have a free one
or 10. They don't do it anymore - probably my fault .
LOL! Yes <ashamed> I think thats why sainsbo's don't do them any more!
I was obviously a posher teef than you lol
Seriously that time was the only time i have ever considered stealing anything (food) .. i didn't though but it was desperate
If i weren't so petrified of SS i would have loved to be able to walk in there, explain the situation and ask for a small loan for DD to tide us over, i am aware that they do that too, as have gone with people to claim them, so i'm never ever going to say they're all the same...
It just shouldn't be pot luck whether you get one that is halfway up their own arse, or one that sees past a bit of washing up and piles of ironing and finds out how the family needs supporting.
With my Dsis, they sent someone round to help clean the house while she was recouperating from hysterectomy.. Now THATS the SS i like to see
I mean MrsD hasn't been here slating them but even she said above However I think the social worker is very realistic. Turning up late, no apologies, the patronising manner..
Why should anyone have to put up with that?
I have physically ejected a SW out of my house for speaking to me in that way.
If i called to a house an a child was wearing a tea towel as a nappy, then i would be able to allow a payment "to prevent a crisis", this is a facility that every SW/LA has, so if it isn't being used in every LA, then that needs questioning.
You are no longer allowed to judge the effects of poverty, as a SW, you are supposed to buffer the family against extreme hardship, unless it is caused by addiction, etc, of course.
That is how the Children Act is written.
The full term 'entered into the system', is 'payment given to prevent a family from entering a crisis.
This payment has ranged from £10, to £200 and can be to cover food/nappies for that day, or to fix a broken front/back door.
I think the the one good thing about the programme 'Protecting our children' showed that these payments were made and essentials were bought for the family, rather than them being judged for not buying their child a bed etc.
The children's act.. some parts of it are open to interpretation and twisting to suit though.
People are afraid that if they ask for help they will unnecessarily flag themselves up to a system that could take their children, even those that aren't coping and could desperately do with the help aren't asking because SW's are so hit and miss. You could get one that knows all the things that are mentioned on this thread and leave a family singing the praises of SS.. or you could get one who accuses you of all sorts and decides its in the best interests of the child to remove them from your care.
It should NOT be hit and miss in any way.
Even criminals in this country have the right to a defence and are innocent until proven guilty.
Parents entering the system are presumed guilty often on the word of a professional with no actual proof, just their word, their opinion. God help if you get a vindictive one, in that case.
When DD was returned to me from care they got her a bed as it was an emergency situation (she landed on us and refused to go back) but they took it out of some leaving care grant or something?
She was 17, i don't know if what they did was right.
Bump You have spoken so much sense throughout this whole thread. I agree with most, if not all, of what you have said
I think the more people know the better which is why EE is being irresponsible.
They shouldn't pretend there are no rules and laws.
I t prevents people from asking for help and from challenging poor practice.
I have been trying to get an assessment from disabled children's team.
If I don't we will lose our respite.
I was told 'we can't see you if there are no child protection concerns'
I challenged this bizarre statement and the SW was clearly taken aback that I asked her to repeat it.
How many parents had she manged to put off in this way?
It sounds exactly like the one i asked for help with DD.
Sounds like we were both fobbed off.
MrsDV hopefully birdsgottafly may have an answer for you, because i don't, other than to utilise the complaints procedure.
Thank you Wibbly x
For the record i am the first parent to have ever attempted to get an EPO served against the SS and i would have been granted it had they not moved DD to a new placement where she was 'no longer at risk of harm'
Shocked to find out that under current law, even if it had been granted, they would have applied to have it transferred to them the same as if the police applied for one. Now i'm not wonderfully up on the law but this is how it was told to me.
Now before i went down the court route, i tried contacting the NSPCC, i explained everything, the toenails, leaving her in smelly clothes, the physical assults by other children, bruising, sexual and physical abuse, and i put them forward as 'her guardians'
The NSPCC were shocked and said it sounded like an awful situation and something definately had to be done.
I asked how the procedure would work.
They said they would refer to the local SS.
Ah says i, therein lies the problem, DD is with LA foster carers.
They put the phone down on me.
Feeling i may have been accidentally cut off, i called again.
The woman asked for my name, i gave it.
She hung up.
I wish someone could explain that to me.
This is a show that have writers from hollyoaks ffs. Anyone who thinks Eastenders potrays anything in real life accurately has issues . The College of Social has written a public letter highlighting this same issue
My friend not only thinks this portrayal is accurate (her only experience with as is that her Mum has attended meetings with them as is a carer for adults with learning difficulties) but also that as have dine the right thing because the flat isn't always clean.
No I'm not saying as never do things like they did in ee, but I still believe (as someone who had had as intervention) that it is a misrepresentation.
I also raised the point that this storyline may potentially put people off asking for help, and my friends said that's bollocks because Lola didn't ask for help, and therefore the 2 situations can't be compared! I have to say, that filtering our discussions this week I am bloody glad she never trained as a sw like she'd always planned!
