Do social workers and the courts get it wrong sometimes? TW child abuse.

[Monthlymusing]

Obviously we know they get it wrong in that they tragically miss cases of abuse. This is about the other way round. Inspired by Marten and Gordon trial (please don’t discuss this specific case as it’s on going) I have fallen down an internet rabbit hole about the parents who truly believe that social services are out to snatch children from loving homes. There are thousands of them. Networks of people who help and advise people how to escape SS. There are open FB groups where parents share horror stories. I came across a ‘documentary’ on YouTube that was quite well presented, although I realise as a sane person, a good bit of anti ss propaganda. They interviewed many ‘middle class’ sorts of parents who all claimed their dc had been taken on imagined or fabricated allegations. One couples child had then tragically died in foster care, which made them feel vindicated as they had raised concerns the child wasn’t being properly cared for. The allegations against them were very extreme, almost unbelievable and involved family SA. This was quite some time ago but they have been very public about their case. They are actually in my LA, which was graded as inadequate for SS.

My thoughts are that if SS have concerns they are most likely correct and there are many parents getting away with abuse and hardly any wrongly accused to the point of losing their children. But like the police, presumably in a very small number of cases, it stands to reason that they sometimes do get it catastrophically wrong. Or are there enough ‘layers’ and enough professionals on each case that this is basically impossible?

The bar for ss involvement is shockingly low, yet that for removal of a child is very high.

Having worked closely/alongside ss for a number of years there are always going to be 'what ifs'. What if they didn't get involved. What if their involvement caused a poorer outcome.

In an ideal world every child would have a safe, secure and loving home with not just the basics but comfortable living standards, fed enough good food. Positive influences and family ties. Sadly this is not the case and regrettably the state does need to intervene.

Why do you say the bar for involvement is shockingly low? I don't agree that's the case at all.

Probably, but I have fostered a lot of children and in every case the parents felt wronged, even though it was very apparent that the children would not be safe or adequately cared for with them. I would think that there are very few birth parents with enough insight into their difficulties to see the issues, many of them were neglected by their own parents, if they could they would improve things I would imagine. Having said that, the mum of the first child we ever fostered became sober, went back to college and ended up working as a social worker. She came from a middle class background with lots of support though, so she was 'luckier' than many in her position. She also ditched her awful dh, who was a nasty, violent drunk. Ime a lot of children in care could remain at home if they didn't have violent fathers/stepfather etc.

I did research on this last year. There's a problem with caseload demands and staff retention in many teams. Obviously some areas will be worse affected by this than others but I'm currently working alongside teams with 1 sw and 2 pa and 1 acting manager. They've been running like that for almost 2 years now and cannot get or retain staff. That means there is a natural limit to the amount of work they can facilitate and the sw interviewed said they feel they are doing more 'firefighting' trying to see the most high risk families and young people and their capacity for early intervention work was virtually nil. I see this in my own work , I have referred young people where I know maybe 5+ years ago they'd have been allocated a social worker due to the nature of the referral whereas they got a one off visit from a sw to talk about the impact of dv and drugs on children with no follow up. When we followed it up we were told they didn't meet threshold and they would really need to be at crisis point before an allocation would be made. Experienced, very skilled sw I've worked alongside for years are burnt out and just trying to push through to retirement. I think there's always been an issue of under funding and resources being cut, but covid especially highlighted that and some sw teams haven't recovered.

By the time the child was adopted that mum was sober and had managed to safely leave the relationship but then had no legal rights to get her child back. Which had been her motivation all along. It did make me wonder what would have happened if she'd been given more time but the system was stacked against her.

Children don’t have time to wait for their parents to get themselves together, permanence proceedings take a long time to conclude - for my children it was 2 years from deciding they couldn’t return until placement, they needed a forever family.

Birth mum had years of working with social work firstly to try and keep her kids out of care and then to have them reunited with her. My DD was 6 when placed and will be forever impacted by the neglect and trauma she was exposed to - she would most likely be dead had she remained. How long do you give birth parents to sort themselves out? And how long should children live with the uncertainty of being in care?

That means there is a natural limit to the amount of work they can facilitate and the sw interviewed said they feel they are doing more 'firefighting' trying to see the most high risk families and young people and their capacity for early intervention work was virtually nil.

Most early intervention and family support work is now contracted out to the third sector, it’s not done by social workers.

So the bar for involvement is HIGH no, not 'shockingly low'

Of course mistakes are made, in both directions: courts (and it is courts, not social workers, who remove children from their parents' care) have both taken children away "too soon" or unnecessarily and not taken them soon enough. That is an inevitable consequence of the fact that humans are fallible and not gifted with precognition.

But in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's very clear that on the one hand, you have parents who are hugely emotionally invested in a narrative that saves their ego, and on the other you have a system of multiple professionals who have checks and balances and a view of norms which is fairly wide, and it's not that hard to tell which side is more credible.

