To think a lot of posts on this social services Facebook group can’t be entirely truthful?

I always thought SS had child's best interests at heart. Sadly I've seen a few mother's with mild learning disabilities not being given reasonable adjustments , not being given placement in m&b unit. They sometimes seem to be biased ,
www.learningdisabilitytoday.co.uk/children-of-parents-with-a-learning-disability-54-times-more-likely-to-be-taken-into-care

This is a very similar situation to the one we faced with adult social services. Needs of children involved and other family members were ignored they just wanted to send a family member home regardless of safety and what was better for the person. The lies and scare tactics used were horrendous. They didn’t care about anything other than getting them out of the care home.

Sorry it won't let me put an enter in at the end but this was really great and nuanced. I'm struggling to type on mobile so will come back later on desktop.

It might be that some are in denial but it’s not easy to comprehend the situation clearly when you’ve reached that point. It’s not a case of simply tidying up when you’re so mentally lost you’re not even sure if you ate a meal that day or if it was some point earlier in the week.

If there wasn’t so much judgement and stigma and people going “they’re liars, they’re delusional, they know exactly what the problem is and they should just sort themselves out and be a good mother!” then it would be so much easier for people to get the help and support they need before crisis point is reached.

A thought provoking research report from Cerebra in respect of SEND families Institutionalising Parent Carer Blame

As PP says, it's complicated.

@Brieandme
Posters need to be careful re generalisations. What might be best practice doesn't always result in actual.

In my own, nor the 4 I've subsequently helped with, none had 2 sw'ers sent initially. All thus had claims of basically misrepresentation/bullying by sw'ers. All 5 complained officially and got nowhere.

Just because it's best practice in your office doesn't mean it happens everywhere.

Social workers do sometimes mess up and unfairly discriminate against and/ or fail to support families that could stay together to stay together. That doesn't mean that every person in groups like that have been treated unfairly, but some will have been. It's a difficult balance between wanting to trust people who are genuine victims of social work malpractice and/ or discrimination and not trust people who are being dishonest about their experience (and blinkered as regards their own part). There is certainly a lot of victim blaming and parent blaming in this area, and social workers have a lot of power over others which can appeal to a certain kind of person who wants to abuse that power. There is also a desperate skills gap when it comes to managing families who are neurodivergent or who have both invisible and visible disabilities, as well as mental health conditions.

I agree adult social care is built on the assumption the family do the caring. This has changed slightly from the past and slightly softened. I remember being present at an assessment of a friend who was badly disabled over 40 years ago. The worker asked her who did her shopping, got her food, did basic housework, etc. And because various people were doing it, they would not fund visiting carers.

@Sapphire387 the points you raise were unfortunately in line with why I decided at the last minute to go into children's social care rather than adults.

While there are some excellent and empathic adult social workers, the entire system - the law and statutory guidance - is based around the idea that adult social care should only step in if family don't exist, and if there is any family they should do the care not the state. That services should only be provided if the worker exhausts all avenues. That responsibility for care lies with the family.

It is really old fashioned and really dates from the era that all adults were cared for within the family (typically by women, who wouldnt be in employment) unless they were deemed suitable for institutional care.

I know many SWs who left adults because the whole system is designed for them to try and find reasons to say no instead of finding ways to help. And that's before we get into the mess that is the funding pressure (and the scarcity of suitable resources/services even if the funding is agreed)

It is totally different to the philosophy the NHS is built on which is 'if there is a clinical need and evidenced treatment, treat'.

An interesting article about people who focus on one small thing and ignore the other issues on issendai.com - it’s called ‘the fallacy of proximal cigarette-bumming’. It’s in the context of family estrangement but the example given seems to be a classic demonstration of what some people have mentioned on this thread.

issendai.com/wp/estrangement/the-fallacy-of-proximal-cigarette-bumming/

In my authority all visits are lone visits (unless there’s high risk towards SW). However, if a parent made a complaint and were persistent with it, and also that were a lack of evidence from others areas to support what the SW was saying - for example school, health professionals, etc did not see the same things as the SW reported, it’s likely the SW would eventually be changed, as the professional relationship had broken down. This doesn’t happen very often, but would if a parent was consistently making the same complaints.

Also, as has been mentioned before, managers are involved in decision making and they would investigate complaints and it’s highly likely joint visits would then be made to protect both the SW and the parent.

I agree that social workers sometimes do whatever they can so the local authority does not have to pay for adult care. They are under a lot of pressure to get family to look after people.

@ThisGirlNever there are a few things:

Initial visits are conducted by two workers

Child in need/child protection meetings have multiple agencies in attendance who would give their view

Supervisor (manager) would be asking probing questions in supervision

Parent would be encouraged to make a complaint, these are investigated usually by a senior manager but not part of the line management

For CP there is a conference chair the parent could speak to also

I can only speak for where I work, but if any of these sort of concerns were raised by a parent id expect a team manager to unpick the discrepancy in the accounts, the social worker to be grilled on what evidence they saw/heard to take that view, other agencies and family members would be asked their view, and although a change of social worker isn't guaranteed, another worker would go out so there was another perspective also.

