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.

DS had only been walking for a month and was just over 1 we were running about in the garden and I fell on him. He started dragging his leg. He had a fracture though slight after x ray. I felt terrible and told them what had happened. About four months later he fell over in the garden and cut his head on the patio, it needed A&E again, they glued it together. I was really worried as two nasty injuries in a short time. We were never referred to SS, I was surprised we weren’t. Any social workers on here have any idea why.

It's actually very easy to remove children, temporarily. Mn is incredibly naieve about this. Both my parents are social workers and they've seen things that would make your toes curl. Things that aren't supposed to happen. But do. In the Real world.

Valkadin, not a social worker but my educated guess would be because both were injuries that were perfectly consistent with his age and development (at an age where he could run but was still likely to fall) and there were no inconsistencies in the accounts given by the parents.

Though have to say now we've established the nature of the toy, the OP's acquaintance's story also makes a lot more sense.

Oblomov20 - what sorts of things? I'm in the real world, we have been reported to SS, we also have two adopted children and have read all their files and meet Birth Family and listened to their story.

It would take a fair amount of force to fracture a babies rib... I think social care would have to work on the theory that the story of falling onto a toy isnt true. Out of interest, how did the fracture come to be investigated? Did the mother take the baby to A&E minutes after the incident or was the bruise discovered another way?

I used to half believe a woman who was in my friendship group about basically (and it sounds ridiculous now, but I was well sucked in and felt so sorry for her) SS stalking her life and taking any new children off her. I have no idea why I believed it, but I was horrified beyond belief that SS would do that, because of one incident with an ex who she had left years before. Which was the story. Long story short, turned out she was a drug addict, was drinking utterly crazy amounts while pregnant (like, obviously not the odd glass of wine, which seems common. getting slaughtered, nightly), multiple other issues including odd injuries on a regular basis, and it had taken years for SS to get to the stage where (this bit seems true enough) they actively monitored her. Knowing what I know now, its the right thing for the kids, absolutely. But I spent a while disgusted that SS 'were trying to take peoples kids' without thinking about..how little sense that actually made!

I'm not sure about fractures, I slipped once and broke my ankle, it was really just a slip over a bump in some grass. I've honestly had much worse falls and slips in my life and no idea why that one did such damage. One of my sons broke his arm while playing with his sister, I never even noticed anything was wrong for several hours when he explained he couldn't life that arm. I was mortified and so apologetic at A & E as I felt terrible I'd left it for hours, doctor told me not to worry as one of his colleagues hadn't noticed his little girl had a broken leg for over 24 hrs. It seems really unpredictable and then there are children with more fragile bones. I seem to remember a case where child was removed due to fractures and then it happened with foster carers and it was found the child had a bone disorder.

I don't think any of us can possibly judge.

I think its much much more likely the area, the kind of fracture/break (or even bruise sometimes) and the story not making any sense for the injury. Than just blanket on all child fractures tbh.

Like, some places are really hard to bruise accidentally.

DS a couple of months ago, had his whole ear bruised, including behind it. Had been whacked with a hard toy at school. BUT, if that kind of injury just came up in general life somehow, and I tried to say he had..walked into a door, that would be immediately picked up I would assume as extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

now we've established the nature of the toy, the OP's acquaintance's story also makes a lot more sense.

But the OP only "knows" it was that sort of toy because the mum has said so on social media.

If my child was removed because of an injury caused by a toy, I would be putting all my efforts into getting my child back. Campaigning for a recall of the toy wouldn't happen until after my child was back with me.

The plastering over SM would ring alarm bells to me but then I guess everyone deals with these situations differently.

One person I know had 2 children removed by SS. She says she has EDS and said her children did although there was no evidence to suggest this, in fact they had never even been registered with a GP their whole life. She also stalked my son who was underage but police weren't interested as she never said anything sexual. She campaigns about forced adoption as apparently the LAs sell these children to paedophiles. How on earth she is allowed to have her 2 current children live with her I have no idea.

I don't think SS would remove children even temporarily lightly but I do believe mistakes are possible. It is the public nature of this woman's discussions I find odd. This would not be looked upon by SS favourably at all.

Some parents insist on posting on sm about ss involvement. Whist ss advise against this there is no legal method of stopping this happening. It's an interesting indicator of whether they understand the concerns though I've never seen it used in evidence before.

nevernotstruggling - in the case I know of the court did use it to place a 'gagging' order (not sure of correct terminology). I saw the letter from the courts saying that the mum was not allowed to discuss the court case publically. Technically not about the discussing SS but if it goes further they can do something.

It definitely shows a lack of judgement though, I have seen it used in SS evidence when the posting on SM is inappropriate, eg awful language, threatening language, discussing SS with the children present (before removed of course). With FB live available this happens a lot unfortunately.

@WitchesNStuff that's really interesting. Maybe some LA's are more forward in doing this.
I agree about evidence where sm shows behaviour such as threats. I'm aware of screen shots being used as evidence of a relationship for example but not often. It has to be very clear!