I am sure there will be miscarriages of justice. There are in every sector. But look at how many high profile cases where children were murdered after the parents fought tooth and nail to get them back. Star Hobson, Ellie Butler, just today the report out for afinley Boden. All of those people were very convincing to get their children back to torture and kill. Independent bodies are needed as parents aren't always reliable.

I would imagine there's rare cases where a child has lied that has resulted in them being removed.

But for the most part I'd say no. Obviously a judgement call is made and ss never know if the parent could have pulled it together and successfully raised the child or not. (Things like getting off drug)

There is a parent in my area who regularly overshares posts on open SM about her run ins with social services and how she’s a victim of and being harassed by the authorities, merely because of her political views and because they have made ‘unfounded allegations’ that she is radicalising her children. She is adamant that concerns were raised by the school only because her children sometimes didn’t have a PE kit - which with resources stretched as they are, I find hard to believe that that would be classed as a concern and presumably there must be more to this situation than she’s letting on?
According to her there was a meeting earlier this week with the multi agencies involved, but she decided not to attend as she thought it was pointless and she couldn’t spare the time anyway. I assume her non appearance/apparent indifference might also reflect badly on the bigger picture and potentially influence subsequent decisions?

I volunteer and help families with a charity. One thing I have done is help support families in need who are borderline SS involvement. One family I still support has been on and off the CP register.

I would say that there is a huge issue of the parents understanding the emotional and psychological damage of their actions on the kids.
There is a level of parents saying their kids are well cared for becuase they are clean fed and have a clean house. The fact that those kids have watched parents having a violent screaming match at each other, and are scared doesn't register with the parents. Especially if the kids are wanting to be with mum (of course because she is mum)
phrases like - I love my kids. My kids love me and want to be with me. My kids have never ever been hurt (physically) my kids are well looked after.
But these phrases miss 100% the emotional and pyschological damage.

It has been interesting to be part of a CP conference and see how much the professionals involved have to prove and justify their actions. It is not an easy thing to get all on board to agree. And this is several steps below removing kids.
I have also seen how someone I knew well and was working with just blatantly lied to everyone because she didn't want anyone to know what she was up to (DV partner back in the home). It is quite shocking when you have befriended someone and are helping them get their life together to suddenly realise that they have lied to you as well. And in lying, they get caught and then it goes much worse for them with SS.

But I have also seen how much the parents struggle with things I take for granted. Tbh I see that on the boards here too. Setting boundaries, falling for basic manipulation, planning food, budgeting, getting up and getting several children out of the door, cooking, self esteem, thinking it is normal for a man to be controlling/verbally abusive. Lots of basic life skills they have never learnt. Both practical and emotional.
The best part of supporting families is seeing them aquire some of those skills and seeing their lives improve.

Of course it was about more than PE kit. I assume she's referring to an initial child protection conference. Not attending is a parent's right but will raise concerns about not taking it seriously and therefore how likely she is to change.
We see parents posting on local Facebook pages about how evil we are, how we target and victimise them and steal their kids. We know the truth, but nobody can correct it obviously.

For me this is why we should have a complete overhaul of the system. The child in the case I'm talking about (though I don't want to give too many details for obvious reasons) was removed at birth and adopted within the year. It was quite fast in my opinion. She was clean and single in her own home doing brilliant by the time the child was just turned a year old so I'm not clear on why the process wasn't slowed in light of her progress and I do feel she was let down in that respect. There were many, many mishandlings in that case though that were very traumatic for the biological mum.

I understand children need to feel secure but I also work with a lot of older adoptees who feel resentful of being adopted at birth and who now have no contact with their adopted parents. I also know lots of long term fostered adults who view their foster family as their 'forever family'. I think the system could be overhauled to find a bit more of a middle ground so children can feel secure in a long term placement family but not necessarily feel they're cutting ties with other parents. Not all children who are adopted or come into care are abused or neglected and some are very conscious of parental ill health and feel a sense of betrayal by 'joining another family' and long term Foster care can really help bridge the gap in those scenarios. I think it's important young people in care are given as much choice and a voice as possible and should perhaps be required to give consent in legal matters like adoption. I know many who would be delighted to say yes to being adopted by their Foster family and I know others who are very happy with the status quo including those within my own family who wouldn't want to be adopted out of respect for their biological family. Every scenario is very different and often we jump towards protecting the most vulnerable and those who have been exposed to awful abuse and neglect, but that doesn't apply to a lot of children and young people in care.

Yes apologies, I misread the post!! The threshold for involvement is definitely too high at the moment.

My view of SS are the same than the Police. (See the extremely low number of crimes ever prosecuted)
Some really nice people in there I’m sure but overall a poor service.
Some of it being linked to a very low funding.
Some of it linked to an overall culture.

Thats from my experience chatting with people working as social workers.

