To think (hope) Eastenders portrayal of social services (Lexi & Lola story) is wrong?

[MoonlightShadows]

I am watching it at the moment and am finding the Lexi/Lola storyline quite disturbing, I can't imagine social services really carry on like this and think it's an unfair portrayal.

Have just read the article that Fairy linked to - and the BBC response to a complaint from a social worker.

In part, it says (as justification for Lola having Lexi taken):

In the last few weeks the social worker witnessed a series of unfortunate incidents, including Lexi wearing a tea-towel as a make-shift nappy, reports of Lola not taking Lexi to the mother & baby group, a messy and unclean flat and the discovery that Billy had lied to her about having a job.

wearing a tea towel as a makeshift nappy NOT a child protection issue

Reports of Lola not taking Lexi to the M&B group So? NOT a child protection issue

A messy & unclean flat Not really. There was some washing up in the sink - nowhere near enough of a mess to become a child protection issue

Billy lied about having a job Again - so? Billy would be entitled to benefits so could still support Lexi & Loa, so where's the emergency?

For fucks sake - EastEnders have made a right pigs ear of this. If I was a SS, I'd be absolutely furious.

If I was a SW, I mean.

I'm guessing a lot of the SW's i have dealt with over time will be looking at the programme and thinking 'ooh thats me'

I believe there was a tiny bit of sauce on the edge of the sink which billy quickly wiped up, maybe that was the 'crime'

I think people are missing the point here

Sometimes, what is written in those reports does not exactly lend itself to the actual situation

i've known them take photo's to prove things are as bad as they're saying

IMO they should do tape recorded interviews at all times and have photographic evidence or otherwise to back up their statements

However a lot of them will then, horror of all horrors, have to stop embellishing the truth

Shame, that

Equally i'm hoping that our last SW is looking at it and thinking 'I made a difference'

I would be horrified if that was the case, i don't like that they are all being tarred with the same brush but the fact remains that the SW on EE does exist..for real, in a SS near you, badly trained, power crazy, out of touch with the reality of life for most working class people these days

Sorry to be busting the bubble

And the beebs explaination must be as frustrating as a response from the SS comment, compliments and complaints people

Yeah - I think you're right, bump.

But, what I mean is, EE seem to be under the impression that wearing a t-towel as a nappy is a child protection issue & that justifies the SWs actions. And that is clearly bullshit.

In real life, you could indeed have a less than nice SW inflating something minor into an issue, but that's not what's being portrayed here. And that's just wrong.

(Horrified if that was the case that they are all like that) sorry

All my kids at one point or another have had to wear a teatowel.. DD especially, after i split with her dad i had to wait a long time while claim for benefits went through.

Ran out of nappies and didn't eat anything except toast for about three weeks, maybe four, so that DD could eat.

DS had to wear one when i forgot to take nappies out with me to my mums

DS2 had been lucky really but then he saved me a fortune in nappies being as he likes to be a naked baby

I don't believe for one minute its a CP issue, but added to a few other minor things, it points to a case of neglect or, more to the point (SS operate on the balance of probabilities, or possibility) not repeat not proof so the sequence of things she saw is cumulative as well as lola being rude to them on visits, and would be enough after the assault on another girl (recorded on a mobile) for them to move in and take the child.

I remember that I used to pinch nappies from the Tescos M&B changing room when I was really skint, bump. They had a dispenser so you could have a free one or 10. They don't do it anymore - probably my fault .

LOL! Yes I think thats why sainsbo's don't do them any more!

I was obviously a posher teef than you lol :)

Seriously that time was the only time i have ever considered stealing anything (food) .. i didn't though but it was desperate :(

If i weren't so petrified of SS i would have loved to be able to walk in there, explain the situation and ask for a small loan for DD to tide us over, i am aware that they do that too, as have gone with people to claim them, so i'm never ever going to say they're all the same...

It just shouldn't be pot luck whether you get one that is halfway up their own arse, or one that sees past a bit of washing up and piles of ironing and finds out how the family needs supporting.

With my Dsis, they sent someone round to help clean the house while she was recouperating from hysterectomy.. Now THATS the SS i like to see

I mean MrsD hasn't been here slating them but even she said above However I think the social worker is very realistic. Turning up late, no apologies, the patronising manner..

Why should anyone have to put up with that?

I have physically ejected a SW out of my house for speaking to me in that way.

If i called to a house an a child was wearing a tea towel as a nappy, then i would be able to allow a payment "to prevent a crisis", this is a facility that every SW/LA has, so if it isn't being used in every LA, then that needs questioning.

You are no longer allowed to judge the effects of poverty, as a SW, you are supposed to buffer the family against extreme hardship, unless it is caused by addiction, etc, of course.

That is how the Children Act is written.

The full term 'entered into the system', is 'payment given to prevent a family from entering a crisis.

