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

Birds I think the suggestion was that there be some kind of penalty for accusations that were proven to be malicious, not all of them. It wasn't my suggestion though so don't ask me more about it, I'm just clarifying what I read from upthread!

Hatti you care about the children and you don't give a rats arse about the families. Gotcha. This approach can have a very negative effect on families which is not in the best interests of the child that everyone is supposedly so concerned about.

AuntiePickleBottom - my sincere sympathy. It's an utter nightmare experience. However, I would second Scottishmummy's advice. Don't dwell on the who and why (easier said than done) and don't let this hang over you. It could also be a case of 'time will tell'. Give it a few years. You'll be amazed what people let slip when the dust settles so to speak.

I speak from experience, not with sw, but with Trading Standards, back in 2003 or 4. It's a long story, but the gist of it was that someone reported us to Trading Standards. We had the visit, etc, we were vindicated but my husband told me the easiest way to find out who it was that had reported us, was to not talk to anyone about the visit. It was hard, so I did (at the time) talk to someone on a forum, although being careful to be anonymous.

Anyway, about 2 years after the 'incident', someone let slip in a conversation. My husband and I both looked at each other, and then asked the person (whom we barely knew) how the hell they knew the details (i.e the nature of the complaint) of the investigation into us. He turned bright red and then claimed that one of us (he could not remember who) had told him. Hand on our hearts, we had not told anyone. Not even our families.

Anyway, we now keep our distance from this particular individual.

I am not talking about anyone holding back.

I am talking about the fact there seems to be a total unawareness in many circles about the terrible effect that investigation by SS can have on people/families, even when (and possibly especially when) there is no cause for concern. If there was some understanding of that then maybe harm to the wider family could be mitigated.

There have been support threads on here for people who have been investigated, some people are still struggling with what happened years later. These are people who have been cleared by SS. I am not saying don't report people, I am saying that some awareness of what can happen in teh aftermath wouldn't go amiss.

The problem is that just because the investigation shows that the children are not 'in need' or 'significant harm' does not mean that there was no case to answer. With all of the cuts children 'in need' (section 17 Children Act 1998/2004) will not be looked at, only those that come under section 47. It would be a complete waste of resourses and time to have a penalty for malicious accusations. Also SS would have to break confidentiality to take it to court, which means the press could get a hold of the story. I work in CP.

Perhaps if we all worked to remove the stigma of SS involement then the affects would be minimised on the families who have initial assessments.

I nearly lost my job after a malicious call to ss it led me being investigated professionally as well.

"The problem is that just because the investigation shows that the children are not 'in need' or 'significant harm' does not mean that there was no case to answer"

So from the POV of all of the various professionals, doctors, the schools, and so on and so on, being "cleared" is not in fact being "cleared" at all, but will in fact hang over people for as long as their children are living at home.

People who are investigated understand this, they know that they cannot relax for years and years, this is very stressful for people. Extraordinarily stressful. Especially when combined with the "not giving a rats arse" effect.

There are lots of things that could be done to improve the situation but the money and will is not there.

The money is there and i'm sure the will too, nobody needs to go to court if the SW discover malicious calls and they aren't stupid they know which ones are the moment they meet parents/walk into houses then there should be recourse, fines whatever.

sdtitch - That I can relate. The experience left us shell-shocked. The officials (there were 2 of them) were really kind, friendly, gentle and polite. Yet, the experience still left me in tears. I can't bear to think how I would have reacted if the 2 officials had been nasty, aggressive and abrasive - as some of them can be.

I can honestly say that no-one that i trained with or work with would say that they 'do not give a rats arse' about the families. If they were heard to be saying that they would be 'whisle blown'. It is against the law aswell as 'bad practice'.

The family are not 'held in suspicion, all i am saying is that SS do not have the resources needed so even though there is a case to answer it is 'put on file', so the person who made the referral is not incorrect, it just isn't being taken further yet.

mamatomany-its graet that your LA is well resourced, mine ( and lots others)isn't, or well led. The serious case reviews make sad reading especially when they are just repeating each other.

SS do not want to split families up, they can be there as a helping hand.

"The family are not 'held in suspicion, all i am saying is that SS do not have the resources needed so even though there is a case to answer it is 'put on file', so the person who made the referral is not incorrect, it just isn't being taken further yet."

Yet?

You can see that is very scary for anyone who has been investigated, surely? To have that hanging over them for the next 10 / 15 / 20 years?

