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?

auntethel

Answering that would require me to accept the premise which I don't.

AIMS actually state why they are raising the issue at that time in the letter you linked. They were unhappy at (what they viewed as) the limited scope of a consultation they were asked to participate in. The consultation was regarding problems with expert medical witnesses.

The quality of the evidence they provide in that letter is very poor.

Furthermore your logic (that they said something therefore there was a new problem because they had been silent before) leads to the conclusion that there are no problems now because they haven't campaigned about it in nearly 10 years.

There is much better evidence of systematic failings out there you know?

Christmas when you get a bad one, they're almost impossible to talk to aren't they? Have you seen any reports yet and are there inaccuracies?

Aunt, it appears she doesn't say her own observations or opinions, she just copies what the health visitor said. About 3 weeks ago, she said that she could see I was trying very hard and that there aren't really many concerns. A week later, she ran up my driveway to post a report (which she refused to discuss with me) and ran back down. The report really wasn't very pleasant and literally contradicted everything she said to my face.

I discussed my concerns about the process within the case conference and she wouldn't acknowledge anything and turned it on me, by calling me negative. She's constantly cancelling meetings, won't answer any of my calls, even puts the phone down on me and will only deal with me by text. She is not supportive, neither are any of the other services involved. I try my best to engage, yet they do whatever they want, mess me about and when I complain, they say that I'm putting my own needs above my daughter's. Basically, for saying that I'm not happy with how they're dealing with the case.

They've literally caused nothing but distress since they've been involved. It's very one-sided and they have the power to do and say whatever they like, without scrutiny. I feel that I'm treated as guilty until proven innocent. I really regret making a complaint about the racist health visitor to start with. You can't fuck with the system and not get burned.

I'm so sorry Christmas I know exactly what it's like. Pm me if you like

@DeriArms may I respectfully ask if you would call a parent "Smith" rather than Mrs Smith or Jane, like the insubordinate little shit I had to deal with addressed me?

There may be parents who are toerags, but imo the average social worker is funded by public money and probably has to attend all sorts of EDI and unconscious bias training. "mum" is inappropriate too in my opinion. I have a name - use it, rather than being reductive.

Christmas please write to your MP ans get him or her to advocate for you.

Christmas

I believe this has some really good advice-

survivingsafeguarding.co.uk/the-guide/

This is if a care order is put in place, you can read the comments for criticisms and make up your own mind-

suesspiciousminds.com/2012/08/16/what-should-you-do-if-social-services-steal-your-children/

There is also a link on that site that advises what to do if you are asked to make a voluntary arrangement but I kind find it.

Finally, I believe the person who manages this is a MNer -

childprotectionresource.online/parents-and-families/

Nip, I've already contacted the PM, who doesn't want to know. The AM said that he will write to them, but doesn't seem overly enthusiastic.

Tess, thanks for those links, I've read through them. I understand why they're involved, even though the report from the health visitor was malicious. I've been honest and reasonable with my social worker. I accepted a house 3 months ago, which is a complete nightmare with a problem neighbour. My house is as tidy as I can keep it, with a toddler. I keep my daughter clean and take her to the doctor when I'm concerned about her health. Unfortunately, I don't get reasonable behaviour in return. I'm automatically disbelieved, until I can actually prove it. I always let the 'professionals' in. My new health visitor treats me like a piece of dirt and has made it very clear she doesn't like me.

It would be easier if I had someone on my side, I've tried to access appropriate support services, but these seem to have very long waiting lists.

Honestly, I just wish they could take an unbiased view and see that my little girl is a happy, loved little girl, who is clean and fed well. I'm not a perfect mother, nobody is, but for the things I'm guilty of, it's not what the accusations say.

I have seen the harm SS can do when they don't really understand the situation and also had a family member (who was themselves borderline abusive) as a social worker. That said I also have friends who are social workers and I know how desperately they want to help. I hope never to have personal involvement with them though because it really depends on who you get!

ChristmasCarrot

I hadn't read the Surviving Safeguarding stuff for ages so I forgot what was in it (I read it again after I linked), I didn't mean to imply that you were not doing some of those things already so I apologise if it came across like that. It seems to be aimed at children who are already the subject of care orders which has a threshold.

This may be a bit more relevant to you but it doesn't really offer much in the way of advice.

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/oh-im-sorry-did-i-forget-to-mention-you-dont-have-to-agree-to-this-when-social-workers-forget-that-interventions-under-child-in-need-are-voluntary/

" A week later, she ran up my driveway to post a report (which she refused to discuss with me) and ran back down. "

yes they do that round here...and you say 'AM' which suggests you are in my area.

They write damning reports about you, and don't offer any support.

PM me if you like, I have been through it, in a county beginning with C..

@NipInTheAir - yes, I always refer to parents and other family members or significant persons as Mr or Ms Smith and not their first name. ‘Mum’ is a bit of a bugbear of mine as well (would never put in report/assessment) although I may use that verbally eg discussion with another professional - as sometimes more straightforward in terms of describing who’s who in the family system and what relation they are to the child, if that makes sense. Depends - not hard and fast - I appreciate it’s important in terms of respectful communication.

Sorry just to add to that @NipInTheBud - in talking to a parent i’d generally address them how they indicated they preferred to be address. I find most people on the whole are OK with being addressed directly by their first name. Hope that answers your question.

