What happened to the 'AM I a Victim? thread?

[SixtyFootDoll]

?

I find that worrying though!

An innocent person is under suspicion for exercising their right to privacy? Wrong wrong wrong! SS 'drawing conclusions?? Yikes.

"you have the right to privacy but if you exercise it we'll assume you've something to hide?"

This kind of attitude needs sorting out before anyone can be expected to believe "it's in the best interests of all concerned" to allow the intrusion.

The only conclusion SS should be drawing if someone declines their involvement is that we still live in a country where we can live our lives in peace without interference.

I'm detecting a tone of "co-operate or face the consequences" enforced upon innocent people. Very concerning.

verylittlecarrot

if you were beating your kids regularly, you probably wouldn't want social services to enter your home and talk to your children. If you were not beating your children, but someone had alleged you were, why wouldn't you want that to be disproved as soon as possible?

If someone accuses you of a crime, the police will speak to you. If you refuse to speak to them, you can be arrested. Child abuse is a crime. Social workers do not swan around telling people how to live their lives (at least CP social workers don't) they investigate claims of child abuse. They are very different.

Now if SWs can't gain access to children/homes, in the law, to investigate allegations of abuse, how will abuse be detected and children protected? I'm genuinely curious. I would prefer that SWs had the right to come to my house and look in my bedroom than not, because it means that children who need protecting can be protected.

hear, hear Eric (and Giga)

This is why I asked where the law stands. I fully anticipate responses of people saying "what have you got to hide?" which is of course, nothing, but demonstrates frankly a missing of the point entirely.

I do not feel social services are infallible, and some of the miscarriages of justice which I believe happen lead me to believe that on occasion, it may be a serious mistake to invite their scrutiny even in the most innocent of situations.

In an ideal world SS would know where their remit began and ended, but it seems sometimes that there is an overstepping of the mark.

gigantaur has just admitted that she would be suspicious of an entirely innocent family. She would presume guilt where none exists, on the basis of a family wishing to preserve their privacy. That's a classic example of why SS might NOT be trusted.

Has anyone followed the Fran Lyon story or read the posts from John Hemmings? Very, very frightening.

Just in case the OP of the original thread is reading this, after ten minutes of idle surfing I have her name, her husbands name, her email and postal addresses and home telephone number.

In case you're reading - Stop putting so much information on line about yourself. You'll end up in bother...

And I don't really know what I'm doing - just following a few tips my DH has mentioned to me in the past...

verylittlecarrot

I am familiar with the Fran Lyons case. I have also read the ramblings views of John Hemmings plenty of times. John Hemmings has a huge axe to grind and believes in the evil child snatchers versus the ever innocent parents.

What you are forgetting is that in Gigantaur's example there would have been a report of serious child mistreatment made. If a school tells you that they have seen huge bruises on a child's back when they are getting changed for games - do you still think the parents should be above suspicion if they refuse to speak to social services? Or if a nursery reports that a 4 year old is simulating oral sex on another child? Don't you think that the child deserves an explanation to be given?

I was talking to a friend who is a CP SW last night after reading this thread, because although I work in SS I am the other end (teenagers in care) and don't know much about CP. She explained that they will often visit with the police but only if the police think it likely that they will be able to arrest someone. So in the case of the original OP, the police must have believed a crime had occured. She also explained that the other agency who refers a family (it usually is for eg school, rather than individuals) is supposed to inform the family of the referral but rarely do. So SS are not supposed to be going in blind.

I think the point is that allegations of child abuse are allegations of a crime and need to be investigated. If you had been accused of burglary and refused to speak to the police that would put you under suspicion. It's the same principle for child abuse. A family's right to 'privacy' does not extand to the right to abuse children in private, and the only way to investigate claims is to physically see/speak to the child and the parents. I really would like to know what you think the alternative is.

I believe the alternative is innocent until proven guilty. A fundamental principle of our free society.

Not the opposite - you are suspected guilty, now prove you are innocent and we'll go away.

No-one in our country has to prove their innocence. It seems this has been forgotten.

Calling John Hemmings' work 'ramblings' does rather expose your views on this. And what do you feel about the Fran Lyon case? A case of "whoops, well that doesn't happen often? No smoke without fire?" Knowing what happened to Fran was terrifying. And the only reason we got to know was because she was able to discuss this before her baby was born. The secrecy of the family courts prevents us from knowing about any other similar travesties.

I have never had any dealings with SS personally. And I sincerely hope I never shall. I do not have an instinctive trust of the system within which they operate.

eric - i see all your points, and yours Gigi. I do feel a little uneasy though. My dd had bruises on her legs recently, which we'd noticed appearing over a few weeks but thought it was from climbing the bars at school (she's 5), she then came back on the Friday and they were really bad, after much talking she told us she was being kicked by a child at school. We phoned the school on the Monday and they said they'd noticed the bruises and were going to contact us as it was a child protection issue.

Anyway, we went into the school sorted the bullying and all now fine. BUT, if the school had contacted SS we could realistically have had a visit I assume.

I would have had no problem with the police/ss questioning me (as you say its the same for any crime) but I would have a big problem with them going through my bedrooms. And this isn't allowed for other crimes (witout a search warrant).

So, yes to the questions but no to the 'search'.

Gigi - can you actually 'search' without some form of warrant? If I said 'I dont want you in my bedroom' would that be ok?

Fluffy
SWs should be able to investigate where bruises come from. In the case of your DD's school they were right to contact you - but some schools go straight to the SS office and SWs can see children in school. They must inform the parents before seeing the child but my friend said this sometimes happens on route - not great. Unexplained bruises can usually be explained - as in your DD's case. She would have explained to the SW how she got them and they would then have closed the case.

And no - you can't search a house without a warrant - you can't enter a house without a warrant either. The presence of a police officer doesn't mean people have to let a SW in - but like I said before the police only attend if they think they have a good chance of making an arrest. They aren't there as 'back up' or to protect the SW.

eric - i agree entirely that sws should be able to investigate bruises, definitely. I actually contacted the school, they didnt contact me, but when I spoke to them they say they were going to contact me because they'd noticed them too. So hopefully they would have phoned me rather than sws first. Although of course thats good in my situation because Im not beating my child, but if I was then the school would have tipped me off I suppose and I could have beaten more carefully Its very difficult isn't it?

Also I cant believe some people have said that they shouldnt investigate because it was unfounded how would they know that until they investigated??!

But back to my bedroom (), so they could enter the house if I agreed (which I would) but not 'roam around' unless I specifically agreed?

No idea why I'm talking about this, no reason ss would ever visit, but I have ocd and get freaked out by people in my bedroom so am unduly worried about this thread!!

No, you do not have to let anyone look in your bedroom!

Thank you! I feel better now! It's that bloody Gigi she's always trying to get in my bedroom and it freaks me out

BTW - you may be his mistress but I'm his wife

the SW wont want to look anywhere that the child dosn't usually spend time.

I imagine that they wanted to look in the original op's bedroom because that is where the boy sleeps presumably.

If the call is about neglect then they can ask to look around to get a feel of the place and will almost certainly want to see where the child sleeps.

MWAHAHAHAAA.

The police were called following one of XP's displays of affection once. they came into the bedroom where he has literally destroyed the room. he had thrown one of the bedside cabinets across the floor.
the contents - my entire toy collection which was considerable - all across the floor.

I could have died!

i didnt actually believe this all happened.... and as for the 'i am v attractive, my bloke is good looking, i have a perfect life etc' screams of self esteem issues.