I have a great idea, instead of whining about the system why not do something about it.
Train as a Social Worker
Do some voluntary work to support young mums and share your knowledge and experience.
There number of children in care due to neglect is unacceptable, blame the parents not social workers for that.
The number of children NOT being adopted is unacceptable, because prospective adopters want cute babies , which are few are far between. Therefore young people are looked after in care by well meaning individuals until they leave. Most children are not adopted due to age, race, disability, emotional and mental issues.
The real travesty in this country are not the Social Workers who most try their level best to protect children from physical, emotional, sexual abuse and neglect. But that so many children are being mistreated in the first place. We treat animals better in this country than we do our kids and then have the cheek to blame the people trying to protect them. We blame Social Workers for tragedy's like Victoria Climbie and Baby P because it is easier than looking inwards at ourselves and wondering what we could have done.It is easier to do this than admitting that in our society there are some people in our society who deliberately abuse their children. Who manipulate others around them to hide the abuse.
Never mind what Social Workers are doing.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT, APART FROM WINGING ON MUMSNET
I am.. i'm planning on taking over the country and blowing up all SS offices with them in it, and overhauling the law, and, and..
Don't be silly, the SS are a law unto themselves love, ask on the fostering boards if they think SS are fab
And its whingeing
No one here has said that there aren't people out there who abuse children.
Simply that some of them are in positions such as SW
I am glad she didn't either
The number of children NOT being adopted is unacceptable, because prospective adopters want cute babies , which are few are far between. Therefore young people are looked after in care by well meaning individuals until they leave. Most children are not adopted due to age, race, disability, emotional and mental issues. That's most the kids in care then,
Most of these kids could have been saved from going into care in the first place with the right support and interventions.
Shera I adopted a disabled, mixed race boy. Does that tick enough boxes for you?
I work with vulnerable children.
I am studying the law relating to social work. In my own time. I am doing this to help me help the families I work with.
I have recently completed a high level safeguarding course
I am currently supporting a young woman to complain against the borough who let her down. She turned up at my door and I fostered her, unpaid, until I could get her LAC status. She is now in her own flat and attending a prestigious performing arts college.
MrsDevere x as well
I give not a flying toss what shera says anyway.
Obv a SS sockpuppet
i find this storyling upsetting too
Things - You have obviously had a bad experience with SS, and that must have been horendous for you - however - that it not the case all round - there is good and bad in every profession, be that medical, social services, anything. The point is, Social workers are trained now, anyway ( I can't talk for before this as I only did my training 5 years ago) to be empathetic, encouraging, and empower people. This means supporting people to look after their children, as, as so many of you rightly pointed out, the best place for a child is usually with the parents. The sad fact of the matter is, there are some parents who do mistreat their children. And there are some children who are neglected. This can be very hard to prove, and the difficulty is, when suspicions aren't acted apon, SW's are strung out to dry because of children like Baby P, and tradgedies can happen.
Another role of SS is to support parents, even with no child protection concerns. Unfortunately, the great british public decided to vote in a government who have cut social care budgets. Meaning there is no money in the pot, and voluntary organisations are going under.
I think, whatever the experience with SS, the fact is, it is irresponsible for them to broadcast a programme which makes out that there is no process, and that a SW can just take a baby away for such minor things, with no court hearing, etc. This, coupled with the disgusting portrayal put out there by the media, means that people who genuinely need help, and without that help, could end up having difficulty in caring for their children, will be frightended to report to social services.
But its because of people like me that you ARe being trained to be that way, don't you understand?
SS isn't an old profession it began unregulated as a bunch of busybody old women and went from there to the power it has today.
I am not alone.
And the SS are not alone, in my own case i could tell you things that
Clinical Psychologists/Expert Witnesses
Contact Centre Workers
did that was unlawful, brushed under the carpet, ignored, crimes by commission and omission, bullying, sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse.
(telling DD she was definately coming home then pulling the plug was the worst)
Telling parents they can't say Love you/miss you/want you home/ or show any emotion or contact gets stopped.
Not making any effort to place with relatives.
Performing Psych assessment on a parent under huge stress already and during the added stress of a court case about sexual abuse where they were a lead witness, not including that fact in the report but saying off the record it would have no bearing on the outcome when in FACT thats why they ask if you have moved house, lost any close members of your immediate family, ect.
Refused to investigate a child held incommunicado with no familial contact after she had disclosed sexual abuse by a foster carer.
The lies, the lies told were ridiculous.
So if i went through all this and more, was i simply unlucky?
My complaints changed a lot of things, fundamental things within the SS department. things that would improve service users and their parents lives when in contact with the SS. But why? Were they just waiting for some kind of guinea pig to come along that would fight back and tell them of their fuck ups?
Why was my family broken and twisted apart by their fuck ups?
And i will NEVER get an apology, ever.