We provide all the details about routes for complaints/feedback from informal to formal on the first visit. We also encourage parents where possible to have their own support eg in meetings, eg whether it's another family member, friend, or a professional eg an IDVA. Unfortunately the only official advocacy service is limited to parents with diagnosed learning disabilities. But we do try and be transparent while balancing parents/childs right to privacy.

My experience was with adult social services, when my first DH was terminally ill.

He had a social worker who accused me of having him put in a home because I was unable to deal with him and my two toddlers.

Note: of course I couldn't. He was seriously ill with a brain tumour, was having delusions, suffered from mania, etc. His doctors made the decision and he was assessed and put under a deprivation of liberty order. Social worker suggested this was incorrect and the order needed to be lifted because he managed to hold a short conversation with her. The psychiatrist did the review the following week and kept the order in place.

This social worker was arrogant, made assumptions, presumed she knew better than medical staff, and made my life difficult at a time when it was difficult enough.

She insisted that she would have to call child social services as he would definitely be allowed home as he shouldn't be in the care home... and yet he was a risk to the children so we needed child SS, apparently. I refused this and said let's wait until the psychiatrist reassesses, which she grudgingly accepted. Note, she had never seen my children nor visited my home, and this was the first (and only) time I had met her.

The staff from his care home were in the meeting and afterwards told me how shocked they were at how aggressive she had been.

Sadly, this type of social worker does exist. I wish I was making this up. I'm really not sure why she did this - possibly something to do with funding? As he had a funded place in a particular home that met his particular needs.

Truly horrible.

So while I appreciate a lot of people are probably in denial, there are likely to be others who for whatever spurious reason end up dealing with one like this.

A genuine question for the social workers posting in this thread.

What safeguards are in place to prevent personal vendettas by social workers? If a social worker were to lie about the home conditions that exist or events they've witnessed, how would that be uncovered/corrected? I doubt the system believes parental claims of "He/she's lying. That never happened."

@DONTMESSWITHMEDARNA made various accusations regarding threats made by the social worker and a personal vendetta conducted by the social worker.

I think it is easy to dismiss outcomes as 'not possible due to 'multi-agency input', but that wouldn't be relevant to being threatened by a rogue worker. If you were being threatened by a case worker with the loss of your kids, that would be a very scary situation if you didn't know the laws/system.

Thinking about things, I'm now concerned about the potential for sexual exploitation of vulnerable mothers by people in a position of power - 'Perhaps we can make this all go away... How much do you love your kids?'

@MistressoftheDarkSide ultimately re wearing bodycams - I don't think having footage would change the 'he said she said' debates.
Eg you might get audio but how good quality? How do you manage with multiple people in the room? What about what happens off camera? What about the things cameras don't pick up - the smell of alcohol, the sound of someone running out the back door, the nuanced body language of a scared child?

Bodycams only work in close up situations like undertaking an arrest, and even then they are limited.

Ultimately if I thought they would benefit families I'd support them, but as others have mentioned above they'd be damaging without being likely to produce much benefit, if any.

I'm a DSL in a secondary school so I liaise with social workers constantly. I think most people have no idea how unsafe a situation has to be, and how many chances parents are given to turn things around, before a child is even placed on a Child Protection plan, let alone removed. The threshold for removal is extremely high and a huge amount of evidence is needed. It is simply not true that a single Social Worker can decide to take someone's child away on a whim or because they have some sort of personal grudge.

IME families have usually been referred to Children's Services many times by different agencies, numerous assessments completed, and months or even years spent trying to work with them voluntarily at Early Help or Child in Need level before it gets to the point where the parents can be compelled to engage. Even when multiple professionals from Children's Services, Education, Health and the Police all agree that the threshold for Section 47 is met (as the children have suffered significant harm and there is immediate risk of further harm) this is still no guarantee that the case will proceed to a Child Protection plan. Even then, parents are still frequently given the opportunity to engage at Child in Need level, which is entirely voluntary.

We have children in school who have disclosed sexual abuse, physical assault or witnessing high level domestic violence at home, children who are carrying knives, dealing drugs and whose parents use drugs in their presence, children who are out roaming the streets at 2am at 11 or 12 years old...none of them on a Child Protection plan, or even a Child in Need plan despite all concerns being reported. So you can imagine how desperate things are for the kids who do end up with ongoing involvement from Children's services. The idea that social workers swoop in place kids on CP plans or even take them away because their houses are messy is just daft.

IQ scores aren't a good indication of intelligence, at least in relation to parenting. They're culturally biased and fail to recognise different types of intelligence - emotional intelligence for example.

It is the responsibility of social workers to work at a level that the parent understands. There are many parents with learning disabilities who make excellent parents, if given the right support. PAMS assessments (parenting assessments for parents with learning disabilities) are used for a reason!

I think many people of average or above average intelligence will fail to recognise that there will be a similar number of people who are below average intelligence. That group of people will by definition have more limited ability to express themselves, identify risks, plan ahead, analyse situations in the past, present and future and generally have far more trouble in creating safe, nurturing environments for children.

