to be fuming at someone phoning ss on me

[AuntiePickleBottom]

i have no idea whom has, i think i am a good mum.

the social worker was lovely, and i am glad they did come even if this was a malicious phone call.

but i am so paroniod that someone is watching me now, i can belive someone would phone the ss on me

Have to say that most SWs I deal with are lovely which does not deny that crap ones exist as in all jobs.
They don't go into the job with a desire to remove children but to support families where they can. Any SW worth his/her salt knows that children do far better in their birth families than not. It's only where abuse is long term (neglect) or severe physical, sexual, emotional etc that children end up being removed. Even then it's not the SW who has that power but the court and there has to be overwhelming evidence for a court to agree it. Which makes the Victoria Climbie and Peter Connolly cases even sadder because undoubtedly the evidence was there.

I could not be a SW in Children and Family teams - burn out levels are high, abuse levels are high and many leave within three years,

I wish someone would explain to me how to take ownership of dd's feelings.

Once you have implied to a child that you have powers to tear apart her family, then it may not matter an awful lot if those powers would actually have been likely to have been upheld in a potential court case: if the child believes it then the damage has been done. CBT or other counselling is going to be incredibly difficult because the child will be afraid to trust professionals, including the ones providing the CBT. And the child may not necessarily trust the parent that much either: how do they know mummy's not just making soothing noises.

I can decide to let go and take ownership of my feelings. But sadly I can make no such decision for my child.

further disclaimers: I have absolutely no reason to believe that SWs are generally crap, I have met many great ones and never a crap one.

But the idea that as a parent I can solve any remaining issues by simply deciding to take ownership of my feelings- well, I just wish life was that easy.

Cory-good point, you've answered your own question and other posters by what you have said. You cannot take 'ownership' of your DD's feelings because they are not 'yours' to 'own'.

The system of CP cannot be done or organised in a way that can take away unbased fear. The law already protects the parents of unfounded allegations. You cannot cater for what is going to happen in someones imagination.

By crediting the SW with powers that they do not have you are partly creating your own fear. I am not dismissing the stress of being investigated or addressing the problems left behind for a child. It is the same as people now knowing the ir rights under the law, it takes away the fear of being stopped and searched by the police etc.

I am not crediting SW with powers they never had. Where do you find that in my posts?

I am saying that if professionals hint to a child that they have such powers, then the child may not necessarily end up believing mummy who says they don't.

The bit I vaguely resent on this thread is the constant hinting that if only I was sensible enough and educated enough and didn't give way to silly beliefs then everything would be lovely. That I am creating my own beliefs. Just because my child believed (and still partly believes) what she was told by people we had always taught her to trust.

If you think about it, a child is far more likely to believe an outside authority figure than their own mum. If the doctor/headteacher/Education Welfare Officer (and let's add for the sake of argument, SW) gives a child to understand that either they or SW have powers that they may not strictly speaking have, how is that the parent's fault? The fact that professionals do not have certain powers is no guarantee that certain individual professionals will not claim or hint that they do.

I do not have any silly beliefs about what EW, SS etc can do. But I refuse to be held responsible for fears created by others. And strictly speaking, I don't think dd's imagination should be held responsible either, if she believes what she has been told.

I wasnt directing my whole post at you. Other posters have credited SW and SS with powers that they don't have and have been to frightened to complain. Others do have misconceptions about their powers. I quote the law and tell people to seek legal advice because knowledge gives you power. As i SW in CP i am disgusted by the conduct of some SW's and would like to see them removed from the register.

I haven't hinted at anything. If a SW or HV/MW stands in front of you and tells you it is on their decision that your child is removed would it not be nice to quote the law at them to prove them wrong. Then complain, it is an offence for a SW to give incorrect advice, they will be disciplined.

I have quoted the law and posted on here to educate people about the CP procedure.

Most people in this country do not fear the police because they know the law and something about the court system. If the public see a police precence they do not react the samer way as dealing with SS because they know what they can and carn't do. I have posted to give insight to the internal workings of CP.

But even if 10% are dangerous then their managers, legal team and the court would also have to be for a child to be wrongly removed. If you work closly with SS then you will know and understand why some of the procedures exsist. Do you whistle blow then if you know how these SW are.

Yes and I do think that is a helpful approach, Birdsgotta.

Just trying to make it clear that there are cases where longterm emotional damage is done without it being the fault or within the control of a parent. And if you have been struggling with a situation like that for many years, then it's nice to have a little recognition.

In return, I will never credit anyone with powers they do not have and will never cease to give recognition to all the lovely and hardworking SWs I have met. I just wouldn't want one of them to go away thinking "well, I am lovely and professional, so any remaining problem must be cory's fault".

