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?

SS are basically, broadly, overstretched and underfunded. So the individuals working in child protection are sometimes going to be overzealous and sometimes lazy, incompetent and easily duped by abusive-but-convincingly-good parents. For every story of a decent parent unjustly harassed and separated from their DC, there's going to be one about an at-risk child left to suffer.

I was emotionally abused and neglected as a teenager. I reached out for help so many times and was ignored every time. The one time I wasn't ignored, I was chastised for being dramatic and copying my sisters troubled behaviour.

So I accepted I was infact a horrible two faced cow, who didn't deserve to eat, or be allowed to clean my clothes. That's the problem with emotional abuse and neglect, eventually you believe it's normal and deserved, so it can be hard to pick up.

Unlike what's been written here, children are very rarely removed for an emergency, if they are it's more likely to be police that do it.

Also, children are most likely to be placed into care due to neglect, unlike what someone said above.

Social services do get involved in cases of emotional harm but there has to be evidence. A neighbour reporting something (as a pp talks about above) justifies an exploration but if there's nothing else to evidence it we won't stay involved. We might even believe the neighbour but it's simply not possible to justify being involved unless we can evidence the reason and the impact on the children.

However children are certainly on child protection and in care as a result of emotional abuse

Lurked Forever I think you missed the words loving and supportive in my post. The fact that when CAMHS refused to help we engaged a private psychiatrist to help.

How about people from AS starting from the point that parents are good and living people rather from the point that they are scumbags.

My daughter has never been abused in anyway. She was ill due to an undiagnosed neuro developmental difficulty. The illness caused the overdoses. The NHS (the state) refused to provide her with clinical or social support or care. At that point the state including SS in my opinion lostbthe right go have any involvement.

A social worker phoned me. He could barely make himself understood. He was rude. He was insolent. His superiors agreed yet they hired him to do a job that requires high levels of communication. It doesn't convey much integrity in the service overall.

AFAIK social services are so overstretched it's literally a case of firefighting and helping the children in the most danger

Not true

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

Also not true

I found the SS to be lazy, incompetent and basically useless

Every single social work department across the whole country?

Adalindschade

Rude, judgemental, insolent and incompetent. Too many not fit for purpose and not fit to practice.

I date you to say "not true".

People need to understand that
a) different local authorities work differently with child abuse and neglect. It shouldn't be so but it is. The demographics in the locality, how well the local authority is funded, the director's background and experience, the cost of living in the area, the amount of media coverage etc all play a part. What hits the threshold in one area wouldn't in another. If you work in a failing, disfunctional local authority you may experience social workers as over stretched and uncaring because they aren't able to do their jobs properly. If you work in a functioning local authority (as I do) you will find dedicated, hard working, sometimes overloaded but generally well supported social workers with robust management support, doing great work for children.
B) emotional abuse is very difficult to evidence. Sadly the child's word is not usually enough. I just removed a child for emotional abuse and there was evidence from several trustworthy people that made the child's evidence more credible and so they were removed.

I'm not going to get into a petty squabble with you roses - as a social worker I know what I and my colleagues are about

I judge a service based upon my experience of it Adalindeschade. If you are a social worker I hope you are polite and respectful when you speak to parents after their child has been clinically unwell. I hope you don't announce yourself as miss or Mrs Brown and address the parent as "Smith". Totally unacceptable.

Absolutely. I would never be so crass.
Sounds like you met a (few) knob(s). The social work profession has just as many as any other profession. That really doesn't mean we are all like that

Well you have done exactkyvwhat one of your colleagues did there Adalindschade I take it that was calculated to be particularly passive aggressive. It's OhThe or Mrs Roses.

How dare you be just as fucking rude as he was. Unbelievable. I think i know what you and your colleagues are about too.

Cross post. If it was an error.

Of course it wasn't. This is mumsnet, people shorten user names

Fortunately in our case the Team Leader and his boss apologised. As have the local hospital and CAMHS for both their incompetence and poor communication.

We are in one of the wealthiest catchments of the UK if demographics matter. You'd think, based on that alone, the conduct of staff would be better.

I took some legal advice. The hospital failed to act in accordance with the MH Code of conduct. CAMHS practice was so poor they had breached all trust and confidence and initially assessed my daughter as tier two.

