For standing up against the social work and going this far ...

[BipedalSpecies]

First, I dont know if Mumsnet is the best forum for this, but it has the most appropriate user base I could find.

3.5 or so years ago I told the head of social work and education if they did not stop segregating and descriminating against my daughter I would see them in court.

2.5 years ago 2 social workers and a social care worker came to my door and threatened to remove my children if we did not comply with them.

Then they went to the police and the care worker made an anonymous complaint stating she saw my partner assualt our kids. Her timeline states my partner was positively identified by her description, woman with dark hair in a ponytail, by another worker six weeks before they even met her.

I had reports about me sent from the school regarding injuries on my daughter blamed on me. Interestingly enough in one case three members of staff saw my daughter injure herself in school, yet one member reported it to social work as abuse. You just cant make this up.

I covertly recorded social workers and made a complaint against them regarding them using false information in child protection meetings and giving the prosecution against us false information, backed up by my video.

I was branded a liar and our kids placed on the child protection register.

Court proceedings started. I submitted my video evidence. Court case was dropped.

The council refuse to watch the video. They also illegally accessed my medical records claiming I gave signed consent, which they cannot produce. (along with another 3 billion wrong pieces of information they cannot back up e.g. according to them and only them Im an ex drug addict and a current alcoholic)

Now the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has recommended they watch the video by end of January.

The Information Commissioner's Office has asked them to explain themselves by mid January.

So my question is: Am I wrong to bury these people up to their necks by going to the media when all my investigations are finished?

BTW my case was closed to them over 1.5 years ago and Ive been fighting this 2.5 years, so Im not planning on taking any prisoners after so much effort.

Also the head of social work said 'nothing has gone fundamentally wrong' and the person in charge of the complaint circled the wagons and I am willing to publicly say, covered up for the workers. After all I told him where the evidence was and he refused to do anything except repeat the falsifications of the workers he was supposed to investigate. The request for a copy of the medical records authorisation in itself speaks volumes.

I also got told that I should drop my complaint because 'next time we will have the police with us and it wont be for a cup of tea and a chat'.

They were also able to disregard anything said in our defence, because they are allowed to. I have that in writing

This sort of thing - and the blatant lying OP describes in several instances - has been widely documented by workers within the service as well as professional observers and victims of the system. I'm aware no system can be perfect - there will always be errors on the side of neglect as well as interference - but that's no excuse for abuse of privilege.

OP, I wish you luck with your campaign and hope you will be able to find a journalist who's willing to take up your cause, as well as appropriate legal backup.

OFGS. Let's scratch a few social workers, teachers, police officers, politicians, and see how many of them are 'squeaky clean'.

Well, quite. Doesn't always end well for them in the press, either, does it? It's not necessarily right or fair, but it's the way it is.

Perhaps you are right izzy. Fair point. But whilst I can see certain scenarios where SS might bark completely up the wrong tree I am a bit about how the OP's GP can arrive a the conclusion that she/he has been fighting apropos of absolutely nothing, and that totally separately SS have arrived at the conclusion that he/she is/was drug and alcohol dependent, again, apropos of absolutely nothing at all.

She/he has also not disputed (or explained) the fact that one of the children was put on the child protection register before it was even born. So was that totally unconnected to all the other stuff that has happened years later? Because if so, that is some massive coincidence. It just doesn't ring entirely true. But as I said, I don't take anything at face value, which is why I am asking questions.

If the OP has been stitched up by SS through lies and conspiracies then she should see justice done, irrespective of why her children are known to SS. There are correct procedures and they should be followed, of course. But when her vindication comes, I do not hold out too much hope of her getting the level of public support she is hoping for, judging by the information she has supplied so far.

If there is even a grain of truth in any of the SS allegations against the OP then he/she will have won the battle (on technicalities) but certainly not the war, as far as most people will be concerned. If she/he chooses to make her identity public he/she needs to be very careful what she wishes for, that is all.

None of the list you describe izzy are likely to be squeaky clean - but the difference is they are not inviting press intrusion in to their lives.

The person who invites the intrusion will be criticised. There will be some ex-neighbour with a grudge come out the woodwork for their 15 minutes of press fame to slag off the OP.

It's not right or fair but getting 'justice' via the press rarely happens.

Go through every complaint procedure, sue them yourself OP but think hard about inviting the public to scrutinise your life.

"Lots of people on here think sw never make mistakes never do anything wrong."

