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.

ss have agreat knack of twisting things and lying sorry i have no time for them.

I think it's awful tbh. Not only does it give social workers a bad name it means those that most need help are now going to be less likely to seek it. The Bbc shoud be ashamed of itself and it's unrealistic portrayal of social services. It's really annoyed me!

*Horrible storyline and wildly inaccurate

Social care are so stretched they wouldn't want to pay out on an expensive foster care arrangement when grandad could care for the baby

And

She hasn't even been charged or found guilty so grounds for removing the baby at all

The writers should be ashamed*

Err, she doesn't have to be charged with anything. Family court burden of proof is lower than criminal court, kids can be taken like that, yes. Kids get taken seconds after they have been born.

FWIW i hate them but even i think that SW was OTT. She reminded me of the first one i had so much i felt sick. The writers should be proud they are showing the darker side of SS. The ones who have only read it in a book or studied it at college and think they can then apply it to a real family..

I think it's awful tbh. Not only does it give social workers a bad name it means those that most need help are now going to be less likely to seek it.

Sorry but last time i checked, services were so stretched they werent available till after the child was either in care or on the CPR.
I remember being told this and begging in tears for DD to be put on the register so she could access services but they refused. No point seeking help that isn't there.

They can't take a child without a court order.

No, they get their buddies the police to do the deed instead and rarely if ever, get refused. The police don't need a court order.

They are also legally obliged to exhaust all possibilities of the child being cared for by a relative, before placing with foster Carers.

Pfft. Yeah but they don't bother and how is a parent supposed to do anything about it, being as the parent is nothing in these cases, 'the child is everything and only thing that matters' well helping the parent would help the child.

May i also bring your attention to this Link

:: In children's social care, the focus was on younger children at risk of abuse from family and household members, rather than on vulnerable adolescents; yeeeeessssssss because teenagers won't help to fill that adoption quota will they. Of course its babies they're interested in.

Shot themselves in the foot though in my case, investigated during pregnancy with DS2, despite hearing nothing from SS for years unless it was to do with DD, they weren't even interested in DS1 unless i played my face on the 'child in need in the area' card, trying to get him some help to accept that they had removed his sister and not allowed him contact for years (he was 5 when she was removed)
They had gone all out to prove i was a rotten mother come what may and eventually settled on the fact that as i and DD had both been sexually abused, i would be at risk of causing her emotional harm, so it was agreed between them all that i was capable of parenting DS1 effectively, but not abused DD. Thats because they read books on abuse and thought they understood more than i did being an actual victim, i suppose.

So when they were hovering waiting like stinky vultures to take DS2, at the slightest inkling of wrongdoing on my part, i reminded them of this. Surprising how quickly they left me alone after that really.. I don't think they fancied fighting against someone who had the balls to fight back again. I cost them the price of a reasonable sized house (well the taxpayer) don't think they could have justified doing that again. Not that they have to justify expenditure anyway.

One wonders how SW's would behave differently if the family courts weren't secret... If they could be held accountable, if the complaints procedure wasn't a completely internal affair, with no real prospect of going further than a panel comprised of people closely linked to the SS themselves?
Its like me robbing a bank, arresting and questioning myself, and deciding that i'm not guilty, then releasing myself.

THATS why SS are not trusted, not because of T-FRIGGIN-V .. not trusting SS is hardly a new phenomenon

Yanbu for thinking that but with experiences that I and also people I know have had, I can safely say that some of them (well, a lot of them) really, really are just like the one on eastenders. I thought it was an accurate portrayal of some social workers

THOUGHT EXACTLY THE SAME!!!

fuckers, really upset me last night

its not real, repeat x 1000000

I was a bit when the SW was so judgy about the little pile of washing up. I hope they never come to my house. [shock

and kisses to thingsthatmake you go, i have read your other thread

It is an accurate portrayal of 'some'

I have also come across some that would roll up their sleeves and help

But its a lottery what you get

They should have a mass consultation with parents asking what would make parents comfortable with dealing with them

I would ask for them not to act like they have the power to take your kids even though they do

To stop lying

To know when to apologise that they've made a mistake

That the initial SW who makes accusations against a parent is NOT the one who undertakes the following assessment because they just go all out to prove themselves right and won't back down till they do