So this is my 'payback' i will sing and dance and tell everyone who will listen or who is suffering, that its true, it does happen, like the other stuff in the media at the moment, which no one would have believed a few years ago, it will come out, through people like me.
I said before and i will say again, i am not alone.
On the subject of this thread, SS don't like it because they usually advise tv programmes and soaps on 'social workers' they got left out of this one and are being made to look rotten to the core. Well, some of them are. If they are found unsuitable for the job in RL their team leader or anyone supervising them should sack them not just move them sideways.
You can't have a profession that takes innocent families children in the vain hope that they won't miss a child from a truly abusive family. Thats like taking ten dolphins to catch one tuna.
Because those children's lives are ruined, too. My DD's life was ruined. She has told me that she was never happy, and cried every day she was in FC, she's spent most of the last 11 years retreated to her room, crying and upset.
She told me this tonight btw, when she showed me the 'life story' work they had done. There was barely anything in it.
They disgust me. Crap right to the end.
People like me playing our faces and standing up to you lot to get our babies back is what is making sure you get trained properly
And you lot still fuck up labelling abused children being gang raped as prostitutes
"as a bunch of busybody old women"
It developed (or rather the law did/does) after the death of so many children at the hands of their carers (both birth and taken in after the war).
SW's don't live in boxes when they are not at work, now they come from various backgrounds who have had the life experiences, including having SS/SW's in their own lives.
That is often forgotten and assumed different.
things you just reminded me of something, many years ago before i owned my own org i worked for the gov (dv work) my maneger was seconded to us from ss. she was a nightmare bully and due to how bad (she actually punched a staff member) she was a tribunal was involved she was not able to stay with us but ss just promoted her and moved her to the edt.
i had actually forgotten about her how i dont know because she was a nightmare.
Thank God there was a 'busy body' around for the child that i had to look at the pictures of, taken whilst the child recovered in hospital.
It is a pity that we cannot discuss old cases.
I am reunited with a relative, who i didn'y know about, brought up in foster care, because her mother didn't want her to be placed with a family member, nor would she allow an adoption.
The birth mother has rejected her again and i am her only means of support, she is totally messed up by her mothers selfish actions.
I can accept that she couldn't/wouldn't care for her, but the outcome could have been different (MH wise) if the mother had not been given as much power as she was.
I don't disagree that they don't have their place.
If i may.
I struggle with my relationship with DD due to piss poor social work and equally piss poor amounts of contact, i never had staying contact and until she returned we had been set at once per month for a whole day. They never responded to requests to up this amount, i found out later that for 2 years she had hidden away in her room hardly socialising, and hadn't had an allocated SW for about the same length of time.
She doesn't know how to cook, clean, budget, if it wasn't for school and later college, she wouldn't have left the house, if not on a contact.
At that placement she was preyed on by the boyfriend of the FC's DD, 10 years DD's senior, who hadn't been crb checked or vetted in any way, he kept kissing her and did everything short of full sex, when i brought it up with the FC, it was denied. They accused DD of trying it on with HIM and he blatantly lied and said the same even though i had seen the texts from him to DD.
DD was then moved to a supportive halfway house type of thing. She returned home after being threatened to have her face smashed in by the FC there, as the FC pushed her against a wall out of frustration at taking DD to be tested for aspergers or autistim and DD wouldn't talk to the woman they took her to see.
So as i say due to piss poor contact arrangements, she returned home after being threatened, we have no support and the relationship is strained, mainly due to not knowing each other very well, and her being brought up a different way. She won't help round the house, she is demanding money wise and entertainment wise, she can't budget, or cook, and refuses to learn. She is going to be in for a big shock when she gets her own place, that's for sure.
No one has done her ANY favours.
I guess what i'm saying is it would be easy for me to walk away from DD especially when she says 'You're my bio mum, but not really my mum, you didn't bring me up'
BUT we are working hard on our relationship, it will never be mum and daughter, she has no one, and i mean no one, that have been a constant in her life. I tried to be but limited to getting what contact someone made up their mind we needed/deserved/should have, and after every complaint i was punished by not seeing her, after every court date, if contact was due, they would cancel it, because i may be 'raw' .. i never talked to DD about the case so that was imaginary.
I can not be the only one.
I know i'm not.
I know DD isn't the only one.
She wasn't treated cruelly, shouted at, hit, made to feel worthless, have a mum who took drugs or drank alcohol, not burnt with cigarettes.
She was born to a mum who was sexually abused, then got sexually abused herself.
Then she went into care and was sexually abused, kicked, beaten, stamped on, pushed into walls, sworn at, moved all over the place when people decided they no longer wanted her, disclosed things to people who endangered her by disclosing to the accused person, and then leaving her in the placement with that person, twice, once by a SW and once by a contact supervisor.
In what world or in what corner of it is any of that fair?
SS constantly breach the human rights act.
I'd love to know how they get away with that.
I got more contact after showing them my draft statement to the EHCR, when i had been prevented from seeing DD at all for a year following granting of the CO.