I've read many of these threads and not one person has said that. Every person in the SW profession had admitted big mistakes happen. However, it is impossible to make a judgement given one biased side of the story.

I used to work in a government dept. There were 80,000 of us scattered across the country. With that number of people, some of use were bound to be liars, concerned for their reputation, capable of falsifying records, etc and did so, because our fraud dept regularly published updates to us. So I can quite easily believe that there are SWs who do exactly the stuff described by the OP.

I also feel that family courts should be more transparent. If the identities of people are easily concealed in criminal courts without preventing evidence to be heard by the public, then there's no reason to suppose it can't be done in family courts. Concealing identities seems to be the main justification in keeping family courts closed.

Accusations aired in family courts are serious enough that any evidence must be tested as rigorously as in a criminal court. If allegations are serious enough to impact on someone's life that person must have the right to respond, to be heard, to be able to challenge evidence. From my understanding, people with allegations against them in the family court are severely restricted in who they can even talk to about it. This is not right or fair.

I have also seen discussions in various newspapers about the use of expert evidence, and the suggestion that SW will pick someone who will agree with them. Again, any evidence supplied should be test in the same way that it is in a criminal court. I find the American way of making the expert detail to the court his or her financial or other reward/fee to be interesting.

SW are going to find that many people automatically distrust them until they are prepared to be more open. Especially as we do see in the media the big cock-ups (or worse) that they make. Your average member of the public is only going to see those, not the good work they do on a daily basis.

I'm surprised 2 SW and a care worker turned up threatening to remove your children. In Scotland social workers have no legal power to remove children - that can only be done by the police, the sherif court or te children's hearing system. Social workers inform those processes but can't make that decision themselves.

In terms of going to the press, do your children not have the right not to have their personal circumstances splashed over the press. You can choose to live with the consequences for yourself but their private information will be in the public domain with them not having the chance maintain their own confidentiality. I'm with folk who say follow the complaints process and let it rest thereafter... The exposure in the press just won't be worth time and emotional energy you could be investing in your family.

RyleDup: I'm generally of the opinion that social workers get a lot of undeserved stick, particularly as they are regularly banned from giving their side of the story.

However, I don't think you can ever assume they never waste time and resources. I have recently come across a case where a special school didn't like the fact that a mother was criticising the fact that their own records showed no progress whatsoever, and chose to blame it on the fact that the child, who had medically documented health problems, had had quite a lot of absences. They then didn't like getting a medical report saying the child shouldn't go out when it was cold, because they'd have to provide staffing to supervise her. The Education Welfare Office wasn't interested, pointing out that the absences were authorised, so the school went to social services. They've had made a massive meal out of the whole thing, trying to say that different doctors must all be lying or coerced by the parents, and are still spending hours on the case despite the fact that the child has moved to a new school who can't see any problems. Yet this is a county with major social deprivation where the SWs' time could be so much better spent.

"Or are you proposing we should keep a discreet silence where injustice has been done to those who are over or under age? "

I am proposing that someone's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, hell tenth responsibility is to their child. And whatever they choose to do, they must first consider the impact on their child and the rest of their family. Go to the media - how will that affect the child? What might happen? How much does the child have the right to privacy and how does that fit with the adult's choice to reject privacy on behalf of the child. Does the adult have the right to do that? Does the child have their own right to privacy? Does someone have the right to take that away from another person?

Once you lay yourself open, you can't control what happens and if it is only you that is affected then fair enough. But if you are making a decision that has the potential to affect your children and your partner and affect them in many ways and for a long time - you have to think carefully about whether it is the right thing to do or not. You have to think about your motivations and you have to decide if what you want (revenge? the world to see how you've been treated? Everyone to hate the people who did it?) is worth the risk (bullying? people thinking you deserved it? whispering behind your back? your child forever being known as 'oh, she's the one who...')

And if you think that the media would be interested in a story about an anonymous family... you're so wrong. They want the sad faces. And they don't go away when you decide you've had enough.

so all I am saying is the OP has to think carefully. Not be blinded by anger, but think about what could happen and decide if that is something that it is ok for their family.

I'll try and address FellatioNelson on page 2 first.

Never been or am a drug addict. Never been or am an alcoholic.

I dont think it was a knee jerk reaction to segregation. Our daughter was dignosed with a problem, the HT refused to acknowledge it (schools minutes) and the handling was counter productive.

