To be horrified by what I just saw on tv

[Mammajay]

I just watched Panorama I Want My Baby back on 8 London live. I know how vital it is that endangered children are taken into care but these poor parents have been the victims of gross injustice. Mums with vitamin d deficiency have given birth to children with vitamin d deficiency. The babies then suffered rickets and bone fractures. Doctors thought the babies had been abused and the children were taken into care. There were four families and only one got their child back. When a child died ( not one of the 4 families) the parents were charged with causing the death due to the fractures. The pathologist who did the post mortem found the babies bones broke as she handled the body and concluded the child had rickets and vitamin d deficiency so the charges were dropped. Watching the couple and the grandparents whose child had been taken into care going for the final visit before their much loved son / grandson was to be adopted was heart breaking. So, aibu, to think there should be some sort of official inquiry into such cases.

I have had professional contact with Social Workers and others and some of the things that go on are almost unbelievable.
Social Workers are quick to scream "damned if they do and damned if they don't". It is an excuse they project to cover their inadequateness. They really do some things that with a little bit of thought could have a different outcome.
I have watched them destroy people without a moment's hesitation. They will lie to cover their backs. Even once their errors are discovered and out to them they will faff their way around it.
Before I started in this line of work I would have agreed that all children should be checked on and reported of there is even the slightest suggestion of any abuses.
The problem is that Social Workers can not face the facts that they do get things were wrong. Etiquette would dictate that if a person makes a mistake they should apologise but Social Workers never do. If they are proved wrong they will hold a grudge against a person or family for many years and make life as difficult as possible. Social Workers should be willing to apologise when wrong. I have yet to see that materialise.
I have absolutely no doubt that with their conduct Social Workers bring the hatred and suspicions upon themselves. I have little sympathy for them.

This kind of thing happens too much, it’s awful and there’s really no making it better even when/if the child is reunited with its family. Too quick are people to assume it’s abuse and overlook any other possible causes. Whilst it is very important to safeguard the child, over causes should definitely be looking into/brought up if it’s not obviously abuse.

A close family member had a child who was a close family member (by marriage) taken into care and the view was to place DC into CFM's care. She attended the CP medicals with birth parents, backed them and then attended follow up medicals with the DC and was 100% convinced a miscarriage of justice was taking place. Said the DC bruised like a peach and at one point the doctor examining DC had left a mark by lifting the arm and had been surprised and noted it. The DC was removed and placed with CFM and during the course of facilitating contact, meeting with other members of the birth parent's families etc realised there was a WHOLE LOT going on that they'd been completely unaware of, despite being fairly close to the birth parents before removal. The DC has no contact with birth parents now and is officially with CFM long term.
My point is, and I see this often as I work within SS in a mostly admin type role but attend Safeguarding meetings and meet parents and children regularly as part of it that often there are people without the full facts gunning for the SW who will 'take the kids away'. Or that SS have an adoption quota to meet (which they do have a target for but not in the way it's taken by them, in relation to children already in care!), or that there's a vendetta against the parents.

There has been cases like this before with brittle bones where they say it's abuse and take them away but matter find out it's brittle bone. I don't understand why they don't do the tests for all these diseases first off before making a concrete decision of putting up for adoption

People say on here all the time don't be scared of social services but this is why people are

Would like to watch this. Would it be on catch up? And which channel on sky? Thanks

Just looked online and realised it's from 2014?

I work in a role that has a lot to do with social workers. I see children in dire situations remain with birth families all the time. I've never a well cared for child removed.

Obviously mistakes can happen, but I don't believe this is the regular occurrence people are suggesting, and I don't recognise the idea of social workers as nasty, manipulative or deliberately cruel that people are expressing.

It is correct that a judge makes the final decision based on the reports generated by a multi-disciplinary panel. Some of those involved will have had direct contact with a family, possibly regularly, but some won't. These latter base their reports on reports already produced by the people who have raised the concerns.

My son had passed his 6 week check with flying colours with a senior HV and regular HV days before my alleged repeated abuse was discovered. The younger HV challenged - the senior over-rode her and refused to have anything more to do with me because I was obviously deranged, deceitful and sadistic, despite no evidence to suggest as much other than fractures that are now known to be a grey area with regard to child abuse evaluation.

The point is that because these fractures existed, the onus was on the professionals to figure out why and how I'd done it, not whether I had done it, because a doctor had said so. Once CP swings into action, protocols have to be followed and sometimes one size doesn't fit all. Hopefully it is a rare occurrence these days especially after the Webster case. But all those involved are only human, and I was on the end of a desire for my being punished, especially after the police didn't pursue the case. And who can blame someone seeing an apparently battered child and their parent seemingly getting away with it.

It's taken me years to be balanced about the whole episode, although I still feel that one or two professionals were less than objective and somewhat vindictive.

Fractures are not a grey area for babies. These babies had severe vitamin d deficiency. But generally broken bones in babies are a serious sign.

Oldqueen you are remarkably balanced given your ordeal.

My eldest is 48, back in 1971 we were told to give multi vitamin drops, if they were bottle fed you put it in the milk if the were breastfed you put the drops in their mouth. I think you were supposed to do it for 2 years. I was also routinely given iron and vitamin pills on prescription. Six tablets a day, I might have taken them all.

There was a thread on here very recently about a woman whose nursery spotted a bump/caused a bump (can't remember) on her baby, they took baby to A&E who said it was a fracture and she was risking the baby being taken into care?? Lots of troll hunting I think so she didn't come back. This thread made me think of it.