Of course SS sometimes gets it wrong, but that is more likely to lean in the direction leaving children in unsuitable home situations. Part of the reason for this is that children in care are vulnerable to abuse, besides the emotional impact of being removed from their family, so it is very much a last resort.

Or rather, they dint have the funding so dint have enough places…

Not all children who are adopted or come into care are abused or neglected and some are very conscious of parental ill health and feel a sense of betrayal by 'joining another family' and long term Foster care can really help bridge the gap in those scenarios.

The vast majority of care experienced children have experienced neglect and abuse - on occasion foster care will be used for parental ill health where no one else can care for the child and sometimes that foster care will be long term with regular contact with the parent.

Adoption is an option of last resort, legally we have to demonstrate the child cannot be safely cared for by their birth parents including the work done to reunite children with parents with evidence of lack of change. Parents are represented in court and have the right of appeal. It’s very difficult to remove a child in the first place and even harder to get a permanence order.

I think it's important young people in care are given as much choice and a voice as possible and should perhaps be required to give consent in legal matters like adoption.

Very few children are adopted at an age where it would be appropriate to obtain consent, ie where they have the capacity to understand the longer term impact of making a decision either way, much less understand the difference in legal status that comes with fostering, adoption or guardianship. View of children are sought from a very early age both by social workers and independent agencies.

Long term foster care can be a really good option for children considered too old for adoption (really aged 5/6), but it isn’t remotely secure. Foster carers can and do have children moved on even after quite long placements, and the child has ongoing social work involvement, review meetings etc.

The reality is there’s no easy option for children who can’t live with their birth family, every option comes with its difficulties. I agree there needs to be a systemic review of how agencies discharge their responsibilities as Corporate Parents but I won’t pretend there’s a perfect solution.

It's the cases around DV that distress me the most - when there is stressful involvement or even babies removed when the mother is in a violent relationship. Women often are not treated like a victim in these situations. And little support is available to them to leave the relationship, or following the removal of the child. On the other hand, if women leave and keep their children family courts and social workers appointed by them will often force contact with an abusive ex due to an idea of "contact at all costs" and "an abusive partner might be a good parent". So there is little internal logic which makes it all the more unjust.

(There is plenty of research on this also, its not anecdotal.)

Generally I think a far more open adoption process as is more common in the US would be healthier for all involved.

There was a documentary after the murder of Leiland James Corkhill by his adoptive mother.

His birth mother was not in a relationship when he was born. She was being supported by a reputable charity helping victims of domestic abuse. Leiland was nonetheless removed and subsequently murdered - but what struck me was that his birth mother had no voice. It was only the tragic events that followed which meant it all came out.

Not having PE kit is the kind of thing which might be one item on a long list of indicators of neglect, which the parent grabs on to and makes it the centre of the issue. Which obviously it isn’t. But that scenario is familiar.

But I have also seen how much the parents struggle with things I take for granted. Tbh I see that on the boards here too. Setting boundaries, falling for basic manipulation, planning food, budgeting, getting up and getting several children out of the door, cooking, self esteem, thinking it is normal for a man to be controlling/verbally abusive. Lots of basic life skills they have never learnt. Both practical and emotional.

Absolutely @steppemum , so many things that many of us take for granted.

On my initial visit to a family once I made a suggestion to the parent which in hindsight would never have been practical. The parent was so derisive and performatively shocked that I could suggest something so 'stupid' and wouldn't let it go. They cited this bad advice at every point including on the witness stand in the final hearing. The children were removed due to a litany of issues but that parent is probably still telling people how incompetent social workers stole their children and using my impractical suggestion as evidence of how stupid and incompetent we all are. I don't mind this, I fully understand it as a psychological mechanism against facing painful facts, but it's not an uncommon response to focus on one small issue to the exclusion of the real stuff.

I work alongside social workers and they're only human so I'm sure that yes of course they sometimes get things wrong. I've seen cases missed at times but I personally have never seen them remove a child wrongly.

What I do see a lot is people who have had really shitty upbringings who have normalised things that no person should have to deal with, so when they themselves have children they have a really skewed view of how to parent. Time and time again l just see parents who you just wish you could go back in time and make things better for them so they could know what it's like to have stability and love. I've heard on more than one occasion prospective adoptive parents say they met birth mum expecting to dislike her and came away just wanting to mother her.

What I also see an awful lot of, and I think this is a form of self preservation, is people pick up on the most innocuous point of a social worker's report and act as though it's the only reason - for example it's recommended that X is removed from the home because new partner has a history of domestic violence, children have both presented with unexplained injuries and there are signs mum is struggling to cope as there was dog faeces on the carpet and unclean bottles in the kitchen. This would then be repeated that SS removed the kids because of social worker saw some unwashed bottles on the worktop. I see this so frequently that Im now highly sceptical of people that appear on this morning or in the paper with a story about why social services wrongly took their children. Like I say though it's a form of self preservation and I can't judge people that do it.