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?

It's how ss work totally they suggest things but in reality it's not a suggestion it's a command or else

They need bring private prosecution to get proper compensation it's only way

I think it's mad that given many countries (i.e. USA) don't advise parents to sterilise bottles, it can be a factor in taking a baby away from their parents.

The council returned the baby to the parents before the court case, saying that the threshold concerns hadn't been met.

It is mad but as someone else said they don't use guidelines they make them law. It's so wrong and often the most vulnerable that suffer.

Someone upthread said they're a fucking excellent mother and have never had involvement from SS but they're not mutually exclusive by a mile

Countries which don't advise sterilizing advise using a dishwasher hot wash, which does sterilize bottles. I can't imagine that this case was based on the father mentioning he was planning to use the dishwasher as a steriliser.

SolomanDaisy: Why?

Private prosecutions are ridiculously expensive. I doubt the parents have the access to that kind of money.

I got the rage last night reading the review into the shanay walker case. SS placed her with the aunt that killed her and I was reading where the SW basically said the aunt deceived them/everyone.

Well yes, her face fit and she went to church and looked like a good kind hearted soul, who presumably always dressed smartly so she couldn't possibly be abusive. Which is probably why the whole team ignored the schools constant stream of reports about the unexplained bruising she kept coming into school with but yes it's the aunt that solely deceived you all.

SWs are not infallible, they get it wrong sometimes and when they do should be held accountable for it.

Why what?

Why can't you imagine he was going to use the dishwasher?

As far as I'm aware, dishwashers in the US have hotter settings than are commonly used in the UK. Not sure if this is true, though.

Still, if the baby was in Special Care, he would have needed sterile bottles because he would be high risk.

The case report is at www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/11.html

The local authority paid part of the claimants' costs, but not all, primarily because the LA made realistic attempts to settle at a fairly early stage whilst the claimants didn't comply with orders to put forward their own proposals for settlement.

Was that the claimants or were they ill advised by their legal team up according to The Telegraph managed to accrue 80k in legal aid cost's ?

who not up !

The local authority paid part of the claimants' costs, but not all, primarily because the LA made realistic attempts to settle at a fairly early stage whilst the claimants didn't comply with orders to put forward their own proposals for settlement

Orders for what exactly?

What if the dad was controlling the mother - said she isn't allowed to breastfeed cos it will makes her boobs saggy and I don't like the idea, they are mine?
And then when they were trying to persuade them bf was a good idea - formula is expensive and you need to sterilise bottles - the dad said baby could have cows milk and bottles didn't need sterilising?
We far from know the whole story - I really doubt the SS went in determined to take the baby off them unless there were other concerns. And they were raised by nursing staff watching interactions between the parents. And SS are being criticised mainly over the procedure - not their actions as such. And no doubt if it went to court the father could say it was a joke or he wasn't serious etc...he hadn't actually DONE anything wrong.
I could see that would be frustrating...and SS might be tempted to 'bend the rules' to save an expensive long process that they thought would or should come to the same conclusion. Not saying that is right but perhaps understandable. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

That's the problem- you can't let people decide on the fate of a family because of what they think might happen - there has to be evidence!

From reading the case report it appears that there were no real concerns. There was support in place. The parents had sought advice and paternal grandmother was going to move in with them to assist. The same paternal grandmother who social services placed the baby with and the same paternal grandmother they had concerns was 'interfering'

There is no argument in this case. Social services were wrong. In every way.

Unlucky, usually I am SS side but in this case the staff in the Hospital said at the time that they had no further concerns over the baby going home with his parents:

"5.On 13 November 2015, the social worker visited the hospital at about lunchtime and was advised by staff that CZ had again gained weight; the staff had no further concerns about the baby, who was reported to be well enough to be discharged. This was, indeed, planned for later that day."

suesspiciousminds.com/

Haven't read the full thread but it's absolute nonsense to believe there wasn't a myriad of concerns in order for this child to be temporary removed.

Ok so they are saying that SW lied that they had parents permission and that is what the row is about not about the fact that the SW concerns about the children weren't true

Yes the child has gone back but perhaps the parents have worked hard in improving their skills.

Perhaps you should read the full thread then

Unfortunately we only ever hear about the mistakes social workers make and not the good work they do, in different and difficult circumstances. I wouldn't do their job, dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't!

Maybe it would be better if people looked at every case individually and objectively rather than taking the default position in favour of SS

That kind of blind faith is somewhat dangerous for parents

Yes we do only hear of the mistakes and only the big ones.

I'm really not anti social services, I think they are a vital service. Unfortunately the service as it is seems unfit for purpose. How can a social worker make a decision on a child welfare that is contrary to medical advice, doesn't follow procedure, lie in court and then still have people defending them saying 'there must be more to it'

The service does need more money - it needs qualified and compassionate social workers, it needs support workers, homestart, family aides, and all the other services that have been cut and cut from the service which leave vulnerable parents with no support.

Being a social worker surely requires a huge amount of common sense, good judgement and a caring attitude and not necessarily a degree.