As for the "rats arse" thing - of course no-one would actually say that in RL! (At least I hope not). But it is made very clear sometimes that is the situation.

"they can be there as a helping hand"

And they can be there as quite the opposite.

I'm going to leave this thread soon! Before I get too worked up.

Suffice to say that there are plenty of people on MN who have had unpleasant experiences at the hands of SS, even though they have been given the "all clear", and find themselves unable to forget about it afterwards. It can cause real long term problems for people, and I feel that this is unnecessary, and largely unrecognised.

By yet i mean unfortunatly things have to get worse for it to go on SS radar. THe way some LA's are staffed etc neglect has to be ignored unless severe.

I thought that you were talking about people who had been investigated and given the "all clear" - "The problem is that just because the investigation shows that the children are not 'in need' or 'significant harm' does not mean that there was no case to answer"

Now you are talking about people who have not been investigated?

I thought that all concerns brought to SS had to be investigated?

Not read whole thread, but to the person who said it would be a waste of resources to prosecute malicious callers, surely it is a waste of time and resources to have to investigate innocent people. That time and money could be spent concentrating on children who really need SS.

I think that making a malicious call to SS is an utterly evil thing to do and there should be severe penalties in order to deter other people from doing the same.

'The family are not 'held in suspicion, all i am saying is that SS do not have the resources needed so even though there is a case to answer it is 'put on file', so the person who made the referral is not incorrect, it just isn't being taken further yet.'

So even though my dd's height and weigh are in proportion and within normal ranges and she is showing no deficiencies on her blood tests the SS still believe I don't feed her properly but I am not so bad I am worth taking to court?

Even though when she fell landing on her head there were 3 adult, professional witnesses to her fall plus CCTV. In addition there were 6 witnesses plus CCTV proving I was 30 miles away at the time SS still think her fall was my fault? .

Even though every time they checked her she was clean they still think I never clean her but can't be bothered to take her to court? NO wonder I had a panic attack this afternoon when she got her ice cream over her face.

Even though think I have proved that I don't leave her alone they still think I do?

SO really I should never let her play outside in case she gets a speck of dust on her? Should I keep a complete nutritional analysis of every meal I cook and video her (with a time stamp eating it), Should I meticulously record my every minute movement to prove where I am at any given second, should I set up CCTY in my house to prove that I don't go out and leave her. Should I present myself at the police station more than once a day to be breathalised to prove I don't drink (I have never drunk but why let the truth get in the way) how often should I submit urine and blood tests for toxicology? How often should I get dd monitored for nutrition?

Quite frankly birdsgottafly's post had now made me 1000x more terrified going about my daily life. Living like above is not living at all and how is that better for my dd? All because someone was vindictive, it is terrifying that you can never be thought of as innocent again even though the claims were never upheld in the slightest.

Sardine, if we ignore our suspicions, if we ignore what we are witnessing, then are we not complicit with the abuse of a child?

If you witnessed someone being stabbed, would you not report it for fear of upsetting the perp? If you saw a woman on the street being abused, would you walk on by and ignore it on the basis that you might upset the family "life" that she had?

Why should a child victim have any less importance than an adult?

I am talking after the initial investigation, there are cases that the SW would like to act on but the SS do not have the resources. The case is there to answer but the SW has to manage their budgets so some cases are 'put on file' because they have to enough children 'at significant harm' (section 47) that they have to ignore thost that are on the 'cusp' (those that come under section 17) with surestart centres closing, and other resources that families who needed 'keeping an eye on' could be sent to means that Sw have 'to turn a blind eye' and just put the case on file.

Birdsgottafly So what you are saying is I am guilty just not guilty enough to warrant court time and expense. What exactly am I guilty of exactly? Please tell me because I must be thick because I cannot see it.

xstich-But what is it you fear? SS do not remove children or 'charge parents' unless severe abuse is taking place, they work with the family, offer services to struggling families, speed up benefit claims etc.

Hatti where have I said that suspicions should be ignored? I haven't.

No-one is saying that you are guilty, i was just saying that you could not bring a penalty against those that make SS referrals, even if SS do not find the family at fault. Baby P's dad made referrals until he was accussed of harrasment, to give an example. SS need neighbours to be vigilent, in every case of child death other people knew about the abuse but thought someone else had made a complaint.

Birds are you talking about people who have had a "case closed" report here, or not?