to be confused about social services

[whentheraincame]

Bit of a long one but it's something I have thought about a long time. There's two narratives:

SS don't do enough; don't act to remove children in obvious danger (happens sometimes of course)

SS are overzealous; remove children from loving homes (going to happen at times, right?)

there was a show over ten years ago called I Want my Baby Back and it was absolutely heartbreaking and admittedly it terrified me. Basically hairline fractures were found in children and parents were blamed for abuse. The argument was (I forget details and could never watch again) from some doctors that these were the result of Vitamin D deficiency (which let's face it, was endemic a while back and in the news loads)

So the argument was those children were wrongly removed. One mother cried "I want my baby" and honestly it's never left me. I'll have a cry about this later as I always do if I think too much about a child being removed from a loving mum.

So my question is if anyone has proper insight. I'm scared of SS in general. Although I actually had involvement with them myself when I left an abusive ex and they came to check I was not going to go back, nothing further happened once they met me - so proof they are fine I guess.

But I remember seeing a lady on the news, well spoken, and saying SS need to return her children who were removed. I had a friend tell me in work once that a friend with undiagnosed autism got the children removed due an incident where one got hurt by the other (which happens. these things happen, children do get hurt and it's often an accident that couldn't be prevented)

I guess I just don't want to see SS as evil child snatchers, and want insight into how they operate in reality and what actually gets children removed from parents' care?

It's very hard for them to get it right.

It does take far too long for them to check that fractures aren't caused by medical conditions rather than abuse. There is a terrifyingly long wait when it should be an afternoon or few days work, given that a baby stands to lose its primary carer until a paediatrician has weighed in. Foster carers are scarce.

I've known children be supported wonderfully to stay at home and others don't seem to have a chance to live at home. A bit of a lottery. Social workers can also get tunnel vision if they think a child is adoptable. That shouldn't even be a word but they use it. It means desirable, really.

Basically, they can't win. You will probably never hear both sides of the story in full. People can say their children were taken away for no reason and it's rare that social services are in a position to give their side.

From time to time we have tragic cases, and the pendulum swings towards taking more children into care, then over time it swings back, until the next time.

Scotland and England have both had major reviews of children's services in recent times. The English one was more recent, the Scottish one led to a big commitment to overhaul services.

Forgot to add. the baby I mentioned got put up for adoption, which was heartbreaking. The parents brought presents for the child at age 2, had not seen him in ages, and he ended up being adopted out, which I find just absurd.

The parents cannot know where the child is ever again. Of course it's great if the parent is abusive but I just find the idea of a baby being taken away from a loving parent the worst thing ever.

that last thing you've said there is really frightening to be honest.

Why would a social worker want a child who is adoptable to be adopted instead of with the parents? What incentive do they have?

"From time to time we have tragic cases, and the pendulum swings towards taking more children into care, then over time it swings back, until the next time."

That's interesting and goes some way to explain it.

Still terrifying.

It’s actually quiet a long process for a child to be removed from it’s family. They do not do it lightly and it’s usually after months even years of working with families to support them. Most SS cases are complex and from my experience (previous job) it’s usually parents that are drug users , absuive relationships where either parent can not put the child first, parents who lacked insight or capacity to look after a child, parents who have had children removed before due to negligence/ harm and show no improvement in parenting to care for a child. There are lots of reasons but as said, it’s not done on a wim and Involves a lot of evidence from SS to grant permission from court and a panel of people (external professionals i.e schools, doctors , police etc) to also have a say. It’s always the last resort to take a child from its parents.

most cases children go into foster care with families who are extensively checked and this also isn’t done lightly. The family have to have had extensive experience in fostering and the parents still usually have contact with their children and build up the relationships to eventually receive the children back. In some cases there is without a doubt the parents will not see their children for months or years because of their life choices over the life of their child. Mainly drug use , abuse , sexual abuse etc which is put in place to protect the child.

Thing is, shit parents will never admit that they are shit parents. They either dont understand, accept or believe the reasons for dc being removed.

Mistakes will be made by sw. You cant avoid them. But a blame culture isnt healthy or helpful. Good practical training is essential.

Have you heard the adoption by bbc r4?

A bit of a lottery. Social workers can also get tunnel vision if they think a child is adoptable. That shouldn't even be a word but they use it. It means desirable, really.

Social workers don’t have a quota, or get bonuses for children who are adopted. The vast majority of children removed from
parents are returned either to their parents or to their wider birth families. Even if a social worker did think a child was “adoptable”, they still need to reach the legal threshold for intervention, still need to evidence the child cannot be cared safely at home now, or at all, and have a judge agree. They also need to evidence that no one in the child’s extended family can care safely for them too. Adoption is an absolute option of last resort in child protection.

What does hopefully happen is that professionals have a better understanding of the lifelong impact of neglect and abuse on small babies and remove them more quickly, because of their increased vulnerability. The vast majority of those are returned to their birth family still.

I think it’s an incredibly hard job, but it does worry me that it’s incredibly difficult to go against the system. I do think that birth families are sometimes treated unfairly.

You do know social services also don’t just work with children, They cover all adults as well as justice services in Scotland. People don’t often see or understand the full scope of social work.

social workers have no incentive to adopt children instead of keeping them with families. I know a lot of social workers, none of them take pleasure in removing children because that brings with it other issues of children being in care. And also, it goes through courts. It’s not just a social worker that makes that decision either.

And you will never know about all the unseen work because that’s what it is - unseen and private because it’s about people who are often very vulnerable.

