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'.

Have you accessed the FASSIT website which aims to support those who have been the subject of Social Services injustice? There is also the Family Rights Group, whilst primarily aimed at kinship carers, also has a helpline for all families who have been involved with Social Services. They may not be able to help you support a case, but may be able to offer you support. It takes a long time to recover from injustice involving children.

Please be careful about places like FASSIT. They appear largely embroiled in conspiracy theories. Some of their contributors are extremely dodgy. If you have clear incontrovertible proof of wrong doing you don't need to get mixed up with them.

Having had 'dealings' with my LA trying to get them to acknowledge and provide support for my child's SNs, I am quite prepared to beliveve the OP.

I too faced the surreal experience of employees of my LA investigating the complaints I had actually made against them. Obviousy they found no fault with their own actions - hardly a fair and transparent process.

I too had to take my LA to the Ombudsman before they were finaly forced by the Ombudsman to recognise they were wrong and issue a very grudging apology to me.

I would never have believed that a public body could act in such in a way, but it seems that many parents of children with SNs are 'targetted' by the LA. It's all about money - proper support for children with SNs is very expensive - much easier for the LA to try to protray the parents as inadequate, unhinged etc.

Personally I would go to the Press - although Christopher Booker at The Sunday Telegraph has taken a special interest in this sort of case.

I would focus my energies on a legal remedy for the distress they have caused my family - that's what I did.

Aside from the question of whether the agencies involved lie, appropriateness of covertly recording meetings etc, from what you describe the child protection process seems to have worked as it should... The Children's Reporter receives a referral (which can come from any agency or indeed a private individual). They gather reports and information from all involved - including family members, parents, carers etc - and decide whether there are grounds for a children's hearing.

The grounds are specifically laid out in legislation and burden of proof is balance of probability not beyond reasonable doubt. If they think there are grounds and you don't they consider going to court to have the grounds proved - part of that involves looking at other info parties might have that hasn't been presented before (your recordings?).

If they don't think they can prove their concerns beyond reasonable doubt, they won't go to court. From there they can recommend family support on a voluntary basis or discharge the case. It's meant to provide a check and balance and from your description it worked in that they discharged your case.

I have no doubt the whole process has taken a toll on you and your family - only you can decide if its worth going to the press and whether that will be worth the continued stress on your family.

Add message | Report | Message poster Spero Wed 19-Dec-12 14:58:55
Please be careful about places like FASSIT. They appear largely embroiled in conspiracy theories. Some of their contributors are extremely dodgy. If you have clear incontrovertible proof of wrong doing you don't need to get mixed up with them.

^^^

I cannot agree enough with this. If you tie yourself in with them, you will lose the only credibility you have.

No matter how harsh it sounds as a parent of a child involved with cp proceedings. It's unlikely that people won't at least in the back of there minds think either hmmmm well whose going to fess up to abusing a child no smoke and all or well a few mistakes is worth no more baby abcdefgh ect. It's not unkindness it's just really hard to believe of those who are supposed to protect the most vulnerable. That's why it's important people challenge actual real fault and deceit.

The people who hook up with that org and a certain mp whose vocal on the subject end up coming across as people who ought to be in the SW spotlight and the mad child napping to order of newborns for profit argument they tend to spout, makes them sound like ranting lunatics. And the advice they give is shocking and likely to cause problems.

Op just a thought, I'm curious as to why trying to change your sons school involved hours of meetings with the LA as opposed to hours of time spent seeing other schools and meeting with them to find out yourself then presenting your findings to the LA. that's the normal process one would be expected to follow if they wanted there child to end up in the best setting possible. And it's what most SN advocacy support services would advise.

Is your dc in a better setting now and is she happier there? I have children with ASD the process can be a nightmare.

Contact this guy
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/
I agree if officials go mad it's hard not to look mad yourself. People want to be believe the 'powers that be' are benign.

