Babynamechange update

[Babynamechange]

Just posting here again for traffic as have had so much support before. Long back story, but abusive ex decided to stop turning up for contact after SS decided they didn't have enough evidence of abuse to stop it and had restarted it...great..and a peaceful 2 months ensued

But..
SS have just been in contact and he's now decided that he thinks he wants to start contact with DS again? Not 100% but SS have to support even though, reading between the lines, they think that he is completely incapable of putting DS needs first. It seems all that he's interested in is seeing me punished.. They are going to speak to him again to see if he's going to turn up this week or not...

Any advice?

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

Diddle hopefully with tge ombudsman on their case, they will need to pull their finger out and out ds safety and well being above the needs of a grown adult. This keep safe work, they are doing it for a reason, ds has given a partial disclosure. SW manager saying that she believes that ex cannot put ds needs above his own and that contact is used to punish baby, means that ds is likely to exposed to harm, or already is. So as a child protection organisation their radars should be up, and saying how can we protect thus child, not how can be cover our arse and placate ex.

Tiredoutgran thanks for saying you think I'm in a strong position, that means loads.
Yes aero everything just seems to be about covering their arses and its so frutsrating. They pointedly tell DS that his dad really misses him before contact was due to re-start 2 months ago, but then when he doesn't show and they know it, they say nothing! Too embarrassed to face us? I don't know?
They've spent so long making excuses for him that in the face of all this mounting evidence they will simply not back track in any meaningful way. Even this latest, with him so clearly only being interested in punishing me and NOT seeing DS, isn't raising the alarm bells to them that it should be.
Yes crapbag it does seem to be all about him and certainly not DS :(
Curbside

That is why you have to say enough is enough, start putting your foot down baby. The SW can go home and forget about Ds so can the judge, but it is YOU who has to pick up the pieces of their decisions time and time again. You hav to start kaying down conditions to SW fir contact, of no contact happens. Ex can go back to court, hopefully this case is reassess by the judge and you don't get the same one. Request that SS put their judgements and orofessional opinion to court. Use the I budsman involvement to your advantage. What's your plan of action.

Put that in your complaint, that they told ds that his dad misses him before contact and then he did not show for contact. Totally unacceptable. Sounds like the whole thing is run by a bunch of clowns.

I've only skimmed read most of it and vaguely remember your story. I have a contact order with my ex and there is absolutely no abuse, no terrible behaviour and I actually think DS would have a great time with his dad however, my ex has broke the contact order by failing to turn up and hasn't actually seen DS for over 2 years now.

I was told by solicitor right at the very start (because I said he wouldn't be reliable with contact) that ever since 2008 that if either party breaks the contact order then it can go back to court. Your ex has broken the contact order many times so you are well within your rights to go back to court.

Good luck.

no73 that's really helpful to know. Thank you x

Aero just what I said x

I think the SS have not informed that your Ex has no intention to turn up in case it's a lie designed to trap you into non-compliance.

You made yourself available, he didn't comply. Had they told you he wasn't coming, and you took the decision NOT to present DS for contact but Ex DID turn up, YOU would be in breach in the eyes of the contact order.

I don't see how they can be on the right side of that situation, no matter what they did. I agree now though that they need to put DS front and centre and ensure that no further hurt/abuse/upset is caused toward that little boy.

have you got anywhere with being able to enable your DS to describe what your Ex does to him to an official so that it CAN be used for safe guarding?

Does your DS have therapy/counselling? could he have?

Your Ex is just keeping you busy, hurting you through your son, your DS is collateral damage. the world would be a better place if he didn't share the same oxygen as the rest of us. Never have I hoped more for anything to exist than karma when it comes to this 'man'. He is evil personified.

I've read your prev threads and now this one and had to comment.
Can I suggest you now record all conversations? Can someone more able tell us if this is legal? And admissible?

Ps your strength is astounding!

The danger of returning to court, from Baby's bitter experience, is embarking on a new round of professionals playing 'father engagement' and giving ex another chance and focusing on re establishing regular contact.

There are a few more questions that may help as ammunition:

• There are 3 options when a child makes a disclosure. The child is being 'primed', the child is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting or presenting false information, or the child is stating the truth. So far the professionals have repeatedly gone for options 1 and 2. Ds's disclosures cannot be proved, however they equally cannot be disproved either. Why, when option 3 is the one carrying most risk, are they not prepared to look at supporting and monitoring ex's parenting during contact for a period of time?

