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?

Oliversmumsarmy, you're talking nonsense. Social workers can not barge in and take children. As has been outlined there is a process.

And there is no risk register anymore.

No experience or opinions to offer on the ‘adoptable children’ point, but in answer to the original OP: I think most role are ‘naive’ about SS to the extent that they don’t understand the thresholds or sections of the law children’s services work to and what that means in terms of the actions clients will need to take or support they might receive.

I think there is also a misconception about what ‘supporting families’ means. SS broadly support keeping children at home with their family if it is safe to do so, and will offer support to enable that, but Children’s Services itself is not an agency that supports adults with issues. It is only ever about the safety and well-being of the child.

In terms of SS’s effectiveness....well, I work as art of a multiagency approach with teenagers, working closely with SS, and there are excellent and mediocre social workers, newly qualified and very experienced social workers, like any other profession. However, social workers don’t work in a vacuum, they have teams around them, managers, supervision. Their decisions are scrutinised . Other professionals can and should challenge them if required. I’m not saying this always happens perfectly ....but there is a mechanism around every social worker to enable this.

We know what happens, Thinks

Agreed, Penggwn

Personally I have had one extremely bad experience of SS. The SW was incapable of reading experts reports and just steamed ahead with her own opinions. She did not follow any of SS processes. Official complaint made. She was removed. Ds’s file went ‘missing’ and case was closed.

I have also had several positive experiences with SS. I suspect the difference between them, was due to better understanding of disabilities.

If you have a problem with A social worker, talk about THAT social worker. Same as any other profession. Don't rant and rave about how they are all evil

Sorry to double quote but what about when there is a culture in a local authority and bad practice is standard? There is never just one social worker involved in a child protection case.

Has that happened a lot on this thread then?

Even a poster who had a great experience with a wonderful SW declared that she was a one off and all the rest (that she didn't know or worked with) were awful.

Do you think that is an example of unbiased, specific to the person discussion?

What replaced the at risk register?

One of my friends opened the door to SWs who barged past her into the house and told her that they were having her dd. They already had a foster family lined up and waiting for her and there was no use trying to defend herself.

And your friend didn't mention a court order or any support before that, so you believe that this is what SW do? Not that your friend might not have wanted to admit any poor parenting on her part?

Tbh, all the stories you have mentioned sound pretty dubious Olivers.

Pengggwn if issues present a risk to your child that is exactly why they get involved - and exactly why they are needed! And precisely why you hear stuff like Olivers has repeated, people don't like to admit that there is a reason for the involvement.

Often they are damed whatever they do but as with every profession you get great hard working and lazy people

I’ve worked in DV as a therapist.
I have seen many SW run ragged only for the women to keep putting herself and her partner violent or the new one first not her children and there is little they can do this happens so often even with years of intervention and support

I deal with SW Daily I work in forensic mental health some are absolutely fantastic others I really have no idea what they do apart from turn up to the odd meeting

Then we have the families that work against SS before safeguarding their own you vulnerable children this is what many deal with day in and day out

I wouldn’t do the job rarely are they acknowledged for their hard work of keeping children and vulnerable adults as safe as possible

SassitudeandSparkle

Well aware of that, thanks.

I think the criticism of social services IS different than criticism of the NHS or other public bodies.

That is not to say we should not be allowed to criticise.

But the discussions are always based around misinformation, ‘the boogieman’ fantasy of ‘baby snatchers’ (no other profession has an inflammatory nickname for the people involved) and perpetuating these myths affect the most vulnerable in society. I think people need to be more responsible in discussions surrounding children’s services.

The anecdotes of ‘I know a friend who had a social worker that said this and said that’ are largely unhelpful because there will always be another side of the story you won’t be privy to. Social services simply cannot defend themselves, even when stories go public because of the people they are paid to protect.

One thing I keep seeing on this thread is complaints that social workers focus on kids without supporting the adults.

In Lord Lammings report after the death of Victoria Climbe and recommendations from the report of Baby P, criticisms were made of parents and social workers failing to focus on the needs of the child. Social workers now HAVE to put the focus on the child first. Spending too much time focusing on parental support has been identified as a factor in these cases. Family support workers, adult support workers, health visitors etc are the people who will support parents.