Someone like Camilla cavendish would be much better than Booker, if you mist go down that route. from what I have read of her stuff she is measured and sane. Booker is on the conspiracy bandwagon, he frequently asserts stuff that is inflammatory and untrue.

I too faced the surreal experience of employees of my LA investigating the complaints I had actually made against them. Obviousy they found no fault with their own actions - hardly a fair and transparent process. This is not my experience. I worked for SS and when there was an investigation, it was conducted by people (Senior SWs) unknown to us. We welcomed the investigation (we wanted to make sure our practice was good) and were nervous about the outcome of the investigation. It was certainly not a done deal that we would be found faultless. It was very thorough and unpleasant to go through. Even though I thought we had done everything well and gone above our duty.

I have also been in the situation of having clients who were extremely dangerous to others who were absolutely convinced that we were out to get them and told everyone who would listen about it. We couldn't respond but knew, as absolute fact, that these people shouldn't be around children. They were convinced they were safe and managed to convince a number of other people they were safe. It is very tough, I felt for them but SWs normally don't want children to be put at risk of very serious abuse.

I too faced the surreal experience of employees of my LA investigating the complaints I had actually made against them. Obviousy they found no fault with their own actions - hardly a fair and transparent process

Actually, having worked for a number of different authorities, this was true for one authority, to an extent. The worker would respond to the complaint as they know the case the best, and then it would be passed back to senior managment to amend as necessary. The other (majority) authorities I worked for didn't do this though, the worker would only play a limited role in addressing the complaint.

OP, when you say 'go to the press', what do you mean? As I'm afraid I really think you'll struggle to find a reporter who would touch this story.
Rather than "bury them up to their necks" I think you'd be left feeling worse than you do already.

National newspapers/tv news/radio won't care that a local authority has allegedly lied during its dealings with a family.
They get people approaching them with this sort of stuff every day and, unless it's a story of national interest, they're not going to waste time and energy trying to get to the bottom of such a fiendishly complex saga.
Newsrooms are woefully understaffed. National reporters won't have the inclination to as much as watch your video, when the response from the reader in Devon/Birmingham/Leeds will be "so what".
I hate to sound unsympathetic, but to get any interest from a national (by which I include the Scottish press) you would probably have had to have your kids taken from you. It would need to be more "juicy" iyswim- not what essentially amounts to a row with officialdom.

You may have more luck with your local paper, but I doubt it. From my experience, delving into such a he said/she said story, full of reporting restrictions and legal complications, is rarely worth it. Reporters will need evidence, and by this I mean more than your covert video. This tale is a legal minefield and not worth it for the minimal news value to the average reader-especially when the saga was done and dusted more than a year ago.

I fear that newsdesks would be rude to you, question your honesty and leave you feeling worse than you do already. The outcome will not go in your favour. Even if a version of your story made it into your local paper, what good would that do?
There would be a quote from the local authority refuting what you're saying, and you may be painted in a light you don't like. The news would also bring new and uncomfortable attention to your family-is that what you need right now?

I honestly think that you should calm down and move on, rather than worrying about 'not taking any prisoners'.
Going to "the media" is more likely to result in embarrassment for you than embarrassment social services.

Finally got to FellatioNelson Wed 19-Dec-12 09:04:54 lol

Yes, the first social work involvement was after the behavioural problems started. They investigated because of the school. Then they really came down on us months after the diagnosis telling us there was more than what the school initially reported. But then why a 2009 date and then a few 2008 entries then back to 2009? Is my question.

As for the alcoholism, that came from my doctor too. Ive had a condition since the turn of the century, I didnt know what it was. My doctor blamed drink. In the end I said Id go to an addictions centre, theory being that I could use psychological services there to disporve their theory. It didnt really make any sense since at that point I was getting weekly blood tests that showed no imbalance except folic acid. That was a few months after social work were involved. The addicitions centre was the same one the sws witness worked at.