And avoiding issues is not making the SS look any better. I happened. The parents on the Justice site happened. Jimmy Savile happened. Rochdale happened. Islington. Children in care are at risk more from predators in responsible positions when seperated from their parents or people who care about them. Care home abuse scandals abound. these kids are taken, and once the coveted prize is won, they are dumped and not given a flying shit about.
Most have no allocated SW or an advocate. I tried to get one for DD, they said she had to phone them herself.. ah yes but she's not allowed to use the phone?!?! Oh well, they said, we can't help. Then when she DID phone them, the SS told them she didn't require one and off they trotted without even asking DD. What were they afraid she might tell an advocate??????????
You answer glossing over answers that other people have given, ignoring evidence that in some cases the busybodies are spiteful, nasty, predatory, liars, perjurors, they make things up to meet thresholds so they don't have to admit to making a mistake, and the threshold is so woolly they have no problem achieving their aim.
DD is worse off for her experience in care, not better. A whole heap of care leavers end up homeless, with no qualifications,jobless, in prison, often with a trail of adopted babies behind them.
Tell me i'm wrong.
Tell me the busybodies didn't save those kids to end up feeding them into a mincer and REALLY fucking their lives up, their futures, keeping them in a job though i guess as those fucked up kids go on to have more fucked up kids. Generations of families brought up in the care system.
Now we're back to the point of the OP.
LOLA brought up in care, her mum, brought up in care, her grandad, brought up in care. Baby taken away after she was watched from the moment it was born.
Doesn't happen in real life, right?
DP's family, a 13 year old has a baby. No SS involvement.
A friend of my younger brother, brought up in care. Got pregnant shortly after leaving care. Baby 1 adopted. Baby 2, adopted. Baby 3, adopted. Baby 4, adopted. Baby 5 (bear in mind she is in her early 20's by now) someone in power decides to give her a chance. She goes to a MBU. she isn't happy about being watched over, and criticised, so tells the staff to get lost and allow her to care for her baby and i quote 'without breath on the back of my neck, or bumping my elbow on the supervisor' .. the baby was immediately removed, she was thrown out. Baby 5 adopted. Tired of being a baby farm, and never being allowed to keep a baby, she commits suicide. She told me once that her babies were removed at birth and placed for adoption because she was considered not to be a good mum due to her upbringing in care homes She had been in care from the age of 7, taken from a druggie mum.
Strange, huh, comparing the two.
Sorry.. Pixie.. nothing surprises me sweet, they are capable of a lot of things.
If her initials were MH take comfort in the fact she was nearly scared to death by a snake in a contact room.
And if any SW here thinks that i'm wrong in what i say, that it doesn't happen, think about the cover up at hillsborough, which it took the families of the 96 20+ years to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, to possibly get justice. Imagine, the scale of corruption, lies, covering up, damage limitation, how many police officers were involved, any one of those could have whistleblown and they didn't.
Eventually the SS will be called up on all their mistakes and subsequent cover ups too.
It'll be too late for the lives already ruined though.
One day it will all be open and then trust me, EE's interpretation of social workers will be known as fairly accurate in some cases.
The SW's involved should be hauled over the coals for breaking up families.
I believe you Things. Had mostly good experiences but they do like to feel they power over me sometimes. No CP involved with us, disability SW. They are nosey. Feels very intrusive at times and they question my reasons for tbibgs. Totally paranoid they are.
Thank you! FWIW, The ones i had the best experiences with, didn't always agree with me, or do things i particularly liked, or wanted, but they were straight, and honest, and kind, they didn't get all 'we can do this whether you like it or not' and they were supportive to both me and DD.
They were cheeky bastards as well.
The one came to visit whilst i was out, and decided to have a nosey through the kitchen window at the back. According to neighbours she did a linford christie over the garden gate with my dogs hot on her heels some feat as she was a bit on the chubby side.
The only evidence i had was a chewed up sensible shoe, which i bagged up and returned.
They don't like you being intrusive back. They told me i wasn't allowed to know DD's address, i used to tell them i already knew. I would know no matter where they moved her. It used to piss them off royally.
They couldn't work out how i did it.
All the contacts being supervised helped me one time, when a SW accused me of 'telling DD to do things with your mind' errr what? As in, telepathically?? They had some STRANGE employees, imo.
Don't back down. They have a duty to help you.
Not to bloody question you. Get a copy of their framework for intervention, a copy should be available in the library.
Its a folder full of (used to be in my day anyway) different coloured papers each coloured section pertains to a different situation i forget exactly what its called but i obtained my own copy which also royally pissed off the SS.