We're not after SW's who agree with us or get on with us 100% of the time, my best SW ever used to argue with me, disagree, we used to swear at each other, but she didn't just take, she gave as well, admitted openly when she was wrong or thought that other people were wrong, openly said she was happy that she met me first and i quote 'to flying fuck with the paperwork i know most of it is made up SHIT i am a social worker of 30 years i know what goes on'

I loved that woman :)

((hugs)) thank you for the kisses my lovely x

I hope and have contacted the beeb to make sure they don't back down

Why oh why are we willing to accept that SW's in rochdale and in other care homes islington and all that, turned a blind eye or even their back but won't accept the portrayal of one on Eastenders?

Oh and if one came into MY house saying stuff about the washing up, or that baby could do with a fresh nappy, she or he would be wearing a washcloth handed a washcloth or a nappy and told to get on with it.

Make your mind up, social workers. Is a too clean house a bad thing, you like to see toys strewn about, don't you? When i was a new mum, i had piles of washing and ironing taller than me!!
Or is it that a messy home doesn't float your boat?

And WHY should parents have to give a toss what you think of their home, unless its strewn with dog poo, with washing up covered with mould, no food in the cupboards, which is obviously abusive and disgusting.. why should they be part of the lottery they get where you might be a clean freak, or you might be one of those 'a grubby child is a happy child'

Bit hit and miss isn't it? How is that fair?

I've never watched East Enders before, but as Social Services have been giving us a hard time, after reading this thread I watched this episode.

I found the East Enders episode reasonably convincing, though with TV drama they often have to condense things ridiculously for the drama to work.

I think that the storyline is highlighting a real problem in this country with Child Protection that the Social Workers will intervene far too frequently in cases that are not dangerous and also still sometimes fail in the dangerous cases.

It is not very scientific and they seem to accept reports of trivial stuff (like a pile of washing up) being "part of an overall picture" of neglect. They are looking for risk so they find it.

They seem to be trained not to trust parents.

My experience is that the Child Protection Social Workers put together a biased innacurate risk-averse report based on information that the parents have had not chance to see or correct - and from then on it is hard to get the record put straight.
It must lead to hundreds of heart-rending cases not so unlike the one portrayed in East-Enders.

I think the latest challenge coming from Slovakia (surprisingly) is a good thing
www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk/2012/09/17/slovakian-government-may-take-uk-to-european-court-over-its-illegal-child-snatching/

UK law badly needs changing to say there must either be "actual harm" having occurred, or the there must be a "significant risk of harm" (which needs to be defined much better than as a Social Worker's "judgement" or a pile of washing up and some nappy rash or an anonymous report from a member of the public -who may have a grudge).
See www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2128987/Children-stolen-state.html which I think is spot on.

J

so distressing to watch. I was in tears watching it whilst feeding my 3 week year old. No idea if accurate as no experience of social services. However, if not doing washing up was a crime heaven only knows what midwife and HV wolud make of my untidy house with carpets in need of hoovering.

Oxford try not to worry, they aren't all bad, this coming from someone who has been through the mill with them..
They came to visit after my DP beat me up (DS was 4 months old) after i confronted him for cheating.

They ignored the washing up, ironing pile ect. Its part and parcel of having a new baby.
They paid for me to go to hospital in a taxi when it was thought that i had cerebral fluid leakage, and were very kind to me given what had happened.
Problem was when i went to the CPR (child protection review) and whilst the SW was ok, there was a police officer there who was the very same one that had threatened me with violence and harassment by the police five years before, and had been present at the taking of DD.

I felt that was extremely unfair. Apparently until she saw me, she was sympathetic. During the meeting she said i was minimising the assault. When i pointed out that i had been to hospital, cooperated with the police and SS, DP had been removed from my home and i was pressing charges, until the police had said that the CPS wouldn't take it to court, she was forced to shut the hell up.

The abuses of power that go on are ridiculous.

Basically they invited DP to the meetings despite the fact i didn't want to be in the same room as him, then told him he couldn't have contact at all with DS until they had arranged anger management for him. I never saw them again...

There are many failings, and abuses. There is no consistency, plenty of lies taken as gospel simply because they are spoken by a 'professional (i stated to the judge that something was a lie and had proof of it, she simply said 'are you saying that a SW would lie? I don't think so' and ignored the evidence i had which was written by another SW.