I phoned SS for help with the situation before any involvement and they asked if my kid was abused and I said no and they said there was nothing they could do.

Why SS got involved is very 'strange'. The SS timeline shows an allegation of some sort was put in against me in 2009 THEN a couple in 2008. Thats important, there is also no other paperwork to back this up. But its also recorded my kid told a teacher if she didnt leave her alone she would say she hit her and get the police (or words to that effect).

So where and how exactly it started, I honestly cannot say. The entries are actually 2009 then 2008 then 2009 then in real chronological order. SS documents, not mine. But there are only two documents to back any reports up and one I have statement that says it was an injury at school.

My daughter never presented at school with any injuries, took PE and never missed a day of school in the year previous to her behaviour taking a major change.

But apparently the last straw was when an SS team leader decided he knew it was my partner from the description of 'a woman with dark hair in a ponytail'. He came to this conclusion six weeks earlier before he met her. That is documented in a police witness statement.

I have got copies of EVERYTHING, yes, police too. Its why I can pick their well documented back to front timeleine apart.

SS team leader, SS case worker and an addictions worker came to the house. Police witness statement says that the addictions worker was there specifically and only to identify my partner.

This is the SPSO outcome:

www.scottishombudsman.org.uk/decision-reports/2012/january/glasgow-city-council-201004025

@SpecialAgentKat covert recording in your own is perfectly legal as long as it is within reason. e.g. not the toilet.

As for releasing it to the press, I dont have to. I just need to show them it, quote/build story from what is required and publish it.

What are the council going to do? Take me to court and prove me right? I already had it a submission for evidence in court. I have the original. But if you look at my SPSO outcome, they dont want to look at it.

Ok. Are you saying that the first and only time you have had SS involvement with any of your children was after you started to have behavioural problems with your daughter and you made a complaint against the school? Is everything else off the back of that? Sorry but it's hard to follow.

It certainly does sounds as though they have acted improperly in the way they have gathered 'evidence' and presented their case, but I am still a little bewildered about exactly what they think you, or your partner did to who, and why they considered it necessary to place your children at risk.

So neither you nor your partner have ever had drug or alcohol problems, there is no history of it in either of your medical records, and yet SS are using that to justify placing your children on the ATR? Blimey. I don't know what to say to that really. But why dropped the case ages ago but the sounds of things, so why are we having this conversation now?

sorry, they dropped the case ages ago...

@MaryChristmaZEverybody (and a few others) our SS case was closed well over a year ago when the court case was thrown out.

I have been through their procedures, that is why I am here. I did not evidence my complaint and instead chose to give the council employed investigators a list of where the evidence was and to show them my video.

They said the evidence doesnt exist. This is where the case goes from workers being naughty to senior staff covering up.

If there is no cover up why have I had to go and get the ICO involved to get them to prove they have a document to access my medical records? Shouldnt they just blow my allegation of illegally accessing my medical information out the water by producing it?

I also got the ICO onvolved numerous other reasons, here is a kicker; they gave my complaint to the staff I complained about. The staff say I emailed it to them. The council wont admit their staff lied about how they got it. No instead they have just said 'it is not against procedure', which it isnt. But still on record I emailed to a member of staff mentioned in it.

Also when I got my court order for every single piece of documentation from them, why are there no contemporaneous notes? These are really important.

For anyone thinking there are holes in my story, theres a lot more in the councils when there should be none.

Bipedal Thank you for answering my question. :) I'm not in your country -Different part of Europe- So was just asking out of confusion not malice.

Off to read link now.

Write it. It's about time that our institutions which believe themselves all above reproach were held up to be as fallible as any other firms. I disagree with the attitude that all public /gov related workers are perfect. It's very "heartbeat" in attitude (the tv show). All firms are run by humans and therefore all are subject to exactly same issues.

I'd buy the book. Now write it!

Crashdoll

I did not say I feel that way nor did I say everybody does. Nor did I restrict it to people employed as social workers I'm sure lots of mumsnet users are I. Other professions.

Have you missed comments like posters being called batshit crazy for saying stuff like that? Or ones saying someone's version of events couldn't possibly have happened as policy states it shouldn't so doesn't. Or ones where posters have been told that clearly they don't comprehend the risk they presented to there dc's? Or the ones when they are outright accused of lying?