Statutory organisations that work with children have a duty under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to ensure their functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Make sure they meet their responsibilities towards your DC's x
.Of course in real life social workers are far far WORSE than the one shown in East Enders who was far nicer than the horrible lot in real life ! Social workers are nearly all cruel,overbearing,heartless ,dictators who actually enjoy taking children from mothers who love them .In real life Lolas baby would have been marked down for future adoption immediately.Proper procedures? Government statistics show that interim care orders are granted against parents more than 97%successfully and parents have no chance in biased courts at all.The SS just laugh at the idea of child welfare and concentrate on topping their new adoption scorcards as priority;When a child is continually beaten like baby p he is poor adoption material and left to die ,but for example a mother who grew up in care and was raped in care has her baby confiscated at birth for risk.Highly paid charlatans (experts) are regularly drafted in to the family courts to diagnose borderline personality disorders as well as making forecasts (with crystal balls?) of risk if a baby is left with a loving mother with no criminal record or substance addictions.What about older children also at risk of emotional abuse? When children aged 6-12 are taken into care they are treated worse than the worst criminals.Their mobile phones and laptops confiscated to isolate them from family and friends.Parents are allowed closely supervised contact only if they sign an undertaking not to say they love and miss them or want them home,not to discuss the case,not to speak a foreign language to foreign children,not to cry or show undue emotion etc etc .Murderers and rapists are allowed phone calls out from prison and visitors with uncensored conversation but these poor children (often taken when half asleep in the middle of the night) are denied these basic facilities. What should be done? Child cruelty should once again be a matter for the police and the criminal courts not the ss and their kangaroo family courts.That is how it used to be and it was much better;
The above was also my reply to the angry social worker on Community care but will they dare post it? NO !!
"Social workers are nearly all cruel,overbearing,heartless ,dictators who actually enjoy taking children from mothers who love them."
Yes, dear you keep thinking that. Perhaps you could stretch your brain (if you have one) and realise that child protection teams are only one part of SW anyway.
They didn't print it because it's rubbish.
And helps no one.
It doesn't make sense either.
Unfortunately, none of this is new either, DH was brought up in care (50s/60s)as were two of his brothers...all were abused either in homes or by FC. His eldest brother forced to eat vomit!! Later as an adult he and his exw applied to foster a relatives little boy and they were refused on the grounds that they were brought up in care and couldn't parent although they had a daughter themselves!
DH has always distrusted HV/SW/GPs/police/judiciary etc, for years he was convinced they existed to provide perverts with children..although excepts that may have been a bit of an extreme view now! Although when I had pnd I couldn't get help as he was terrified they would take our kids.
It will be interesting to see how the BBC play out the storyline and whether it will have any impact on campaigns to open up the sysem to scrutiny.
I also think it will be interesting, boaty.
Sorry to hear about your DH being abused in care
I believe him x
Its amazing.. people 'rescued' by them who don't want to accept their 'help' because they know what it used to mean.. i will say that recently, things have improved, but, there must be still bad apples in that profession, simply because they are so short staffed they MUST overlook some behaviour in order to keep a qualified SW at the risk of them being an absolute nob to service users.
I agree with a lot of what you say but not that all Social workers are nearly all cruel,overbearing,heartless ,dictators who actually enjoy taking children from mothers who love them. That simply isn't true, sorry, and i have had the worst nightmare bitches and the really good ones with a genuine desire to help keep families together.
Using some of the language you do, will alienate anyone immediately from reading your more valid points. Take it from someone who used to do things that way. It gets you nowhere demonising them ALL when it truly is only the few.
It shouldn't be a lottery, they shouldn't tell lies, blatant lies, concentrate on getting things changed so that meetings are recorded on tape ect, things that will help to point out the rotten apples and the SS need to pull on their big girl panties and sack anyone who brings them into disrepute because it stops people seeking help when they need it.
I cannot believe what negative feedback Eastenders have been getting from some of the people on here, regarding the Lola Story line, it is completely accurate. I grew up in Care (almost 18years of my life) under Newham Social Services, although, my parents did neglect me, the Social Worker portrayed in the story was like the ones I had, many, others will tell you the same thing.
Even now, I still do not have peace of mind over what happened to me, in Care.
I have never been given any help or understanding, Newham appear to have lost my Child Care Files, which had been promised to me, believe me, I have done everything, to get hold off them. The story line upset me, for, all the right reasons. I know of many couples, whose children have been wrongly taken a way from them, sometimes, they never get them back. Social Services have way too much power. These are heart breaking situations that should never had come about.
Stopped watching EE after the whole bianca being so skint even though child benefit etc is available. This new storyline doesn't surprise me one bit, funny how social services didn't step in when bianca was feeding her kids baked beans for breakfast, dinner and tea.....
sure is, social services don't seem to give a flying fuck in my very recent experience
AnnMarks, you have complained to the information commissioner i take it, about your missing files?
And i am looking into approaching a solicitor about what happened to DD and its all looking positive, but DD isn't ready.
Have you considered using the complaints procedure to address what you went through in care? If no joy there you can exhaust the complaints procedure then go to independent panel then onwards from there.
I say this although i had two complaints officers dealing with my numerous complaints yet one said i had exhausted the complaints procedure, and the other said 'no you haven't' and never put the complaints through to anyone else, instead dragging them out until they finally turned round and said they weren't accepting any new complaints from me, leaving me nowhere to complain to.
