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?

@tessliketrees I don't mean to minimise what Sws were doing, they were allocated complex cases and far far too many of them. But the authority I worked in paid other staff to do the carers assessments, reablement assessments and reablement work, STAR workers etc... Meaning that that the Sws were expected to oversee a huge number of people but weren't able to get involved to do the more traditional SW tasks. It was around the time that individual budgets came in. It might have changed.

@user, I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but family courts sit in secret to protect the children involved, not the social workers. In court a social worker will routinely be questioned by a barrister for each parent, any other family represented, a barrister representing the child and the judge themselves. And judgements are routinely anonymised per the child and family (but not for the authority) and are freely available online, check out family law week for examples.

Again it's another step that's done (out of ss hands) to be of benefit to the children, but is wrongly assumed to be set up by and for social services.

The Finance industry is extremely well regulated especially since 2008, unlike social services who lie, copy and paste reports concerning vulnerable families and children, and miss the likes of Baby P resulting in the horrific death of a battered baby. And while I’m at it, the whining of the woman tesponsible for the catastrophe even though she managed to swag a mega payout for her staggering incompetence. No apologies or shame either

@user have you considered a career writing for the daily mail?

The Finance industry is extremely well regulated especially since 2008

Sorry I read that then my eyes glazed over.

You wanna buy a bridge?

But the authority I worked in paid other staff to do the carers assessments, reablement assessments and reablement work

Yeah that sounds about right. CoP work, families in dispute with each other, safeguarding and people with complex needs (ie gen nursing and functional MH) is what the social workers do.

Why do I need a bridge and Threadastaire I don’t take it as an insult the Daily Mail online is read by millions of people lol

In that case you'd be perfect, go for it. You pretty much hit all their bingo words in one hate filled post. Enjoy!

@tessliketrees the authority I was in at the time stretched the interpretation of what non-qual staff could do, sadly. And weren't good at pushing what they should do (eg being proactive re CoP and DoLs). It led to a lot of very good staff leaving. I believe that that particular authority has softened somewhat, after being advised that the steps weren't lawful (eg when I was there they only met 'critical' need and they hadn't acted lawfully in some of their public consultations)
The adult SW sector is still woefully under funded and under protected though. At least in CS (for now) the legal framework is clearer on stat duties which means that even with the cuts, there's a core framework that LA's have to fund and cant find a legal loophole round.

@user1457017537

You realise that by mentioning Baby Peter, you proved the point I was making earlier about social workers being 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'? Whatever decision they make, if it's shown to be wrong, they get hung out to dry.

In a lot of cases, it's not just the social workers who have missed things. In the Baby Peter case, a paediatrician examining him just before his death failed to spot the extent of his injuries. But it's always the social worker's fault.

The result is, knee-jerk responses in terms of change of policy. More babies were taken into care in the years after the Baby Peter tragedy. Is this right? No it isn't, probably, but social workers are human and get things wrong.

And in all of this, people forget that it was Baby Peter's mother and her boyfriend who killed him not the social workers or the other agencies involved. They were devious and able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Wow! Touchy! Sorry I mentioned an appalling lack of judgment that resulted in the death of a toddler who was badly let down by SS. But apparently that makes me hate-filled.

It's how you come across. Would you say the same about the paediatrician who failed to diagnose his broken back because he was 'cranky'?

And what about the mother herself and her boyfriend??

I’ve worked with SS across the country. They are most definitely inconsistent. They also hugely prioritise babies. I don’t think is due to them being adoptable, but rather them being seen as more vulnerable. The reality though is often that an abusive mum of primary kids with a secondary (‘protective’ ) sibling are left mostly alone despite every other professional being deeply concerned, whilst a slightly struggling but loving young mum has her baby taken away.

The variation in skill level of SW is huge. Some are just dim. Others are fantastic but overworked and overworked and overworked some more...

Sorry I mentioned an appalling lack of judgment that resulted in the death of a toddler who was badly let down by SS

well it was the appalling treatment by his parents that resulted in the death of the toddler, wasn't it? He was badly let down by so many people, so why focus on SS?
Its funny the same people who go on about that are the same people decrying nosy interfering SW's who damage children by getting involved with their families...which is it you want them to do? Get involved, or not?

Thread is getting a little bit silly now!

However I wanted to take time to reply to midges forevever
social workers aren't legally able to stop their work because CAMHS are involved, they have different roles in the system. Ideally they would work in conjunction with CAMHS, but they are often even more poorly funded than social services and two very overstretched teams trying to work together is challenging.
Most of the answers for running good teams are already known and neither exciting or surprising. Good training is key but that takes budgets for it, case loads small enough to be able to attend it, cover for the staff attending. I can't tell you the amount of training I couldn't attend as a social worker because of the above issues.
In addition there are wider societal issues about the impact of child poverty for example on mental health, housing, diet etc and the role that plays in child protection issues

I just wanted to reiterate my earlier post of *CP cannot get involved in education. However, LA’s often get CP involved in children with disabilities who are not attending school! Usually due to school not meeting needs.