Anyway, I changed doctors last year and after over a decade I was sent to a neurologist and dignosed with gastroperesis and peripheral neuropathy. The neuropathy has been re-evaluated to some sort of nerve disease. My new doctor achieved in 4 months what the last couldnt in 12, maybe 13 years.

At my last appointment with my old Dr he said 'it says here you wear glasses, you dont wear glasses'. Thats when I knew I had problems, between that and thinking I was someone known to get into fights.

When I say I want the system more transparent I do think the kids and parents identities should be protected. What I think we need in place is independant reporters/journalists present. People that can report on cases and when one like mine is thrown out people can tell them why and they will have seen the previous attendences at court or have reference to them.

You see if a parent is found guilty at these proof diets their identities will be revealed in criminal court when they get charged if its proven. I think, we didnt get that far as I said, but I think.

BTW Im not entirely sure what people mean by 'squeeky clean'. My police report came back as 'no trace' and same for my partner. My partner had a full background check done months before since she was working at the school as a volunteer, the only way our daughter was allowed to remain attending there until placement.

MadSleighLady Wed 19-Dec-12 14:41:33 If the council follow the SPSO recommendation then the allegations that I am being spurious and vexatious, which is what they have said to avoid complaints two and three, should be dropped.

They dont have to re-open complaint one at all, but it would be in their best interest to do so, I think.

I must say though that the SPSO have stated it is a recommendation so Im not sure if thats a polite way of saying its an order or if it reallys is not an order.

Im not sure if they need to comply.

But failing that though the ICO must surely be able to make them admit they have no email from me to their workers I complained about and that they illegally accessed my medical records and hopefully the ICO will want at some point to look at the tape if the council refuse the SPSO request.

Legal options Im not sure bout, but Id like to see fraud charges against at least one of them. The police refused to pursue it before simply on the grounds it never made it to court, which I dont quite understand.

Louis Walsh was accused, took the guy to court, got settlement, he got sentenced or whatever and Im not even through the complaints process.

Also the main case workers has retired permanently. The team leader has retired from the profession. The service manager has retired from the profession.

To answer an question, my kids were placed on the register for 'suspected emotional abuse' 2 weeks after I recorded workers, maybe even the week after. I recorded workers about a week after I put my complaint in. So complaint, video then register.

Sockreturningpixie I had to meet with the LA as they decide which schools who can go to. We never had any choice.

MsElisaDay Well I see your point, but youve misunderstood. Its not my word against theirs, its a video recording proving they lied to court officials and to about 20 other professionals. Its also the fact they say they have something they dont and illegally accessed my medical records and not only that, I forgot to add something, they documented I was getting therapy and told that to the professionals when I was not. Im using my video, the SWS records and the police records.

No he said/she said, I got a jar of dirt.

I had a look at the FASSIT website loooong time ago and if I remember right it didnt come across to me the way Id expect an organisation such as that to carry themselves. If I remember right.

I haven't read the whole thread but am not surprised to hear about what happened, there are far too many stories around about SWs abusing their powers... I'm really sorry to hear this happened to you and think that yes, you should concentrate on your DD and help her get better, but also absolutely do pursue your complaint to the end. If there genuinely was abuse of power, cover up, lies and misrepresentations by SS in court, the people responsible should be held accountable for it. They are public servants, but seem to be a law unto themselves because they know that the system will protect them. Wish you the best of luck and hope you and your family can move on from this nightmare...

there are far too many stories around about SWs abusing their powers There are. Some are true, some SWs are bad, some are incompetent. In most cases, though, abusive or negligent parents would rather not admit to it or have no concept of basic parenting. I have only been involved in one case where the mother essentially admitted she needed to give her child up. Every other case, resources and support were given and the parents still felt that it was the SW's fault or society's fault or their family's fault. They all complained. In some cases children were protected from serious, dreadful abuse. Just because people say the SWs behaved badly does not mean they did.