• Supporting/monitoring ex's parenting would involve a contact centre, possibly a parenting class, and social services support. (Is ds still sleeping on the floor at ex's house?) An involved, willing father seeking contact with their child for the right reasons will be willing to do this and prove themselves. If SS are actually saying they don't feel confident to pursue this with ex because he is difficult and intimidating.... er, huge red flag. Massive. This is about ds. If ex doesn't like it, that says a lot of what a professional needs to know. His behaviour should have absolutely no bearing whatever on what they do in ds's interests.

• Ask and point out the inconsistency. 'You told ds that his father missed him very much, I'm thinking you were hoping to 'persuade' him to view contact more positively? However his father then refused contact repeatedly in a very rejecting way - not turning up when ds was packed and ready. Ds is very confused by this. Do you think you were perhaps misled? Do you see the situation any differently now in the light of the last few weeks? Do you think we're prioritising the right person here?' 'in the light of ex seeking your services to remove ds from my care to punish me (i'm not clear why ex felt you should be punished for this or what he planned for social services to do since he clearly doesn't want residency) while not keeping contact with ds, do you perhaps see my concerns in a different light?' They are going to have to justify this. They will avoid like mad committing anything on paper, but they need to explain this.

The decision to not inform you and ds that ex would not be appearing for the scheduled pick ups for contact absolutely needs explaining, that is a monumental cock up. I can't see this was an intentional decision - if it was, it ought to be investigated - I would think this was a massively dropped ball, but the effect on ds is unforgiveable. In effect they colluded with ex.

What's the next step with the ombudsman Baby? Have they indicated possible timescales or what their course of action will be?

This is all just absolutely disgusting.
The whole overriding principle of the children act is that the rights of the child are paramount. That's the whole point of the act!!

I think you should be submitting a freedom of information request and getting hold of the copies of the case notes that they should have written documenting the conversations they have had with ex and concerns that have been raised as a result. Case notes are regularly used in court so I don't see any reason (admittedly not a lawyer or children's services SW) why they couldn't be used as there are no transcripts of the conversations?

I would be wary of recording them yourself, although certainly writing a writted report of what was said, what date and who you spoke to would be a good idea.

Can you put together a chronology of date DS disclosed abuse, every example of emotionally harmful behaviour and when, each conversation with each professional etc. That's what I do when conducting a safeguarding investigation and I would treat it as the same.

Written not writted!

Good Idea Fairy, certainly another avenue to use. Also would it be worth asking your solicitor who is the Judge presiding in the court so you know.

So baby have you heard anything today? If nothing has been done by SS to ensure your ds safety in the hands of a man who in their opinion cannot put his needs first, no contact.

Is the Ombudsman looking at the Contact order, and how that was ordered, and how you were treated by the court system. That was absolutely appealling. Evidence was overlooked, and not considered. This man has a criminal conviction for DV which was not even considered, exposing a vulnerable child, to a very dangerous and harmful individual.

Baby - what with the ombudsman, the missed contacts and the recent ss feedback, this might be the time when the tide turns and you have a chance to change things.

Lots of good suggestions up thread. Rumble especially.

Put things in writing. Ask ss etc to put them in writing back. Make sure you have a paper trail from now on.

With regard to contact this weekend, and this from SS:
Their view was that he finds it 'very hard/impossible' to consider DS's needs and that he was mainly interested in trying to get them to punish me which they are obviously unable to do
it appears that to hand ds over at this point could be - looking from it from the outside- as you not protecting him (ironic as that is). I don't want to upset you, but I am sure you have thought of this kind of thing anyway, so ...

Now, as a result of

1. ex missing contact four times in a row (?) with no communication to you from anyone about this, although in each case you have made ds available for contact, meaning that he doesn't care about ds or his needs, doesn't care about seeing ds or letting him down plus
2. his need to punish you, to the extent of trying to get SS to do so which could be seen as sinister, to put it mildly, means that
3. this is a safeguarding issue, with ex not caring about ds (missed contacts), unable to consider ds' needs (ss know this and have expressed it to you), and ex wanting to punish you (ss have been told this and have told you).

