Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

185 replies

Mlb123 · 17/02/2017 00:08

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?

OP posts:
mrssmith79 · 17/02/2017 07:28

Kirklees SS were involved with Shannon Matthews' family - they cover the Dewsbury area @Carollocking. The Moorside dramatisation last week and associated reviews / articles made mention of them.

frumpet · 17/02/2017 07:30

I think it is interesting that the baby went straight to the care of another family member , or did they , perhaps they went into emergency foster first . But if they did go straight to a family member then you would imagine that they might have known about the possibility of it happening IYSWIM?

Oldsu · 17/02/2017 07:30

There is a blind acceptance sometimes that Social Services are always right and that if a court order is granted then there must have been a good reason, but that's not always the case

There was a case recently where a pensioner was jailed by the CoP because she refused to sign an order allowing SS to put a man into a care home in UK, when she had put him into one in Portugal.

Much was said on discussions boards about her reasons for involving herself in the mans affairs mostly that she had some sort of hold over him and was after his money.

Only now when the draconian gagging order has been lifted has it been revealed that she was in fact his SISTER, but we were not allowed to know that so the poor lady was vilified on the internet.

When putting an update on one board I did a general google and found that the case had been reported in Portugal in October where it was made clear the relationship between the 2 people involved, but in the UK we were not even allowed to know the name of the mans CAT.

Even when he died we were not allowed to know about it so his sister couldn't even put an obituary in the paper in case she as arrested again

Carollocking · 17/02/2017 07:36

I know good news is not really reported often but when we see the amount of reports daily about SS it is a big worry and your very right too often we're left guessing in this country because of reporting been limited and people get vilified without good reason.

MiaowTheCat · 17/02/2017 07:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CeCeBloomer · 17/02/2017 07:42

Oh for Ffs this was clearly fuck all to do with comments about breastfeeding

BillSykesDog · 17/02/2017 07:45

As frumpet says, all parties involved have accepted that the reasons for the proceedings were correct. So whatever the safeguarding concerns were are accepted as correct.

What they did wrong was they told the court that the parents were aware of the hearing and had agreed to the removal and were aware of the hearing. That's very serious, but potentially a mistake based on miscommunication or poor procedure rather than lying.

But in any case, any suggestion that this story shows SS are out to snatch babies for trivial reasons isn't borne out by the facts.

And as an aside, the sister in the Portuguese case probably was doing it for financial reasons. She didn't even live in Portugal, she lived here. If she was so close to him why did she send him so far away from her and her family along with everybody else he knew to a home hundreds of miles away? That case is dodgy as shit.

Carollocking · 17/02/2017 07:47

Miaow,I have helped 2 mothers deal with SS both were experiencing serious problems and in reality abuse from SS and there threats and ways they do things were so out of order it took in fact a restraining order against one of them to just get her case brought to the attention of higher up staff and In the end police intervention and a reversal of a court decision. I do t think it's a rare occurrence sadly I think lots are just too scared by there tactics to challenge them

wherethewildthingis · 17/02/2017 07:47

Kirklees children's services are a failing service, rated inadequate by ofsted. They are in chaos, with inexperienced staff, high caseloads, poor management and poor systems. This should never have happened and would not have happened in the majority of areas.
There is a body which regulates social workers and we have to register with them, they have the power to stop social workers practicing again, or ask for retraining. I am sure these social workers would have been reported to that body.

Trifleorbust · 17/02/2017 07:49

There are some people who will speculate endlessly to try to justify the actions of SS, which were clearly draconian and inappropriate here. All we know is that the mother had minor MH problems (as do millions of adults in the UK) and the father was involved in violence historically (doesn't rule out being a dad as far as I know) and he made some comments about feeding. We don't know what those comments were.

BillSykesDog · 17/02/2017 07:55

There are some people who will speculate endlessly to try to justify the actions of SS, which were clearly draconian and inappropriate here

trifle, not clearly as all parties have accepted that they were right to bring the proceedings, so not draconian and appropriate. What they did wrong was not tell the parents about the hearing and tell the court the parents had agreed to the removal.

Your point about 'speculating' equally applies to people justifying the parents actions. But that's a moot point, because even the parents have accepted SS were right to have concerns.

