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.

For Eamonn, as requested:

How am i threatening?

"I know I certainly won't and the senior social worker who dealt with me knows exactly that she made a mistake. She got involved my my family so her family is open "

What's the 'disablist' stuff?
Well that would be things like this:
"Utter cretins almost to a man/woman."
"Any moron could do a Social Work degree"

HTH

On reflection what the op needs but can't afford is legal advice in relation to the nature of the meeting, why it is being held and what the legal consequences may be of not attending the meeting. It's a shame the system isn't transparent. If it were it would be easier for all in terms of navigation. That is the problem. SS have developed and society has allowed them to, develop an opaque system where the rules are unclear and co-operation has become coercion due to the culture of fear that SS/SW allow to prevail for the power it gives them. Our current Transport Minister has a great deal to answer for in relation to legal aid and vulnerable families in my humble opinion.

I have some involvement with SS in a work legal capacity.

I've only read first half of the thread so forgive me if I've missed anything.

I'm also reading between the lines a bit.

Op, taking your work situ out of the equation here. I realise you don't want to attend and I can understand that,

I would attend. I can tell you that SS wouldn't be requesting a meeting with you if there were not concerns they wanted to put to bed. I don't know all the info obvs but, given your children are still minors in the eyes of the law they will want to know that you as their parent are in a position to protect them from harm.

I realise you don't want them poking around in your life (I wouldn't either), but it really is that simple.

Have the meeting, take a half day's pay loss on the chin and move on with your life.

I presume that there has been a radical overhaul since it happened, but am I the only one who remembers the Orkney child abuse scandal? I know it was over a generation ago, back in the early 1990s, but it so coloured my attitude to Social Workers that I could never even give one the time of day - and I was not involved in any way nor did I have any first hand experience of these events.

Safeguards to prevent such a thing happening again must be in place, I know, and I'm sure that nowadays they're all wonderful, caring, super-professionals, but I personally would avoid SW like the plague simply because the memories of that would be constantly replaying in my mind.

And, yes, I'm probably over-imaginative and slightly paranoid, but that is just how I personally feel.

In all honesty I think that this relative is a partner, I think that you don't believe he has done what he's been convicted of and I think you're putting him above the safety of your children and that's why people are concerned

I agree. I think it involves the relative/partner being involved with online child porn images.

I hope that the social worker tells the teens about the conviction. They are old enough to make the decision whether to have nothing to do with them, especially as they could be having children of their own in the coming years.

I totally agree with Cardsforkittens Yes there are bad social workers and they make mistakes but I also think a lot of peoplw that require their support are defensive and don't want to accept and wrong doing. These tend to be the people that shout the lodest about how terrible social workers are.

When we were kids Social services left us with our abusive step father after our mother died. We grew up in a shit situation despite constant social service involvement but it is nit just the fault of social services, there were lots od peoplw complicit to that abuse. The neighbours that lent us food to put in the cupboard before a visit. The relatives who yold us what to say. The friends who saw me being sexual abused and did nothing but gossip about it.

Anyway to the orignal post.

I could be way off but from your posts I would guess the relative is your partner and the reason you dont want SS in your home is bevause he does indeed stay over. You don't want your chikdren to know anout the conviction because then you may be forced to take action. After all how you you explain to your children that you allow a known sexual criminal access to their home. Much better to brush it under the carpet and hope your chikd is not the next victim.

Yy I'm interested in the palpable fear that some people have of SS. I don't understand it. Overwhelmingly for the main, if you're doing even a reasonable job, you've got nowt to worry about.

@NachoAddict, I'm so sorry you went through all that. I know what you mean, there were people who definitely knew there were things going on. I personally wish there had been SS involvement in my family growing up. If there had been, maybe the people who hurt my DSis and me would have been brought to book.

It's been so hard hearing people saying they knew that certain things weren't right with us but knowing they didn't act.

On the other hand there are families like us. DD had depression and anxiety and was cutting and taking small od's at 15. She went to the Dr at 16 who decided not to disclose the od's to me. CAMHS closed dd's case immediately after assessing her. I still didn't know about the od's.

We engaged a consultant psychiatrist. Dd had a course of therapy and continued escalating. I found out about the od's when dd told me after an escalation. During and 8 month period she saw her psychiatrist about 7 or 8 times at £375 a pop. She was on fluoxetine and doing well. She was assessed for ADD and ADHD £1500, that was just before exams. Dd took a tiny od, regretted it and went to a&e to get herself checked out. They reported us to SS as a safeguarding issue. We declined their offer of an overnight stay using an acute bed with a 1:1 nurse. The escalation had passed and dd had a psychiatrist paid for by us because the state had failed her. She was assessed though by CAMHS who as anticipated did sweet fa again.

Meanwhile dd's psychiatrist confirmed a Neuro developmental disability. Dd has ADHD, ADD variant. She was frustrated and not coping with her own sense of failure. It was never picked up because dd was well behaved and high achieving. 2A GCSEs and 9 As. But dd knew. Diagnosis has transformed her. She achieved 4 ALevels with marks over 97% in three subjects!

