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?

Did anyone see the series following Bristol children's services ? I remember in the 2nd episode the man being really angry and outraged that his child was removed from him, yet it was clear just from a 1 hour highly edited TV show that the house was totally unsuitable and they had made no efforts to improve their parenting despite endless help. He kept going on about SS stealing his child for no reason
Bear that in mind when reading the "SS stole my baby for no reason" stories. The social workers are unable to answer the accusations that the media throw at them.

This is a problem.
There are lots of factors taken into account. Having messy hair may be one of them.
But not on its own.
Its like when people think their children have ASD because they have been told by auntie alice that 'children with that autism line up their cars'.

No one is going to DX a child with ASD because they line up their cars in a row.
No one is going to have a child removed because their child doesnt comb their hair.

"The thing is they are often dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.... "

They aren't though. They're damned if they make huge mistakes such as ignoring a child who clearly needs to be taken into care, or if they take a child because they are too stupid to work cooperatively with parents who are ok but a bit troubled. It really isn't that hard to tell the difference! Most children who are killed in families are known to social services and have had hospital visits due to abuse, but aren't then taken into care. OTOH some children are taken into care when there is absolutely no history of abuse (and neglect IMO should ALWAYS be addressed with the family as a whole, not by removal- the family should be taken into care if you like). This is blatantly wrong and if any other profession made such mistakes it would be treated just the same.

You would be sadden to know how many of those children who die have had sw go to their legal team to be told there isn't enough evidence to remove the children. Sometimes it isn't as easy as saying SS failed

It can be a really between the two situations, and with retrospect (and the outcome known) situations can appear to be very clear, when at the time they were not.
I'm not saying that all SW are brilliant, because they arent, but I do think that the pay is too low for the level of stress and responsibility, for example a nurse will be better paid than a SW for doing equivalent jobs.

Without knowing everything from an unbiased viewpoint there really is no way to judge. There are some very rotten eggs in SS though, (just like any profession I guess) so anything is possible.

Hmm...at risk of identifying myself, I've had mixed experience with SS.

Firstly, before my life changed, I had DD1 (18 months) and was heavily pregnant with DD2. I met a nice lady in Hospital, who was expecting her 6th child. She was discussing 'having to get to Boots on Tuesday for my prescription.' I used to work as an RN, so it really didn't stretch the imagination to think she was on a methadone regime. She went on to tell me that all 5 of her growing children had been removed by SS, but because she was showing committment to her methadone programme, they were letting her keep this one .

Roll on 15 months. I am 11 weeks pregnant with DD3. DD2 is flagged for SN by Pre-school. 2 weeks later, she is taken to hospital after several unexplained falls - the rollercoaster begins -epilepsy diagnosis, MRI scan shows brain malformation...yada yada.

DD1 gets harder and harder to manage.

DD3 is born. I can't take the children out alone - DD1 (3.4) has no sense of danger whatsoever. She is a danger to herself and the other children at home. I ask SS for an assessment for her, and a carer's assessment for me. They tell me they 'do it at the same time'.

On assessment day, they come out. DD3 is 9 weeks old. DD1 is wild. At one point, she grabs handfuls of sand from the playpit (one SW was outside with her while the other talked to me), runs in and sprinkles it, laughing, over DD3's head while she sits in a baby bouncer. It inevitably gets in her eyes.

The report? "DD1 is a happy, active child who enjoys adult company. Mrs Lougle should use universal services." In fact, they (verbally) questioned DD1's DLA award and pre-school support, suggesting that in fact DD1 was just someone who liked to 'do her own thing'.

Roll on to September 2011 - DD1 starts special school. Someone at the LA realised that DD1 was not just 'headstrong'.

We try again, for assessment. A very nice SW comes out. Unfortunately, her knowledge of SN doesn't even stretch to a knowledge of what 'Piedro boots are' (they are supportive boots prescribed by NHS physios/orthoptists for children with instability or gait issues, etc.).

Fortunately, I guess, for me, DD1 was having a bad day. At one point, she stood on my lap and was hitting me repeatedly. Every time I blocked her, it made her giddy with excitement (I couldn't put her away from me, because she would then hit her sisters, which is why I was asking for support!). She suddenly screeched 'THIS IS FUNNNNNN!'.

I pleaded with the SW. Told her what happened last time. I said to her 'Please, I beg you, you've seen DD1's behaviour. DO NOT tell them she is a 'happy child who enjoys adult company. DO NOT do that to me, again.

I KNOW what your protocols are, I know that if I hit her, used drugs, carried knives or neglected her, I'd get help more easily. Well, fine. I hit her. Hard. Lots of times. Will you help me know?' I was that desperate.

