To think some posters are naive about SS?

[fudgeraisinbiscuit]

I see many posts where people seem to believe either that SS will offer support and that parents who are loving and coping but struggling can contact them for a hand-hold, or posts where people believe a not ideal yet normal situation can and should be reported.

AIBU to think posters are naive about what SS actually do?

It really depends on where you are in the country. Social services work multi-agency. They pass many cases onto family support workers. There may have been cuts in some areas to family support but family support still exists as trained volunteer work where paid work has been reduced.

and SS only remain directly involved at a high threshold (child protection/ at risk)

They will look at kinship placements first as they are cheaper too.

Stop press, there are inidivoduals in SS

Seriously op and big it's people like you who make SS's job harder, children are told to do what abusive parents want because other wise the man will come and take them away, so they lie to the man i.e. SS.

Critical thinking about social workers and Social Services makes their life harder and directly contributes to child abuse?

Ok then...

Does that apply to ALL public services? Eg NHS, Local Education Authorities?

I do think parents with 10 year olds are going to get more support than those with newborns or pregnant.

leaving vulnerable kids with bad parents
or maybe they need to meet legal thresholds for removal - you know with evidence etc and maybe being in care isn't better than having a poor parent

I was better off in care. Many of the other kids I was in care with would have a much better chance if they had been taken sooner instead of being left with bad (understatement) parents.

The legal thresholds for removal are far too low imo.

Don’t be so daft.

Do I think SS ‘kidnap’ babies - no.

Do I think they are inconsistent? Yes, very. Do I think babies and young children are removed where older children remain because the former can be adopted? Yes. Do I think some children aren’t removed quickly or robustly enough? Yes. Do I think it’s a difficult job? Yes, absolutely.

But I do think that it’s something we can and should discuss.

children are told to do what abusive parents want because other wise the man will come and take them away, so they lie to the man

well that's not critical thinking - little of the OP is 'critical thinking' it's hysterical nonsense

of course SS should be viewed objectively and be open to criticism - of course individual services and workers should be accountable and open to criticism - no one has said other wise

but to paint SS and SW as baby snatching agents of evil who don;t care is ludicrous

if SW's didn;t care they wouldn't do the fucking job - which is hardly easy

Whether they care or not is not the point. The aren’t paid to care, they are paid to deliver a service and I don’t think that service is always delivered well.

Why would social workers/the state want to facilitate prospective adoptive parents anyway?

The adoption process is long and costly. Surely it isn't a good thing for the state to be encouraging it when not necessarily (from their own POV as well as outcomes for the child).

Well, yes they would.

It’s cheaper than foster care and also if poor outcomes for a child can be swerved then that again avoids costs in the future.

your view is so simplistic - maybe they remove younger siblings because the risk to them is greater - not because they are adoptable - jesus do you think social services can just have kids adopted? without evidence? Court proceedings?

older siblings often have more of a voice and also have more ability to keep themselves safe - each child and family will be viewed differently

I think posters are naive if they believe Social Workers walk in and remove children immediately. It's not like that.

If you know someone that has had their children removed by Social Services, they will have been involved with the family previously and have been given advice, well before the court hearing to remove children.

I am not sure how parents can be struggling and coming at the same time.

In my professional experience of SS is that they have an incredible high threshold before they will remove a child. A major piece of research out of couple of years ago which folded children who were then termed ‘at risk’ found that children who were talking into care that much better out comes than those were not.

Of course if people have any concerns they should inform SS as professional they can decide if they needs to investigate or if requires no action. Ss are the professionals who can ask other professionals so they can make an informed decision.

well that's not critical thinking - little of the OP is 'critical thinking' it's hysterical nonsense

In no way is the OP "hysterical nonsense". It's a quite mildly stated opinion that has started a discussion. YOU appear far more hostile than the OP. I won't use the word "hysterical" as I hate it.

Struggling and coping

blimey you think adopted children have no trauma and brilliant outcomes - hmm maybe look at the change in legislation to schools recently around responsibility for adopted children and adoption friendly schools?

" I think posters are naive if they believe Social Workers walk in and remove children immediately. It's not like that. "

it is 'like that' around here., or so I was told by the SW in my house, that she could have done that if she had felt like it.

Sorry ghost but if a home is so bad that a baby should be removed and be as good as dead to her birth parents, the home should be so bad that no child is left there.

Well I completely agree that the funding isn't there for SS to be the wonderful service that gives a helping hand to all parents who ask for it.

But the child snatching nonsense is, frankly, utter bollocks. People need their heads checking. Or, more practically, to try to gain some kind of experience with how being removed from a parent and becoming a LAC actually affects a child. Kids aren't plucked from their homes and placed directly with loving adoptive families. The process is far more damaging than that so there needs to be a bloody rock solid case for removal. It moves the goal post from 'isn't going to have a good upbringing' to 'is actually experiencing significant harm or is in immediate danger or doing so'.

No of course I don’t ghosty

It’s quite difficult having a discussion with you tbh. You seem determined to twist what I’m saying.

However, children do tend to fare better with stability, thus permanent adoption is better than temporary foster care. Furthermore, adoptive parents are more likely to prioritise their children’s education, medical needs, future - just as any of us would for our kids.

"if poor outcomes for a child can be swerved" then that's good for the child, isn't it?

sorry but that last post really does illustrate how little you understand about the difficult work people do with complex families Fudge

it's simply NOT that straightforward at all

maybe retrain as a SW and see for yourself!

I don't think for one moment that SS are child snatchers. I do think that some children are more easily adoptable and those might be ones that might be focussed on knowing that the outcomes might be more positive.

yet I have a huge number of cases that have come into care due to adoption breakdown further down the line (notably at adolescents) - all families can struggle and break down - even your imagined perfect adopters!