Social services dammed by judge for ruining the lives of an innocent family with a disabled child

(43 Posts)
MrsJREwing Fri 14-Dec-12 23:56:06

I read it in DM. So sad ss ruined the children's and parents lives with false allegations of FII. So very sad.

threesocksfullofchocs Fri 14-Dec-12 23:56:42

sorry but need more info

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 00:19:18

Story is reported in DM.

A Judge said SS made facts fit into an unfounded allegation of FII on a child with a disability.

All children were taken into care, the daughter was predicted A* and failed her GCSE's, Mum had a breakdown and can't care for the disabled child now through ill health the false allegations and loosing the children brought on.

SS don't seem to be sorry from their statement.

EtoilesPleinLesYeux Sat 15-Dec-12 00:21:20

Yes, let's blame the social workers. If its in the mail it must be true.

threesocksfullofchocs Sat 15-Dec-12 00:23:18

sorry can't judge.
need a link at least (not to DM)

Dromedary Sat 15-Dec-12 00:27:20

I haven't seen the story yet, but it's very rare for these cases to be publicised, as childcare proceedings are held in secret unless the judge decides, at their discretion, to allow the press in. They only do that in extreme cases, where Social Services have got it terribly wrong.
If these hearings weren't held in secret I'm sure that a massive can of worms would open. The secret hearing system makes Social Service far too powerful.

threesocksfullofchocs Sat 15-Dec-12 00:29:43

can I just say I have a child with sn, so I am not being nasty.
just need more info

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 00:32:32

It's only just gone online tonight on DM, I will take a look or you can to see who else is reporting this case.

Selks Sat 15-Dec-12 00:37:12

Yes you can always rely on the Mail to tell the whole story in a totally unbiased and unsensationalised way..... hmm

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 00:41:54

The judge ordered the children should be returned home, I hope the family aren't reading your response Selks.

KRITIQ Sat 15-Dec-12 02:31:38

With respect JR, if you were worried what the family might read on line, why on earth did you start this thread?

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 11:44:53

I started this thread as I once had the same accusation made against me, and I have been in touch with others again put through hell with false allegations.

Pantomimedam Sat 15-Dec-12 11:51:58

"Judge Nicholas Marston said social services, who had accused the parents of deliberately causing symptoms of illness in their disabled son, acted on claims ‘based on misunderstandings’ or which were ‘just plain wrong’.

"The 6am police swoop, which involved 14 officers descending on a quiet Hampshire cul-de-sac, was described by the judge as ‘utterly disproportionate’ and ‘itself abusive of the children involved’."

here it is

Just because it's in the Mail doesn't mean social services are perfect... the judge certainly appears to have made damning comments about SS who did indeed tear apart a loving family.

Pantomimedam Sat 15-Dec-12 11:54:48

"Once in care, the children were unable to see or speak to their mother for a year and were allowed to see their father only on weekly three-hour supervised visits.
Kane was kept separately from his sisters Carris and Marly, then 14 and eight, for four months, before they were all sent to a foster family 60 miles from the family home in Farnborough, with a daily two-hour round trip to school.

"Carris, who is now 16, had been predicted 14 A*s at GCSE, but left school with only two passes. She took herself out of care as soon as she turned 16 last summer and returned to her family.

"At a four-week hearing at Portsmouth County Court in February, Judge Marston praised Kealey and Andy for being ‘caring, loving’ parents and criticised Hampshire County Council for failing to prove any of its claims.

"In his judgment, he said: ‘What happened here is that a picture was painted before the facts were properly analysed, indeed before many of the facts were actually known, and then the facts were made to fit the picture.’"

I'm afraid everyone who leaped on the 'DM are evil, SS are angels' bandwagon before actually going and looking at the story are completely and utterly wrong.

Pantomimedam Sat 15-Dec-12 11:56:58

Yet SS are still intransigent and refuse to admit they have abused these children: "John Coughlan, Hampshire County Council’s director of children’s services, said that the council had acted with the ‘best motives’, adding: ‘It is our duty as a local authority to secure the wellbeing of children.’"

Everyone involved in tormenting these children and failing to think about whether the allegations might just possibly be a massive exaggeration should be disciplined and made to apologise, face-to-face, to the parents and children.

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 11:57:53

My children's school lost their diagnosis letter and when I asked for my children to be statemented they didn't ask me to provide medical evidence, no they rang ss querying my mh and was this diagnosis real. They wouldn't accept any Dr letters from me, only GP letter, spoke to me like I was a child abusing loone beneath them. Wrote to the GP without permission looking for info despite ss closing the case. School still hasn't done a medical plan and they missed the 40 day release of information so I reported them to ICO, awaiting an investigation.