If we didn't have money. If we weren't middle class professionals. If we hadn't always out our children first in every way I dread to think where my dd woukd be now. Dropped out. Possibly an inpatient.

But in spite of doing everything possible and being a very good parent AS spoke to me like shit. That has formed my opinion of them I'm afraid.

All I can say is we arent one homogeneous group

It is true that people have different views on what constitutes abuse.

Roses never claimed ALL SW's were idiots/incompetent etc. She gave a comment of her experience. This is allowed.

The local council's new antisocial behaviour officer came out to see us and then the neighbour, after he'd attacked her predecessor who then moved to a different job. (As myself and another neighbour had witnessed the incident). The council were suddenly interested when one of their own was verbally abused.

At one point, the new ASB officer said to me something about, and she used the phrase herself, the neighbour's known "domestic violence". (Both parents have been arrested at different times for getting pissed and smashing the house up at 2AM - kids left in situ during these events). Essentially by using the words domestic violence, council employee admitted they do... domestic violence.

In the very next sentence, she said words to the effect that the way they choose to live their lives is, quote, "a lifestyle choice". So she was saying openly that DV is "a lifestyle choice"! And therefore, presumably OK. She went on to say they had "no concerns".

At this point we have given up on the police, the council, and most definitely the useless SS and NSPCC. So I think the only way to proceed is to get my son to record the "lifestyle choices" we hear (and they're loud - you can't help but hear this ongoing shit) and put it on YouTube. I won't be preserving anyone's anonymity, either. Then let's see if the SS and council change their tune and instead of enabling DV in front of - and inflicted on - kids as a lifestyle choice, they will be compelled, maybe to act.

It intrigues me though that now it is officially thought that to call your kid a cunt, or a bitch, or a shite, is merely lifestyle choice. Like IKEA furniture.

Last night after posting here, me and my 16 year old heard the most almighty 'lifestyle choice' kick off. The child was screaming. But through the walls it sounds faint and is impossible to record. In the garden, my son can probably get the audio pretty well though so we're going to have to wait til the lifestyle choice kicks off on a sunny day.

I appreciate social workers are not one homogenous group. But neither are the public.

Both CAMHS and SS where I live seemed to assume all parents were scum and very unintelligent. It is actually rather offensive.

I correct immediately now. Yes, I am "mum". My daughter's not yours so please call me Mrs Roses. And no you may not use my first name if you are going to address other people using their titles.

Looking at the literature I think It's all a bit more tailored if you happen to be a traveller. Then services are differentiated and more readily available.

Highest common denominator needs to prevail more.

OhTheRoses are you actually trying to say that non-travellers should get better treatment, or that 'naice' middle-class families should be treated with more respect? Many people who work with abused children know that sometimes the wealthy, educated parents are actually the most abusive because they are much better at covering their tracks.

Quite the reverse. I'm saying that the treatment support and diagnosis my daughter should have received shod have been as available to her as it is to the local travelling community.

It wasn't. She was tier 3. She was assessed by a PMHW who list our contact details and told us to get support off the internet and who closed my daughter's care when we declined inaccessible and inadequate group therapy.

So we got my dd a psychiatrist and we aren't even eligible for a tax rebate as e have paid twice.

And I have never ever abused my children in spite of being wealthy.

I was sitting behind a big family group on a bus yesterday. Three adult women and three little girls. One of the women started reciting bits of that I love you to the moon and back book to one of her daughters, and then started singing an I love you song at her, then said very loudly, but we don't love X (the oldest daughter). And another woman agreed, no, we don't love X. then one of them said to X We love Y though don't we, and the daughter who;d been told she wasn't loved said, 'Yes, we love Y.'

It was chilling to hear her be told this and to hear her be made to repeat that her sister was the loved one. She sounded like she'd been trained to be very complicit in the favouritism.

Everyone is not the perfect parent. Abuse is wrong and parents can be told it's wrong ie name calling your child but sometimes there's not a lot that can be done.

You have to look at the impact on the child, it might not be obvious, common sense tells you the child might grow up with low esteem or confidence but SW cannot rescue all children. The parenting might be classed as good enough. Going into care is a last resort. The outcomes for Children in care are not great. You are not permitted by law to place a child in care if it would be more detrimental to them than remaining at home.

Just because SW advise parents to stop doing things and attempt to educate them as to why they should it does not mean they will take that advice.

It is not the SS fault.