Social Services - am I naive?

[Autumnwoman]

A FB friend/acquaintance has recently had her children removed by Social Services, pending an X-Ray on a 5-month old baby's rib. She says he was injured by a toy (trying not to be too outing, for her sake).

She seems like a lovely lady - I don't know her well, but she used to do some cleaning at the school where I work. She had a troubled past herself in and out of care, but has always come across to me as trying to make the best for herself and her family. I often see her playing with her children in the park etc.

If she genuinely has had her children removed because of one bruise on a baby (and suspected broken rib), surely this is massively excessive. I understand there are places kids don't often bruise and it can be a cause for concern, but surely removing her children for this is a HUGE step.

Or am I naive, and will there be a massive history, and this is the last straw, as it were? Is this likely to be the tip of an iceberg, or do kids really get removed for one suspicious incident? I want to support her - but want to make sure I'm offering support in good faith.

If there is reason to believe that the injury is non accidental then the child needs to be removed from the situation - the child's welfare needs to come first. In order for it to have been considered as non accidental, the child would have been examined by a paediatrician who is trained in child protection to have assed that the injury was non accidental and it's likely the explanation given wouldn't have matched up to the injury.

5 month old babies don’t get bruises, or broken ribs, especially not through a toy. Thats why the child could have been removed.
Be supportive, but unless you see hard proof, don’t say SS are wrong, and don’t get dragged too far in. People keep face a lot.

There are very strick guidelines for injuries in non mobile babies for a reason, they don't just get injured. Of course genuine accidents happen but with this age of child, a child who cannot communicate what happened, there needs to be very careful consideration.

I'm studying on the social work degree course and we just this week touched on a couple of case studies like this and their outcomes. And yes, if a suspicious looking injury with a description that doesn't add up comes in on a child then the children have to be removed whilst it's thoroughly investigated.

On the outcomes in similar circumstances we spoke about one child was eventually living back with the parents and one was in kinship care with supervised visits.

Well, unless he rolled off the sofa and landed on the toy, her account isn't convincing.

I would offer support - there have clearly been lots of shitty things in her life. But I would recommend not getting drawn in to the ins and outs of it all. There is (almost certainly) much more to this than you know, and you have only one side. I suggest listening, and then asking what she needs to do tomget her DC back. And then support her in doing that

First of all why were social service involved with the family to know about the bruise
Social services have very strict rules and many many hoops to jump through before a child is removed.
A bruised rib in and of itself wouldn’t Raise eyebrows

If she genuinely has had her children removed because of one bruise on a baby (and suspected broken rib), surely this is massively excessive.

It’s really not in the case of a 5 month old, who is wholly relying on their parents for safe care. If it was a 5 year old, yes it may be excessive but this is an immobile baby. I’d offer support but not get into the rights and wrongs here - placements for children are incredibly hard to come by, social workers generally don’t remove children if there’s another way of keeping them safe. Ultimately they will have had to convince a judge to allow the removal, the decision doesn’t actually rest with social services.

@RonaldMcDonald erm.... A bruised rib on a baby wouldn’t raise suspicion?
Also, ss would become involved at any point if a dr raises a concern about an injury on a child. If there were concerns about how this occured, they can apply to court asap if the child needs protecting. Otherwise, the police can exercise protective powers if felt the child needs protecting urgently.

Thing is anyone can appear lovely. Even those we think we know well can surprise us with actions sometimes.

Maybe this lady that appears lovely, lost her temper and was a cunt to a very small child who couldn’t defend themselves.

I wouldn’t be offering any sympathy and I’d be staying clear tbh. Maybe she has had a shitty life but social services have removed her child with suspicious bruising, removing a child is a very last straw decision from social services. A shitty life, doesn’t mean you can harm a child.

That poor baby, Its the baby who needs sympathy.

Op, think about it - how could a 5month old sustain an injury like this on a toy. They can’t even sit up reliably yet at this stage, and even if they could, how could they fall hard enough to bruise or break a rib? A child this age is utterly vulnerable and defenceless and needs protection.

First of all there is a difference between a broken rib and a bruise. A child can hurt itself - even a baby. The difference will make a huge difference.
Yes, other agencies can also apply for emergency protection orders or interim care orders but removing a child should only be done so rarely and in situations where real harm is a threat.
Very great care should be taken to ensure that there is a proper chance for good pre-proceedings disclosure and obviously fair procedures should be applied.
So, do I believe a child was removed simply for a bruise on a rib - no I do not.
There is other stuff going on. It isn’t easy or desirable to remove a baby of that age from a good enough parent - that doesn’t mean perfect.
IME

Anyone can appear to be lovely and coping.