The police didn't want to know, they never even checked that DD was ok.
This cover up culture isn't just something that happened a long time ago, its still happening, and i know a lot of people who have said paperwork has gone missing or been accidentally destroyed. I thiank the lord that i managed to get hold of most of DD's with a few notable exceptions by making a DPA request.
Thank you for your comments. Its kind of you to reply back to me. I'm glad that you were able to get most of your files. I am not sure, whether, I have complained to the information commissioner, as, I've did online complaints, as well as written ones, I am too thinking about a solicitor, if I can get free advice.
I am talking about 30 odd years ago. Sadly, I can see, that, not a lot has improved as far as social services go. The only, way, the police might help, if, I told them what happened in care to me. Its that, is disturbing, I've left it all this way, not, because, I wanted to, no parental love ect, am very much alone here in that respect. My family, support me in this, all this with Jimmy Savile, makes me feel, this is the right way to go. I was promised my files, it looks like Newham have destroyed them, although, they've never proved this. I've tried everything, I can think of though. Keep in touch, from ann
Aww thanks Sole
It was frustrating that all the made up or true-but-fluffed up-to-look-a-lot-worse stuff didn't go missing, but all the positive reports DID strange, that..
Ann I am so sorry It really does sound like you have been badly let down. Take heed from what is happening RE jimmy savile and co, you WILL be believed, its sometimes enough just to have someone believe you, possibly the person or persons in your case may still be alive to face up to what they have done.
You were innocent, and vulnerable.
If there are any files (some get destroyed after 10 years or so, some must be kept) then if you can't get them, the police should have more powers to find things out. I hope you get justice.
I believe you. x
I was not sure of your name. Thanks for that. I know, for a fact that one of the men concerned is a live, I could had told a long while a go, even though he told me not to. His wife is nice, her brother was my foster dad, although, I only thought of him as an Uncle, I have felt, since, I was little that I need to protect her from what her husband did to me, she's always asking to see me, because of him, I cannot go, their old now, that's no excuse of course, I hate him, it was a viscous attack, he would had raped me if his wife hadn't come into the room when she did, he'd been planning this since I was little, I was not quite 16 when he attacked me that time, in a way, what he did was worst, than at other times, at the hands of strangers, because, I had thought of him like an uncle when I was first fostered, which only lasted for a couple of years.
Thank you for saying you believe me, that meant a lot. I did ask the police for help to get hold of my files, someone, who, was responsible for having me taken into care, told me they were at Ilford Police Station, nothing, ever came off it. I recently, found my best friend from school, she remembers the other incident that I mentioned, what the couple were like towards us, I was about ten, they were father, daughter, she was a single parent with a baby, that's why, we went round their house after school, we both feel, that her dad fathered the baby, I blamed myself for a long time, Debbie, warned me not to go there alone, I didn't know, why, not, because, a woman was with him, I never saw the danger. As she said to me, "I wished we'd told Ann, even though, we were only children". I only, recently told Debbie about what happened to me, she was shocked, not surprised, he was always touching us. The baby was the big attraction. I was grown up for my age, very small to look at. I would like to get this out in the open, telling the right person, I guess. from Ann
i think everyone on here should google STELLA MACLEOD and SOCIAL SERVICE VICTIMS. there are lots of things that can be read and proved about social workers and the way they work IN REAL LIFE. also there is a lady in boston (near skegness) who has been in the papers also MP JOHN HEMMING is at this exact moment in time in the house of commons debating about the family justic system/ courts/social services. he is backing people that have been wronged by social services and has seen proof of the misrepresentation of eveidence that they put into court about parents to get the judge to agree to an adoption order on the child in question.
also there is a case where a social worker who went against a judge and removed a baby at birth from its mother.
i know this as i was that mother. the judge said in court 3 days before my child was born that my child could come home with me when it was born but within 12 hours of birth (via c section) a social worker came to the hospital with 2 police officers and the baby was taken on a ppo even though the judge had said IN COURT IN FRONT OF ALL PARTIES 3 DAY BEFORE THAT THE BABY COULD COME HOME WITH ME. she social worker was ordered 2 days later by the said judge to hand me back my child which she did but i missed the first 2 days of my childs life cause a social worker did what she wanted NOT WHAT THE JUDGE HADE ORDERED IN COURT>
The number of children NOT being adopted is unacceptable, because prospective adopters want cute babies , which are few are far between.
That is such an outrageous statement to make and does no where near apply to the majority of adopters.
Back to the Eastenders thing, would SS REALLY give Phil Mitchell custody of Lexi? I mean really? Convicted criminal, how many investigations, son in prison for manslaughter etc?
This whole storyline has been horrible to watch, really horrible.
Horrible but very very true
The number of children NOT being adopted is unacceptable, because prospective adopters want cute babies , which are few are far between.
