Baby boy taken into care because of father's views on bottle feeding.

[Mlb123]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4231242/Social-workers-took-newborn-baby-parents.html

Yes I know it's the daily mail and it wasn't just about the father's comments, but it has been decided by a judge that it was unfair to remove the baby and the family have been awarded compensation. This is the type of story that is putting people off trusting social workers. I have always thought people have nothing to fear if the cooperate with SS and work with them but this family didn't get the chance as the social workers didn't inform the family of care proceedings and lied to the judge.

This is not the first story and it is becoming worrying that people in positions of trust are sometimes acting in this way. I believe that the people found guilty of abusing their positions of trust should be removed from their role , because of the damage they cause to families and the risk of them offending again would be high. What do others think would be a solution to this small but real risk?

The problem is that they should be quickly outed the ones that aren't good been is such an important position to hold.
Sadly it attracts the same kind of person as police and traffic wardens as the power is often there reasons for doing so and not the fact that they care or want to help.

There must be far more to this story than we know. My work means I often refer families to children's services for safeguarding issue for safeguarding issues and it is quite difficult to get them to take the case on as the threshold of need is so high. I have also been involved in child protection conferences and it is quite rare for children to be removed from their families and there is a process that is gone through. There must have been very serious concerns. As with all things dealing with people however, cockups can happen

I don't agree that there has to be much more as if the said social workers made up so much lies in court and once them lies were found out and child returned immediately then the judge obviously hadn't them concerns over the safety or would not have had returned.

I have seen a few threads on MN where posters explain why sterilising bottles is not necessary and "mine were never ill" etc. I wonder if any of those posters have had intervention as a result

My guess is that social class, accent, etc played a role in SS's decision in this case.

I never sterilised any bottles ever washed hot water like all other things but never sterilised one single time

And have 3 healthy daughters

""There must have been very serious concerns""

There were serious enough concerns to bring the proceedings, that bit is true.

I wonder if the Father was against sterilisation and that would have put the baby at risk of significant harm, or likewise a specialist formula was needed. It was good to see that the baby was placed with family.

However, because the SWs lied about the Parents being in agreement of the removal, they didn't have to present the LAs case, as such and blocked an opposing case against removal being presented. So the removal took place.

I'd like to know the Managers role in this and also the SWs legal department, did they lie to both? If so, they shouldn't be allowed to practice.

However the case does show that even if the SWs lie and manipulate proceedings, the safeguards against mistakes, are working.

Carol, did you go that against the advice of Consultants, when your baby had been in SCBU?

""My guess is that social class, accent, etc played a role in SS's decision in this case.""

Read the different reporting, the baby's medical team, expressed concerns.

This was a very vulnerable baby.

You might get away with not sterilising, for a healthy baby, but the numerous babies that are taken to hospital with gastroenteritis etc, shows that not everyone does.

I never wore a seat belt, neither did any of my peers and older, the ones that survived, or remained at my school (rather than as called, a special school) that is.

Neither the parents or baby (through CAFCASS) were represented at the hearing. That shows a major mess up on SS side.

Carollocking
I found it rather disturbing that out of the 14 I was speaking with only 2 had children
You were in a bar in the evening, so the ones with children probably went home.

I'd guess that his 'unorthodox views on bottle feeding' were presented in an aggressive and controlling way.

Can you imagine the stress of seeing tiny babies leave the maternity ward with people who you think can't care for them? I've fostered two straight out of the maternity ward, and lived on eggshells for a year each time in fear the birth parents would get them back. I won't tell you the nasty details, but while not obviously aggressive they were skin crawlingly unsuitable.

I think the fact he may have said something and they took that to mean that they'd not sterilise after advice to do so didn't mean that they wouldn't have sterilised after said advice as they didn't get the chance did they.
So implementing law In Such a way is crazy.
If the world was run like that we'd all be in prison because if thinking or saying something is all a court needs to convict then for sure we'd all be prison.

birds I always, always sterilised. Not worth the risk IMO.

I read the BBC report (not that BBC reporting is that good these days!). I think that we all agree that there are missing pieces in this puzzle. My guess is that social prejudice might be one of those pieces.

I don't deny that your right some are not suitable but to take a persons comment and implement such a drastic action I still find out of order

I think the important point is that it was for a judge to decide, or the 'Court' and the truth wasn't told.

The rest of us would be facing a perjury charge.

It's gross misconduct and they should, at very least be suspended and then closely monitored.

""but to take a persons comment ""

We don't know if it was a comment, the baby's medical team made the referral.

This might have been after a day or two of trying to teach the Parents about the Care the baby needed.

well the hospital would have only used sterilised bottles that's obvious so they had no chance to show if they listened the advice or not.

Kirklees Council said in a statement: "The court and parties accepted that the council was correct to issue these proceedings, but mistakes were made which resulted in the court awarding the family compensation

Interesting statement !

There's no way that's all there is to it.

Kirklees again,I'm sure they were not that long ago involved In Another national headline case,can't remember what but it sticks in my mind

There's obviously much more to this story. Even the story in the DM doesn't match the headline. The headline makes it sound like the child was taken into care because they weren't going to breastfeed; in the article, it sounds as though the father didn't think bottles needed sterilizing & possibly didn't think formula was necessary amongst other things.

Did all the people justifying the sw's appalling actions miss this bit?

In the year since then, the judge said the boy had 'continued to thrive in his parents care

Obviously more to it.

It doesn't matter if there was more to it or not! Sw's acted appallingly, LIED in court and since the baby was returned to parents has thrived.

There should be no 'yea but...'

Totally agree imthelastsplash they s workers should have been out of there jobs immediately