My sons birth mum could do both, sadly for him the truth at home was vastly different.

If I had a five month old with a suspectes broken rib I would expect an investigation by SS as the very minimum action. Apart from managing to roll off something, how else would such a young baby have any injury to the ribs?

SS do not remove children without good reason to suspect the child/ren are in danger. Its also better for a short term removal to then find nothing wrong, than to leave the child to potentially suffer more harm.

@AuntieStella

Well, unless he rolled off the sofa and landed on the toy, her account isn't convincing.

I would offer support - there have clearly been lots of shitty things in her life. But I would recommend not getting drawn in to the ins and outs of it all. There is (almost certainly) much more to this than you know, and you have only one side. I suggest listening, and then asking what she needs to do tomget her DC back. And then support her in doing that

Without giving too much detail, this is more or less what she is claiming that happened - a toy digging into the child, after falling, causing the injury.

I am surprised that children are removed after one potential incident, hence wondering if there was more to the story.

It would take a fair injury to break a rib. Come on OP. Don’t be naive. Now can a baby that can’t even crawl yet hurt its self so badly on a toy that a bone would break?

"will there be a massive history, and this is the last straw, as it were? Is this likely to be the tip of an iceberg, or do kids really get removed for one suspicious incident?"

Non accidental injury to an imobile baby is one of the few situations where social services will take a child at the first incident.
So this could well be the only thing going on.

As PP have said, your friends explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. And this will be why they took the child to investigate.

A friend of mine had this happen when her baby broke a rib. It got all the way to court where she was able to establish that the rib was broken by a nurse in a botched attempt to encourage fluid out of his lungs.

No contact with social services before or since.

@CakeGirl2020

Thing is anyone can appear lovely. Even those we think we know well can surprise us with actions sometimes.

Maybe this lady that appears lovely, lost her temper and was a cunt to a very small child who couldn’t defend themselves.

I wouldn’t be offering any sympathy and I’d be staying clear tbh. Maybe she has had a shitty life but social services have removed her child with suspicious bruising, removing a child is a very last straw decision from social services. A shitty life, doesn’t mean you can harm a child.

That poor baby, Its the baby who needs sympathy.

I totally get that the child MUST be the focus of this. I came from an abusive home myself, and would have loved SS to have intervened.

BUT in a non-abusive home, IF her story is kosher, it's also not best for the baby (or her older daughter) to be removed from their mother's care for no good reason.

Hence wanting to understand if it's even plausible that this was a "first time injury - child taken to care" situation or if that doesn't really happen.

Do you know if the woman has a partner, or any men in her life? The child might be removed not due to HER harming the child, but through her failing to protect the child from someone else’s harm. I think this is a common scenario with women who have children removed

I would agree that people can appear however they want to appear to the outside world. What goes on behind closed doors is quite often a different story. I wouldnt be her friend or supporting her if I had any doubts that she may have done this. A five month old baby ffs.

OP contrary to what social media would have you believe, social workers don't remove children because of a single bruise with a plausible explanation. If they did, almost every child would be in care.

There will have been an investigation, the courts will have been involved, and there will be far more to this than your friend will be admitting.

But they have to Autumn. If it turns out this is above board then of course it’s sad they were separated for that time but if taking such decisive action so early on saves even one child’s life then it’s worth it surely?

They don’t know at this stage that it’s a non-abusive home. They’re trying to find that out.

I have to say I’m amazed at your naivety. Just because you think she’s nice.

@12309845653ghydrvj

Do you know if the woman has a partner, or any men in her life? The child might be removed not due to HER harming the child, but through her failing to protect the child from someone else’s harm. I think this is a common scenario with women who have children removed

She is a single parent.

Any mother who has ever been under such severe pressure they were close to the edge, can feel sympathy for one who fell.

You could be kind to her anyway. Imagine how terrible it must feel to have her childen taken.

The child could for example have brittle bone disease that needs to be diagnosed. You don't know the background and unless you are leaving other children in her care it really isn't any of your business. In the short term the safety of the children is paramount. It is also likely as a care leaver herself SS would be involved with any new child she has.

She is a single parent.

Could be another child's actions?

BUT in a non-abusive home, IF her story is kosher, it's also not best for the baby (or her older daughter) to be removed from their mother's care for no good reason
They do NOT remove a child for 1 incident and in general even once social service do get involved they give you multiple chances before removing a child. It honestly is the very last straw.

She’s bull shifting you with her story somewhere. Think how many 5 month olds have you heard off that broke a rib? It’s not a common injury for a reason.

Do you know if the woman has a partner, or any men in her life? Well that didn’t take long. Yes because it must be a man right, couldn't be the fucked up Mother could it now.