Aibu to think that my kids aren’t coming back?

[SeaOfDespair]

I had my girls removed last month and it’s been a very traumatic experience. My family are so far away, my friends have dwindled away and I’m stuck looking at these 4 walls.

I’m seeing a private child psychologist and doing some work with him. He understands how harsh the system can be. I’m doing 2 different parenting courses online. I’m paying for all of this myself and has been a bit of a struggle recently.

My solicitor just tells me to go along with whatever they want. I’ve ticked one thing off the list, but they’re not forthcoming with starting their own assessments. Social worker is either sick, or can’t be bothered.

My youngest has arrived to contact with bruising to her face 4 times. She is cruising, but never managed to be bruised within my care. My elder one seems sort of happy, but is having a lot of tantrums and isn’t able to communicate with me.

From them wanting to keep them at home on an order, their original intentions until the court hearing, to pretending I don’t exist. They didn’t even turn up to the meeting last week. No apology given. No notification of cancellation.

From a case of closing ranks to keeping the case open, it never did surprise me that they applied for a court order. My social worker’s reasoning? I don’t agree with their concerns, so there needs to be a care order.

Am I being unreasonable to think I don’t stand a chance in hell of getting them back, if they’re not willing to even bother working with me?

@Chattybum yes it's definitely possible but what about the middle ground between the 2 extremes? The ones who maybe don't get everything right but are also not a complete train wreck? Do they deserve such indepth involvement? I don't think so. What about in my case where I was told no to drug tests to prove what they were saying wasn't true or that they thought my children were in enough danger to warrant a cp but then didn't even check on them for 2 months?

@HungryAgain2019 I have no idea about your situation or why your partner would accuse you of drug taking, unless he was ultimately using social services as a roundabout way of gaining custody of your children? In which case he is the one at fault for lying, not social services for doing their duty to investigate surely? I am aware that the system is imperfect and some people get tangled up wrongly but I would prefer that the net was too tight than too loose on balance, I think.

I don't think any parent gets everything right. There aren't enough hours in the day sometimes. The drug test situation sounds familiar. Someone who used to be a friend was suspected of being on class A drugs. She kept pushing for drug tests to be taken and they wouldn't do it, yet kept saying her behaviour is strange and that her addiction has a profound effect on her children. When she did finally have a drug test, they said that she could be taking drugs, but ceased to look like she's clean.

When they finally accepted she wasn't on drugs, they piled on other concerns and it went on for about a year. They removed her off the register and put her kids on child in need, then never bothered showing up again. There were actual problems with her getting into dodgy relationships and whatever else, but none of those were noted as actual concerns.

If the net is too tight, then that means that children are going to be emotionally scarred, when there wasn't enough reasoning. It's hard when it's on a balance of probability. A lot of decisions are made on a 'he said, she said' basis. Unfortunately, there is always going to be child abuse, but being overzealous doesn't help children either.

I'm sorry but this goes back to expectations. Social services do not just go door to door looking to find potential drug addicts or abusive parents. Someone, somewhere has flagged a child up if you are coming to their attention.

Are you taking speaking to the psychologist and expanding your knowledge on attachment theory etc to argue why your children should come home?

He was abusive and had a need for control and to make me suffer. Yes by all means investigate the claim but let me defend myself and disprove it, surely? Op, I don't want to derail your thread, sorry. There is obviously a lot of useful info and advice that has been given so I hope you use it and sort this out.

No I'm sorry it's not on a 'he said she said' basis having your children removed. It's on a someone thinks something is not right, let's investigate. If correct let's gather evidence and give the parent the opportunity to improve the situation. Ok no improvement let's take our evidence to court and let them make an judgement within the framework of UK law and child protection policy.

But you did defend yourself and disprove it? So the system worked, if not in the way or timeframe you thought appropriate. I don't see why blaming social services for his malice is particularly fair.

@Chattybum sometimes malicious calls are made and in an ideal world the concerns would be taken seriously and unpicked fairly. What chance do people have when their abusers still hold control and are able to destroy childrens lives with a phone call. It's a flawed system and something needs to change.

Op I believe you.

It's so tough for you because you haven't had role models yourself, and add to that your autism. Given your situation, you sound like you're doing a good job. Your heart must be breaking

My small experience is small behaviours can be given more gravitas than they should. For instance, changing the cot bedding every day, no playgroups, the oddities on the reports re cleanlines of the children.

I agree with so many others. Ask them outright...what do you need me to do to get my kids back?? Do everything they say. Take someone along to meetings. Make notes of phonecalls.

bruises on arms and legs but bruises on face are worrying and suggests either a problem with balance, a lack of supervision or rough handling.

For a mobile child aged 3+ who is getting enough exercise, cuts or bruises on lower legs would not be an issue. In fact, they are indications of an active life and opportunities for climbing, running, and jumping. At this age they often fall while running, stumble on stairs, fall from monkey bars in the playground, fall off a couch they are jumping on at home, etc.

Frequent bruises on the head or face of a child aged 3+ would be a concern (one a week would be an issue). This would indicate that a child isn't developing an appropriate sense of danger, or someone is playing roughly with them, or someone is deliberately injuring them. From 3 on, children's bodies attain normal childhood proportions and the head isn't going to be the first part to hit the ground or some other hard object in a fall. They start to develop the skill of keeping their heads up and using hands to minimise injuries when they fall.

For a baby of 1-2, you are going to see bruises on the head - forehead primarily but sometimes on the cheeks or around the eye - a lot more frequently.