That is not to say that many can’t do so but a lot will struggle. That isn’t spiteful or unkind as an observation, it’s true. Have a look at the figures below ( quick Google search) and it’s obvious. Not actually learning disabled necessarily but borderline.

In my professional experience some of this group can be quite skilled at verbally masking this because there is shame attached to not understanding things others grasp more easily. So someone might post quite convincingly about how wronged they have been but have failed to grasp the relevance of the concerns or how they could be addressed.

A Breakdown of IQ Scores
1 to 24: Profound mental disability.
25 to 39: Severe mental disability.
40 to 54: Moderate mental disability.
55 to 69: Mild mental disability.
70 to 84: Borderline mental disability.
85 to 114: Average intelligence.
115 to 129: Above average or bright.
130 to 144: Moderately gifted.

There are other less risky ways of protecting parents as well. Eg when I've had anxious parents I've offered at the end to write a summary of what we've discussed, signed it and given it to them. I've never had any issues from doing so.

There are already penalties for parents sharing confidential information but it is too late. I know of a video that was livestreamed that had 30,000 views. Many of those would have known the family - shared in local Facebook groups. It was awful, and that record is out there. It can't be undone.

Re court, in my experience many judges are anti social worker, not anti parent... But the majority of the time, it is the parents counsel (middle/upper class barrister or solicitor) who prepares and presents the information to the judge. The only time the parent speaks is if on the stand. The judge also hears from the guardian and their solicitor who are independent and there to independently serve the best interests of the children. Those systems are in place to reduce the likelihood of a judge 'siding' with a social worker.

There is also a pilot in place for information from family court hearings to be shared. Not sure if it's started yet.

I agree. Don’t really have a problem wearing a bod cam, per se, as I genuinely have nothing to hide and don’t really mind being recorded as quite a few parents do when you visit (although they only let that slip later)

I can imagine it would cause some issues though as mentioned above. Women who disclose abuse from partners would be less likely if they thought there would be video evidence of it - they often make an impulsive decision through fear to share and this may cause them to hold back. I appreciate accountability, but the police and banks don’t have the same emotional conversations with people that social workers do, sometimes for hours.

In my experience, I’ve had very few disagreement with families about what they have said to me. It’s more they disagree with what I interpret that to mean. I.e., they accept they have bought drugs, but do not accept they have chosen to spend their money on heroin, which meant that they were unable to feed their child, therefore they were prioritising their needs over their
child’s.

Its never the full story, only their version of events, looking for sympathy and support usually I'm afraid.

I'm a member of an Army Parenting Facebook group and some of the posts in there make me roll my eyes. If you take it at face value, every single person has been screwed over by the system, the Army is to blame, they have done nothing wrong etc.

While the Army is far from perfect, in 30+ years I have seen a handful of cases where people have been genuinely screwed over, but I have seen people who have caused all their own problems claim they are being screwed over pretty much at least once a week.

Take what you read in that group with a heavy pinch of salt, its probably 80% fiction.

Not a social worker but an allied professional and I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing a cam.

Not because I've got anything to hide but because I think it would be really damaging to the relationship between service user and worker. It's another barrier.

As others have said, most would clam up and wouldn't speak to professionals. A child would find it intimidating, overly official and intrusive.

How do we protect that footage, how do we store it?

I also agree that service users would then want to film workers and there are security risks with this.
These Facebook groups often post pictures and personal details of professionals. They're removed of course but the damage is often already done.

Social workers are at risk at times and are often threatened, followed, addresses shared etc.

I don't think a body cam would necessarily make them safer either because often the risk is in the moment and not a planned thing.

Well if body cams aren't the answer, we'll be forever stuck with a system compromised by endless he said / she said conflicts.

Parents are already legally bound not to disclose details of family court cases on pain of penalty, which could be extended to filming and recording. Obviously SWs should be protected doing their jobs, but if it works for the police, I can't really understand why SWs are that different.

If a case doesn't meet the threshold for police involvement then there won't be recorded evidence of the scene as it were.

The argument that parents would be less likely to engage if being recorded is a strange one to me. I'd rather have an exchange recorded than read a report down the line that bore little resemblance to my recollection of events, and was tipped in the favour of SW good, parent bad.

The assumption that parents are simultaneously too thick to understand things and also clever enough to be devious and manipulative is rather strange.

Some of these objections smack of stonewalling potential progress in ironing out the common complaints that crop up over and over again in CP. No system can be perfect, but it is in the best interests of the child for their futures to be decided on accurately reported information.

If you have to be recorded by most major corporations dealing with financial matters for example, due to FSA regulations, surely something as precious and important as a child future is deserving of the same scrutiny and investment?

Most social workers have better things to do than get involved in a slightly messy cluttered house.

But of course, parents who are not tidying it up are saying that the social workers are being picky. I had a colleague who I told not to go round to a house many more because of the trip hazards etc meanign she was not safe. Yet a social worker wanted to put a child in that house to 'keep them with a family member' 🙄