Are social services really stealing children?

[user1491583343]

Hi all,

I just seen a terrible documentary in Portugal where some parents living in the UK where asking the government to help them with their children, which were taken away by social services unfairly.

I know some of this documentaries can be only one sided but really made me wonder as they seem pretty terrified and genuine... I am also pregnant so this was really distressing to see. Some of the cases there in my opinion shouldn't lead to the kids been taken into fostering or adoption - they were too extreme and cruel.

To give one example a mum there, had her 2nd baby and noticed something wasn't okay as the new born baby seemed to shake every now and than... She took the baby to Hospital a few times (she showed all the letters and videos of the baby "shaking"). Apparently different doctors told her that was "hiccups" she was always sent home. 5 days latter her baby dies and social services take away her 3 year old as doctors believe she had "shaken the baby until he passed away" - even though the case was still under investigation the 3 year was given for adoption (not fostering), even though she had her grandparents living also in the UK with all the conditions to get custody of the child.

It's super scary but basically more medical exames have showed latter that the baby could have died due to epilepsy as their was no signs of agression, abuse etc... but as the child was placed into adoption this was already too late.

I am sure some details are missing but seemed so cruel that I decided to ask for opinions and see if anyone here has had any experiences.

The documentary also showed the pressure SS get to meet their targets and how it's not the first time that they are accused of lying etc...

Some parents in the documentary have showed concerns on seeking help from professionals due to this extreme procedures - for example another case their was a woman who got post-natal depression. She got her baby taken away after going to GP to discuss this matter, because the GP reported her to SS who have assumed she wouldn't have the ability to look after a child. We all know that woman can get depression but what is creating the problem is the fact that close family don't even get offered to foster. Children are given away and in most cases ends in adoption.

Would love to hear experiences and your thoughts on this.

Multiple multiple failures were made in the well known cases, like BabyP, where SS did NOT intevene.

In fact the review of the baby P case showed every agency involved failed him - health professionals, the police and lawyers, as well as SWs. So why is SS singled out for blame?

If anyone is interested in the realities rather than 'having a bash at' - the serious case reviews show the extent to which safeguarding children involves a range of agencies.

2016 Serious Case Reviews

Yes we know that Allington. Failed by multiple agencies. But we were talking about SS.

I have read through part of the Serious Case Reviews. I have had a conversation with Social Services Manager last week.
Total lack of consistency.
A 17 year old was referred to as a child in the Report but I was told that someone younger is an adult.
I was also told that a child being looked after (under all sorts of legislations) was the responsibility of the relative doing the caring but the Report says about a "looked after child in the care of a relative"
The child I was talking about now lives in a childrens' home but I am told the child is an adult. An adult should not be living with children in such a situation especially as there is a questionable history with the child/adult.
Is it any wonder that I have absolutely no faith in Social Services..

But SS can't intervene without evidence - from other agencies. They gather evidence in partnership, and if they think the threshold of significant harm has been reached they present that evidence to a judge. If the judge agrees the child can be taken into care. It's not something done by a single agency.

Re: adulthood. The law is pretty confused about when a young person becomes able to consent to all sorts of things - medical care, sex, learning to drive, being criminally responsible. And then there's the practicalities of how you actually stop e.g. a 15 going where they want and doing what they want.

I'm not a SW, but am an adoptive parent and former foster parent (of teenagers). I can't begin to explain how complicated and messed up some of the situations were. Often there was no 'good' solution, only a 'least worst'.

Gallavich and user, you asked what the incentive was, you didn't specify financial incentive. Wasn't there a government minister a few years ago who said he wanted to make sure there were more adoptions and they were done more quickly?

More adoptions (and more quickly) for children who had already been removed from their birth parents by court order and were stuck in the care system, not more adoptions = take more children into care so they can be adopted.

I see variations of this argument come up so often. Why?

If there is a societal engineering agenda, and I'm not sure there currently is, although some people in power do have that ideology, it comes from much higher up, and influences government policies, it does not come from individual social workers working within those policies.

I think looking at why our current government is so pro adoption, while simultaneously putting more families in poverty, stopping sure start etc, is an important line of questioning. Much more useful than the old "social services steal babies" tripe. Looking at why a right wing government makes the policies it does, and why people voted for that, raises important issues. But that is uncomfortable for many people. It's uncomfortable for me as an adopter. I suspect it's uncomfortable for those who voted Tory.

Many people feel that it's not fair that feckless druggies get knocked up at the bus stop, while good, honest couples are infertile. A short hop is then systemic (so not social services, but governmental) reduction in support for those viewed as "unworthy" of their kids, and a push to speed up the system for those who are "worthy". Those policies have been put in place in recent years. Not by social workers (of which there are good and bad), but by those in power. Social workers don't steal babies. Most would much prefer much more funding for prevention and support, most want sure start back.

If people are concerned that more children could grow up with their birth families if there were more support, then they should make their voice heard politically, and vote accordingly.

However, often the "stolen baby" myths are published in the right wing press. I don't understand that!

