Watch Panorama now!

[BarmyArmy]

Should be interesting...

Well done silver

This child had multiple unexplained injuries. Were SS supposed to turn a blind eye because he came from a nice middle class family.

He was never removed from his family and the right outcome was reached in the end. I feel really sorry for the family it must have been hell but SS had a duty to investigate.

I'm also not really sure why the family got compensation Sws were doing their job.

The safety and wellbeing of the child is paramount, and too many children slip through the net. Instead of being criticised, SS should be praised and supported for the children that they save

The programme was about medical evidence, nothing to do with SS-bashing despite the OP.

My DD has a medical condition which causes severe bruising and bleeding. She was diagnosed after two horrible years and obviously it's still a huge worry.

Now added to that is the possibility that should we ever come under scrutiny we may not be allowed by the family courts to call on her team of doctors to state that fact?

Apologies if that isn't the case, just saying why the issue terrifies me.

Sorry Milady - I haven?t actually seen the programme - was just stating my case of support for the SS cases I know about - the scenario that you have outlined is indeed terrifying, and I truly hope that no suspicion ever befalls you

Thanks sterry, I agree with you. We only ever hear of the cases which fail, Baby P for instance and wrongful adoptions. It isn't news else and there are failings in every organisation.

Miladydesummer- my understanding is that isn't the case.
The ruling affects whether specialist witnesses such as the ones you would want to support your case would be allowed to be named in the media after before or during court proceedings held behind closed doors.
The parents wanted to name and shame the professionals involved in the investigation of their son's broken leg.

I do understand where your fears are coming from, our son has scars and untreated injuries and every so often someone doesn't read his file spots something and probes. Yes I am made to feel a bit sullied briefly, but I am glad they do it, for the next little boy like him.

silver your post actually made me cry.

Well said and sterry and milady have a point. We only hear of the bad cases. I can't say much due to confidentiality but have a cousin whoes fostered a lad (4 1/2 years now) and he's blossomed being in a loving home - now a teenager and asked to be adopted by my cousin but due to age can't be so cousin is getting resisdency order. His life story is horrific and he can remeber it all .

I haven't watched programme yet but fully intend to hit the sack soon and watch it on iplayer then will have a full understanding of what the programme was about.

Thank you for clarification Silver1, you'd made some excellent points on this thread and you do sound lovely.

I didn't watch it too closely and as I'm sure you may understand, or too objectively either, got a bit sucked into the emotion and horror.

So the parents wanted to hold the medics who were so very wrong accountable? I don't think there is anything wrong with that on the face of it however it might make them err on the side of caution when it comes to safeguarding and then you'd have more Victorias and more Baby Peters.

It's very difficult.

The naivety and lack of knowledge is what comes across so strongly when someone says they can see SS serving no useful purpose. It kind of makes me wish I could go back to knowing very little of these issues because then I wouldn't have all the knowledge in my head that I do have, of what people/parents/families can do to each other, and just what SS have to deal with on a daily basis. Only someone with pretty near zero knowledge of the reality of it could even say that.
Yes, lots of scope for improvement, as with all jobs; but 'no useful purpose' - it's so naive as to be utterly laughable, really.

Milady, they should be all accountable of course they should-but there is a problem in naming, in this case the family are it seems a lovely middle class law abiding couple.
What about when the family isn't like that- , what happens when people's lives are in danger because they testify against a parent in a hearing when they are violent.

Guilty or realistic prospect of a prosecution are fairly clear cut, but not guilty is not the same as insufficient evidence, which could occur for a number of reasons.

It is very difficult SW's are damned if they do and damned if they don't

I feel for them the fact that the couple involved both worked for Cambridge CC and the same Council was investigating them that must have been awful. The stress must have been unbearable.

On occasion though, Medical professionals get it wrong though...where does that leave us in terms of protecting children?

Sorry meant to say they make a statement not necessarily testify against..

too many though's in my post and should have posted earlier in the argument!!!

tethersend - sorry to hear your news. hope all okay.

I too have been thru the family courts in order to get a residency order for my Grandaughter. Whilst I agree that SS had to vet me thoroughly they do go over the top.
The hours and hours of meetings, speaking to just about everyone I know, and all the while it was obvious, that my happy and thriving, little Grandgirl just wanted to be with me.
Therefore it makes my blood boil when I hear that another poor child has slipped thru the net because they are too busy, (probably dealing with the likes of me).
Why cant they sometimes use some good old fashioned common sense.