If these social workers lie in the reports they present to their managers and in court, who is going to be believed. Are you really that naive? If the social worker accuses the parent of behaving aggressively towards them, how does the parent refute that??? The social worker's colleagues will believe them, and when it's one person's word against another, how do you refute that? The word of a social worker against that of a parent, who's already being accused of child neglect. There is no check and balance. The one false allegation becomes backed up simply by being repeated in reports by others.

I know and i agree, but it's difficult to get a balance between protection for all children and protecting those who have unfounded allegations made.

Sw training now includes and examines the effect of malicious complaints. Reflective/critical practice is supposed to be used after every case, but in truth with SW being made redundant weekly, others don't have the time.

I think my earlier analogy of a surgeon doing a necessary and skilled operation and leaving a scar on the patient is a fair one. It is not the surgeon's fault that the operation cannot be done without leaving a scar, that's the price you have to pay. Though naturally his skill will be involved in making sure the car is neatly made and does not get infected. But it is a bit pointless to blame the patient or the patient's family either- unless they are actively mismanaging the after-care.

(Though come to think of it, I have come across doctors who take any mention of post-operative pain as a criticism of their medical skill).

i would like to see a range of sevices; counselling, after care as well as others funded. My point about 'taking ownership' was that you can do alot to get rid of anxiety and fear, i was not talking about you inparticular. As i said it is very empowering and raises confidence.

The system needs parental advocates. Social workers should be free to focus solely on the welfare of the child. Parents should receive legal advocates totally seperate from SS, whose responsibility is to guide the parents through the system and represent their interests, and who will also be present as reliable observers during any interaction between the parents and SS.

I think the current system manages to simultaneously leave at risk children in dangerous situations and pursue cases against parents who are no risk to their children. I don't want SWs talking to a mother and hearing about her awful childhood and thinking, 'Well, all things considered she's doing better than you'd expect.' I want them thinking, 'This is not an acceptable level of care.' They can then look at background and consider what they think is appropriate action. I also don't think it's fair that when people are accused of neglect/abuse they're effectively cast adrift and left to fend for themselves. Most people have no experience of SS and are understandably shocked and outraged at being accused. SS do not seem to understand this. If parents had people guiding them through the investigation process it would go a lot more smoothly. It would also show very quickly those who were truly aggressive/uncooperative.

Birds I don't understand the analogy with the police. I think it is a poor analogy.

If the police accuse you of something, they tell you your rights in detail an exactly what the process is, they tell you that you don't have to speak to them (but if you don't that may be used later) and you talk to them in the presence of a lawyer if you wish. Interviews are recorded. The court process is open.

Completely different to how SW and the family courts operate.

It's not hard at all to see why the police are feared less by people who are innocent than SW.

And I don't think a parent should be praised for buying in cereal, so her 9 year old can deal with breakfast without a fire hazard, because she's upstairs off her face.

These tragic cases that people keep highlighting to show that SW must have a range of powers and must be able to exercise them etc etc etc

These are all cases where the SW were found to be at enormous fault. If they had behaved properly,along with other professionals involved, then the children would not have died. I don't understand why these cases are being held up as examples to support SW cause when they are cases where SW royally fucked up.

SardineQueen- that is how it is most of the time now but in past times if you were; working class, young male, black etc you had something to fear. I took for granted people had read all of the posts. I was calling to posters who hadn't to complain and find out about their rights. I understand that not everyone can read the children acts but it is all there in writting what SS must and cannot do.
I am quoting cases as why the SW now has the guidelines that they do. Some think that investigations should be done over the telephone.

Birds I don't understand the juxtaposition of these two comments of yours:

"onceamai- they would not need an appointment and you would not be entitled to have a witness on the first enquiry, you would not need one anyway.

"CP does not need an overhaul whilst children are not removed by the court, people need to get good legal advice and believe it."

Those things seem contradictory to me?

generally I was under the impression that people are not entitled to / not advised to get legal advice when they are told that SS are going to investigate them. I have heard that it would positively count against people if they "lawyered up" at this stage of proceedings.

I also don't understand why there is no need for a witness anyway? Our SW wrote something in our report that we had not said. There was no process for us to "sign off" the report to say we agreed with what it said, as you would with minutes at work. We were just presented with it and that was that. Surely that isn't right.

Are you comparing the usual experience of people involved with SS, with the experience of say black people coming into contact with racist officers in the 70s?

That doesn't sound terribly good. I don't understand where you are coming from. I have read the posts.

What i mean is that those in power are challenged legally then things will change. The complaints procedure is there to be used.

I mean get good legal advice if the case is not closed after the initial investigation, once SS powers and procedures have been explained then do not think that they can do more than you have been advised, they cannot remove children as easy as it is believed. You can dispute what is written in the report, it depends on what that information is being used for. You can answer any allegations put to you.

The only thing that goes against you in court is the validity of the evidence put forward and how it is answered.

Can i ask who told you legal advice would go against you and how long ago that was.