To think they will take my children off me.

If you read the OP's posts you'll see she's already said.

dont know why but if your mother is the main carer has there been problems in the past which needed investigating and your son removed from your care

Which stories?

The stories are usually of SS not removing children from abusive households.

The stories are usually that children have been kept with or given back to their family despite severe abuse.

You tagged me first, love. You initiated our exchange and everything I’ve said to you has been a reply. So, if you want it to stop, stop tagging me and I’ll stop replying.

And I’ve already addressed everything else, but it’s ‘verbiage’. 😁

Well what was the incident ?

This post does not seem real.

Thank you!

Don't worry. They have to investigate, but they are also very understanding about the need to sometimes physically control out of control children with SN.

Ss investigated us a few years ago because I phoned them in despair. My DH had been behaving really erratically for ages then I heard shouting and our LO came running out crying saying Daddy kicked me. I spoke to nursery before I dropped her in. He seemed completely bewildered.

A huge investigation followed and they were nothing but helpful. We were both completely transparent. They offered us lots of resources to help. He was struggling massively.

That was years ago and things were never bad again.

SS are not the enemy they are portrayed to be. Work with them.

Harsh, judgemental post,
OP, I have knowledge of a not too dissimilar situation and as hard as it is for you all, school have an obligation to follow policy.
I appreciate that you are dealing with a rollercoaster of emotions but I believe it will be alright.
Please take care of yourself, your husband also

It's a bit more complicated than that, sometimes they don't do proper diligence and a child dies, though usually after neighbours, teachers, healthcare workers and family have all attempted to alert them to issues.

But on the other hand they can also be a bit heavy handed in some cases.

We don't hear much about the latter cases due to the necessary secrecy of family courts.

MN in the mornings!😄🙄

Look, you went tagging me, I'm assuming to put me in my place? A sort of 'So there!' and now you're doubling down by pettily attempting to correct my verbage, it is childish and as shortsighted as your initial assumption out the gate, that the OP must be somehow withholding details out of guilt and not, as anyone who has been on MN for any amount of time is surely aware, of not wanting to give details on a sensitive subject, particularly one involving SS which is not unreasonable by any means. That would have been the natural assumption of a thinking person.

Yes please do me the favour of not tagging me again. You seem remarkably agitated. Go have tea or coffee or something.

Sorry but which stories are these where SS have lied and exaggerated and taken children from their parents? Because as we’ve seen multiple times in recent months they completely fail, repeatedly, to safeguard children in danger. I don’t see how SS can be so shambolic as to fail in their duty and save abused children, yet at the same time be so calculated and manipulative that they’re removing kids from their parents with no good reason….

Hopefully you will get the support that you need now, also just be wary if restraining as a child died because they were restrained incorrectly that is why all staff in schools and care settings that restrain are team teach trained.

I think she was unreasonable not to initially share, yes. That’s why I said it. As she was asking whether there was any likelihood of her losing her kids and that entirely depends on the situation.

I think that you are unreasonable for:

• stating that people can't put such outing details on here when no outing details were requested;
• using ‘extrapolation’ incorrectly; and
• not just conceding that your initial comment to me was wrong and tagging me again with this nonsense.

Social Services will not remove your children for this reason. Foster placements are limited, and children are only taken into care as an absolute last resort. View the visit as a chance to seek additional support for your stepson's special needs.

SS will do fuck all, as usual

True. But she wasn't unreasonable as you declared, for not wishing to do so, nor was it necessary. Further extrapolation of the facts has done little to influence your previous opinion has it?

Where are you reading stories about SS lying and exaggerating and taking children from their parents OP? Also why?

that the allegation has been taken seriously but you hear all these horror stories that SS lie and are child snatcher
However when you then start reading the stories of SS lying and exaggerating and taking children of their parents it makes me feel sick.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If anything, the stories I hear i that SS are a bit blase and that getting them to do anythiny for children in actual danger is almost impossible. I think you're being a bit ridiculous here.

happy, emotionally stable children don’t accuse their parents of hurting them for shits and giggles

This is a child with special needs - lashing out often comes with the territory.

OP, this site is the last place I'd come to in the circumstances you describe. It's a hugely emotional and sensitive issue and recent press about various cases are generating very polarised views and alot of black and white thinking.

It sounds as though you have a good relationship with the school, so keep that going. Are there any local advocacy or support groups you can reach out to who might be able to guide and support you through the process?

If extra support is the result of all this then that would obviously be a good thing, and building a trusting relationship with professionals is key.

I wish you and your family all the very best going forward x

There was one last week where the step daughter told her mum her dad had hurt her.

She subsequently did say what had happened and it isn’t outing.