Be very carefull trying to aid your child's comfort in school, you could very easily loose your child.

littleducks Sat 15-Dec-12 12:00:07

Im shocked at the responses, a judge has ruled that the family are innocent............. why would we doubt him.

I hope the family can sue SS or something, I'm not normally of that mindset but the problems it has caused are horrific. The father lost his job, the daughter's schooling totally messed up and the son now can't go home as he father has to work abroad and mother has had a breakdown.

FivesGoldNorks Sat 15-Dec-12 12:01:33

Sorry to hear this sad
I have no doubt that social workers and systems make mistakes, and when they do it's terrible and they need to be held to account. However, please don't use this single case to argue that all social workers are evil child snatchers ... I can see where this is going.

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 12:02:20

It sounds like similar happened to that family, only difference is ss in their case agreed with the child's school. In our case ss didn't join in the witch hunt. It was dreadfull what happened to us, I can't imagine how dreadfull it was for that family.

Pantomimedam Sat 15-Dec-12 12:04:08

Fives, no-one has said all SWs are child snatchers. But these ones are. And it took 19 months for them to stop tormenting this family. Disgraceful.

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 12:06:13

I think there is something very wrong with cp when it comes to FII.

I and my children have a rare condition, loads of families have had this alleagation from loads of so called professionals. HV, Dr's, GP's, schools, cafcass just about all are ott hypervigilant starting witch hunts.

Pantomimedam Sat 15-Dec-12 12:09:23

I agree, and I think it's the 'satanic panic' of our day. Or the Marietta whatsherface, that paediatrician who got her kicks sticking her finger up her patients' bums and decided they must have been abused. SS have clearly learned nothing from previous panics where they rushed to take children into care based on hysteria. (The Rochdale SWs who got carried away are proven perjurers who were captured on their own video recordings harassing children, yet carried on working for the same dept - it's probably no coincidence that Rochdale is where SS ignored actual real child abuse by gangs of Asian men...)

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 12:13:51

Roy Meadows fucked up loads of lives with his cot death rubbish he invented and is still doing so with his munch rubbish.

barbiecollector Sat 15-Dec-12 12:20:00

My children were taken away by SS after I was accused by them of having Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. In spite of there being no evidence, SS refused to back down and return my kids. I haven't seen them for years. I have remarried and have another family now, but still miss my other kids terribly.

I am not even sure if MSBP exists. It is just a convenient label for SS. Ditto 'Borderline Personality Disorder' and 'Risk of Emotional Harm' when no such harm has actually taken place.

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 12:30:04

I am sorry you lost your children.

I think this has gone on a lot, I was so shocked that in such a small community of a rare condition how many parents had been investigated to varying levels. People are isolated by these allegations, it took a brave person to go public and othrers in our community became brave and shared their experience too.

I think that case is the tip of the iceberg.

barbiecollector Sat 15-Dec-12 12:45:42

Yes, I agree MrsJREwing. The problem is, if you disagree with SS's 'diagnosis', you are accused of 'lacking insight' (another dubious SS condition for which they can take away your children).

MrsJREwing Sat 15-Dec-12 13:01:50

I know of a lady who was disabled with our condition (undiagnosed then correctly) who was not offered help to care for her baby, they took the child and adopted it instead. She later was diagnosed and won loads of corrections, sadly the Judge couldn't undo the adoption, that was the only bit, they did send the adoptive parents the genetic information as the child had a 50% chance of inheriting the condition.

I know of a family who's child had care removed, they were cleared in court.

I know some professionals are being investigated due to making high levels of FII accusations especially about families that make complaints about the professionals, anyway I am sure it will come out in the wash soon enough.

barbiecollector Sun 16-Dec-12 09:31:22

I am wondering if they should scrap Social Services altogether. The police (with extra funding) should handle Child Protection issues. And there are enough quango's, such as NSPCC and Age Concern, who (with extra funding) could handle the day-to-day case load. The extra funding for police, etc. would come from the massive budget that SS currently has.

What does everyone else think?

Pantomimedam Sun 16-Dec-12 10:00:41

I'm so sorry Barbie.

SS does need root and branch reform. Not sure it'd be a good idea to hand the role over to the police, though, their job is to catch criminals - their view of the world wouldn't necessarily be terribly helpful to children in need.