There are plenty of legitimate concerns about the care system in the UK without making things up. At the risk of repeating a comment of mine earlier in the thread...
The average age at adoption last year was 3yrs 8 months and only 2% of adoption (70 of them) were under 1. However 75% of adoptions were in the 1-4yrs age group and 21% 5-9 yrs, 3% over 9yrs.
What adopters say they want on the first day they apply to become adopters and what they accept as a match often bear little relation to each other.
the posts i put are true real life about either myself or people i know or have met. yes there are some cases where the child is at risk or has been abused or neglected and needs to be taken from the parents but 90% of the people i know or have met have had their children taken and put for adoption (98% bieng babies under the age of 18 months when adoption order was granted in court) have not harmed there children and have had their own childhood used against them by the ss.
Spared jail: Child-porn pervert from Hyde who was Scout leader, foster dad and social worker
Exclusive by Chris Osuh
August 22, 2012
| Printable Version Previous | Next
PERVERT: John McKenna was Group Scout Leader of the 3rd Gee Cross troop
A social worker who was also a foster parent and Scout leader has been shamed after his sick collection of child abuse images was discovered.
Dad-of-three John McKenna worked with children for most of his adult life and was a pillar of the community.
But a police investigation found McKenna, 58, had images of children as young as eight being abused on his computer. He worked as a childrens social worker for Tameside and Stockport councils for three decades.
Until his sick habit was exposed, he also fostered children at his home in Hyde and was Group Scout Leader of the 3rd Gee Cross troop.
Locked up in August '12
A Manchester Crown Court sentencing hearing was told that McKenna, of Hepworth Street, Hyde, had claimed to have been researching child abuse when his wife confronted him about his internet use five years ago.
Justin Hayhoe, prosecuting, described how his wife had come home to find McKenna asleep in front of a laptop, which had the word sexual on it, and had asked him what he had been up to. But in February this year, McKennas lies unravelled when police came knocking at his door, tipped off by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.
The centre had concerns about images being uploaded onto Microsofts Skydrive website, which allows users to store content online rather than on hard drives.
Searches of McKennas home led to the discovery of 484 indecent images of children. The majority were of the least serious category, but more than 100 depicted children being abused.
McKenna, who is wheelchair-bound by mobility problems, has now been sentenced to a three-year community order with a requirement to attend a sex offenders treatment programme, after admitting 47 counts of downloading indecent images of children. He is barred from working or having unsupervised contact with children and his internet use is restricted by a sexual offences prevention order.
McKenna spent six months behind bars as a remand prisoner and was sentenced via videolink to Strangeways. He sobbed and sighed throughout the hearing.
Stella Massey, defending, said: "This is a man who is now 58 years of age. He has no previous convictions whatsoever, lived for many years with his wife and worked as a foster carer for many years, and now finds himself having lost his good character and most of what he has worked for and built up over many years."
Sentencing, Judge Robert Atherton said that for many years McKenna had worked for the benefit of the community, but had committed a crime which deserved a jail sentence but took into account his time on remand.
Explaining why he was not sentencing McKenna to jail, the judge said: "If I impose that sentence of imprisonment now you will not receive any substantial assistance in overcoming the problems which these images show you have."
http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/false-allegations.html another link thing for you all to look at
I take on board all the other things you have said but unfortunately, while john hemming was willing to take this stuff further and higher, he isn't the kind of respectable figurehead you need in order to be taken seriously. He will end up holding the 'cause' back with his hysterics and arm waving.
Sorry to bust that particular bubble.
the posts i put are true real life about either myself or people i know or have met. yes there are some cases where the child is at risk or has been abused or neglected and needs to be taken from the parents but 90% of the people i know or have met have had their children taken and put for adoption (98% bieng babies under the age of 18 months when adoption order was granted in court) have not harmed there children and have had their own childhood used against them by the ss.
I agree with this. They target careleavers, mostly.
Ann i wanted to reply to you separately and not in the same box as my other replies, sorry.
I wish you all the best of luck with taking this further. You will be taken seriously. I can't say it will lead to successful prosecution, i can not make that promise, but from taking my own abuser to court years after he abused me, i can tell you that it is freeing and empowering for you, conviction or no.
No conviction doesn't mean you aren't believed, it means there isn't enough evidence for the jury to be 100% sure, thats all.. i felt bad until the policeman on my case told me that.
You will be properly supported during your disclosure and any ensuing court case.
You may be afraid it will reopen old wounds .. sort of, but you will be ready to deal with that, and face it, also you have here for support and afterwards you will heal and be stronger and glad you did it
Much love x
I agree with this. They target careleavers, mostly.
I don't agree that SS targets anyone but there is a point in there
somewhere. Care leavers are not well supported enough. My friend who works with care leavers says she builds up good relationships with her service users which continues but she said she frequently ends up seeing them again....in prison.
Back to the Eastenders thing, would SS REALLY give Phil Mitchell custody of Lexi? I mean really? Convicted criminal, how many investigations, son in prison for manslaughter etc?