@karencantobe

Apologies, I should have made it clear that I was referring to metaphyseal fractures and my case specifically in terms of grey areas. I believe the presence of this type of fracture alone may not be regarded as proof of abuse any longer. To confirm they are mainly occult and may be irregularities in the growth plate rather than true fractures. Scanning would help as X-rays can show things that look like fractures but aren't. I would hope this would be routine in such cases now.
Obviously all fractures should be investigated, especially in infants, but organic causes should also be thoroughly ruled out before it is decided for certain they are inflicted when there is no other evidence to support an assertion of abuse.

I would have been happy to go to a mother and baby unit with 24 hour CCTV while investigations were on-going, but this is considered too high a risk in such a situation. There are no easy answers.

@Mammajay

Thank you x I think now I am in my 50s, and not at the mercy (so much lol ) of my hormones, I am just able to thank my stars my child came home and also having done so much research I realise the system needs attention and so does research.

If I'd been posting here when my case was ongoing, you'd be hearing from someone so paranoid I would sit in the bath in the wee small hours because I believed I might spontaneously combust. That's what the stress did, because if something so unbelievable as having my child taken and being accused of abuse could happen, anything could. Much better now. Down to one fire extinguisher in each room.

(Yes, my gallows humour really didn't help my cause.)

• SS would only use a certain doctor who would agree with what SW were saying

It is a money making exercise*

SS don't use doctors, if a case gets to court the court appoints experts.
Nothing about taking a child into care is a money making exercise, it is a very costly, last resort option.

Fostered yes if they have to but the only reason I see for these children being adopted is saving money
Adoption is to provide the dc with a secure, permanent family. It is nothing to do with saving money. It is about giving the best outcome to a child.

Oldqueen you sound lovely but should never have had to endure 18 months of hell.

There is absolutely NO impetus to take babies into care above older children. We go to court for teenagers sometimes if it is warranted. You really have no idea why any of these decisions are made and I GUARANTEE it's nothing to do with adoptability.

That’s 100% my experience too, Code

@Mammajay

Thank you for your very kind words x

It was 18 months of hell indeed, and marked me permanently. My son didn't have the relaxed childhood that he should have, and was aware of what had happened because he had memories from when he was about 3 when he came off the CP register, plus so many baby photos came from the FC without family in them and were taken at the Family Centre that I explained it too him when he asked as he approached secondary school age. He has handled it remarkably well, and it is not something we have dwelt on with him unless pertinent.

I sometimes wonder if his outcome would have been worse healthwise if he had stayed with me and nutritional deficiencies had done long term harm, maybe even brain damage. As I mentioned his weight increased dramatically when he went onto formula and I was no longer BFeeding. Maybe in some sick way this saved him from really serious issues. My issue is that the medical investigations were all based on the abuse angle. And he had been flagged as anaemic a week before he was taken, due to another concern raised - I wasn't told then, he wasn't treated and he was on heavy vitamins for months while in FC "to help his (allegedly healthy) bones heal".

I may never know. If he ever has a child will he be assessed by SS because he was "abused" and it runs in families? or will his offspring be monitored for possible deficiencies / conditions? If we ask, will it raise red flags for being over-anxious and risk of emotional harm? Only time will tell.

likelihood of adoption is a factor when considering removal of children from birth families and that isn’t right.

This is completely false.

*There has been cases like this before with brittle bones where they say it's abuse and take them away but matter find out it's brittle bone. I don't understand why they don't do the tests for all these diseases first off before making a concrete decision of putting up for adoption

People say on here all the time don't be scared of social services but this is why people are*

Again, this is something doctors ought to be doing, social workers are not medical professionals and rely on GPs and paediatricians as the experts. It’s the medical experts who should be ensuring that all the correct tests are done.

Regarding reversal of adoptions, this would be a matter for the court and I think nobody can say it is a “no-brainer” in the event of parents being exonerated- it would really have to be looked at in terms of impact on the child, how long they had been with their adoptive parents, how young they were etc. It’s a horrible, horrible scenario however you look at it.

midwest

I have lived this so I knew exactly what was going on.

So I called the people doctors instead of experts (who predominantly happen to be doctors)

I wasn’t the type of child that was ever going to be adopted (I wasn’t a cute white little girl).

If adoption is such a money exercise and all about cost saving then why are SS not throwing children around to anyone who'd have them?

Why all the hoops, assessments ,panels etc.(which also cost money)?

Just go onto the adoption board and read how "easy" it is to adopt.

It is not false.

People dismiss this with a scoffing ‘social workers aren’t baby stealers’ and of course this is right.

However there are sometimes difficult decisions. Someone with a baby may be managing but poorly. Removing that baby and the baby being adopted might well lead to a better life for said baby. If that same person is managing with a seven year old but poorly, the seven year old wouldn’t have a better life in care so she is left there.

I understand this but it does not make it right.

No panic

That’s not what is being stated at all.

It is not false.

People dismiss this with a scoffing ‘social workers aren’t baby stealers’ and of course this is right.

However there are sometimes difficult decisions. Someone with a baby may be managing but poorly. Removing that baby and the baby being adopted might well lead to a better life for said baby. If that same person is managing with a seven year old but poorly, the seven year old wouldn’t have a better life in care so she is left there.

I understand this but it does not make it right.

This is entirely different to your previous comment that decisions are influenced by whether a child is adoptable (which is absolutely false).

This is making a decision based on the best interests of the child, as an individual, based on their needs. Recommending removing a child from their birth family is always, always a last resort and enormous decision, and requires very careful weighing up of the potential care plans and balancing of whether it is the right thing to do for that child. It’s one of the hardest parts of the job, and always weighs heavy. Whether they will be adopted does not, ever, come into it.