Problem with SS is they are completely unaccountable yet have incredibly serious powers - crap doctors can kill you but SS can take your kids away which is pretty darn close. At least crap doctors can be struck off. There's a theoretical power to strike SWs off, but it has never been used.

fluffygal Sun 16-Dec-12 10:46:55

Here we go again. SS cannot take kids away, they can apply for an order for children to be taken into care which a JUDGE decides. SS case loads are massive, no one wants to do the job and who can blame them? Its a bit ridiculous to say SS should be scrapped and let charities take over, they would have exactly the same issues and worse as there just isn't the staff or the budget to manage cases properly. It is terrible what happens to some families, but you cannot tar all social workers with the same brush. They are human, and have to deal with people lying to them every day. I am not sure I would always know who was telling the truth (hence I don't want to work in child protection).

fluffygal Sun 16-Dec-12 10:48:03

And yes SW can be struck off the same as doctors, they are not a law upon themselves they have a code of conduct they need to adhere to.

barbiecollector Sun 16-Dec-12 12:15:26

Problem with SS is they are completely unaccountable yet have incredibly serious powers.

That's the problem. The police are accountable, and if a parent is abusing or neglecting their child, then that is a crime. I would trust the police to investigate properly and according to the law, I would not trust SS to do the same, after my experience.

Pantomimedam Sun 16-Dec-12 12:15:48

No SW has ever been struck off, not one (unless one person has been struck off since I last checked, not that long ago).

Fluffy, did you bother to read the story? This is a case where SS fucked up very badly indeed. Eventually the courts have recognised that. But it took 19 months.

Selks Sun 16-Dec-12 14:47:55

I don't know where you are looking Pantomime, but social workers are barred from practising if judged to have malpracticed. I have seen various cases of this. You only have to read the news section of community care website to hear news of it happening from time to time.

Pantomimedam Sun 16-Dec-12 14:55:50

I'm glad to hear it but last time this came up it turned out the general register of SWs had never struck anyone off. Do you mean barred from practising at all or just sacked by their local authority?

Selks Sun 16-Dec-12 15:13:01
Selks Sun 16-Dec-12 15:18:58

Social workers ARE accountable and are held to account (see my previous post).
Their registration holds them accountable, as do serious case reviews and court cases. Often the buck is allowed to stop with the individual social worker when it is the senior managers who made the decisions on the cases concerned and who should be held to account.

Individual social workers have less power than is commonly believed. Decisions are often made by managers, reviewing officers, child protection conferences, the police and the courts rather than the individual social worker.

Pantomimedam Sun 16-Dec-12 21:41:14

Glad to hear it, selks, although I note that the Wales case was only the second SW to ever be struck off in Wales - in 2007!

Want to bet that the SWs involved in this hideous case won't face even the tiniest risk of being struck off, though? The Rochdale SWs were still practising last time the issue came up, about three years ago (satanic abuse people, not the 'prostitution is a lifestyle choice' idiots).

Pantomimedam Sun 16-Dec-12 21:43:45

Seriously, it would be interesting to know whether any SW has ever been struck off for fucking up a CP investigation where the family were innocent.

madwomanintheattic Sun 16-Dec-12 21:49:33

Shit, I know her. Dd2 was in Marly's class in yr r. She's lovely. Omg.

madwomanintheattic Sun 16-Dec-12 22:13:19

It doesn't look as though it was instigated by social services in this case - it looks to rest upon Bursledon House, where Kane was undergoing treatment. So it looks as though medical professionals instigated the removal, not SS. Sorry to burst the SS bubble, I imagine they were just following orders after Bursledon House called it in.

The whole thing is tragic. I bet they thought the inpatient stuff at Bursledon House was going to finally mean some support, and boy, did they need it.

Poor wee mice.

Pantomimedam Mon 17-Dec-12 18:21:27

Madwoman, sounds even more tragic from your account. And yes, health professionals do need to be held to account but SS should know better than to assume doctors are perfect and never make mistakes. When you are removing a child from his or her parents - one of the most draconian powers the state has - you need to look carefully at the evidence. Not just assume overbearing idiots like Roy Meadows are Gods who never do any wrong.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange Thu 20-Dec-12 03:41:18

I am wondering if they should scrap Social Services altogether. The police (with extra funding) should handle Child Protection issues. Sorry but absolute garbage. Could they handle the support and respite care, care plans, assessments, referrals to other services, commissioning home care, working with people with LDs, MH, older people, vulnerable adults?

There are bad SWs and incompetent SWs and SWs with bad supervision. However, most SWs do an incredible job with little support because they are desperate to support people.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now