CP cannot make Educational recommendations. LA’s use CP to threaten parents. They have no intention of removing children or supporting them, as they can’t!*

I appreciate you cannot legal stop your work, due to CAHMS involvement. However, surely your involvement should only include any safeguarding concerns, if none are present, then your involvement in education or mental Health are not needed or warranted?

claw, if there are no safeguarding concerns, a bad sw will then use education as a Risk Assessment filler. Also, they can start a cp case with a faux concern of education then embellish on that, such as a false allegation of long term mental Ill health which never gets removed and continues in subsequent reports throughout the case. Now we know why, having seen the admission of copy and paste!

@auntethel You're being ridiculous now. I've worked as a secretary in a number of different organisations and it's standard procedure to use copy and paste to complete forms where the exact same background questions have been answered before. Why would you give yourself unnecessary extra work to type the same information again when you're already overworked?

I've also done the same on adoption application forms when answering background questions I was asked previously, like childhood addresses.

Obviously there needs to be checking that the information included is correct and not out of date, if it's not then there are no excuses for that. But mistakes don't happen because of the copy and paste facility, which we all use at work and at home to save time. Mistakes happen because people get things wrong occasionally.

too many, I believe that there are some very bad sw's who will do absolutely everything in their power to "win", even when it is blatantly obvious that the parents are excellent parents and no concerns, only praise from all other agencies. If their false reports are then endorsed by the team leader and also evidence not looked at properly in court, solicitor not helping, guardian supporting sw, then that's it. Game over! Rather than be pleased for the children that parents have irrefutable evidence, they don't like it and therefore add more and more lies. It is true that some judges simply rubber stamp. Some parents then feel that all of this is a conspiracy. I don't in fact. I feel it is a situation started by some very bad sw's and managers who simply cannot bear to "lose" (for whatever reason) and have no regard for the children whatsoever. They will use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Been there, done it, bought the t-shirt and seen almost identical methods and reports used with other families. I'm busy all day today but hope to be back on the thread tonight if anyone's still around.

Will be back this evening Lizzie, if you're still around.

@auntethel but @toomanychilder was talking about lies from the parents in the Baby Peter case. Do you honestly believe that there are no parents that lie to SS? Because this is patently untrue, as the Baby Peter case tragically proves. And many other cases.

It's hardly surprising that social workers are conditioned to believe the worst. I think the truth is that they're so scared of being hung out to dry that the attitude is to believe the worst.

I've been through SS involvement. I asked for help when my PTSD was getting on top of me and I'd started drinking too much. It led to us being put under a Child Protection Plan and the social worker being unwilling to believe anything I said, despite the fact that I was the one who asked for help and no concerns had been raised by anyone else.

I also had to cope with my past abuse being put under scrutiny and questions about whether any of the abusers were still in touch. Thankfully, my abusive F is long dead.

We got through it, it was hard but we came out the other side and our social worker became a godsend in helping us get help for our DD1. But we had to prove to her that she could rely on me to tell the truth. And when you think about it, why would she trust me at first when she didn't know me?

@auntethel if the solicitors and guardians ' won't help ' do you not think there's something in that?
Why would opposing solicitors/barristers risk their own livelihoods and professional registrations by not bothering to do the bit they're there to do? You realise that barristers are self employed as well, why would anyone keep their counsel if they were lazy and corrupt like you suggest?

And lastly, if they are all so crap, why aren't you ranting and campaigning against the legal profession?

An experienced SW would see through the lies of people like Baby P’s parents. A lot of people like me were also disgusted with the way the Head of Services tried to make it about her and that she was a victim. SW’s are intimidated by certain parents and don’t bother to delve deep because it’s easier to deal with a struggling single parent that has no support or help it makes their work easier. Violent, aggressive clients are given a wide berth which is how mistakes are made. The doctor who missed the broken back because the child was grisly should have been struck off, there is no excuse for not examining him. He was let down by professionals who were paid to monitor him.

aunt Nobody is denying that rogue sws exist. But I don't think it helps anyone to pretend that they are all part of a conspiracy backed by their managers and the legal profession. More often the problem stems from the sws lack of real life experience, especially when it comes to the reality of poverty and deprivation. And then it can go either way, it's very easy to prove the sw drew the wrong conclusions.

Or the parent might be mentally struggling (but still coping) and the sw inadvertently starts the downward spiral into not coping. At which point the other bodies aren't lying when they agree the parent isn't coping.

Alternatively the sw could be beyond reproach, and something as simple as the scrutiny and stress of ss involvement could tip eg manageable pnd to the point the parent can no longer meet a child's needs.

And money would solve a lot of those problems. Money buys the time and experience of a senior sw to fully supervise the inexperienced sw. Money buys the resources to offer the support when it's needed, before problems escalate. Lack of money is why ss are in the most part only fire fighting.

Damn that money again for making sw's lie!!

user and on the other hand we have posters suggesting ss should back off from investigating the risk of emotional harm because the family don't raise flags in other areas and appear to be excellent parents.

user, can't stay long, in the GP waiting room. Just wanted to say that whenever someone mentions baby P, they are either ignored or accused of being aggressive, making hate filled posts! Weird that, isn't it? Back later, if you're still here