to think that SS do not remove children without very very good reason?

[kickmewhenimdown]

Had a friend round and she mentioned that she had met someone (a distant relative of mine, i dont really speak to them) who had recently moved back locally and that person had more or less said that SS had unjustly removed her children, including a baby right after birth. Without giving too much information, it was not for sexual abuse but for neglect and according to dr because she is morbidly obese. Friend was then sympathetic with distant relative and how SS were overstepping mark. AIBU not agree with this, and not be particularly sympathetic for dr?

without knowing all the ins and outs and having access to professional records, i would take it all with a huge pinch of salt

Sadly, neglect can and does cause lifelong harm, so it is a serious issue.
As there is a considerable shortage of fostering places in most areas, there would have to be serious issues that did not improve after intervention/support etc.

I hate how it's all blamed on SS!
Removing a child is a legal process including police, courts, judges and people representing child and parents!

YABU. I'm a lawyer and have worked on cases where after a long battle the courts decided that SS had unjustifiably removed a child from its parents. That is not always the case but you are being unreasonable to assume there must be a problem. SS does get it wrong sometimes.

SS are twats.
I wouldn't trust them at all, and in fact, don't.

IME, the current 'thing' is to keep the children with the parents if at all possible.

Children can be removed from parents at birth, but not on a whim.

There will either have been parallel planning during the pregnancy - i.e. an action plan which would have enabled the parents to keep the baby and a plan B in case they failed to follow it.

A single plan of removal at birth, on the basis of prior knowledge of the family.

A change in circumstances which meant that the parents are not able to look after the baby.

Or thereabouts.

Whatever happens, SWs are not able to swoop in and remove children. They have to compile evidence, write reports and present these at court. Courts make the decisions to remove children, not SS.

I wouldn't necessarily believe her, but I would still feel sympathy (to an extent). Few people don't care that their children have been removed, they just don't understand why they need to do what they need to do to keep them and are unable to parent appropriately.

If she did have her baby removed because she is morbidly obese, it will be because she, in her unique position, posed a risk to the baby.

I think SS try very hard to support children with their parents.

But they are human. They will of course make mistakes. I am sure at times SS leave children with parents, or remove children, when this was not in fact the best thing. But we have to remember they do their best, and I firmly believe that without SS, many more children would suffer. IMO, we've got to think of it in those terms - how many children SS save.

Although she is morbidly obese she is not as big as not to get around or about, and purely on what I know, i dont think this would be a prime reason. I dont know if the way she was raised is relevant but i remember being taken to her mothers house when i was a child (dr is similar ages with myself) and even as a child being at how her and her brothers were being raised, and I 100% believe that nowadays this would be considered serious neglect, but back then was brushed under the carpet so to speak. However, speaking as a survivor of child abuse myself, i am a bit reluctant to accept that her shitty upbringing is a valid reason for her alleged neglect as a mother. IDK, perhaps I am being a bit harsh.

Of course SS can make mistakes. But I also have personal experience of people who have told others their kids have been removed for ridiculous reasons - it was never the truth.

People don't want to admit what has really happened. When someone's kids are taken into care you have to explain where the kids have gone and why in some way to people you know. So coming up with a spurious reason is a natural face saving thing to do imo.

There are of course also those who just won't admit even to themselves that they were doing anything harmful to their kids. Just like some abusers will justify and underplay domestic violence, some will do that about abuse or neglect of their kids - I only smacked them, for example, when they seriously assaulted their kids.

kickme - I think some peopel can have shitty childhoods, realise they were shitty and change teh way they bring up their kids. Others don't even realise or want to admit there was anything wrong - it never did me any harm - or realise but can't seem to change what they do.

So a shitty childhood is not an excuse, but it is a contributing explanation.

Social services are not baby snatchers, they act in the best interest of the child and work with families to keep children safe.

I don't think without good reason they would get an emergency court order to remove a child from the parents.

Could we stop with this I-knew-someone-who-knew-someone business? It's incredibly juvenile. Let's listen to those like Netto who are being hauled painfully through the system and to those like lisa who actually work for it.

I've known of kids living in shocking conditions, known to SS, but still in the home. A social worker cannot just go in and remove a child from the family home with no good reason. IME something serious has to happen before they can even begin proceedings to do so.

It also won't be solely because of the parent's own upbringing.

mchappy this is what i generally tend to think about SS.

breatmilk - There are other posters here including myself who have direct experience of SS - have worked closely with them.

Well she's not likely to admit to neglecting her children is she.
Sadly poor upbringing is often the reason for neglectful parents. You would not believe the amount of families who's sisters and brothers and cousins all have ss involvement

Social workers are human. Sometimes they make mistakes.

Mostly, they struggle with poor budgets, little support and no programs to help families in distress which, sometimes, means protecting the rights of children over their parents. In my experience, social workers would remove more children from damaging homes if they had the power and the foster placements.

SS would not remove a child just because the mother was morbidly obese (though obviously it could be leading to a situation where the child was placed at risk, and then removal may be the best thing for the child). Its hard for SW, they are in many ways dammed if they do and dammed if they dont, criticised when they remove a child, and also criticised if a child known to them is harmed by the parents. Foster placements can be difficult to find too.
Its the kind of thing that newspapers love to print, but without giving the real reasons for the removel, which has to be done through the court, not just on the basis of one SW opinion.

Oh, I'm not being hauled through the system any more, because I lied to them.
I said everything was fine, when really, nothing has changed, well maybe, but perhaps because I've learned to cope better with it?

Either way, asking for help, admitting and accepting there was a problem, resulted in me being taken to court to prove I am a bad mother.
The case was dropped, because it was a pile of bollocks, but it hardly helped, or supported us.

And they told lie, after lie, after lie, and yes, I could have proved that, had they not dropped the court case.

And by that I mean removals which would be better for the children long-term. Rather than removing kids unnecessarily which is what my post sounds like having reread it. Sorry.

nobody can say that SS gets it right 100% of the time but equally i would imagine there are complex issues involved

OP given that you are not close to this person and don't know the facts(only what you hear) i would say that your best stance is not to give an opinion at all when people talk about it.

People like to gossip and before you know it your opinions will be spread around twisted and changed and you will be deemed to have "insider info" as you are a relative
politely say to your friend that you don't know so can't comment

In my (limited) dealings with SS, I find them useless, and once their uselessness and lies were pointed out to them, in black and white, too busy trying to cover their own arses to protect children.

I have no doubt that the above is due to poor funding, over work and not enough support, but that doesnt help us does it.

Pah, poor funding and overwork is no excuse for denying DD and I a phone call on her birthday, nor for lying, repeatedly, using my disability against me, using my asking for help against me, and so on.

As an ASD single parent (undiagnosed at the time) of an ASD child (also undiagnosed at the time) with no family support, I found SS a godsend. I contacted them myself as a last resort and the social worker was the only professional I met in my daughter's first 15 years who didn't dismiss my concerns and label me a rubbish parent. She recognised that I needed some support and I got it as best as she was able at the time.

Like any job there are good and bad.

Clearly they do not get it wrong all the time but they don't get it right all the time either.