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

Maybe it's a jealous ex-boyfriend or ex-friend.

Some of the people I have known in my life I wouldn't put it past them to make a complaint based on nothing at all. There are some malicious, vindictive people out there :(

How would you distinguish between malicious reporting and mistaken concerns? Sometimes it would be obvious, but a lot of the time, it wouldn't.

If people were prosecuted for false reports, many people with genuine concerns wouldn't report until they were "really sure", which could mean them watching and waiting until the parents did something really serious to the child. Thus, children might endure abuse for longer, despite other people having suspicions.

People don't get prosecuted for wasting police time routinely which they ought to, as for the waiting and more abuse happening argument I don't think that's true, maybe just more common sense would be applied like making the HV your first point of contact or even childline, they are pretty good at getting to the bottom of things I would imagine.

Well I was told what the accusation was - which outed the person as they were the only one present when the made up version of events happened.

Basically my DS sctratched himself on something sharp I'd taken away from him, as he tried to grab it back. He was 3yo. Accusation was I'd scratched him deliberatly because he snatched. Then others given for good measure. Like I'd grabbed him when he ran off on the tube - er yes he was about to get on the escalator alone at 2.7 yo.

SS actually opologised to me saying they have to investigate even if you are a victim of malicious intent.

I was told I would get a copy of the report - 3.4 yrs ago and I'm still waiting.

If its found to be malicious, do they then destroy information regarding contact? A bit like the poilce destroy DNA and fingerprints of innocent people?

Well, it's hard to say what might potentially happen. It's a risk this country has chosen not to take.

I would personally be concerned about the risk people would incur for reporting abuse by sociopaths (if that is the correct term). There have been a couple in my family. Manipulative bastards, more colloquially. When close friends and/or family came to suspect something and reported it, the sociopath/manipulative cunning bastards ran rings around Social Services.

If we had a false reports=conviction policy, that's probably what would have happened then. As if the family situation wasn't bad enough.

No they don't destroy the information it sits on a "file"

Surrey I doubt it.

Even though its malicious, you are still stigmatised, then....

And people wonder why I mistrust 'professionals'.....

Was that last post a response to me?

no not stimatised I hope because the report will state there was nothing to back up the accusations.

I expect the only time it ever surfaces is if theres another accuasation - but where there is something to be found then they will get more info from neighbours/ HV/ schools/ nuseries than a report from a quick visit sometime in the distant past IMO.

I think that the fact you have been investigated would count against you if you were reported again for any reason, in fact I'm sure of it.

So if you had say 2 different accusations - one malicious and one because your child ended up in A&E after a fall, I think they would investigate the second more thoroughly than if there was not the first accusation as well. I also think that they might be more inclined to "do something just in case" - which might mean having them in your lives and having to change things for them, even if you are doing nothing wrong in the first place.

sardine your right When DS needed his head glued for a cut - sustained in a very public park, I got very worried about the questions asked (which are statutory I have since learnt).

Despite me being 20 meters from him when it happened I somehow felt they were trying to 'assign blame' to me and that somewhere somehow the hospital computer system would flash up I'd had a 'visit' 2 years previously.

People really need to consider the consequences when making a maicious report. You may not agree with the way someones raising their child - but consider if the child actually is at risk.

IME absolutely nothing happens to the malicious accuser. I admit difficult because although some reports turn out to be wrong they may be well meaning misunderstanding IYKWIM. The malicious vindictive ones hide behind this.

You are stigmatised you get 'oh you have a file on you' comments made by HCP. The file led me to be investigated when dd fell at school* during pla time in front of school staff and absolutely no parents in sight. So it was physically impossible for me to be responsible for the fall IYSWIM. Aso when the accuser delights in telling the whole town you have to cope with all the no smoke without fire comments especially when one of your accusers works with SS it makes it harder to defend yourself. Its not nice living in fear of when someone is next going to be malicious. I strongly believe you need to know what you are being accused of. eg in the example above when dd fell I could easily defend myself with the school staff witnesses, the school CCTV the hospital records showing the school had brought her in for me to meet them there coming from work. If I did not know that is what they were investigating how could I have defended myself.

'People really need to consider the consequences when making a maicious report. You may not agree with the way someones raising their child - but consider if the child actually is at risk.'

Sadly when people make a malicious report (as opposed to a well meaning one) they have considered the consequences and these horrible consequences are actually what they want. At least my accusers have. I know who mine are because they have openly boasted about it btw.

