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?

Carol yes contact was supervised with the couple I mentioned . It was one of the cases where SW's made the right call though , even with massive support , the couple were unable to care for the baby and it was eventually placed with a family member , with ongoing contact .

imo aggressive men with violent history shouldn't be anywhere near a baby. But that's my opinion, not the law.

trifleorbust. I agree totally about not trusting one ever,I have yet to meet one that dosent have this I'm superior so do as I say attitude.and a very narrow mind in terms of accepting we all are different,there attitude is we must not be different.
The blackmail and control and abuse of the 2 mothers I helped was unbelievable,I recorded some if the full visits and on replaying there arrogance and dictatorships were unbelievable,
And they always always have the last say even if the visit was a more pleasant one they'd just have to say something to make the mums feel shit and make them worry more before left.

The way I read it the father did not believe that formula milk was necessary. I can imagine that would cause some concern. I'm not sure what would happen if a newborn was fed cows milk instead of formula, but I can't imagine it would be good. Clearly procedures were not followed, and something went wrong, but it sounds like there were genuine reasons for the concern.

It didn't say he was violent - it said he was previously aggressive. I got accused of aggression once by social services because I asked if they could clarify something to me. There was no hint of aggression, just questioning.

I'm not defending the family, I don't know any details of the case apart from what I've read in the press. But I'm guessing none of you do either (unless you were directly involved in this case, in which case I'd definitely raise my eyebrows at the lack of privacy).

There are procedures to follow and they didn't. The child was returned to the family and is thriving. That's the upshot - everything else is just assumptions

I got accused of aggression once by social services because I asked if they could clarify something to me. There was no hint of aggression, just questioning.

I can imagine how frustrating that must have been.

SWs dont seem to be able to do right for doing wrong..... safeguarding children's wellbeing is not simple and clear cut. It's messy, confusing and difficult. Added to that, that services are woefully understaffed and underfunded, no wonder mistakes are made.

MaudeandHarold: Of course, I understand that. I still wouldn't trust one, in case I fell foul of one of their mistakes.

I had the HV round the other week to do my PND screening. I have no issues whatsoever based on the checklist but, if I did, there is NO WAY I would admit to being sad, overwhelmed, anxious etc., because I simply don't trust SW not to come on with an agenda. I am lucky, but there are many, many vulnerable parents out there who just need a little bit of help to parent effectively, but it seems it is simpler (probably cheaper) to take their kids into care.

Yes it is messy confusing and difficult, which is why procedures should be followed.

And the fact that the service is understaffed and underfunded shouldn't be an excuse. Would you use that as an excuse if your child was treated incorrectly in hospital, or hadn't been taught the relevant things at school? All of our public services are understaffed and underfunded - but unfortunately with regards to CYPS that means you can lose your children.

SWs wield a high power so there should be no mistakes or very minor ones if any not serious lies and perverting justice and care,they should be On trial for the abuse that they have inflicted as for sure you or I would be if we did such a thing.

You take your child's life in your hands the minute you engage in any conversations with them full stop,as they read into your words there own warped opinions,my only suggestion is avoid at all costs and if forced into dealing with them treat the same as a yes and no interview give no information willingly offer nothing but a yes or no to there questions and treat everything they ask as a question against you not to help you.

It really isn't cheaper to take children into care....SWs try to avoid it, there isn't a finite number of foster homes, and group homes aren't great. Early Intervention services are used to try to prevent escalation to more serious problems, but often people find it difficult to put intervention into practice.

Underfunding/understaffing isn't an excuse, but perhaps an explanation to why mistakes are made. I'm not talking about misleading deliberately, but talking about actually not having the physical hours to do the job properly. I'm not a social worker, but have several close friends who are, and they are permanently exhausted. There simply is not enough time in a day to do what needs to be done.

Regardless of the reasons for removal, it's wrong that they mislead the court that the parents agreed to the removal when that wasn't true.

MaudeandHarold: It must be cheaper when what someone needs is permanent, but low level support.

In my experience (from the inside of CYPS and the outside) is that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If you try they move the goalposts and if you don't you're failing to engage.

And of course you have different budgets for different things. It is well known that SW are overstretched, so clearly a financial issue there.

I'm a bit at posters saying "There must be more to this than his views on bottle feeding"

If your view on bottle feeding is: "It doesn't matter if you sterilise the bottle or not" then yeah, thats cause for concern.

Note I say cause for concern not cause for cutting corners or cause for lying to a court.

Agree Damsel I would imagine how not to tell lies in court would crop up quite early in SW training ! However is it possible that it wasn't a malicious lie , that someone thought that fax had been sent or that someone else had made a phonecall or sent an email ?

The thing is you talking of budgets it means nothing,this was a physical choice by so called adult/s in a powerful position money dosent come into that in my opinion.it was just a choice they made.
Pressure is daily if they can't do the job then leave and if make bad choices be hoofed out instantly it's people's lives at stake not a game of monopoly

If it was just the case of them not informing parents then I'd agree it probably isn't a malicious lie but they also failed to inform CAFCASS so the child wasn't represented either.

It doesn't really matter though, in this case their was a minor positive outcome in that the child was returned to parents and is thriving. It could have been very different and we'd never have heard about it

Can anyone link to the court judgement on this?

imo aggressive men with violent history shouldn't be anywhere near a baby. But that's my opinion, not the law. - What about women in that position? should they not be near a baby either? Also I can't see where it says he was 'aggressive' in the present tense or do you think the violent history alone should be enough?

I have a history of violence. You know why? for retaliating to an attack in a domestic violence situation on two seperate occasions with two different men. Yes I seem to pick a 'type', as do many other women which is why Womans Aid help women like me to break that trend.
I also have bipolar disorder. This stems from childhood violence/neglect. My GP and I discussed if I would be okay to have a baby, my GP trusts me enough to not be on medication (not been on it since before child was born 6 yrs ago) knowing that I am smart enough to get help should I need it, he told me he saw absolutely NO reason why I shouldn't become a mother.
I am a fucking excellent mother. I have never had social services involved. Never had anyone express concerns.
Violence and mental health problems on paper may sound concerning but it's not always the case but people do automatically judge (not all people) and social services, in some cases, can be just as bad.

It's really common these papers aren't served as I said in an earlier post they regularly get judgements made in a court with the parents and representatives not there as they've not been told

The article is dodgy it isn't even saying what the unorthodox views are yes SS might have been to cautious but i dont think they swoop in because people formula feed.

A friend of mine is a HV in the Kirklees area and the turn over of staff is ridiculous she says. They see families who are on the poverty line, families with drug and alcohol abuse and yes, families like Karen Matthews who don't remember how many children they have and who lives where.
Kirklees is hugely multi-cultural and HVs (and their advice) are treated with suspicion.

I can see how all of the above would call for SS involvement. They must have a huge amount of cases.