I've recently had contact with a family who've been on SS radar for a long time. If SS were, in fact, stealing babies, they'd have had a bonanza of baby-stealing with this family. The sad truth is that they're underfunded, under-staffed and, in my experience, trying their damnedest to put right some shitty situations caused by questionable parenting. No one social worker has the authority to swoop in and take a child; there is a procedure, there are rules, there are protocols which must be followed and if the end result is that a child is removed, it is only because they believe (and can prove) it is in the child's best interests.

Of course they can make mistakes, of course there are dickheads who believe they're more powerful than God. But they occur in every sector and every job in the land. Tarring them all with the same brush would be naive in the extreme.

A short hop is then systemic (so not social services, but governmental) reduction in support for those viewed as "unworthy" of their kids, and a push to speed up the system for those who are "worthy". Those policies have been put in place in recent years.

IME this is absolute nonsense. Time after time after time we see terrible parents given so much support to keep their children. We see children adopted at 7plus who have spent their critical years with awful parents.
Personally I think more children should be taken and adopted much quicker. For their own sake. There is far too much emphasis placed on keeping children with their parents when the could be much better off without them.
It's a contraversial idea though and people hate to say it.

Couldnt agree more Dingdong!

Agree

My 5 month old nieces mum committed suicide 2 weeks ago due to the constant harassment and bullying from social services. They told her on the Wednesday afternoon that she had court on the Friday as they were going to have her baby adopted outside of the family( they weren't interested in her older child. The family could have her)
Kirsty killed herself on the Thursday morning. 24 hrs later the grieving family still had to attend court. The social worker walked in and the only thing she said was "it's a small waiting room isn't it" the judge threw the adoption out of court. It's too late for Kirsty and now we are left trying to organise a funeral and a future for her girls.

www.kentonline.co.uk/folkestone/news/tributes-to-beautiful-fun-loving-123047/#comments

Charb2017

So sorry for your loss. I hope they are haunted forever with every future case to take extra care when playing with lives

Didn't we have this conversation before almost identical but in France

that all depends on what you call evidence doesn't it really in a criminal case a person cannot be sent to prison unless the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt so with that in mind the ss in the family courts use something called a balance of probability what this means is that rumour conjecture and allegation can be used as evidence and the courts don't need any hard evidence I haven't had my kids removed by they way so its not a grudge also the ss use a charge call "risk of future harm" which basically means at some point in the kids life they believe your going to hurt them in some way. so my point is this if you was arrested via a allergation that you was going to try and murder someone but it was a false allergation and the court decided to send you to prison on the charge of "risk of future murder" would you accept that decision and do your time even though at the trial no real concrete evidence was provided just allergations and a few rumours ? the answer to that in anyones mind is no they would not so although the documentary will be one sided I ask you to consider what is actually happening instead of being blind side by a social worker whoes knows for a fact I speak the truth half of the country don't know this they think a court is a court and you will get justice sadly that's not the case , also they work on the premise that " just because the police nfa a charge doesn't mean it didn't happen" this basically means social services believe a person is guilty even if the police don't , so if you end up going through the system by the ss the will say your guilty with no hard evidence and can and will take children using this rumour. its a 3.1 billion pound business every t

They definitely take Australian Aboriginal children. It is called the Stolen Generations. It is ongoing.It is one of the great shames of our country. But that too is due to ongoing systemic violence and not necessarily evil SW's.
There are no easy answers.

Yes we've had this all before. The programme is made by some bloke with a real agenda. Every now and again it crops up on here.

Zombie thread!

My child was taken because of domestic violence I will saybsocail services had a reason to remove her but not a reason to have her forced adopted lad I did everything they asked they said they help me find some were safe before he got out of jail but they didn't they just left me to cope on my own and he turned up amd 3days later they removed her yes I admit I broke an order so I didn't always make the best choice by my child but I did fight all the way in court and never signed anything fir them some socail workers done in order ti keep children but I will say there are some good workers to I feel I wasn't treat fairly and i wasn't given the right support and information she told tge judge I should of took the child 2 years previously and that judge still agreed with her to have adoption in my eyes saying this means she failed to protect my child as much as me not seeing my self as a victim of domestic abuse and her dad's mental health issue been a risk as high as they said but yet still gave him contact whilst in foster care which my child screamed the place down cos she didn't want to see him now I will say I hate then and they do have targets to meet but some kids do generally need help n a home n love but my child didn't she had allbthat at home it even states in a report our as worker did it tonpeove a point but iget letters yearly and 1xay I find my daughter and I trllbher 100 % the truth even the bad choices i made

My experiences of Child Line and Social Services has been astounding and now better educated, I'm very clear, neither should ever be trusted!

Be suspicious in all interactions, their motives and methods.

All organs of the state are to be despised. none of them are trustworthy. Not one. It's easy to see why communities in the US go off the grid.

ZOOMIE!!! Start a new thread!

This happens regularly with Aboriginal families in Australia although children are rarely adopted that just enter the foster system. Often for extended periods of time.

It’s complicated. There isn’t targets to take children and as a former Social Worker I can confirm it’s not at all easy to remove children. As pointed out it’s not solely an individual decision and in my experience parents are given many chances to improve. When you start getting involved with teenagers it’s incredibly difficult to get it right.
That being said Social Services is an agent of the state and there are systematic issues in relation to race & class as there is in all institutions. It’s ridiculous to pretend there isn’t.