People who have never experienced being in family court

[SavanahXx]

It really does my head in when people side with social services. They have an opinion that "they are just doing what's best for the child". These people that have the opinion mostly have never even had involvement with SS, therefore don't see the lies and manipulation of a situation that they use.

It's easy for them to say that a parent 'could pose a risk' but do you know how hard it is to prove you wouldn't?

I seen an utterly revolting article that really baffled me. Social workers manage to get away with this stuff daily. Yet its not reported as it should be. This child was removed, with a judges permission. Then placed back with the mother by another judge.
There is so much corruption in our society and it needs to change.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/13/social-worker-criticised-child-taken-away-mother-refused-give/amp/

So it doesn't destroy a child's life when the are unlawfully removed and should never have been taken? Forced to live and integrate with strangers, and no idea why their mummy and daddy isn't the ones to tuck them into bed at night. Or cuddle them back to sleep when they have bad dreams or are Ill? Then given back to their parents six months later. Yeah sure. Children aren't effected by any of that are they.

On this thread, 1)Parents own experiences of false reports from lying SW's. 2) Barrister confirming removal is being used rather than support. 3) Solicitor saying false reports happen all the time. 4) Damning letter from Association of Maternity Services (AIMS). Savanah, your thread's succeeded in getting your (and others) point across, showing people what can really happen in Child Protection. You know it's successful when a) posters resort to personal insults b) Barrister gives up and leaves. c) poster send sympathy flowers to the Barrister. d) some posters feel compelled to deny, deny, deny.

@auntethel im glad i succeeded in some way 😊😊

@silvercuckoo, absolutely my experience as well. I never met the SW for a Cafcass report and was totally shocked with details about me that must have been cut & paste or standard assumptions. I.e my health and financial position. Nothing was positive despite the DC describing me positively, an example was gaming, dc told her I age restrict games and it was written up negatively. It wasn't me being sensitive as I read it to others who all said the same.

Likewise my solicitor said don't feedback as it is just common practice and thankfully for me it had little bearing only to confirm the DC wanted to live with me and definitely not their dad.

I am now much more sceptical about stories I hear though as previously believed SS would be thorough.

My thoughts are SS are overloaded, too many cases of residence to decide and they need to produce a detailed, multi page report. As a result a 10min meeting has to be padded out so there will be assumptions as they have to make statements without the time to investigate.

I am not sure it will change, the legal profession charge so much to attend court yet the costs that courts charge are relatively low.

I think SS needs better funding, maybe applicants should have to pay more and his could be offset by the legal profession reducing fees. It is crazy how much it costs a parent to access legal representation and we need a lower cost model as there seems no cap or justification on what solicitors or barristers can charge.

And we haven't even touched on breastfeeding yet? AIMS - In a number of cases mothers have expresses breast milk and begged social workers to give it to the baby, and they have refused and in some cases the stress has caused lactation to fail totally and This is not a case that social workers are "damned if they do and damned if they don't" but that their ignorance and the way they use (and misuse) information to strengthen their case often works adversely for both mother and child

AIMS - Loss of Breastfeeding. Even the threat of intervention or suspicion can cause serious damage in the sensitive postnatal period.

lifebegins50, lack of funding doesn't cause lies.

@auntethel im not the cleverest haha. Can you breakdown your last comment and explain what it means?

Savanah, give over, you're as bright as a button. You've explained your situation clearly, repeatedly and given others (like myself) a thread to tell our experiences.I meant that people keep blaming austerity and lack of funding/resources for the problems in child protection. My point is no matter how bad the shortage of funds, this can't be used as an excuse for making false reports.

@auntethel I meant the post about breastfeeding. I didn't want to misunderstand it. Can you explain what it means when you say that intervention or suspicion cause cause damage in the sensitive postnatal period

SW use the excuse that "they are damned if they do and damned if they dont". Social Workers I have seen all appear to me to be adults and as adults they should try to make the best decisions. If they get it wrong they should face the consequences of their actions like adults and stop hiding behind trite little comments!

Oh sorry Savanah It was an extract from the AIMS letter. Basically, they're saying that newborns and mothers vital bonding, breastfeeding, etc is being damaged. Even SS being suspicious of the mother or even just threatening intervention is damaging to mother and baby. I mean, I would put it like this- "ffs, unless there's viable evidence that this baby is at imminent risk, can you not just fuck off during this very special and vital process, you barbaric morons!!! But of course, AIMS can't put it like that. Read the AIMS link I gave Savanah which explains it properly.

Now I'll be accused of being aggressive and I give no apologies. The thought of babies being taken from mothers breasts absolutely fucks me right off. But it doesn't seem to bother those that do it, does it?

@auntethel it's so true. My DD is breastfed. I had to be in court 10 hours after I had her, and she wasn't allowed to leave the hospital. Because of this, she was given a formula bottle. And it took me nearly a week to get her back to only drinking breast milk because formula was basically like an easy option or her. I was absolutely crushed each time a feed of breast milk wasn't satisfying her. I had to mix feed her and keep lessening the amount of formula i gave her till eventually she was fully breastfed again.

You do realise social services can't defend themselves with reasons for removal, because of GDPR?

Fyi I haven't read the article as I see this stuff on social media a lot. But when there are articles about reasons for children being removed and it's all from the parents POV, SS obviously can't say their side of the story.

No but when it's proven they have intentionally lied and misled the court. They should for sure lose their jobs.

Under FOI files can be accessed. This applies to NHS too if they are involved.
Another judgement on the actions of SW can be the passage of time. When SW go to a house with an accusation on the false information of a certain type of person, they should have all the facts before they knock on a door. They do not always have the facts and I am not sure they care. When matters come to light they are often too far down a road to be able to find the way back.
They need to drop the attitude and be responsible adults

Yeah well me and my partner can never get back the fat that he missed the birth of his daughter and didn't even meet her till she was a week old. All because they didn't want to get all the facts. I was told if he attended the birth they would take my baby as soon as she was born. I also haemmorrhaged after I had her and I had no one with me to support me. What a great job they do -.-

Savanah I'm so sorry to hear they ruined DD's birth and subsequent breastfeeding. Thank goodness you managed to get back on track. Nothing will ever convince me that these are people who care about babies and children. In fact, I feel they're not even human.

Winging, how do you feel about OP's baby, that her mum had to leave her side 10 hours after birth and that she had to be given formula instead of breast milk?

Here's my opinion and I suspect any normal human being. Having to appear in court 10 hours after birth. Barbaric! Inhumane! Unable to breastfeed baby. Barbaric, inhumane. Dad not allowed at his baby's birth. Barbaric, inhumane. No other words describe it. I have a feeling you would have been treated better if you were in prison for murder!!!!!!! So sorry you, dd and partner have been through this disgusting, traumatic ordeal

The needs of the child are paramount?????

@auntethel we hope to spread awareness and help other families going through a similar situation, as horrendous as it was, it's shown how strong we are as a young couple. And I bet no social workers will reply to your previous posts 😂😂

Savanah, you're doing a good job so far of raising awareness. Your YANBU is at 22% that's really good for a thread about SS You're very brave, took me years to come on MN about it. Have to go for now, see you later x