The SW was so very kind. She smiled at me, and said 'I'm sorry. I can't write that down. I don't believe you. I've just watched your DD hit you for half-an-hour and you didn't even come close to losing patience with her.'

This time, we made it. We are in the Disabled Children's caseload. We get 4 hours per week support (2 evenings per week) and the other nights she either goes to kids club at school or we have our homestart volunteer. It keeps her calm enough that she doesn't hurt her sisters.

However, with the funding cuts, kids club can only offer her 1 session at kids club after Easter. So, I have to go back to our SW and beg for another 2 hours per week.

The SW isn't allowed to authorise it. In fact, his manager can't authorise it. He has to write a report stating the case for the two hours, and then his manager's manager can authorise it.

I can see where you are coming from BUT DD1 was still young at the time of the first visit & throwing sand over a baby not abnormal for their age but by the second visit it was more obvious that this was not normal behaviour for a school aged child. Cant really see where the blame attaches in this instance.

Really?? Honestly, RedHelenB? So if you were a Social Worker visiting a family with a child who has a known brain malformation, epilepsy, Global Developmental delay, requires 1:1 support at pre-school for her own safety, receives Higher Rate Care Disability Living Allowance, and that family says that she has no sense of danger, can't go out alone with the children due to her risk taking, etc., etc., etc., THEN you witness the child taking an entire handful of sand from the garden, deliberately running inside with it and lifting it high over a 9 week old baby's face and dropping it.....you'd conclude she was happy and attention seeking? Really??

I can tell you. That 9 week old baby is now almost 3. She will in fact be three next week. If she even tried to bring a handful of sand into the house to throw over a baby, she would be severely reprimanded. She is perfectly able to understand that this is not on.

In fact....I really don't think it is 'not abnormal' to throw sand over a baby's face in a deliberate act. Perhaps, if the baby is outside playing in the sand pit, then getting a bit giddy and high-handed with sand is understandable, as a thoughtless act. Not deliberate planning, which is what is involved in taking sand from one zone to another in order to throw it on a baby.

Birds - it's up to the judge to decide whether a journalist can be let into the court and what that journalist is allowed to report. This only changed very recently after a lot of campaigning by journalists including Camilla Cavendish of the Times.

This has to be better than the old situation where a parent could be told they couldn't even discuss their case with their MP - and threatened with prosecution for contempt of court if they dared to exercise their democratic rights. Secret 'justice' is no justice at all. Respect for anonymity and the removal of any identifying information is entirely possible.

SS themselves print pictures and identifiable information about children in publications for potential adopters. Which may well be entirely justifiable, but makes it rather a double standard to demand that court proceedings and decisions are kept entirely secret, avoiding any scrutiny from the media and the public.

Kids bring sand inside, kids do throw it at each other & as an isolated occurence I don't think it was a red flag in the way the happenings of the second visit were, no.

SS have to apply to court to remove a child. If the judge deemed it necessary then s/he must have had evidence to support that decision.

Well RedHelen, I'm shocked that you think it is 'normal' for an almost 3.6 year old to deliberately hold sand over a newborn's eyes and sprinkle it in.

I cried at this video. Imagine this happening to you!!!

It's true that it's the court that decides to remove children, autumn, but they rely on the evidence of SWs - the balance of power here is similar to doctors (experts) and patients (non-experts) i.e. the doctor holds all the cards. Also, courts have been relying on independent 'expert' witnesses who it turns out are often nothing of the kind - many of them unqualified in the area on which they are pronouncing/wholly unqualified/retired and not in touch with current practice/going outside their own area of expertise. I'll try to find the reports on this but a check showed a scary proportion of 'psychologists' giving evidence to family courts were in one of these brackets.

What's more, they often rely on the opinion of experts who have never met the child or family involved. Outrageous and an obvious flagrant breach of justice.

Look at Roy Meadows and Sally Clarke - that was a criminal case (and a doctor) but the judge didn't even have the wit to spot that the 'one cot death is a tragedy, two is questionable, three is murder' was an outrageous lie, from someone who was not a statistician. FGS, judges are supposed to be good at assessing evidence, this was clearly a failure of the judge to do his ruddy job.

Lougle - you've said yourself she had special needs so no, not abnormal on its own. I feel certain that the SW will have come across far more extreme behaviour. But I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Tinker that story is similar to mine :( Luckily for me I have now 3 DCs and no social services intervention at all, but it was Hell :(

I know from personal experience that SS do not always act in the best interests of the child.