Carollocking · 17/02/2017 07:56

Mrssmith79 yes your right about Shannon Matthews and Kirklees but there was something else also as I only watched that last night

imthelastsplash · 17/02/2017 07:58

I deliberately avoid these sort of threads normally because somehow, regardless of facts, SW 's are always right.

I'm sure there were prior concerns, but that's why there is a system in place. They not only failed to inform parents (which I generously could allow a miscommunication error - as CYPS are masters at miscommunication) but they also failed the child by not informing CAFCASS either - that wasn't miscommunication - that was gross misconduct.

The parents would have had to fight as well, really really fight, to get their child back. Their child that's had 'continued to thrive' since it was returned.

Carollocking · 17/02/2017 08:06

I can only think how hard it must have been the mum and dad to not have there baby so long and how hard they have made things for them now.missing 10 weeks if a new borns life must have made her mh so much worse and I'm sure suicidal thoughts were there always as I'm sure that's how I would have felt

frumpet · 17/02/2017 08:07

Wherethewildthings I do hope this was a case of poorly managed junior staff and that the SW's involved recieve the appropriate training and supervision .

frumpet · 17/02/2017 08:11

Carol as the baby was placed with a family member , does that mean that the mother had no contact ? I know a couple who had their newborn removed into emergency foster care and they still had contact with the baby .

Carollocking · 17/02/2017 08:17

Not 1000 percent but if had contact very very sure it would have been totally supervised,though I get the feeling they didn't have contact

Megatherium · 17/02/2017 08:19

The thing is, this sort of thing hits the news precisely because it is unusual. The papers don't relate on the hundreds of similar decisions social workers are taking every day that turn out to be the right ones. We don't stop driving every time there's a horrific crash, we don't stop going to the doctors every time a massive medical negligence claim is reported. It's illogical to say because of one case that we should never trust social workers.

Megatherium · 17/02/2017 08:22

The interesting thing about this report is the way the Mail is playing down the fact that it was a claim under the Human Rights Act. They can't bear anything that doesn't accord with their mantra that it's only ever used to benefit criminals and dreadful forrins.

Carollocking · 17/02/2017 08:25

Well I don't fully agree there,there are reports daily throughout the country about ss mistakes and mess ups and lies etc however most only are locally reported.
If do a little more and look at smaller local papers you'd be really shocked maybe at how many problems there are with the ss

Hoppinggreen · 17/02/2017 08:27

I live in Kirklees and there is much more to this than is immediately apparent.
There were some concerns before the child's birth due to MH difficulties on the others part but it seemed that the father was more stable.
Unfortunately he expressed opinions on how he didn't believe that sterilising bottles was necessary as babies had " natural immunity"
Without being confident that the baby would be safely fed I don't really see what else SS could do. Efforts were made to confirm that the baby WOULD be fed safely but the parents couldn't do that
The judgement and subsequent compensation was due to procedural mistakes by SS not necessarily that the decision was entirely wrong.

Trifleorbust · 17/02/2017 08:28

Megatherium: That's fine, but the untrustworthy minority wield the power to do the unthinkable, don't they? They can remove my child. I have nothing whatsoever to hide but wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw them, even fully acknowledging that the majority are responsible professionals. And isn't that sad? Even if I needed support I freely admit that I would hide that fact as long as possible, notwithstanding any risk to my baby.

Trifleorbust · 17/02/2017 08:30

due to MH difficulties on the others part

MINOR MH difficulties. You don't remove someone's baby because of this, unless the child is at risk.

Trifleorbust · 17/02/2017 08:31

BillSykesDog: Do you imagine they would have got their baby back if they hadn't acknowledged it?

imthelastsplash · 17/02/2017 08:32

No the papers don't tell every positive story about SW's but they also don't report on all the 'low level' mistakes, prejudice and general ineptitude that happens regularly.

I'm not slagging of SWers, I'm slagging off the system. How have we got to the point where there is no better way to care for a child than to lie to the court to get them removed. How have we become so accepting of errors because the SWers are young and inexperienced?

So many people accept that 'there must be more too it'

Even if I agreed that this was a rare case that went wrong, doesn't mean it's right! There must have been more to it so let's have no compassion for the family. It makes me so sad - there's so many families, young parents, old parents who are expected to jump through ever changing hoops to prove they can parent. They need support - but there's no money for that is there?