The person in question often tagged the council and specific people in authority who were involved so I guess it was raised to them as were direct threats when ranting on FB (they continue to do so many years on).

I am not sure how much it is used to make the decision but it is definitely mentioned to build up a picture of behaviour.

I would hope that any non mobile baby with a broken rib would be removed from its parents, to be honest.

My middle DC had trips to A&E at 9, 12 and 14 months - the same injury every time. Head needed gluing shut. DD had been walking for a week the first time, tripped and hit the corner of the door. Blood everywhere. Absolutely terrified me. Second time, running and tripped outside on a park, hit a wooden stump. Third time, she was bouncing on my bed and hit the corner of the drawers. There was never any suspicion because my explanation tallied up with the injuries.

The most I had was a HV visit to check my house, to see if there was anything she could advise to make it safer. She gave me a pack of corner things for all the bedroom furniture.

Couple of years later, DD diagnosed with Dyspraxia and ADHD. She still falls and hurts herself quite regularly, how she hasn't broken a bone yet I don't bloody know.

You need to be careful to paint SS as villains when you only hear the parents story. Other country, decades ago I spoke to a social worker who was on a case where a child was removed and the parents then did the whole sad face innocent story in the press. Due to privacy SS couldn't tell their findings (I believe they can't easily in the UK as well). The child was daily beaten with a thing that left distinct markings all over his body, but under his clothes. There was no way the child could do it themselves to that extent plus that the child had told school about it themselves (who called SS).

Simply put: if you don't know the whole story, stay out of it. No parent ever claims that they abuse their children, even when they do.

I still remember one child who had an awful fracture injury and the parent sat there claiming it must be because their child had a ‘brittle bone’ condition. They didn’t and the parent was arrested and the child and siblings were removed.

They have to investigate any injury to an immobile baby thoroughly, I think it’s since baby P. It may seem extreme but a potentially damaged rib on such a small baby isn’t going to look good for any parent- whatever their background.

Doctors have to make the call, I guess they’re smart enough to know whether an injury is suspicious or not to discern who needs SS involvement. I was in hospital with my toddler a few months back with a chest infection and overheard the doctor discussing it with another parent in there. She had placed her baby in the pram in the middle of the night without strapping her in whilst she quickly made a bottle. The baby slid out of the pram and fell onto the kitchen floor. The mother was absolutely devastated but the baby was fine and the doctor could obviously see their story was believable because she told them she was happy not to involve SS. They did still have to be informed of the incident though because it was an injury to an immobile baby.

valkadin they’re more concerned about immobile babies being injured because there’s no way they could injure themselves really (unless they roll off something which is easily done but the parents still should have been watching). Whereas toddlers rush around constantly and could easily injure themselves. Your stories obviously tallied up with the injuries therefore they didn’t feel the need to inform SS.

My younger brother was in and out of A&E constantly as a child. I lost count of the amount of times he managed to injure himself, he almost bit right through his tongue once running upstairs ffs. They do apply common sense and know when SS need to be involved.

"Some parents insist on posting on sm about ss involvement. Whist ss advise against this there is no legal method of stopping this happening"

When I had social services involvement, I talked about it on social media. I chose the Gentle Parents Of Topic Chat because they're a group of people that are holding themselves to unrealistic very high standards but who also think of themselves as "gentle".
As I suspected, they were much harder on me than social services were but polite with it!
Some of the advice was a bit mad. Apparently I should have gone up to the neighbour who had made the (clearly malicious) report and thanksed her for helping me get the support I need . Other advice was useful.
I still talk openly about it now. I think its important that people can see that its happened to other Mums and that its a normal part of life and not something you should feel stigmatised by.
I had no idea Social Services disapprove. Its not supposed to be a secret is it?

@unlimiteddilutingjuice going on a SM site for support and advice is one thing, posting a FB live saying that SS are cunts and sell babies to paedophiles is very different. If you were publically posting that SS had forcefully stole your children and made up mental illnesses you had that would ring alarm bells.

I dont think SS would look negatively upon someone genuinely asking for advice online.

[quote WitchesNStuff]@unlimiteddilutingjuice going on a SM site for support and advice is one thing, posting a FB live saying that SS are cunts and sell babies to paedophiles is very different. If you were publically posting that SS had forcefully stole your children and made up mental illnesses you had that would ring alarm bells.

I dont think SS would look negatively upon someone genuinely asking for advice online.[/quote]
She wasn't suggesting this. She was campaigning for a recall of the toy.

She has updated SM today to say the X-ray was clear and her children are being returned, for anyone who wanted an update.

Bruises on 5 month olds always raise suspicion. Drs are aware of mechanisms of injury and what damage is a likely result of the injury.

So for eg a broken rib in a baby may be as a result of squeezing with excessive force, not falling on a toy.

But even if baby rolled off a bed that's a cause for concern as she may not have been supervised appropriately, leaving the baby unattended. So even if abuse wasnt intended, there may be signs of neglect which do require support for the parents.

@Autumnwoman sorry that comment was following on from my previous post which I had thought the poster had responded to. I wasn't suggesting thats what your friend had said.