The state did nothing for her, nada, zilch, got nowhere near to a diagnosis but A&E, CAMHS and SS all treated me like shite. They were happy to label and look for social issues. They did nothing helpful whatsoever. Goodness knows where dd would have ended up if hadn't been able to pay for MH support.

I witnessed such incompetence and unhelpfulness from the system it was breathtaking. And it can't possibly be about lack of resources when the local hospital has money for an unnecessary overnight stay with a 1:1 nurse to simplyvfacimitate assessment by CAMHS which everyone knows will lead to nothing. CAMHS claims due to lack of resources. CAMHS is 9-5. First apt is 9.30. I have sat twice now and watched the staff breeze in after 9.15/20. The phones aren't answered from 9 and often not after 4.45. Not an impression of an overworked and under resources team. I am sure this is repeated throughout the so called health/welfare/state provision.

It is a national disgrace. It seems to be far more cultural than resource based.

I've already said I won't be discussing the offence.

It is not something that places, or is likely, to place my DC at risk.

But of course those of you who are SW, or who think any SS contact is always warranted and indicates fault on the part of the parent will say I would say that wouldn't I?

The family member doesn't stay here. Nor have they ever lived here. SS have no reason to think this, other than poor record keeping/ making assumptions.

The reason I don't want SS in my home is because I don't want them here. I have nothing to fear, because family member neither lives here nor stays here, they did spend a night here one Xmas a couple of years ago, but there are plenty of other family and friends who we've also hosted overnight on occasions, and more recently. I just don't want anyone in my home. The number of threads on here from people who don't even answer their doors, let alone never let anyone over the threshold of their home, I don't think wanting to keep my house to myself is in any way extraordinary! I refuse to allow anyone to make unwarranted assumptions about me, to judge me, based on my home. Because if SW did insist on coming here, I feel that's what it would be. Thankfully it doesn't appear that the SW who has contacted me is set on coming here, and has offered to meet me elsewhere.

Having slept on it overnight, I think I am going to attend an initial meeting. I will be accompanied and record the meeting. And it will need to be either at lunch near my office or before or after work. If that can't be accommodated (and I will explain it is because of lack of annual leave) then I will suggest a phone call as an alternative - albeit it has already been indicated that a call isn't an option. I am not seeking to be difficult. It's a fact that at the end of Sept, I have little annual leave left, and what I do have is booked and accounted for. I don't think that's unusual. When DC were younger I used to always keep 1-2 days free to the end of the year in case of child illness, now I don't need to. Anyway that's by the by.

Just finally to correct a couple of posters who have referred to child porn images. Please educate yourselves, there is no such thing. These are images of child sexual abuse. Referring to them otherwise is very offensive to victims.

I am not condoning the OP's actions nor am I agreeing with Eamon's views on SS.
I think the oft repeated 'if you have got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' is naive and dismissive.

Having SS involvement can be traumatic.

There are hundreds of threads on MN written by people who are 'livid', 'furious' and 'fuming' because someone has judged their parenting in passing, commented on what their kids eat or questioned the choices they make in their relationships.

So why do so many of you think that those judgements and comments are easier to take from professionals with a degree of power who are uninvited and unwanted in your life?
Who may be there purely because someone else has acted in an unprofessional manner.
Who are entering your home on the premise that you are harming your child.
Who are overworked, underinterested and so bound by law and policy that once they start on a course of action it can take a court order to stop them.

It is very important that we safeguard children. That is a given.
Let us not pretend that the process is enjoyable or even bearable for many families.

I think that a lot of people who are flippant about it imagine that their reasonableness, education and intelligence would somehow protect them from any unpleasantness in this context.

That SS would come to your house and just know you were a nice person and they whole thing was nonsense.

Yep, you are less likely to be reported to SS but if you are you are the same as the rest of us.

Witness the utter outrage of MC, educated people who run to the Daily Mail because a SW has dared to question their parenting. It makes bloody headlines.

head it very much depends what you mean by 'nowt'. They wont remove your children. It takes a hell of a lot for that to happen. You can have your world turned upside down for months and lose your confidence as a parent for years. You can be embarrassed and upset that so many people are aware what is happening.
All for nothing to happen. Not just 'bad' things but to be told 'there are no resources' and to be left back where you started only worse.

That doesn't make me anti SW/SS.
I am also concerned about the OP and think she is protecting someone who may be a danger to her kids.

Cross post.
I think SS in this case are fulfilling their obligations to follow up.
So the OP is doing right by meeting with them to get it over with.

I hope that is the end of it for you OP and you don't get any nasty shocks.

That sounds like a sensible way to proceed op. Do let us know how it goes.

Overwhelmingly for the main, if you're doing even a reasonable job, you've got nowt to worry about.

Dreadfully naive and ignorant comment. Professionals do tell lies and/or exaggerate for the benefit of their own agenda and take personal dislikes to people just like everyone else. I thought the myth that authorities always told the truth and were beyond scrutiny was dispelled years ago but clearly not

There are hundreds of threads on MN written by people who are 'livid', 'furious' and 'fuming' because someone has judged their parenting in passing, commented on what their kids eat or questioned the choices they make in their relationships.