This payment has ranged from £10, to £200 and can be to cover food/nappies for that day, or to fix a broken front/back door.

I think the the one good thing about the programme 'Protecting our children' showed that these payments were made and essentials were bought for the family, rather than them being judged for not buying their child a bed etc.

The children's act.. some parts of it are open to interpretation and twisting to suit though.

People are afraid that if they ask for help they will unnecessarily flag themselves up to a system that could take their children, even those that aren't coping and could desperately do with the help aren't asking because SW's are so hit and miss. You could get one that knows all the things that are mentioned on this thread and leave a family singing the praises of SS.. or you could get one who accuses you of all sorts and decides its in the best interests of the child to remove them from your care.

It should NOT be hit and miss in any way.
Even criminals in this country have the right to a defence and are innocent until proven guilty.
Parents entering the system are presumed guilty often on the word of a professional with no actual proof, just their word, their opinion. God help if you get a vindictive one, in that case.

When DD was returned to me from care they got her a bed as it was an emergency situation (she landed on us and refused to go back) but they took it out of some leaving care grant or something?

She was 17, i don't know if what they did was right.

Bump You have spoken so much sense throughout this whole thread. I agree with most, if not all, of what you have said

It sounds exactly like the one i asked for help with DD.

Sounds like we were both fobbed off.

MrsDV hopefully birdsgottafly may have an answer for you, because i don't, other than to utilise the complaints procedure.

Thank you Wibbly x

For the record i am the first parent to have ever attempted to get an EPO served against the SS and i would have been granted it had they not moved DD to a new placement where she was 'no longer at risk of harm'

Shocked to find out that under current law, even if it had been granted, they would have applied to have it transferred to them the same as if the police applied for one. Now i'm not wonderfully up on the law but this is how it was told to me.

Now before i went down the court route, i tried contacting the NSPCC, i explained everything, the toenails, leaving her in smelly clothes, the physical assults by other children, bruising, sexual and physical abuse, and i put them forward as 'her guardians'

The NSPCC were shocked and said it sounded like an awful situation and something definately had to be done.
I asked how the procedure would work.
They said they would refer to the local SS.
Ah says i, therein lies the problem, DD is with LA foster carers.

They put the phone down on me.
Feeling i may have been accidentally cut off, i called again.
The woman asked for my name, i gave it.
She hung up.

I wish someone could explain that to me.

This is a show that have writers from hollyoaks ffs. Anyone who thinks Eastenders potrays anything in real life accurately has issues . The College of Social has written a public letter highlighting this same issue

www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a429237/eastenders-bbc-defends-lola-plot-after-complaints-from-social-workers.html

My friend not only thinks this portrayal is accurate (her only experience with as is that her Mum has attended meetings with them as is a carer for adults with learning difficulties) but also that as have dine the right thing because the flat isn't always clean.

No I'm not saying as never do things like they did in ee, but I still believe (as someone who had had as intervention) that it is a misrepresentation.

I also raised the point that this storyline may potentially put people off asking for help, and my friends said that's bollocks because Lola didn't ask for help, and therefore the 2 situations can't be compared! I have to say, that filtering our discussions this week I am bloody glad she never trained as a sw like she'd always planned!

I have a great idea, instead of whining about the system why not do something about it.
Fostering
Adoption
Train as a Social Worker
Do some voluntary work to support young mums and share your knowledge and experience.
There number of children in care due to neglect is unacceptable, blame the parents not social workers for that.
The number of children NOT being adopted is unacceptable, because prospective adopters want cute babies , which are few are far between. Therefore young people are looked after in care by well meaning individuals until they leave. Most children are not adopted due to age, race, disability, emotional and mental issues.
The real travesty in this country are not the Social Workers who most try their level best to protect children from physical, emotional, sexual abuse and neglect. But that so many children are being mistreated in the first place. We treat animals better in this country than we do our kids and then have the cheek to blame the people trying to protect them. We blame Social Workers for tragedy's like Victoria Climbie and Baby P because it is easier than looking inwards at ourselves and wondering what we could have done.It is easier to do this than admitting that in our society there are some people in our society who deliberately abuse their children. Who manipulate others around them to hide the abuse.

Never mind what Social Workers are doing.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT, APART FROM WINGING ON MUMSNET

I am.. i'm planning on taking over the country and blowing up all SS offices with them in it, and overhauling the law, and, and..

Don't be silly, the SS are a law unto themselves love, ask on the fostering boards if they think SS are fab

And its whingeing

No one here has said that there aren't people out there who abuse children.
Simply that some of them are in positions such as SW

Golden

I am glad she didn't either

The number of children NOT being adopted is unacceptable, because prospective adopters want cute babies , which are few are far between. Therefore young people are looked after in care by well meaning individuals until they leave. Most children are not adopted due to age, race, disability, emotional and mental issues. That's most the kids in care then,

Most of these kids could have been saved from going into care in the first place with the right support and interventions.