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

It was someone on MN, another SW I think. They said that if you wanted a lawyer present when SS came to visit for an initial assessment it would count against you as they would think you were not being open and engaging with the process.

I dont see how you could have a solicitor present for a initial appointment, CP dont warn you that they are coming. They would not hang around for one to turn up. I dont see why you would want one, they are only information gathering at this stage. If you are then called in to be interviewed further then you can take an advocate, it does depend on the accusation. The child is entitled to privacy also, it is them that is being discussed, that is were the difficulty arises. Any legal representation does not go against the accussed in court (which is were it counts).

CP officers should be coming out in pairs, but budget cuts may not allow this. They never go alone when they are going to remove a child or call for the police.

We knew when they were coming, as did others on this thread.

But not the very first time they called as in the OP's case.

Others go through CP when exp makes allegations or if they are going through CAFCASS etc and no it does not go against them if legal advice is sought but that is different to having a third party present. If a criminal act is suspected then you have the right to legal representation (this will be handled by the police also). It depends why you feel that you need a solicitor during an assessment. It does depend on how much you communicate with the SW because if things don't seem to add up then there will be suspisions.

Going by what some people have said on this thread, I think I would want a lawyer from the off. If there are only 2 people in the room, or 2 SW and parent in the room, who is there to stop the SW from putting whatever they like in their report? 2 SW against one parent who has already had accusations levelled at them - who are the courts likely to believe?

As I said earlier, I had a friend with me. But then again we could've got together and made up some bollocks about the SW. There should be some system in place (perhaps there is - and I just am not aware of it) where there is an entirely neutral third party available to verify everything that is said.

Birds I think most people are saying yes, that's good there's a system to be gotten through before any serious decisions are made, but in the initial interviews/accusations it is the SW word against the person who is being investigated. And this will carry weight throughout the entire investigation. If there were a third party (maybe CP savvy?) there to say 'no actually that's not correct' or sign off on the report that would allay some fears.

I can think of one thing that would have helped my friend.

As a legal aid lawyer, I am required to give every client a lengthy client care letter setting out my responsibilities, the chain of command within the firm, the complaints procedure and the external monitoring body. It's all there in black and white.

If SWs had a similar requirement - even a standard booklet - that would be massively helpful. My friend was fobbed off many times about the complaints process and was eventually told that the complaint would be directed straight to the SW dealing with the case. You can imagine how keen she was on that idea!

Such a booklet could also set out the rights in terms of advocates etc. My friend was told she could not have a lawyer present at the panel meeting or at any other appointment and that a lawyer would be refused access and that bringing one would cause concerns about her co-operation. She was also told conflicting information about the rights of the advocate they did use - and that advocate was refused access on one occasion. She was given incorrect information about the procedure, information which changed every time she had a meeting.

If something was given to every parent outlining the procedure and the legalities, and if there was an independent complaints process, that might help a lot of people in this situation.

Again, you have to remember that the loss of a child is the most terrifying prospect that a parent can face. There is only so much fear that most people can cope with before they just knuckle down and do whatever is necessary to get through the nightmare somehow.

Watching my friend go through this was incredibly painful and frightening. By the end I had no faith left myself that things were going to be OK - and I wasn't even the one being threatened with the loss of my child. I watched my friend go from a strong, confident woman to a terrified mess and I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Birds I knew when they were coming for their very fist visit.

I agree with somethingwillturnup and kungfu with their suggestions to increase transparency, allow people to understand what is going on and to have someone neutral to agree notes and things would be good.

Our notes had something incorrect in, we had not said it, the report was just sent to as as "job done" - no suggestion of what we could do if we didn't agree with it or there were inaccuracies. When you talk to the police you have to sign that what they have written is correct. No such thing with SS and yet these documents can potentially be used in ways that will have the most enormous impact imaginable.

