Yes, responses to these kind of issues go in waves. In many ways SS can’t win.
There will be a high or file case of abuse and failures such as Baby P, which results in an investigation and new procedures which SW then implement. And then there will be a case highlighted of over zealousness and families being investigated or action being taken without need and again things swing back the other way.
Individual social workers are always just implementing the procedures as they stand at the time. Sometimes the procedures have holes or are over zealous and sometimes individual workers or areas interpret them in a way which is later called into question. Within all this, there can be an over-focus on certain indicators of neglect or abuse which can lead to individuals feeling targeted over seemingly negligible, daft things, because they just happen to come on the radar because of one aspect which is currently popular to look out for.
Re bias within SS, they are very aware of the risks of this. Training will be given about it and advice about how to guard against it….this could be related to race or class or whatever. Again, sometimes attempts to avoid bias can result in swings too far the other way.
Nothing will ever be perfect and sadly we will always hear about cases where a child has slipped through the net now and again. Some parents are either abusive or neglectful and can be extremely cunning in hiding it. Systems are in place however to plug some of the gaps of the past.
And it will always be the case too that people disagree with where SS do and don’t get involved and also misunderstand the thresholds needed for involvement or limited/no involvement, there is huge misunderstanding as shown on this thread, where people talk about certain actions/activities being things which would lead to SS ‘throwing the book at certain groups’ when in reality, SS really wouldn’t be interested in such things at all. In particular there is a lot of misunderstanding about processes by which children are taken into care and the regularity of it. A mythology seems to develop about it, particularly in some communities. I can see why it happens becaue some communities mistrust those in authority and especially SS and expect only bad and unwarranted things to come from them. They are unable to see any interaction with them as a positive thing or positively intended.
The comments about MM on this thread also show lots of assumptions about the family, which remain and continue to be held strongly by a number of people. There are strong views about what should have happened to the family and involvement of SS….a real certainty about what is right or wrong about the way the case was handled or what SS do and don’t intervene with. Again, I’m pleased that such things are not left to the ‘mob’ but to proper procedures. Sadly, even in this thread, I detect what I’d call a real mob mentality and desire to be judge and jury towards certain people and cases, that often we know little about.
The very nature of SS involvement in peoples lives will always be controversial and rarely welcomed. As a PP said, if SW never receive complaints, they probably aren’t doing their job well….this doesn’t of course mean the complaints are sensible or will be upheld, quite simply that SS involvement is rarely welcomed and is often not appreciated or felt warranted. No-one if any class likes to be looked into…..and even when it is at the lowest level of information gathering, people are automatically defensive and critical and find it hard to be balanced in their assessments about what is going on. It is the nature of the beast.