Wow, what SurreyDad says about professionals has struck a bit of a chord with me, I'm afraid. A good 10 years ago I accompanied my mum to A&E with my brother, aged 8 or 9 at the time, who'd bounced off the bed and banged his head on the wall. He was a bit concussed, so obviously after several hours spent waiting in a corridor he was checked out. We were taken into a side room, where there was one seat by the bed. The young female doctor decided she'd fetch another from a room close-by, but I declined, saying it was no problem for me to stand, simply wanting to save her the hassle. Her response? 'I'd rather you sat, I find you intimidating.' Really?!! I was in my early 20s at the time, dressed a bit scruffily as we'd been slobbing about at home, but intimidating? The implicaton was clearly that she thought I'd been involved in my brother's accident somehow.

And we're wondering why many people feel stigmatised by misappropriated child protection scrutiny.

PS SurreyDad, you're kidding about the police deleting innocent suspect from the DNA database, right?

Actually x-stitch I fear thats what my ex friend wanted.

She actually rang another mutual friend and told her the --bolloxs- version of events, and the other friend kept texting me asking how my day was going. Basically trying to find out if I'd had a visit or not.

She emailed me saying its for my own good and for my DS', and that I needed help. I think that as a LP (so is she) who had just got a better job and got accepted on a Uni course she was jealous and wanted to 'show' people I couldn't cope actually.

BTW I had done nothing and luckily the SW knew this.

OP, so sorry to hear you're going through this.

Trying to be vaguely helpful, I have two anecdotes for you:

1. A friend of mine was maliciously reported to SS by a 'friend' she had an argument with (fortunately, it was clear to everybody who had made the allegation). SS couldn't have been nicer, and reassured her that nothing dodgy would stay on her record. The 'friend' who reported her is now being investigated herself, for other reasons.

2. When I was younger, my mum was investigated by SS because my little sister continually had small bruises all up her legs (to be fair, it looked like sombody had been beating her with a stick). It was probably the school that alerted them - they knew my mum was lovely, but we were seen as an 'at risk' family in terms of broken home, absent father threatening to kidnap us, and new step-dad on the scene. As soon as SS saw the home-made high-jump in the back garden, the laughed and said "Ah, that explains the bruises". Then they disappeared, never to be seen again.

Hope this all sorts itself out soon.

didnt they speak to your children alone? i find that really strange!

Not if they are very young - if she had to take them out of the pool to answer the door then they may be littlies in which case not strange at all.

Also depends on the nature of the complaint, if it was that something was wrong with the OP or her DH they would want a look at them IYSWIM

if I can offer a view from the other side ... in my role, I have a duty of care to report suspicions to the relevant authorities. I have twice reported children who are exibiting overly sexualised behaviour inappropriate for their ages.

I thought long and hard about the first case, and about 23 seconds about the second....one was clearly a big red flag, the other was subtle and mixed up with parental denial of another condition.

I can assure you that it is heartbreaking to have to call in child protection, especially if you know the family.

The key thing is that it may not be "personal" - a person has concerns and has done what they thought best for a child who they may care about. Its not necessarily about you, its about your child.

Second, it is not my role to investigate the ifs and buts and whys and wherefores of these cases. That is for the Social Wokers, GPs, etc. They can ask questions that I cannot. They are objective, whereas I may not be as I know the families. I reported what I knew without judgement or comment.

I can assure you that getting the message that there were no concerns about one child was such a relief.

Sadly the second case is ongoing, with some horrible things still coming to light. I was entirely right to have reported it, as a young child and their family are now going to receive help and the child is protected from further harm.

So before you decide that the report was malicious, take a good look at what they have said the complaint was about, and honestly ask yourself if its a problem in your household- that way, if you think you might have issues whether with the kids behaviour or your reponse to it, you can ask for help and advice. SS are not only about taking kids into care - they are also there to help support families and provide guidance on dealing with increasingly difficult family situations.

hatti I recognise what you are saying that is why I said in my post there is a difference between well meaning concern and malice. In my case I know it was malice because they have boasted about it. I to have been in the position professionally where I have had to make a report. I do think however it is difficult for the OP to consider how the report may have been genuine concern or not if she doesn't even know even the general nature of the complaint. In fact the reason you stated is one of the reasons I have issues with her not being at least told vaguely what the complaint is. Without that information she can in no way consider if there is anything she may change to make things better or defend herself if there is nothing wrong.

Of course the notes stay on file, but these will state all the SW's findings and that they are happy to close the case. What if (and Im in no way suggesting that the OP is like this or anyone else on this thread) the SS were given reason to go look at a family and the parents said it was x y or z then the social workers decided that was the case then closed it. But later on it turned out that the child WAS being abused after another incident. How many times could a SW go to one family with prefectly resonable explanations only to leave without concern. If the case stays on some sort of file, they can compare to make sure there is no reason why they shouldnt be involved. Surely by not having anything on file could lead to a few children not having the care they need from society. SW's do have to take the cautious side of EVERYTHING just to make sure.

BTW like I said earlier I do want to make clear that I am NOT saying this is the case with anyone on this thread.