So why do so many of you think that those judgements and comments are easier to take from professionals with a degree of power who are uninvited and unwanted in your life?

^This.

You can have your world turned upside down for months and lose your confidence as a parent for years

Just wanted to mention this as well. Someone I did voluntary work with had SS involved for five years because a school Deputy Head kept making referrals. Eventually she got a new SW who saw what was really going on and dismissed the case but the damage was already done. She lost all her interest in her hobbies and life in general and has never really recovered. This is nothing to do with having a weak personality.

I imagine it must be really hard for people affected by DV as well because you go straight from being controlled by one person to being controlled by SW and surely DV sufferers should be helped and encouraged to take control for themselves and not always by someone else

Well done, OP, sorted! Over and done with hopefully. And thank you for your comment about so-called 'child porn', the very term minimises the offence for those of us who have suffered SA as children.

ohtheroses it was hard to understand your objection to "kids", but your latest post clarifies why you are not happy about the service you got. It seems you did everything to help your dd and it has turned out well thanks to what you have done, and you were faced with obstacles and a lack of help.

What you experienced sounds traumatic, because you were dealing with possibly suspicions and accusations at a time when you were already stretched to breaking point dealing with your dd's problems and helping her.

mrsdv amazing post.

I definitely understand the hostility to SS, it's similar to how some people feel about the police. It doesn't work to say that if you're a good mum then you have nothing to fear. The fact is that when they're involved in your lives you experience a feeling of powerlessness. It's not paranoia, it's genuinely how it is.

They have a job to do, we know that, but they often don't appreciate what the effect on parents they're dealing with can be.

I think you are taking the right approach op. Hopefully you can attend, put it to bed and never hear from them again. Just get it done and dusted. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Obviously not worth arguing then Eamonn?

Op just to let you know, if you are going to record the meeting I would say let them know at the start that this is what you are going to do. Different authorities take different views on recordings and can put people off on the wrong footing but if you're open about it and explain why you want to do so that should help. (some sw have bad experiences for example of being recorded and having them then manipulated technically and put online and having to get police involved etc to take them down so it's not necessarily that any resistance is because of wanting to 'cover things up' before anyone says that - same with photos being covertly taken in meetings or taken off Facebook and added on to pornographic images etc)

I think you're taking the right approach now, OP.

it is important that you do agree to see them, and try not to be too defensive with them, as it appears they were under the delusion that the offender lives with you. You told them he or she is not, but the person you spoke to isn't the person actually dealing with the case. So they would be very reluctant to just say oh okay then and close the referral, as it would be them getting the legal flack if this turned out not to be the case.

I'm sure once you meet with them, confirm this person has never lived with you and rarely sees your DC, that will clear things up and hopefully the issue will be resolved.

If you go into the meeting all guns blazing, 'how dare you get involved', etc. it may be harder to get rid of SS from your life. The danger is if they decide your DC are at risk and become involved with them until they are 18. When your children have their own children in years to come, they will be asked (as everyone is) is they have ever been known to Social Services. If the answer is yes, they may find themselves being investigated along with their own DC (SS being of the belief that previous SS involvement as a child places your DC at a much high risk statistically). I would personally be as cooperative as possible, however angry you are, to avoid this potential scenario.

No idea where some posters are getting their info from, you've clearly said this person has never lived with you and is extended family, not a partner?

You may well have to prove this person doesn't live with you - which I know is ruddy annoying.

However I bet hey have people lying to them about that kind of thing all the time, so sadly they are unlikely to take your word for it once they've got it into their heads.

I think one of the most problematic aspects of dealing with ss is that they don't have to operate according to the legal way we!ee brought up to believe us just: innocent until proved guilty. Ss don't have to have the same burden of proof in their processes, which is good for a child in desperate circumstances, but leaves people in a difficult position when they are in fact completely innocent. They do have a burden of proof however, it's not the one we are used to and our culture is rooted in.

I think it's this gap that leads to the difficulties in interacting with ss as they go about their investigations.

So, police would have to prove that a suspect lived in a certain place, or produce strong enough evidence that they could get a warrant etc. They may suspect you are lying but the onus is on them to prove it, rather than the onus being on you to prove you are telling the truth.

However social services don't have to have that same burden of proof so although eventually it would become clear they had no evidence or reason to say someone lives where they shouldn't / don't, it may take a long time and get quite out of hand if you just leave it up to them to correct their own bureaucratic error.

Hence me saying that perhaps you should be prepared to prove that this person does not and has never lived with you and your children.

Flr what it's worth, it's deeply unpleasant to be ignored and openly disbelieved when you wouldn't be treated in this way by anyone else in life. I think some ss personel forget how abrasive and alienating this can be. It's a shame because if people feel unfairly treated, by professionals who have a huge amount of power, the most they can expect is 'compliance through fear'. Cooperation or even collaboration would be a better relationship to aim for in many ways, but I can see why that doesn't tend to happen in daily interactions.