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

To think SS usually won't remove children who are 'just' being emotionally abused?

118 replies

daisymeadowsky · 25/07/2017 22:08

I've put 'just' in inverted commas not because it isn't serious but because I mean no other issues, no sexual abuse or neglect.

If a parent is calling a child names, denying them access to normal popular culture, insulting them, bullying them really - it seems to me very unlikely SS would intervene.

Or am I wrong?

OP posts:
bostonkremekrazy · 25/07/2017 22:11

Yes you are wrong.
It is a category of abuse in its own right.
A child can be removed if a parent is bullying them, calling them names, giving them no love etc....and do not change their ways when given help to turn their behaviour around by social services.
It often goes hand in hand with neglect.

Original poster
daisymeadowsky · 25/07/2017 22:12

Yes, but if it doesn't, I doubt SS would be interested.

OP posts:
TodaysUser · 25/07/2017 22:14

Do children have a right to popular culture? I'm feels like that would discriminate against many people who don't fit the popular culture.

Supersoaryflappypigeon · 25/07/2017 22:14

I hope they would, but suspect "low grade" abuse wouldn't rank high on their list, given how stretched a lot of SW are. I hope I'm wrong though.

Original poster
daisymeadowsky · 25/07/2017 22:15

That's what you picked out of my post.

I imagine that's what SS would have said as well. All fine, move along.

OP posts:
DearMrDilkington · 25/07/2017 22:19

In my experience your sadly correct.

I know a family where both parents have emotionally abused their children for years, it regularly turns physical as well. Social services are aware every single time it happens, because the children tell them.

Nearly 2 years since SS got involved, home life has became worse and worse, yet the children still live there.

I have no idea what it takes for a child to be removed anymore..

Squirmy65ghyg · 25/07/2017 22:19

What Boston said.

DancingLedge · 25/07/2017 22:20

Don't second guess SW. If you know a child who is not being treated well, tell them, and let them do their job.
Please.

TodaysUser · 25/07/2017 22:20

I think a lot of people throw the term emotional abuse around when they mean others have different values to them. It is worrying Sad.

CorbynsBumFlannel · 25/07/2017 22:20

I have to admit I was a bit Hmm about denying access to popular culture as well. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that because I think whatever cultural experiences are provided would come under parental choice. I wouldn't say not having a TV for eg would count as abuse.
Bullying and namecalling are different altogether and clearly forms of abuse.

DearMrDilkington · 25/07/2017 22:20

Was that to me or op?

PopcornBits · 25/07/2017 22:21

This is so sad
I was neglected and emotionally abused by my dad amongst other abuse I was subjected to.

I always wished I could turn back time and reach out to someone, the very fact that their are children doing that and SS do nothing is heartbreaking.
Those poor children.

MargaretTwatyer · 25/07/2017 22:25

I think you're probably right. AFAIK social services are so overstretched it's literally a case of firefighting and helping the children in the most danger.

I think the sort of situation you talk about would be seen as unhappy but not serious enough for them to get involved with. They would probably only be getting involved in a situation like that if the child was showing outward signs of not coping like dangerous or impulsive behaviour getting into trouble with the law or being sexually exploited.

Theresnonamesleft · 25/07/2017 22:27

Emotional abuse can be neglect. Bullying and name calling can be abusive.
But this shouldn't include access to popular culture. Popular culture over the years has included kids watching Rihanna videos and playing call of duty. Anyone who pulled me for not allowing my children to do things that were considered as popular culture would be told to fuck off.

As for intervention this would depend on various things afaik

elevenclips · 25/07/2017 22:27

Are you quite certain that:

  1. the name calling is not done in complete exasperation - e.g. Child repeatedly told not to do something, continues to do it and breaks something or hurts themselves and parent shrieks "you idiot" which although not the right thing to do is understandable.

  2. that the denying of the popular culture is not them not being allowed 18 rated games when they are 10 or similar? Or not being allowed on social media for their own protection?

Bottom line is im asking are you sure the parent is setting out to hurt the child's feelings or abuse them mentally or have you just seen snapshots of situations which have spiralled out of hand?

Lurkedforever1 · 25/07/2017 22:37

Logic bypass op? How can you have just emotional abuse without neglect? Do you fail to realise that children have emotional needs too, and therefore it's impossible to emotionally abuse a child without emotional neglect? Try substituting physical abuse in your sentence op and see how foolish it looks. And then try educating yourself on what emotional abuse is.

This forum fucks me right off at times. Anyone posts that their dp insulted them and it's ltb. But children being abused? Oh no it's not proper abuse.

pop ditto. My childhood was vile, but as I had a naice home nobody bothered. And although services themselves have a different attitude now, it appears other adults are still quite happy to enable abusive parents.

Original poster
daisymeadowsky · 25/07/2017 22:37

That's exactly it eleven.

People wild assume, especially as the parents present themselves as wonderful people, that anything the child says is the child lying or it's just a snapshot of their life.

When I say denying access to popular culture, I don't mean no TV or similar. Rather buying dc awful clothes, dressing them in clothes clearly targeted at the opposite sex (when this isn't their choice.)

OP posts:
GreeboIsACutePussPuss · 25/07/2017 22:40

Denying of popular culture is not really emotional abuse.

SS will remove children because of emotional abuse but it is hard to prove and obviously what some people call emotional abuse and what is actually classed as emotional abuse in terms of SS involvement aren't always the same thing.

stella23 · 25/07/2017 22:43

In my experience ss don't have time or resources to deal with any abuse that doesn't physically harm the child, doesn't even warrant a phone call these days.

The criteria for meeting the threshold of intervention is becoming higher and higher.

Original poster
daisymeadowsky · 25/07/2017 22:43

Yes that would be fair enough if that's all I'd mentioned in my post but it wasn't.

OP posts:
RochelleGoyle · 25/07/2017 22:44

You are wrong. I know of many, many cases where social services have intervened due to emotional abuse.

TodaysUser · 25/07/2017 22:45

Parents should be allowed to parent. SS should be for actual abuse.

RochelleGoyle · 25/07/2017 22:45

But I completely agree with Stella that '
The criteria for meeting the threshold of intervention is becoming higher and higher.'

stella23 · 25/07/2017 22:45

But that's not to say you'd shouldn't intervene, it all gets kogoand creates a picture of what life is like for that child.

NoMudNoLotus · 25/07/2017 22:47

You are very wrong.

I have only 2 months ago been involved in decision making in this very situation - we unanimously agreed that the children should remain in long term foster care .