Doesn’t that make it all the more important to discuss it openly goat?

I agree there is a lot of misinformation, but I don’t think for a second it’s all lies or ‘must be more to it.’

In fact I think a lot of the time the fact many (not all) of the people SS work with are marginalised makes it quite easy to take advantage and it’s wrong.

A point doesn’t need to be well articulated to be correct.

I wouldn't trust or rely on SS, for the simple reason that they are going to act in the interests of my child, not in my interests.

They should act in the interests of the child.

Even a poster who had a great experience with a wonderful SW declared that she was a one off and all the rest (that she didn't know or worked with) were awful

No she didn't.

Do you think that is an example of unbiased, specific to the person discussion?

Well, you misquoted her but even if you didn't so what? The hysterical tone you are claiming is rife isn't there.

UhmmSaySomething

Did I say something different to that?

But what are you openly discussing? Not facts, not real cases. Rumours, half stories, urban myths and opinions based on the same. That's what. SW aren't allowed to tell you the real facts of any case, so you can't have any balance of any kind.

What do you think the benefit is of discussing this when you have no real facts or information, and can't have?

I think both sides need to stop claiming the other side are hysterical and/or ranting.

It’s misogynistic as fuck.

As such, I am cynical when younger children are removed and older children stay. I am cynical when babies are removed and words like ‘could’ ‘might’ feature.

Those "mights" and "coulds" come on the back of a lot of dead, or permanently disabled babies and toddlers.

There was, at one time, too many chances given to Parents, which resulted in the death of a baby. Babies can't wait for hydration, or take the odd knock. They shouldn't be sacrificed so Parents get a chance. We can do that without putting the Baby at risk. Older children are less vulnerable, are noticed by other people (usually a condition is that they are in school/after school clubs, so they are visible). Plus they can report the neglect/abuse.

Look at the amount of cases were the first reporting of an abuse case, is on the death of the Infant. Then there is shown to be old injuries. They are less easy to hide in a child that walks/plays etc.

It is a case of there being bad SW's. They can manipulate the situation to give a Family member temporary residence, knowing that it will break down and the child end up in Foster Care. In the thought that the Parent will have to work harder to get it back. I've seen that happen as a SW. I've seen very judgmental SW's. We, as colleagues (and the Manager) have to remind them that there has to be a level of "good enough" Parenting, we can't all live to the same standards.

We have to be wary of not judging, too harshly, behaviour/responsibility etc of the Parents under SS, which is how, in truth, large percentages of Parents across the Country Parent.

Which is why the Court process is as it is and in the case of Parents with LD's, they are entitled, by law to an advocate and have to be offered one, that they can change.

I would like the availability of good Family Law Solicitors for everyone and the advice given on how to find one. Because it is the Court that decides what happens, but having a good Solicitor makes a difference.

Family Services need to be improved, IME, there are very few good Family Support Workers and the ones that aren't good, tend to set the Ethos.

As for the qualification, since it has become available for more WC, LP's, Disabled Mature Students to become SW's the service has improved.

It's not misogynistic at all.

I disagree bored

I think there have been some accounts on this thread of valid concerns re SS.

Sorry but I’m not going to smile like a good girl and say they must know best and never make mistakes.

They do.

I was in an admin support role with SS and I thought they themselves were naive. They regularly expected under age teen mums with dire backgrounds to have the knowledge & skills an educated, articulate middle class 35yr old would have, then castigated them when they didn't. No 'support' just lectures. It was depressing.

But the discussions are always based around misinformation

I agree, but the misinformation is on both "sides".

I wouldn't trust or rely on SS, for the simple reason that they are going to act in the interests of my child, not in my interests

Which is exactly what they should be doing and your inability to see that would be a reason for their involvement, amongst others.

It is bored

Men are never told they sound hysterical I wonder why that is.

Birds in the cases you describe, older children should not be left in the house either.

That is why I am cynical.

boredmaman

I am well aware that that might be the case.