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

[daisymeadowsky]

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?

oswin thanks, wasn't sure what the reference was to her dss but that makes sense now.

OP, are you talking about your childhood?

But what do you expect SS to do once they've intervened?

A large number of children who go through the care system then end up in prison and/or with drug problems. SS can't just wave a magic wand and make everything rosy, and therefore many children are better off staying with their parents even if the parents aren't great.

Are the children they are encouraging to bully siblings and what form does that bullying take?

If the emotional abuse involves whole family ostracism then they may be interested. But families like that will often have a convincing 'reason' that they will trot out to convince those in authority it is justified (the victim lies, steals, causes trouble, whole family upset).

Um no lurked I just don't subscribe to your value system. That doesn't make me a homophobe or an abuser. Just like many people in this country and many others and throughout time.

I think that if emotional abuse was witnessed and the impact on the child backed up independently by outside bodies such as schools, teachers, GP, or similar then it would be taken very seriously.

However (and quite rightly) if it was just another member of the family reporting it, or somebody who knew the family in a social rather than professional capacity, then it may not be enough. However it would get them on the radar in case further support seemed necessary.

I doubt SS will assume children lie about this, especially if it happens repeatedly. Bullying and name calling will probably be taken seriously. Can you talk to the children's school as well as SS? It is quite possible the incidents are not enough as stand-alones, but if it gets reported repeatedly the children could be helped.

Are we going to have TodaysUser on all threads bragging about her Christianity which led to physical assault and allowed sexual grooming and emotional abuse of her stepson? Enough.

OP, emotional abuse can absolutely be as devastating as physical or sexual abuse, and certainly something SS should investigate and remove children for. The problem is that it's far harder to define and identify than physical or sexual abuse, and people have different opinions as to what constitutes EA. Sometimes children don't realise they have been EAd until adulthood because they've been raised to believe it's acceptable and the norm. Hell some adults don't realise their relationship or marriage was EA till after they've gotten out.

And of course SS is comprised of individual human beings, many very overworked, all with their own backgrounds and biases.

I think people are picking up on the pop culture thing because it was a fairly big part of the original post with no detail to clarify, and are just trying to understand what the OP meant by that.

OP - whatever situation you are in or are aware of, I truly hope you are able to find support and do whatever you feel necessary to try to bring the EA to an end.

Having had some experience in this area, you would be correct. There is a threshold of seriousness that a situation has to meet before social services will get involved. You would be surprised how high it is.

The DSL at my school often refers things, that all his safeguarding training says he should be referring, yet the MASH do nothing and say case closed.

The threshold for involvement at a child protection level is if a child is experiencing significant harm. SS will work with the family to change the circumstances. Removal is always a last resort. It's almost always better to improve parenting and look holistically at the family to reduce stress etc. Children in care tend to do worse across a range of outcomes hence why it's considered last resort (though there may be an argument that they do worse because they tend to be left in dysfunctional situations a long time before removal is deemed best/experience more extreme abuse).
The type of abuse whether physical, sexual, emotional or neglect shouldn't matter. It's the amount of harm caused to the children. That being said emotional abuse is harder to evidence and quantify sometimes which can make it more difficult.

I think one has to be very careful and that SS and referring services are dishonest and suffer embedded discourteousy and disrespect. IME at hospital and CAMHS level they make a lot up to cover their own incompetence.

CAMHS refuse services. Hospitals try to insist on referrals back to cover their own backsides. I have a CAMHS report that is inaccurate and untruthful. (It was corrected - it noted my 17 year old was regularly drunk on vodka - she isn't). We were reported to SS by A&E after dd took an overdose. I got a call from someone whose English was so poor I couldn't understand him. He asked me if we needed support but couldn't explain what that might be.

After a formal coming about CAMHS conduct they reported me to SS again for being overprotective. You woukd be if you had an I'll teenager CAMHS were refusing to help.

Anyone dealing with CAMHS/SS/hospitals in these circumstances must record everything and affirm it back in writing. These people are barely competent and absolutely cannot be trusted on any level.

Goodness knows what they get up to regarding children/families who are genuinely at risk.

If you stop being so vague, op, and be specific, then you might get better answers.

Unlike physical or sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect are less easy to define and different people will have different thresholds. The difficulty isn't in extreme cases.... We could all agree that a child being repeatly told their a worthless piece of shit and cruelly tormented about their looks whilst being starved is abuse....

But if we're honest with ourselves we would have all behaved in ways that are mildly emotionally abusive or neglectful to our children, whether that be shouting at them in frustration or letting them watch too my tv one day because we weren't feeling much like active engaged parenting.

Unless the case is extreme, SS will often need to make a very difficult judgment in these cases about the wellbeing of the child which boils down to what is the lesser of two evils; keeping them in a family where there's some genuine abuse but also genuine love and connection.

There's too much of a tendency to see emotional abuse and neglect as a black and white issue when in reality it's a spectrum that can co-exist in the context of other positive family dynamics.

