posted for traffic...can I refuse a SS meeting?

[ssquestion]

The circumstances are quite sensitive and identifying so this may be a bit vague.

I've been contacted by SS who want a meeting with me about my DC (over 16 but under 18).

My view is DC are over 16, not at school, not children and therefore don't need child protection. They are suggesting a meeting with me and then me and DC.

Can I refuse? Apart from anything else, I have no annual leave left til Xmas, so if I did meet them I'd be losing a days pay, which isn't great.

*Sitting target. Yeh we collect referrals like prizes. Don't forget we have targets for adoptions and bonuses every time we remove a child.
And of course we hand pick cases in naice areas.

Meanwhile back in the real world......*

Has anyone actually mentioned any of those things?

Why has this thread turned into a "let's slag of all social worKers" thread?
Because it conveneintly deflects from the difficult subject of families being responsible for keeping their children safe?

Fwiw, OP, my advice is to cooperate with SS, not because they're right to be involved but because there is a tendency among social workers to assume the worst. When I asked for help, and admitted that I had a drink problem there was this assumption that I was a lying alcoholic. For example, on one occasion I asked the social worker if she could just leave me with the documents for the safeguarding meeting rather than coming in, as DD2 had chickenpox. She said not a problem, but then stated that I'd refused her entry.

The report was so negative that time! I had to work so hard to convince them that I wasn't what they'd decided I was. The social worker's attitude towards me changed completely and she admitted I would have turned it around without the child protection plan.

The second meeting was horrible too, so many questions about my childhood abuse. The first question from the chair was 'where is your father?' I was shocked. (He's been dead for many years, thankfully.)

Anyway, now we're on a child in need plan because of DD1's needs, so crisis averted. But we had to fight hard to overcome their negative assumptions, how does that encourage someone to ask for help?

So I would advise you to have someone with you meet with them, someone who's clued up. You don't want to risk your DCs having SS hovering around when they start having children.

Because it conveneintly deflects from the difficult subject of families being responsible for keeping their children safe?

Can you point out where this has happened?

Can you point out where this has happened?
yes

I know perfectly well what social workers have to deal with Eamonn. You have clearly had a negative experience with social workers. Some people have had negative experiences with doctors/dentists/teachers/any other professional that you might have come into contact with. Are you suggesting we just get rid of them all?

The problem with social workers is that the families who need them hate them, yet they get slagged off in the press if a child is murdered by a parent or family member. What do you suggest is the solution then Eamonn?

But i won't, and I don't have to.
It's just my guess, hence ending with a?

If, as PPs have assumed, this "family member" is your partner and SS think he lives with you or has lived with you or visits your home ... You refusing to allow them into your home for a meeting just makes you look guilty. Of course they're going to think you're hiding something!

Just cooperate with them if you have nothing to hide.

Are you suggesting we just get rid of them all?

If you can show where I want rid if Social Workers that would be grand.

But the account of the woman who as a child was subjected to abuse by her mother's boyfriend was raised as a reason to distrust social workers, no mention of the culpability of the family.
The OP has the arse with social workers yet a family member (who she's supported by attending their court appearance) might well pose a risk to her children and any future grandchildren
and your own account, although probably resulting from some poor SW practice, clearly has more than a couple of holes in it.
Added to that, it's evident from many publicised cases that adults stick together and look after their own interests over the interests of children in their charge and that social workers are blamed some of the tragic outcomes.
So I stand by my guess/ assumption/ supposition.

Just cooperate with them if you have nothing to hide

My daughter nearly died due to something I'd warned them about for months. I cooperated. On what fucking planet would doing what I did be a good thing?

Do people just completely ignore what others say?

If it wasn't a sexual or violent crime the OP would have said that it wasn't

^this

@EamonnWright, so if we get rid of social workers, who is going to act when children really are being abused? Social services are far from perfect (as I obviously know) but what would the alternative way of protecting children from harm? Who would a concerned neighbour report concerns to?

@Mittens1969 where have i advocated getting rid of SS?

Eamonn I haven't read what you've written, no, because I was replying to the OP.

Doesn't even to need to be someone who lives in your home
There are many routes of access to children
Ignoring expressed concerns of professionals becasue you're not keen on their accent or their failure to address you in one telephone conversation by the correct title is incredible and a position, in my humble opinion, that is fuelled by a desire to protect an adult in your family or circle who has a criminal record,probably for violent or sexual offences against children (but mild ones, obviously)

OP, I’m sorry you are having deal with intrusive nanny-state government workers.

I’ve lived in the United States since the early 70’s and reading the responses here I can see exactly why the UK has become the way it has.

It even appears to me there are posters who would be absolutely gleeful if your almost adult son was taken from you and put up for adoption. lol

Over the last few years, due to my parents declining health, I have been in contact with hospitals, doctors offices, care homes etc in England and I have been absolutely astounded by the rudeness and lack of English language skills by the people I spoken to on the phone.

I am also a very private independent person and what you’re potentially going to be subjected to frightens me. The thought of younger children routinely being interviewed at school by the SS without their parents present is chilling to me.

It seems you have no choice but to meet with these awful people. Good luck and please let us know how it all turns out.

If it wasn't a sexual or violent crime the OP would have said that it wasn't
No, I'm sure they want to poke around because Uncle Billy made a fake benefits claim.

Eamonn I'm sorry you have had such a bad experience. The point I am trying to make is would you tar all doctors with the same brush if one of them had missed something important?

It even appears to me there are posters who would be absolutely gleeful if your almost adult son was taken from you and put up for adoption. lol
Then you're either reading a different thread or you need to take an English language lesson.

The OP has had and taken advice and has said she is considering what to do. So actually why not turn this thread into "what has gone so wrong with sw and what can be done about it". Sws themselves say that the service is too subjective, similar situations handled in completely different ways by different sws, and in reality sws are fairly unaccountable. There is clearly a need to protect children who need it. But what is happening now is not always doing that and the collateral damage of how things are sometimes handled or not handled is not acceptable, surely. So what could be done to change things for good?

Charolais we see children at school without their parents because the law thankfully supports us doing so. A child isn't a possession.

queenofthedrivensnow I do find that comment a bit worrying because you are totally missing the point. If children are seen at school, and there is nothing in any allegation, ie there is no abuse, the child has none of the support they would normally get from their parents. The child has had no time to be prepared by the parents, the parents aren't there so aren't fully aware of what has been said and that makes it harder to help the child process and come to terms with it. It is traumatic for the child and affects their sense of well being, trust in adults. Leading questions may well satisfy SS that there is nothing to action, but unfortunately they linger in the minds of the child and their parent long after.

I am not saying that it is the wrong thing to do, but it shouldn't be done thoughtlessly on the basis that the children are not the possessions of the parent.

No, a child isn't a possession but he or she is 100% parental genes. Those patents deserve the courtesy of clarity and transparency. No? They also deserve the courtesy of being spoken to courageously and respectfully. Shall we just remember that in England and Wales the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And meanwhile the SS brigade needs to handle parents with the same levels of respect afforded the medical brigade, No?

I have a report about dd referring to "Jane" and mum. Did they mean Jane and Mrs Roses? Jane and her mother? Every other person in that report is afforded a title and courtesy.

One of the few occasions DH has fired a riposte from Chambers, copied to our MP with whom he was at uni. And how the tone changed. Oh yes? Not sure who some of you people think you are but you picked the wrong battle here.

Competence and respect chaps. Competence and respect.