Quite aside from anything else, the unfortunate truth is that the media really aren't on your side.

They will make both sides of a story as sensationalist as they can (truth be damned), and you could find yourself being presented in a really horrible/exaggerated/untruthful way.

I don't know enough to advise you on who would be better to complain to, but if it were me I would find the highest relevant people in authority who would be willing to listen/read an email/letter. I'd also consider writing to my MP.

Very true MrsTerrys.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange In this case the Principal COmplaints Officer emailed my entire complaint to the service manager, who gave it to the team leader, who gave it to the workers.

The service manager, team leader and worker were all named in the email.

Then they took the complaint, leaned over the table and brandished it at me and my partner. Then they told everyone how it showed I had mental health problems, a statement they had to later retract because 'they would never diagnose someone because they arent qualified'.

Anyway, then they told me how 'when someone makes a complaint like this ... we jump on them'. At a later date I was told to re-evaluate taking my complaint forward because 'next time we knock on your door it will be with the police'.

Your experience and the reality of mine couldnt be further apart.

Bipedal I'm not saying that your case is not valid. I am trying to say to all the people on this thread who seem to think that all the stories they hear about bad SWs are true, that this may not be the case. It is very hard. I welcomed an open and thorough complaints procedure when I was with SS because it actually makes the job easier.

Do you think all the people who complain about SS are telling the truth or do you think some of them are saying things about SWs because they feel guilty or attacked or inadequate or fearful?

I am saying that I know that some people who didn't get children back in my experience would have sexually abused them. Definitely without any doubt. Some would have hurt or maybe even killed them, through abuse or neglect. Some of these parents complained to everyone who would listen. We couldn't state our case because of confidentiality. They could say what they liked about us.

, Every Child is Included, the 2004 Additional Support for Learning (Scotland) Act with amendments

^^ this act confirms that the parents have a say, as do the findings of many SN tribunals,

MsElizaDay is absolutely right, you know.

You had a groundless case brought against you - it collapsed, it's been closed for years, your children are still with you. There is nothing juicy here for the media. I know you think there is but there isn't.

I don't mean, btw, that there's no story here. There may be. But it isn't something the national (or as Eliza pointed out probably even local) media is going to be interested in.

I knew the minute you mention that you lived in Scotland that this would be about GCC.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange All Im saying is I would understand their claims that I am spurious and vexatious (which is the exact terminology taken from their internal procedures, another thing I got) IF I didnt have a video and if they could produce real evidence that proves I emailed the case staff, signed a consent form and they could produce proof I was getting therapy.

I would then understand then that they would be able to say I am trying to make some sort of smokescreen, which is what they were saying even with this.

But I do get your point totally, it was one of the things that I had to understand to be able to deal with this case as it was constantly thrown in my face.

However, the internal procedures state that equally the worker or workers could be at fault and is trying to cover their tracks. But in my case they dont need to because head office dealt with it and gave the workers responses to me. The replies actually state worker A said this. Worker B said that. Why ask them for verbal when they should be able to produce the hard copy evidence if it existed?

Why not end this and end me months ago? If they are right they can come right back into our lives after all, if they are wrong though they are looking kind of foolish and open to major scrutiny.

The supposed psychiatric nurse that told them I was undergoing therapy I could not contact, I could not trace through the main place that regulates nurses. Though I found a person in records with the name. Strange? My alleged paranoia? hehe. I couldnt make this up and if I have by all means commit me.

HoldMeCloserTonyDanza Your not the first and you wont be the last to say that

But this thread is all about my decisions and the makings.

What I am leaning towards right now is to start blogging it after the new year, then buy another domain, stealth like, with whois lookup set to godaddy or something and I think I will start evidencing it there after time expires for the SPSO and ICO investigations.

Media covers newspapers, TV, radio, internet. I did want to do a blog at some point, but I went off it. Maybe it is now time, hmmmmm depends on the length of the ICO onvestigation though.