Some of them are excellent, i had two that were. Unfortunately they helped me and so got moved to other jobs, one nearly lost her job for uncovering what had really happened and put her neck on the line.

Family courts should not be secret, they should be open, with certain things being censored, but IMO if the SS have the courage of their convictions, they would not need to be behind a veil of secrecy and maybe it being open would make them more likely to be trusted.

As things stand, they don't even need to produce hard evidence.. they can simply say in their opinion the child is at risk of emotional abuse.

Its the one threshold reason for taking a child, the use of which has soared over the past few years. How vague can they be? And to prove it they get 'expert' witnesses, usually clinical or forensic psychologists who have, in their CV, a past history of working closely with SW's. Given that the SS funds the witness, and gets to ask all the questions it wishes to know of the parent, its hardly surprising they always get the answers they were hoping for.

What people (i didn't) don't know is that they can refuse .. refuse to submit to the psych test that could result in the loss of their children, because its a human right not to be forced to undergo medical treatment if you don't want it.

That is their right, yet the SS use your children to strongarm you into it.

Anyway i notice the thread has tumbleweed in the social worker corner now, wonder why that is?

Feel free to read my story HERE

And tell me please, what parent, after having a child taken from them, WOULDN'T miserably fail a psychological test of any kind?

Oh here's another little diamond used, apparently i was 'intimidating' because i was TALL, and they felt threatened by me.. i'd never so much as raised my voice to them.. then i was banned from the case conferences, and lac reviews, because i had allowed DD to watch something they deemed 'inappropriate' but i passed a sheet of paper given to me by one of them and said 'do you recognise this?' Yes, she replied, i gave it to you. 'Well can you tell me what it says'

And she read it out, and it said 'You should watch the news with your children, things will come up such as child abuse, rape, murder. You should discuss what you have seen with your child'

Well they didn't bloody like it and for the following 6 years i wasn't invited to LAC reviews, given school photos, effectively written out of my daughters' life, no school reports, i didn't even know what my DD's favourite colour was FFS. I wasn't invited to give views via the SW, because most of the time DD didn't HAVE one and if she did they didn't bother contacting me.
This is despite the fact when they are in care under a full or interim order, you share parental responsibility. I wasn't allowed to have a say in what school DD went to, when she was moved from one school to another, and back again.

And contact! Contact is a JOKE. Sitting in a dentists waiting room with your kids? Think its torture? Imagine doing it every week twice a week, not having anything to talk about because the SS have removed all trace of you from the childs life and vice versa. You're not allowed outside in case you do a runner with the child. The places you go have toys. What good is that if your child is a pre teen or teen?
Imagine being watched, every word recorded. Words ADDED. You can't see the reports, oh, no, they're confidential! Every action.. Oh yes, don't forget when your child asks you, when they can come home, you have to be robotic and answer in the right way. You can't say soon, because it gives false hope. You can't say i love you/miss you/ want you home, or cry, show any real emotion, because it all goes against you and if you do any of them you're likely to have contact STOPPED.

THEY hold the power, THEY call the shots, and you can do nothing about it. You are voiceless. and even if you can prove that they've done wrong by you and your family, you CAN NOT sue them.

Wish i could say i feel better for typing this but i don't. I wish things were different.

SAD, BUT TRUE

Unfortunately, there are individuals within Social Services that have been known to abuse their power of authority, much like that shown in Friday's episode of Eastenders

Although, it must be noted that not all SW are alike, and there are great, family oriented SW out there: However, there are countless reports of social engineering and children being removed for Forced Adoption.

Much of the Kafkaesque practices remain unreported and concealed by England's veil of secrecy within family courts.

It was only last week that there were reports of Slovakia bringing Britain to the ECHR under allegations of Forced Adoption of Slovakian children

A parent, whose child is wrongfully removed, is subjected to the most traumatic torture one can imagine.

They are extremely vulnerable and are further taken advantage of by money-grabbing Family Solicitors.

"Children" are a big-money business, yielding millions of profit for agencies and Law firms worldwide. It seems as-though the only people that don't profit from it are the Parents and Children themselves.