I don't watch Eastenders but my answer to your question is "they might".
A member of my family was murdered by her husband, witnessed by their eldest child. When he came out of prison (after a pathetically short sentence) SS gave the children to him. I've only recently found that out as SS told us a pack of lies and said they'd been adopted. We even made albums to be given when they were old enough to find us if they wanted to.
If we had been given help as a child when we asked for it, then, as, adults, we
would not now be in this position, wondering, what to do. I am glad that you went a head did something about what happened to you, when, it involves, more than one person, its a lot harder. Do you know, whether, you can give statements or just write it down to the Police, without, being forced to take it any further, like you say, just telling, someone, in authority can help, although, I hate that word, then, I automatically, think of Social Services. Thanks for your love, help, support. I hope that you are OK. from Ann
Pixel They gave children back to a convicted murderer?
I am stunned. Hope those kids get a damn good upbringing or they will end up suing the local authority for putting them back in that position. On the deeper story, that of handing children back to the care of their mothers' murderer.. i have absolutely no words...
Crashdoll.. If someone did a freedom of information act request and it was actually answered, you would find that the majority of children in the system awaiting adoption or having been adopted come from care leaver parents. This is why they call it baby farming. My own DD was warned not to have any children by her care leaving team SW until she is out from under their radar at the age of 25. shocking stuff, shocking.
I was systematically erased from DD's life, if i hadn't had so much balls and fight in me, which some may not, i would have lost her altogether. SS actively practise and encourage parental alienation. Contact arrangements are at best difficult, and pitiful, at worst they are barely adhered to at all, or set at places a parent struggles to get to, or at times they can not do, i myself landed my dream job, ambulance technician, the hours were such that i had to request seeing DD on weekends, which was refused, and i was told to 'get my priorities right' as a result i gave up my job so i could carry on seeing DD during the week at times that were awkward no matter where i worked. I got another job delivering car parts, the contact times clashed with the hours there, i asked for evening contact, that also was flatly refused. I had to raise it in court, where it was granted, giving me 20 minutes to travel to the contact centre. I could just about manage that, with the help of my employers who allowed me to use their vehicle.
The SS, sore at being challenged and losing, promptly (straight after court and i mean right outside the courtroom) moved the contact to another area. Yes thats right, out of area. Leaving me travelling in rush hour, to a contact venue which was 40-50 minutes drive away, and i was expected to do it in 20 minutes.
Ann, i know its hard, but get angry about what happened to you and calmly but strongly take it to anyone who will listen. You have a right to be heard, and be believed. What happened to you is wrong, and should be put right xx
Its not that I am not angry, more hurt, disappointed, so hard to do when it involves more than one person, on more than one occasion, Newham, just don't want to know. I will keep trying, I need support, help, not sure, just walking in to the police station right now, at this moment, is what I need to do, tell, someone, most definitely. from Ann
Well you will get it here, start your own thread or post on this one, its up to you, but keep us updated if you feel able.. Or feel free to inbox me .. Good luck xxx
I am amazed at how much blind trust we put on social services by people who have been lucky enough to never had encounters with social services. Perhaps it's only me as I have read up on the despicable lengths social services go to rip children from their loving parents up and down the country, often these children end up far worst in foster care never to see their families again until they turn 18 if they choose to. By then they have lost all traces of their heritage not knowing the full extent of the damage left behind on their real family embers, made by the social services who have by now moved on to wreck thousands more families.
Don't get me wrong there are children that are in dire need of help from the very bad situations however I can post 2 links from many from the top of my head that may or may not make some of you gain a newer perspective of Child protection services in the U.K. making the Lola & Lexi story line seem more of a real depiction of the draconian system our social services have now morphed into. MP's and other protestors consisting of both innocent grieving parents of legally snatched children and professionals alike are campaigning to change the secretive family courts into a more publicly scrutinised court hearing for the public so to avoid a misconstrued account or report from an overzealous approach I trenches into the Social carer's training and protocols.
I urge you all to read up on these links and research extensively on Social services child protection misconducts before giving any decision...informed decisions are always better than decisions on a whim...something I believe social workers should implement in their day to day workings with families they seek to make lifelong decisions on!
You may have to copy and paste...
Never trust social services being involved in any of your family affairs!
I had dealings with SS, 4 social workers, one of which was the most critical bitch i've ever met, she made me feel like a child most of the time.
I had severe depression, but they did was class me as a neglectful mother, i thought damn hard to get my DD back, but the way the messed her around in her early years, had led her to attachment issues, and being wary around females she doesnt know.
Some social workers are evil, i was told that a family had an SS visit, at this point the kids beds didnt have mattresses as new ones were being delivered that day, the SW put in her report that the kids had nowhere to sleep, another story of a woman who left a little plate of snacks out for DCs, SW reported the house to be untidy.
Another SW i know of, turns a blind eye to her daughter leaving her DC's home alone they are both under 2.
So no the SS are not perfect.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.