I don't understand all the anxiety about SWs

[Loveweekends10]

I see so many threads on here where people are anxious about social workers. I really don't get it. I can honestly say that before I came on mumsnet I never gave them a second thought.
Is this anxiety whipped up by the media? Is it low confidence in some parents that they don't think they are dong a good enough job with their kids?
I'm also shocked about the amount of people that say they fell out with someone and that person then rang social services to get at them.

Rowan "and then social services got involved..."

so social services got involved because she was ignoring a court order?

Then she pretty much deserves what she got - why would any intelligent person ignore a court order? And what are SS supposed to do if she is ignoring a court order? Leave the 7 year old alone while the mother goes to prison for contempt of court?

Her mother died, there were lots of children father couldn't cope, all children adopted out my friend is the only one not dead due to drugs or suicided. Including the sibling that she was adopted with.
My reason for labouring the point is that she believes that because her parents were vetted by SS and deemed good people/parents even 20 years later nobody was prepared to change their minds about them.

I think one of the biggest problems with identifying abuse is little stereotypes. Lots of people have them. Sometimes they even accept conflicting stereotypes at the same time. There's:
All adoptive parents are saints, or;
All children need to stay with family/adoptive parents don't love their children properly or;
No-one educated would abuse their children, or;
Women don't physically hurt their children.

None of those are true. There are abusive parents from every walk of life and non-abusive parents too. I have a friend who happens to be adopted who would be very curt if anyone called his mother "your adoptive mother", for example. Similarly, other people will refer to their biological parents in exceedingly formal terms, and they will feel quite insults if someone ignores the cues and asks about "mum and dad".

I agree MrsD. As I said though the point of the story is that the SW took her child on the understanding that he was going to the grandparents and that did not happen. It was a dreadful experience for a little boy who had no siblings let alone living with children who'd been abused and he is traumatised by the whole experience and nobody could care less.

I am confused mosman if they were so abusive why were they her childcare?

Who knows mutny, probably because she had nobody else in the world and relied on them, because she forgave them, because she didn't believe they would turn on her as they did the moment she stopped dancing to their tune. Who knows, they've never hurt the little boy, never hurt her as child I don't think beyond the usual smacked legs.

If a social worker reported concerns about unusual bruising, it would be up to a medical professional to prove it. Social workers are the scapegoats, easier targets.

Don't get me wrong, there are some crap SWers and mistakes have happened and will continue to do so through human error but that's the same in every profession, surely?!

So you are saying the burden of proof would be on the medical profession to prove it, rather than the parent to disprove it?

i have yet to meet a good sw,all dealings i have had with them have beed utter shit,facts changed to suit them.

So you are saying the burden of proof would be on the medical profession to prove it, rather than the parent to disprove it?

I have to be honest and admit, in legal terms, I'm not 100 percent sure of my answer. The point I was trying to make was that parents with children who bruise like a peach will not be at the mercy of a social worker who has no medical knowledge.

So, if a teacher reported that a 6 year old in their class had legs covered in bruises, a child protection SWer has a legal duty to investigate. That would probably involve a doctor looking at that child. The doctor says "these injuries were inflicted upon this child", who has the power? The doctor. The social worker will often act on other professionals' advice and opinions.

I think and this isn't based on any experience in the case of physical or sexual abuse it's a lot more clear cut. I gave a paediatrician friend who goes to court to testify regularly and he will state the facts which are usually indisputable and rightly so.

It is beyond naive to think they can't break up families and the power they have is enormous. When we had our son taken off us due to a fractured skull that was later proved to have happened with his CM, the very nasty SW told us in no uncertain terms that, unlike the police who need to prove things beyond reasonable doubt, SWs only have to go with the balance of probability. She treated us as child abusers from the moment we met her. The other, younger SW who did our core assessment (which they insisted on finishing, despite our DS being returned to us and us being exonerated) was lovely and seemed to treat us as innocent until proven guilty.

The burden of proof is on the medics to prove it.

Not true. They are required to give their 'Expert Opinion'. Two very different things.

Fair enough that just seemed logical

Mosman,you shouldnt have posted that if you didnt know the correct answer.
There are people on here,lurkers,and future readers, who may go by what you say.

The burden of proof is on the police, guilty until proven innocent and all that. Fairly natural assumption that it would be up to the medical profession to have to scientically prove their findings.

The trouble with people sharing their stories is that there are always two sides. Even if mistakes are made by SS, (and I'm not doubting that mistakes are made) it is impossible to be objective unless we know the full story.

Additionally, I think people often over-estimate the powers of individual SWers. I hear the same line trotted out "the judge goes by the SWer's report" but do you think that report is sent without anyone else reading it? Where do the problems lie? IMO, in policies, procedures, management and lack of supervision for social workers, time is stretched and resources are limited. Social workers are pushed to the limits and service users always bear the brunt of this.

seeker rickets can make a person much more suseptable to fractures when doing compleatly normal things that you wouldnt expect or imagine could cause a fracture.

it can be caused in a young baby who is exclusivly breast fed by a mother with significant vit d issues.

it is also more comon in exclusivly bf infants with black mothers.

and initially is often mistaken for child abuse due to some of the signs and symptoms.

YANBU.

I have dealt with SW's through my line of work,two of my friends are experienced SW's. I'm not sure where the myth that the can just swoop in and remove children,on a whim,because they have "targets" to meet has come from. It is simply untrue. In some cases I am sure they wish they could do exactly that,given the level of suffering they see. It's a bloody awful job,soul destroying over a long term period for many.

They act when they have reason to,when there is evidence. Yes mistakes happen,the evidence can lead to the wrong conclusion but surely we can all agree that a mistake is better than a dead child?

I know someone who had the SS's involved with her child,she smoked cannabis and seemed to have an "open house" for all kinds of people,who came and went as they pleased. There were concerns. Instead of cooperating she decided to set up online campaigns about "bent SW's". Due to her ridiculous behaviour the whole process went on far longer than it needed to. The child remained in her care in the end btw.

The burden of proof is on the police, guilty until proven innocent and all that.

Yes, but there are cases where the police have concluded that there has been no wrongdoing, yet the LA still pursue the case. The LA have the option to reject the police's conclusion if they don't agree with it.

Horrace I hear far more horrible stories like your friend's than stories of baby snatching. Your friend should have been removed, of course. I imagine if she had, her mother would have been on of those accusing of stealing stealing.