So a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances at this moment, would be for you to write to ss and outline your concerns regarding the present situation. Because the above facts risk putting ds in a dangerous situation, (and ss don't seem to have done any work with ex yet about his parenting of ds, and have suspended the work they were doing with your ds) you would like ss to facilitate supervised contact only. Obviously take advice from your solicitor, but it may be that there needs to be a review of the whole situation before unsupervised contact can be deemed to be safe. As the ombudsman is now involved in reviewing the situation, this would seem to be a good time to do it. It would be good safeguarding practice to have supervised contact until the review has bee completed and the situation resolved.

That should buy you some time.

Thank you all so much for your replies . I can't describe how much you're all helping

Hissy Thank you, I hadn't looked at it like that before and I can imagine there's quite a bit of truth in that actually. But I still think they could have kept us informed, even if it was to say Mr X has told us he doesn't want contact, which would certainly give us protection even if it was just a lie as no one could criticise me for not presenting DS (and all that stress for nothing) under those circumstances..
As for DS, his last disclosure was really clear, consistent and reliable so he's definitely finding it easier to verbalise stuff. But after contact being stopped by SS they then decided they didn't have enough evidence ...which made no sense to me :(. Yes you're spot on, DS is just collateral to him x

Sadit, thank you, yes even if its so I just have an accurate record of what was said for my own notes like fairy suggested.

Rumble Thank you! That's all absolutely brilliant stuff to put to them. Also DS's last disclosure there was no doubt DS was telling the truth. His dad eventually admitted (after calling both of us liars) that he was pretending to take the photos... which of course would have the same effect on anyone as if he was actually taking them, if indeed he even was just pretending :(.

Ohfourfox they are going to contact me again next week and have advised me to apply for a freedom of information request like fairy also suggested. They are going to do the same. Although I'm not sure I'll be able to get the conversations with him as that is technically a third party?

Aero no, its just the specific complaint unfortunately. Their powers aren't huge.

Mmmnotsure thank you! Perfectly put. If they come back with contact happening, that is exactly what I will do.

AS for the latest here, I've heard nothing which I think is a really good sign.... Also as frustrated as I was at not being able to be more assertive when I spoke to SS on Monday, I think in terms of him deciding to turn up, that was probably the best way to be (in hindsight) as I must have sounded so compliant. If I'd have been more resistant this would have undoubtedly been passed onto him and would have been exactly what he wanted..and would therefore be far more likely to show, if that makes sense xx

Fairy, although Baby can use FOI to request a copy of her ds's file, anything pertaining to conversations held between SW and ex will be redacted. I only know this because I had reason to request my dd's file, and everything about her dad had been redacted, leaving the file even more confusing than it should have been.

When the child reaches the age of 18, they can request a full copy of their own file which will be complete with no redactions.

Thanks Doc that's what I thought as he's a 'thirdparty' x

As you have said, they can only facilitate contact,they cannot enforce it,so if they have not provided adequate safeguards to protect ds, you are well within your rights not to comply. Ok baby might not be party to the telephone conversation information, but the ombudsman might probably be provided with such information.

Baby, if you get a last minute 'yes contact tomorrow' call today then it would seem very reasonable to ask how it is in ds's interests to be presented for contact after this break with no preparation and less than 24 hours to know what is going to happen to him and where he'll be this weekend. Any humming and hawing about ex only just let them know and decided - well nice for ex, but ds is a thinking, feeling child, not a library book, and this is not all about ex, is it?

I really hope you're right and it's another no show, but have ds has to go through another round of sitting waiting with a packed case just in case ex feels like playing.

Hate, not have.

I agree rumble, if you have a call today saying that ex will be at contact, ask them, further to our conversation on Monday, in your opinion ex was not able to put ds needs first, he is using contact as a form of punishment, considering the concerns of abuse surrounding this, and the keep safe work you are doing with ds, how then are you safeguarding and protecting ds, from harm and abuse? What safeguarding measures are in place for Friday to ensure ds safety and wellbeing. And sate to them, how you want contact to be. If there is ummming and arrrring, well as you cannot safeguard ds adequately, he will not be going for contact.

It is incredible that SS are indulging ex, and allowing this behaviour. As somebody highlighted earlier up thread, I would ask SW manager how in relation to ds are they following the Children's Act.