You have to understand that it is all very frightening. I had never had involvement with any "authorities" before and it was terrifying. I was not told what would happen next, what the process was. I still don't know if the fact that we were investigated will be shared with the school when DD starts school - that sort of thing makes you paranoid. Who knows what? Who has been told what about us and why? Are we on a list? What does it all mean? On none of these threads have any SW been able to answer these questions with any certainty so I - and the others - are left hanging. Anyone could know anything and I don't know what they know and so I need to keep my distance, hide any problems that I am having, pray that the DC never need to go to A&E for anything or that anyone makes a malicious complaint, and basically feel like that for the next 15 years. There is never any reassurance that is not the case. These are pretty bloody huge consequences for someone who has had a "no further action" report.

There were inaccuracies in reports about me. I asked my lawyer about challenging them arguing that a fair legal outcome was not possible unless the judge was considering accurate information. He advised me not to say anything about the inaccuracies or it would make me look petty and bad.

A couple of the inaccuracies admittedly were unlikely to make any fundamental difference to the outcome but a few of them I believe did taint the judges view IYSWIM. Now I feel I cannot say anything as the moment has passed it is too late and these things are in official written records about me.

I found it very embarrassing when I got DS2's SEN statement and appendix G said "this family is known to SS". With no further explanation.

We are known to SS because DS2's HV referred us to them to get an "early response" member to help me to refer him to a speech and language therapist.

She sat on my couch and said "how do you feel"? I said "I am very fucking angry that my beautiful child may have a problem".

I said to her, "he is beautiful isn't he" she said "yes, he is". She was lovely, but seeing that we are "known" to them looked awful.

What annoys me is that perfectly ordinary people whose kids might be off their food cos it's too hot or might have a bruise cos they knocked themselves are really scared of SS.

Then you get the horrific cases where the press say that SS wasn't around.

Which is more true, I don't know.

Possibly they are not around because the legal system can and will do nothing to stop pathetic bullies from wasting SS time with complete tosh.

whatever

thats on ds sen statement to .does not clarify that it is that its the disabled childrens team.

I hate it when we go into hospital and they ask do you have a sw and have to say yes !!now make point of saying its so and so on the disabled childrns team

Im lucky in that i had advoc ate from the start and it was very quickly made clear from the proffesionals that actually knew my son( rather than Hv that had met him briefly twice) that it belonged ith disabled childrens team not the at risk team

.And i had dealt with ss from pov of being a respite foster carer in another area( was respite for my parnst who fostered teens)so i had been through all sorts of checks .so knew how to cope and i do know there are some very good and some bad sw out there .Not going tar all sw with same brush but sadly some do give a badname and there the ones that people remember

But even though it was unfound and never got past the first meeting the fear never goes away and when ds had a massive fall at school big bump on head cut knees etc i made sure kept hold of the letter that showed happened in school incase had to take him to A&E.#

I am fotunate in that ds3 never knew or understood anything about it.And the other dc not involved ( was becuas ds3 had a undx condtion that does not present normally like it does with him .)

oh and i admit its made me wary for ever asking for help from there regarding ds disablitys .my problem was i was to honest and upfront happily admitted if im not happy ith nhs i seek private help even though it was private that first dx ds and when finally saw the equivlent on the nhs he confirmd it ( but had go through a lot of non specialists who through doubt on ds dx)

they was concerned that i was not sharing reports .Yet first time we met paed when moved i took her photocopy of reports private and nhs and handed them over.Luckily she confirmed this .

I worked in child protection at a reasonably senior level before I had my children. I am not a social worker but I was involved in quite a lot of detail and knew a lot of individual cases well. I did quite a lot of work on policy and review as well as looking at statistics to see what was happening in our LA.

I can honestly say in all the time I worked there I cannot think of ONE occasion where children were removed when they shouldn't have been. (equally most of those parents didn't think their children should have been removed). I could list hundreds more when if money and foster carers had been infinite we would have loved to remove them. I can also think of just as many where parents had made one mistake (such as hitting a child as a one off when that child was being exceptionally badly behaved) or leaving a child in a house alone for a bit long. We as a team/local authority didn't want to demonise or punish these parents. We wanted to check the children were ok. Maybe gently correct the parents in what is and isn't deemed ok parenting. Most parents listen and don't repeat their mistakes. Sometimes referrals were malicious, we KNOW this happens. What the team don't know is if each particular case is a malicious referral, something easily sorted by a parent who loves their child, or, sadly something much MUCH more horrible.