Well something to think about then Deri if you want to use a parent's first name, how about asking if you may? In my world it's called common courtesy. In my world the GP is usually referred to as Dr Jones. Why not address the parent as though they are equal to the GP? It's a question of equality do you not think? And axter what I went through no HCP or social worker type will ever, ever be allowed to refer to me as anything other than Mrs Air, including the A&E nurses who reported me to ss in the first place. I'm not subordinate and neither is any other parent. Join the race to the top rather than the bottom. If you wouldn't call a psychiatrist or GP "doc" then don't refer to the parent as "mum" in any circumstances. At the very least refer to Imogen's mum or *Freddie's" mum. Don't you and all the other hcp's think that's basic good manners? Clearly not.

NipInTheAir

Deri literally just said that she does just, what the fuck are you reading?

I always refer to parents and other family members or significant persons as Mr or Ms Smith and not their first name

Further clarified with

in talking to a parent i’d generally address them how they indicated they preferred to be address

And something else @DeriArms we didn't even meet the criteria for referral and the social worker who phoned me up was unspeakably rude and reductive. DD at indy school, professional parents, etc, so I can only imagine how they treat more vulnerable families. The gentleman who phoned me couldn't even explain what support they might be able to provide and he was phoning to ask if we needed suppprt. Yes we did but not from a rude, ignorant, officious idiot whose English was so poor, I could barely understand him and who was clearly clueless. Yes I did complain. Yes I did get an apology. Would I have complained if we weren't comparatively v privileged. No. Do I think I'd have got an apology if we were remotely vulnerable and if dh hadn't been at uni with our MP? No probably not.

The system is an absolute disgrace and I feel very very sorry for all those who have to deal with it and are powerless. It was a very scary wake up call.

Tess

quote from DeriArms' post in talking to a parent i’d generally address them how they indicated they preferred to be address. I find most people on the whole are OK with being addressed directly by their first name

There is no indication whatsoever that DeriArms actually asks how a parent wishes to be addressed. They shouldn't have to indicate. It should be an automatic Mr or Mrs or Miss or Ms. The first name should only be used if the parent gives their permission; not directly. There should always be a "may I use your first name". I see no evidence that that question is asked.

The social worker who phoned me up immediately launched into are you "Air". No I'm not. I'm Mrs Air. And then he persisted in calling me "Air". Not even NipInThe unless the person addressing me asks if they may, let alone "Air". It is a shocking lesson in how those who think they have power excercise their power over those they believe to be vulnerable.

Here is something to think about @NipInTheAir, how about when you ask somebody a question and they take the time to answer why not trying to actually read the answer rather than just imagine one to justify having a rant at them properly? In my world it's called common courtesy.

If you do make a mistake and misread the answer and respond with an unjustified condescending stream of snark you should try apologising, that's basic good manners.

‘Mum’ is a bit of a bugbear of mine as well (would never put in report/assessment) although I may use that verbally eg discussion with another professional - as sometimes more straightforward in terms of describing who’s who in the family system and what relation they are to the child, if that makes sense

On the one hand Deri is saying "mum" is a bugbear and she wouldn't use it in a report but when dealing with another professional (presumably because the parent can't also be a professional) she uses it because it's more straightforward. I don't understand why it's more straightforward to refer to a parent reductively as "mum" rather than nicely as "Freddie's mum". Presumably Deri wouldn't call the doctor in the conversation "doc". "oh I was speaking to "doc" the other day", but to use just "mum" is straightforward.

Do you really not see how the parent is at all times being subordinated and how it's a power thing. Unless the mother actually gave birth to the social worker or any other health professional, that person has no right whatsoever to call the woman "mum". It is incorrect and it is reducutive. Nobody, but nobody says "On Tuesday I went to Doc, and Doc said he was very busy. It does not translate to a mother in a way that is respectful. It is a question of equality. The doctor is afforded sufficient resped to be referred to as Dr Jones, or the doctor or Imogen's doctor. Why is the parent not afforded the same level of respect.

Do you really not see the inequity and the reductiveness.

@auntethel re gap in the evidence - here is an example -
Parents were together at the time of the child being removed - all the recordings relate to both parents being in the home. They remain together through most of the proceedings (limited to 6 months). About a month before the final hearing they split up and both approach their solicitors and state they wish to be considered as single carers. This is presented at the issue resolution hearing. The sw has done a joint parenting assessment. Mum states that her parenting was impacted by dads drinking and could be adequate on its own. Mum demands an isw assessment - he now single status is the gap in the evidence.

@ NipintheAir - I wonder if SS are unable to deal with people who are professionals and whose children are at Independent Schools. My experience is that they can not understand that type of parent or child. They then gave every impression of being totally stupid with their insinuation. I have income I can pay for a house and cars and private education but it is claimed that I do not provide low cost basics. Their claim was thrown out by a Consultant at hospital and to this day they can not or will not see how stupid that was. They also saw legal paperwork and that should have made them think but they didn't.
They did not leave a good impression at all.

Thanks for that explanation Queen.

I wonder how much longer tess is going to continue putting down the AIMS 2007 report which I linked to.

AIMS. Association for Improvements In the Maternity Services.

Do people want to discuss the fact that MN family lawyer spero confirmed that the focus (or emphasis) is on removal rather than support. She runs the child protection resource centre to which tess linked yesterday at 23.28. Sorry spero, if you're watching, couldn't remember if you said focus or emphasis. I feel that both what spero said and the AIMS report worthy of discussion.