Teacher, can confirm ss rarely remove children now, even when child discloses abuse directly to ss. If you're worried about something you should report it, it could become part of a pattern of reporting. However, ss don't seem to remove children for emotional abuse, neglect or physical abuse, so ss might do something, but wouldn't remove chn. As an earlier posted said, they just do emergencies.

User.....not sure where your info has come from but the vast majority of children in care are there because of concerns around neglect.
People worry so much about sexual abuse but its the category that results in the least involvement and removal from SS - most contact is around negect of children.
Emotional abuse and neglect frequently go hand in hand.
As for thinking children arent removed now....why do you think 6000 children in the UK are waiting to be adopted? That's a drop in the ocean when you consider all the children in care who havent got a care plan as yet....

I've removed children who were made subject to child protection plan under the category of emotional abuse.

I was abused as a child in all forms, physically, sexually, emotionally and I was neglected. The emotional abuse is what formed an opinion of myself that took a lot of counselling to change (and still rears its ugly head from time to time) the rest has very little effect on me today. Those saying emotional abuse is not a thing should be disgusted with themselves.

I also think that denying a child access to popular culture can also be abuse. I would be forever grounded (often for imagined misdemeanors) so that I couldn't see a film with friends. And as a 13 year old had all toiletries apart from a bar of soap removed. It was all about control and isolation.

Only yesterday in the space of maybe 15 minutes, I heard my neighbour call his 5 year old "little shite", then "little shit" then "little cow". For the past 3 years we have constantly heard him threaten to "bray" both children (male 7, female about 5). We have contacted SS numerous times (came out a couple of times, seemed to visit weekly, for a few weeks, dropped it) and NSPCC (told them we'd reported them - did nothing). We've given up. Council recently told us they have "no concerns". Although they may be lying as the police told us a few months back "There is something in the pipeline".

I think at this point even if I recorded it, the SS would still say nothing was happening.

I used to be a teacher. I found the SS to be lazy, incompetent and basically useless. Years later it seems there's been no change.

That's were your very wrong, children can be placed under child protection or removed from their parents for a number of reasons including emotional abuse

Hmm.
My dd has two parents.
Loving family.
Beautiful home.
Totally normal, totally loved.
Private psychiatry when CAMHS closed her case and told us to get her support off internet.
OD undiagnosed ADHD, ADD variant at foot of problem.
Well behaved high performer. No teacher raised concern.
We had no idea but if all fell into place when it was diagnosed privately.

I had to take a call from a social worker, whose English was so poor I could barely understand him

He addressed me as "Roses". Not Mrs Roses. Not "oh The". Just an ignorant and suborxinating countenance.

One can only imagine how these types deal with people in actual need.

So I am workers have no place making decisions on connection with decent families.

Unbelievable and my heart goes out to the vulnerable.

Who the fuck do people like this think they are.

His boss apologised. The Head of Children's Services confirmed he had moved on.

OUTRAGEOUS. I have zero respect for these types who think they can judge decent people.

I ended up on sleeping pills for three months it was so degrading.

onthe I'm sorry for your shit experience, and I'm not dismissing it, let alone condoning it. That's not acceptable and if there had been concerns a twat like that would have missed them.

However I strongly disagree with the idea that ticking a load of irrelevant surface level boxes for being decent people should have any bearing on concerns.

I had a wealthy home, professional parents, popular with peers, high achieving etc and precisely because of that any concerns were dismissed and I was left to suffer. Most people fell for the poor me & my bad child line, but even the few who didn't were ignored by services that should have removed me. And when I got old and wise enough to try and get myself removed, I was told I was an ungrateful liar. All because I came from 'decent' parents.

What surface level boxes. He never met me but was still offensive. Actually it would have been quite good if he had come round.

How can someone with basic courtesy and no grasp of the English language form an opinion.

If he hadn't been from ss and if I hadn't been reported by a&e I'd have told him I didn't accept unsolicited calls.

Vile.

Lol I have a friend who is training to be a social worker yet she regularly neglects her kids, calls the oldest a little bitch and fat names (she fed them coke and cookies from a very early age and all kids are very overweight), smacks her round the head , the whole family are crawling with a nits infestation , she's an alcoholic who doesn't care where her kids are , they aren't even put into car seats. They regukarly walk over the seats of the car whilst shes driving . she has the kids dad living with her whilst claiming as a single mum, the oldest girl is spoken to like absolute shit and that's how she thinks it's normal to speak to adults , she orders people around ... she went to court on a threat charge and the judge found her not guilty (I was with her , she did do it ! She pleaded not guilty !) She brings men in and out of her kids lives , they call him dad, beat the shit out of her, then they go again !
I have no faith in social services if they give her a job and don't trust that they look into the correct famillies , emotional abuse can be worse in many cases . Her daughter has zero confidence coz she's been put down so many times by the mum who is meant to love her! Emotional harm can last a longer than physical and SS should take it serious .

By surface level boxes I mean the qualities you listed, eg two parents, nice home, high achiever. They shouldn't have any bearing on whether there are concerns.

The reason he wasn't fit to judge is because he was an idiot, not because you have typically mc qualities.