In order to protect the most vulnerable children in our society social workers do have to investigate these referrals. There is a scale of abuse and neglect and a lot of the time you have to get perilously close to the really depraved before parents actually know what they are doing is very wrong. A lot of parents need to be told it's not ok to parent in the manner they do.

It's not simple and there is no simple answer but 'social services' are doing their best. 99.999% of social worked genuinely want to help and protect children.

'A lot of parents need to be told it's not ok to parent in the manner they do.'

so I wrong in all I have done then? The only reason my dd hasn't been removed is that there aren't enough foster carers? Thanks a bunch.

Please tell me because thicko that I am I cannot really understand what I have done that is so wrong and deserved a telling off.

Alot of social workers need to be told to get their own house in order before they go out telling the world how to parent.

Are you insinuating that all the posters here would not have had intervention if there wasnt something wrong? That old "no smoke without fire" mentality?

The way I read it is exactly what she is saying. If someone can find a way to 100% make sure a woman cannot haemorrage during child birth tell me and we can patent it, we would make a fortune.

Well it doesnt count for much xstitch, but I dont believe you are abusing your children.

I believe your social worker is abusing her fucking position.

Kungfu Panda made an exceedingly good point about statement of procedure and transparency which should be implemented.

I'd be interested to know if the social workers have to disclose who made the report, if they know, because surely there must be a case for slander.

So are some posters suggesting that no child has ever been wrongly removed from its parents?

Because that is the bottom line for parents who are on the receiving end of unwarranted SS attention.

I agree with Once that Kungfu make a good point - I think a statement of proceedure & transparency would really help. I think it would 'even up the balance of power' between SW's and Parents if parents had certain things in writing. It would even help children in some cases (maybe like Cory's?) if you could show the children 'Look - the book says xyz - just like Mummy told you'.

In fact - it would be very interesting to see how many people think it's a good idea (and if not, why not?) and what we could possibly do about it?!

Birds - I'm glad you are still sticking with this thread. Although I think you are still not quite seeing it from a parents point of view you are doing quite a lot to reduce the 'scare' factor and it's good to get a SW's POV.

Fyrtle - you said I cannot think of ONE occasion where children were removed when they shouldn't have been. (equally most of those parents didn't think their children should have been removed) So in your opinion the children should have been removed and in the parents opinion they shouldn't have been removed - what comfort does that give to the parents on here who have been treat badly by SW's??

I could list hundreds more when if money and foster carers had been infinite we would have loved to remove them Right - so, this is helping HOW? Are you trying to scare more people into thinking that if only more foster care was available SW's would be removing kids left, right and centre?

A lot of parents need to be told it's not ok to parent in the manner they do A lot of SW's (including some that post on MN) need to be told they aren't all that in the parenting stakes either! and frankly, some of the stuff parents have been told makes them 'bad parents' is just utter rubbish. Since when is co-sleeping with a toddler such bad parenting that the parents require being told to stop it (as in an earlier post).... and plenty of other things much the same.

99.999% of social worked genuinely want to help and protect children Rubbish. There are a significant number of them who are in it for the power trip or other reasons - if it was that percentage we wouldn't have the problems we do have.

"99.999% of social worked genuinely want to help and protect children Rubbish. There are a significant number of them who are in it for the power trip or other reasons - if it was that percentage we wouldn't have the problems we do have."

Agree totally with Chippingin. How many social workers do we have in the country? For that comment to be true there would have to be at least 99,999 good social workers and 1 bad one. Anyone really think that is true?

I think its is more like 80-90% are decent.

fyrtle I have been thinking about what you said. A lack of foster parents would not have stopped them taking dd away from me because they would have handed her over to XH's family. So it must be some other reason. It could perhaps be that even after extensive efforts and hounding of me there was no evidence found to prove I am an unfit mum. The most likely reason for that evidence not to be found after years of scrutiny is that the evidence just doesn't exist. Perhaps I am not as bad a mum as you have decided I am.

All you have done by saying that is give weight to the argument that the 'no smoke without fire' brigade add to the torment of those falsely accused.