This is because babies and young toddlers have heavier heads in proportion to their bodies and tend to fall forward when they stumble (or straight back depending on what causes the fall). Their heads also tend to be right at the level of the average table and they often walk or run into tables, or crawl underneath and then bump heads because they forget they are under something and try to stand up, or they misjudge how far out they need to crawl to get clear of the table before attempting to stand. They can trip over toys or simply stumble, and also hit heads on coffee tables, walls, radiators, edges of cots or beds. Bathrooms are very unforgiving too.

Bruises on arms at any age suggest rough handling all the way to deliberately inflicted injuries. Bruises on cheeks can also be indications of abuse. Bruises to the groin ditto.

No I didn't disprove anything. I put in a massive complaint because of their incompetence and they dropped it. Nothing on the paperwork was changed, the allegations were not removed. It was just case closed. If my children request that paperwork when they are older, they will think I was a drug taking alcoholic, as well as all the other lies on there that haven't been removed.

Kids are clumsy, that’s why I supervise them, when they’re in my care. I’m not saying you can prevent every tumble, but how would she get bruising on her face?

The reason was that she thinks she can walk and falls over. I haven’t seen bruising anywhere else, which is why it makes me a bit concerned.

Don't be concerned.
Your younger DD is going to be bruised on her face because she is most likely starting to pull her self up, maybe taking a step or two, and doing a lot of falling.

She won't have bruises on her legs so much at age 1-2 but bruises on her face are not an issue.

Don't change your lawyer as RightyWrongy suggests. That would make what - four lawyers so far on this case?

What is preventing you from working well as a team with your current lawyer? What can you do to improve that?

But evidence is based on reports, which boils down to an opinion. In an ideal situation, what you're saying is totally correct. But when a case is taken to court, it lists concerns as evidence. A judge makes a decision based on a guardian, who is making their decision from ss evidence, the actual ss and the parties to proceedings (the parents). There wasn't much scrutiny in court. The judge didn't particularly seem to care what my barrister had to say. She kept pointing out that they aren't presenting any reasons why immediate removal is justified. The local authority changed their position when they got to court, I had absolutely no idea. My barrister kept asking why, yet they didn't give a particularly clear response.

In an ideal world, it would be fair, but concerns are essentially hearsay. It's down to discretion and behaving in a professional manner. Unfortunately, many people are biased. The one who made the referral was definitely biased. She made it in response to a complaint made against her. I've noticed the trend of people making up their mind before they meet you. In a CP conference, you've got people voting on your children's lives that haven't ever had previous contact with you. How is that fair to families?

@HungryAgain2019 if you were found to be falsely accused then the system worked. I don't know what system you would think would work better if I'm honest. The system is report, investigation, evidence gathering, conclusion. You can't ban exes from making accusations because usually if they share children they would be the first to know about an issue. I think you are misdirecting your anger at social services, when it should be at your ex for putting your family through that process.

By the way, 'engage' and 'reflect' are meaningless, they're vague buzzwords.

But these are the words you absolutely need to understand and demostrate in order to get your girls back.
You said your solicitor has told you to engage as well.

You need to accept you have a communication problem which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

You’re waxing lyrical & philosophising however you refuse to answer questions about the state of your house so I can only assume this is the issue they have been removed over & an insult which you take exception to.

You can't really blame the judge, because they're working from the sheets they've been given. They err on the side of caution. I understand that. It's not particularly fair, but it's not a conspiracy either.

I do accept I've got a communication problem, but I'm not sure what you mean by address it. What I actually meant is that you can go to their meetings, go to appts and let them in your flat, but this may not be engaging to them. Which waters down the whole meaning.

Reflect is a difficult one, because it means different things to do different people, like engage does.

OP the concerns weren't hearsay. They were based on visits to your home. Hearsay is if they had heard that your house was in a state from some other person without bothering to check. A professional did check and found evidence to support the health visitors claim. Did she flag up your child because you made a complaint? Unlikely. But it suits your narrative to say so.

Hi OP

I've sat and read your thread as had a day off today - I'd just like to say you're a much better person than me not retaliating to obvious aggravation.

I believe you.

I'm a heath care professional who works alongside a branch of children's services and have absolutely come across cases where a SW has 'twisted' facts and has took a dislike to a parent, for whatever reason. I've also worked with many SW who are fantastic and go above and beyond for their clients.

OP, the only advice I can give you, especially because you are on the autistic spectrum, is to agree to anything they ask to you do even if you think it's unreasonable - the end game is to get your girls back. Unfortunately you have to play dumb and not contradict anything the say.

I wish you the very best in getting your children home x

I don't think you get it @chattybum. Yes I managed to get off of the cp and you might say that the system worked in that respect, BUT I had 18 months of accusations i wasn't allowed to argue with. My children have been left severely damaged. They were 9 and 11, so too old for me to hide what was happening. One of them has developed nervous tics and has doesn't trust anyone and the other has had to be referred to camhs for their mental health. All of this has happened since ss involvement. They were happy, healthy children beforehand. The case was dropped when I complained and they realised they'd royally fucked up, NOT because i worked my way to being a better parent by addressing theit concerns. Now I have been left to deal with the mess.

Engaging means actively doing your part to reach a solution / take action as agreed by both parties.

Reflect means to look at and think about how your actions have played a part in the situation, rather then deflecting the issue straight back and refusing to acknowledge the role you have played.