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.

@FenellaVelour I didn't say it was the social workers fault. Obviously the doctors should do it. Although I have to say I do think social workers would have learnt from this and perhaps check the medical records

No fennella, it isn’t different at all.

If you have a borderline case where a child might be removed and might not be, a younger child who is likely to be adopted will generally be removed while one who is older - and I’m not talking teen years here - won’t be.

If you have a borderline case where a child might be removed and might not be, a younger child who is likely to be adopted will generally be removed while one who is older - and I’m not talking teen years here - won’t be.

No.

You cannot use generalisations. You don’t seem to understand what social workers do. You don’t go to court for “borderline” cases for a start, you put the work in to support first until it is not borderline. And what is unsafe for a baby might not be unsafe for a 14 year old, so the threshold for individual children may be different. It doesn’t mean older children are left in unsafe environments. If it’s not safe for that individual child, age and adoptability simply does not come into it.

Oh, believe me I do understand we just don’t agree, which is fine.

Put simply, to me, a child should only be removed in extreme situations.

What is extreme for a baby is also extreme for a seven year old. If the seven year old is ‘allowed’ to stay so to should the baby.

Personally I don’t think there is any common sense or open mindedness used and SWs set off down a path and ignore anything that doesn’t go with their rhetoric.

It depends. I find a lot of the time there are problems with recruitment and temporary staff and so on causes delays and backlogs and problems.

Although I have to say I do think social workers would have learnt from this and perhaps check the medical records

We always check the medical records and often courts will appoint independent experts and we will read those reports too. But if the medical experts are wrong, how can a non-medically trainee social worker reasonably challenge that?

I really hope in the cases that the OP references, changes have been made. Absolutely devastating mistakes which have destroyed lives. It shows the importance of getting the right expert but also - how do we know who those people are?

What is extreme for a baby is also extreme for a seven year old. If the seven year old is ‘allowed’ to stay so to should the baby.

I can’t really imagine any scenario where a baby would be removed but not a seven year old. I’m thinking it’s more likely to be more complex when the child is older, say a young teenager.

I'm just thinking that in these cases they can't have done checks to see if they've got these diseases first off and so surely when whoever is looking at the medical records they would would see if they have or haven't done the check for that possibility and then can ask for it to be done.

Those cases are more complex but I can think of at least seven cases where preschoolers have been removed while primary aged children have not.

If I may offer a perspective borne of my experience of children being removed as a last resort - my son went straight to FC and my parents were not even considered as potential carers because they did not believe I had abused my son, therefore could not be viewed as objective and able to protect him from me.

My solicitor, at my first meeting with him, said that if a confession was not forthcoming, as he was only six weeks old and apparently healthy, SS would aim to get him adopted asap. Said solicitor is now a very well respected judge on the Family Circuit, and I have read up on some of his decisions. He seems well balanced and having seen him in action recently, he is at pains to thoroughly explain his reasoning and considerate of birth parents, even when his rulings aren't to their liking.

I wonder if his words at our first meeting were to see if it would make me confess if I was guilty? I have no idea. But he went the extra mile for me in the end. I was very lucky.

Those cases are more complex but I can think of at least seven cases where preschoolers have been removed while primary aged children have not.

In the same families? I’m an experienced children’s social worker and would be unheard of to me.

@Sunflowerdaisysummer Primary can be up to 2 years pf age.

12 years

Seriously, so twelve year olds can fend for themselves now? I despair honestly

OldQueen your experience was horrendous and I’m sorry that happened to you. Sadly in my experience I can imagine this happening today. I would hope I wouldn’t leap to judgement myself, but I know that rigid thinking is still part of Local Authority culture in many places.

Yes fennella

Regarding the removal of non-verbal babies versus older children. Older children will display much more concrete signs of abuse or neglect and are mobile and verbal. I understand babies being removed because they can't articulate their distress nor avoid things in the way older children can.

Before my son came home, an experts meeting happened and one of them said that at least as he got older my son would be able to get out of the way of potential abuse (sic). I shit you not.

My son is an only child because I was "advised" not to have any more or face scrutiny.

I’ve been to court for a twelve year old. It was one of the most difficult final hearings I’ve attended. Of course they can’t fend for themselves, they are children. But with every child you have to weigh up the impact of a care plan to remove against a care plan to stay and the support needed. You are very much over-simplifying the consideration and assessment that goes into this work. You may work in the field but you are not a social worker.

Really

Why would anyone choose to work in child protection? It’s extremely stressful and very upsetting. You live on your nerves waiting for a child to get hurt or worse. You know if the worst happens, you will be pegged out to dry, even if you did absolutely everything right.

Don’t ask me how I know.

@FenellaVelour

Thank you x

I very much recognise the difficulties faced by SWs - they are only human, as are all parties involved - and as such come with their own opinions, thoughts and foibles - some will be able to be more objective, some won't. It would be very hard for a lone SW to go against the policy or preferred decisions of a LA.

At the root of this thread is the question of the medical diagnosis of child abuse - this requires much more attention.

It would be very hard for a lone SW to go against the policy or preferred decisions of a LA.

It is. I remember saying, fairly stridently, that if I’m giving evidence in a case and I disagree with the LA care plan I would say so, and I wouldn’t toe the party line. Everyone in the room (including solicitors) was actually visibly shocked. I found that worrying to be honest. But then I’ve always been a bit of a loose cannon in the corporate culture 😬

Totally agree that there needs to be continual review of medical evidence, how it is presented, and how people are treated. Court appointed experts could do with fuller scrutiny too to ensure they are indeed the right person to investigate and assess.

Yes it’s clearly not ideal to have children in the care system, I quite see that

It's much worse than "not ideal", @Sunflowerdaisysummer. It's the difference between being in a stable family with loving adoptive parents and being shunted around all your childhood between foster parents and children's homes. Which would you prefer?

@FenellaVelour -- all power to your elbow is all I can say.

With regard to medical diagnosis around fractures - rarer conditions often rely on clinical presentation and a list of easily identifiable symptoms - testing is limited.

For example OI (classic brittle bones) at the time of my case relied on family history and specific skeletal markers etc. However, as a condition it had at that time at least 4 sub-types, which may or may not all present similarly - or not at all. Hormones may play a part. Things may have moved on since then.

One test that was available was a skin / tissue biopsy - it felt like the judgement of Solomon when I was told if I asked for that test and the results didn't show OI then it would be seen as putting myself above my child to get my own justice - it would cause him discomfort and could be viewed as further abuse. In addition, even if it did come back showing OI it didn't automatically mean he hadn't been abused because the nature of the fractures meant they were specific for abuse.

I didn't appreciate being forced into this position, because I wanted my son to have all the information about his health growing up and know how best to support him. The choice was his best interests now, and his long term best interests. I had to take my interests out of the situation.

My son may have a collagen mutation, as may I, but our lives now aren't impacted enough to warrant further investigation. If he decides to have children he will probably explore it further.