Adoption is a life sentence, and those vetted thru "baby farming", social engineering and Forced adoption are subjected to the most indescribable pain and torment - without reason. Unfortunately, few (if any) are ever brought to criminal prosecution for wrongful doings under the HRA, harassment, and misfeasance.

The whole remit needs a serious overhaul, but instead - adoption is being pushed to speed up the process...by a PM who left his child in a beer garden nonetheless

I don't recall reading about Social Services conducting a core-assessment on him & his wife!

Like i've said before, i could have brought a home for my children with the legal fees for my case and thats all public money, that the public isn't allowed to question. Times that by all the kids in care and you see how much it all costs.

That money could be better spent providing services for vulnerable children and their familes.

yes things, the SW who upset me was supposed to be investigating whether SD had been abused by her brother, she NEVER met me, she NEVER met DH, she spent 15 minutes with his exw, less than 5 minutes with my SD, and then she wrote pages and pages of a tirade about me.

She did not do what she was supposed to do, which was investigate SS.

She refused to let DH know when the investigation had been passed to her, overriding his parents rights.

She sent her inaccuarate report to numerous people, then she went onto long term absence so she was un-contactable, I assume this was stress related.

We were promised a new report, by her manager, correcting the first one, it has never come.

She issued a half hearted apology to me, no-one else who received the inaccurate report was contacted to let them know it was full of errors, and also some out and out lies. If I issued something as being authorised by my manager, without my managers knowledge, it would be a disciplinary offence.

No investigation has ever taken place into whether SS has indeed abused his sister.

And why do I think SW did this???

DHs ex wife works for a different branch of Childrens Social Services, within the same county, so I believe the SW had pre-conceived ideas before she ever wrote the report.

But the singular most concerning aspect is she was supposed to carry our a delicate investigation and it took her less than 5 minutes to conclude that a SD was indeed not a victim of abuse, despite the fact that numerous family members were well aware that SS had at the very least hit and punched his sister to the point that they were unable to be left alone together for a significant number of years.

In addition, she only went to the house where SD lived, despite the fact that for 7 years her contact with SS took place at a different location as he was estranged from his mother.

Friday's episode was so very upsetting, but you could see it coming couldn't you?
I fully agree with people on here, seems to be wildly inaccurate portrayal. I said to dp that I'd be very surprised by a sw banging on about nappy rash and a pile of washing.
And would a sw really be that judgemental of Billy having a few beers? Not like he was responsible for Lexie at that time.

The actress playing Lola is doing a grand job, she was fab last night and the night of Lexie's birth.
Hope she gets Lexie back. I kind of assumed that Lexie was being taken just whilst Lola was at the police station?

YADNBU I have been thinking the exact same thing. Iwork for childrens services and they are absolutely nothing like this.

Shockingly irresponsible of EE. They represented SS as childsnatchers, something to be feared and ridiculously critical. I hope that SS complain en masse.

Of course mothers are terrified of social workers! In response to calls from the government to increase the number of adoptions the "SS" armed with adoption scorecards are desparate to fulfill their targets.Since "baby P" the number of children taken into care for physical abuse has DROPPED as a proportion of the whole ,not increased as they would have you believe . No,although the number of children taken into care has more than doubled in the last three years,that is thanks to their win win formula, "Risk of emotional abuse!".The number of children taken for emotional abuse has increased by 70% in the same period because these are undamaged children ripe for adoption.Mothers cannot defend themselves against predictions by highly qualified and highly paid experts that they MIGHT emotionally abuse their children in the future so babies are snatched at birth to feed the ever more powerful adoption industry,headed by Barnardos and others similar .The National Fostering Agency (founded a few years ago by two social workers) was recently sold for £130million !! With big bucks like that in the mix and thousands of "do gooders "with snouts deep in the trough don't expect the industry to give up the goodies without a long hard struggle !

Before anyone doubts that emotional abuse is as damaging as any other type, head over to the 'Stately Homes' threads in 'relationships' or the MH boards.

Argue it out with the adult survivours of emotionally abusive parents.

The increase in adoptions is to save children from languishing in the foster care system.

The foster care system has many faults, especially as the young person reaches the teen years, it is often better to go down the adoption route than long term fostering.

I have both personaland work experience of this and am supporting a relative that i didn't know exsisted, who's mother wouldn't put her up for adoption, but still now at 16 doesn't want to be a part of her life.