Don't take a flippant comment and blow it out of proportion its not needed. Especially given that I made it clear if errors have been made the op should continue with highlighting this.

izzy

I believe family court should always protect the privacy of under 18's who often have no part in being dragged through them or choice in it.

If you believe you have a genuine case, can back it up with some evidence and can find a journalist to take the story, then I would take it to the media.

I have to say here though, that I have no experience of any of it, including media intrusion.

And do not understand why you would not wait until at least the end of January. Apologies if I have misunderstood something about that part.

FellatioNelson: The court did not refuse to play the video. The case was thrown out of court by the Children's Reporter, who is the person that makes the case against the parents, after I gave her a copy of the video and I got a court order for all of SWS documents and started picking them apart.

HECTheHallsWithRowsAndFolly hit the nail on the head.

But why am I doing this?

Because over the last few of years Ive read stories where SS get involved and remove kids for the smallest of reasons. Like the woman who ran to Ireland and they said she wasnt clever enough to be a parent.

If I have grandkids one day I dont want SS to turn up one day in the future and take them away and back up some stupid allegation with 'but we suspect you were abused in the past'. I would feel responsible for that because I was irresponsible for not doing what I could now.

Im also doing this because I have a lot of free time and I believe they usually pick less capable victims. I dont think they expected to find someone that builds circuits for fun and done an HNC 'just because they could'.

BTW I know this is Mumsnet, but Im the male half, but I speak for us both in this case. Apart fromt this thread not an action taken without my better half checking it first. Oh and the camera, I did kinda veto her on the camera, but then she does veto my lamb curry a lot lol

Sockreturningpixie:

Was your child's placement mainstream?
Yes.

Has your child been formally dx'd in the normal manor and by the NHS?
Autistic SPectrum. Head teacher refused to believe it or the professionals.

If this placement was wrong,did you take reasonable steps to personally locate a better one?
Yes, hence months of letters and meetings resulting in meeting the head of social work and education.

Has the ombudsman (or what ever its called) actually seen this video?
No.

As above but the court?
The children's reporter seen it, but she dropped the case after that. No Sheriff has seen it.

Did your child actually go into 'care' of any description?
No, we were threatened with that if we didnt drop the complaint.

When the court stopped what was happening did ss try and continue?
SS immdiately dropped the case. Apparently this allowed them (in their mind) to not answer my second or third complaints.

Were any of your interactions with either the school or ss heated? Could you have without realising come across as unstable or aggressive ?
I was deemed aggressive as soon as I threatened court. Before then there was no mention of my behaviour. I believe this is the routine respnse by council workers as the SS did the same when I threatened a complaint.

MadSleighLady I am sort of my wits end, sort of. OK, not really. I will explain ...

If you look at the complaints procedure you take it to the SWS are manager type. If not happy it goes 'upstairs'. If your still not happy you get a panel meeting. Still not happy? you go to the SPSO.

But when I got to the SPSO thinking 'hey I can evidence everything now' I found something out. I couldnt. The SPSO can only make sure the complaints procedure side was adhered to. Nothing to do with the ins and outs of the case itself.

Thats something they dont tell you in the start. Simply my options have been exhausted.

Well you don't sound like a 'less capable' easy target to me

Sorry, just one point to clarify position re experts. They don't get chosen because they agree with the LA. Mostly they are joint instructions, so parents must agree them too. Nor do they get paid loads. Their fees are now rigidly controlled and the cannot be paid over the amount certified by the Legal Services Commission, unless a parent wants to pay privately.

I have never said SW don't make mistakes. Sadly, I am sure some lie. But this is a lot rarer than a parent who is simply in denial about their own failings.

If you have proof that you are the victim of a shocking abuseof power, I agree it is your moral duty to pursue that as far as you can, if only to protect anyone else who might also suffer at their hands. But if your primary goal is revenge and publicity, I question how that is in the best interests of your child.

Yes, I see. Won't the ICO's ruling, when it comes, mean that they have to reopen the complaint they dealt with inadequately though? Or at least that they have to deal with a new (but identical) complaint properly?

What are the legal options after this point, if any? Apologies if this has been covered.

I just can't imagine why anyone would think, given the revelations of the last few years, that going to the press was ever a good idea TBH.

Regarding the family courts, reforms have now been made (in England, not sure about Scotland) to the effect that reporters are allowed in if they observe various restrictions to ensure the privacy of the children concerned.

Oddly, despite all the complaints about the old closed system, very few journalists have availed themselves of this new provision...