The incentive is to protect a child from harm. The amount of cases the go to press where a child has been killed by abusive and negligence towards a child and most times physical harm. It’s better to be safe then sorry and children can be returned back to the parents.

And in worst cases where a child is completely missed because a school or friend thinks they are being over the top about reporting a family or just turn a blind eye because they don’t want to get involved. It’s horrific tbh and yes mistakes happen on both sides

Out of interest who do you think is doing the medical checks to determine those issues?

Who is in control of the timeline of when examinations can be done, bloods taken, xrays taken.

Who do you think is in control of permissions given for those tests and how long do think it can take if permission is not given?

Its all very well saying 'they' take far too long, but there seems a lack of understanding of how many key agencies are involved in something as simple as looking at how a child might have been injured.

You mention loving parents. Theres a difference between loving your child and being able to parent them. Most people can do both, others cant.

Mistakes will be made because humans are involved. So some children will get missed and some parents will be wrongly accused. Fortunately these cases are pretty rare.

What is not rare, is that some families can't cope, some don't want to cope, some don't know how to, some parents are addicted to drugs, some have mental ill health, some children are addicted to drugs and alchohol, some have mental illhealth. Some have a violent and abusive family member. Some experience trauma they can't cope with. Some are are damaged and multi-generational damage continues the cycle.

Mostly social workers are supporting families who need help and keeping children safe.

SS are overzealous; remove children from loving homes (going to happen at times, right?)

I can count on one hand the number of children I’ve recommended be removed from homes where parents showed no love for their children. In most cases the parents do love their children very much, but cannot care for them safely. Often due to their own experiences of being parented, neglect, mental health, substance misuse, abuse, trauma, domestic abuse etc etc. The reality is that love simply isn’t enough in some cases for a parent to overcome their own hurdles (even with extensive support) and care adequately for their child.

So yes, social workers will recommend removal of children from loving homes where, for many reasons, the child is at risk of harm.

Thing is, shit parents will never admit that they are shit parents. They either dont understand, accept or believe the reasons for dc being removed.

Further to this, the parents can go public with their narrative and shout their version of events from the rooftops. SS can't.

My experience with it is that the cases are complex, involve a lot of information-gathering, and the opportunities for the child's parents or family to step in before a child is removed to foster care or subsequently adopted are numerous.

When there are fractures or injuries to children we are led by expert medics. If there is a plan to remove the child, the courts will be involved and a judge will decide, based on expert medical evidence, whether the injury was abuse and who most likely caused it.

The thing is op we don’t have a crystal ball. We are human. You might think it’s easy to tell a loving mother from an abusive one but the nastiest absusers, they are smart, they are believable and I have seen good parents so bad things which we work through. And Iv seen seemingly loving parents comment awful acts of abuse.

A lot of children are now removed for ‘risk of future emotional harm’
In many of these cases there had been no harm to date and the type of ‘future harm’ wasn’t specified . It’s a vague and dangerous term and is unfortunately, misused and overused especially in families where the children have SEN or medical problems (leading professionals down the route of ‘perplexing presentations’ and patent blame rather than looking for the real cause which then leads to FII allegations)

StrictlyAFemaleFemale
you are so right. I’m a foster carer and the parents I’ve met can never admit they are wrong.
I had one telling me how well they were doing, off the drugs, looking for employment. I was so happy for her and was hoping the child would be returned. We walked into a meeting together and just 5 minutes later admitted she had crack at the weekend.
ive seen parents in meetings saying they will do everything to get their child back, declare how Sw has blown everything out of proportion and told lies. Then they let their children down by repeatedly not turning up to contact meetings.
Children that are not adoptable mostly end up in long term foster care, the child will have far more opportunities than being left in a chaotic, uncaring home suffering neglect and sometimes abuse.
Ss have a tough time but I must admit when I read of children being murdered when they have had ss involvement it makes my blood boil.

I had SS involvement after my DD made a disclosure about a family friend 4 years ago.

The word incompetent doesn’t even cover it. I had an absolute shit show of a SW who seemed determined to lay blame within the family, based on the fact that DD gave a certain date and this person was not in the area at that time. No consideration that maybe 5yo DD got the date wrong.

Thankfully the SW left and they left us alone, but for all you get people saying ‘social workers don’t just swoop in and take children’ - not in a day no, but if you are unfortunate enough to get one who has a bee in their bonnet about you, they will take it as far as they can. And they are listened to, and you are not.

When our idiot SW said I was a ‘dishonest woman’ because I didn’t disclose to her immediately that I was the victim of sexual assault 12 years prior, we told them we were disengaging with the process. Boy they did NOT like that. We were told that they had power to take us to court should we disengage. So we re-engaged under duress but I did wonder if they were gonna petition to remove our children simply because we didn’t want them in our lives anymore. They didn’t support us at all, or DD. They even got her name wrong several times when talking to her and in communication with us. But they thought they could play ‘guess who’ with our family.

Id never, ever ever want them in our lives to the point if my child made another disclosure I’d probably not report it.

@whentheraincame in answer to your questions about removing a baby/ child from loving parents. Loving parents are often neglectful and not meeting the child’s needs eh I is the whole point of child protection. In Scotland the process is not arrived at quickly. All professionals involved in the child’s care/ development/ school etc will be asked and expected to attend a number of meetings to try and help the parent to improve the situation. I have worked in an associated profession for over 30 years and not once have I disagreed that a child should not be removed in some instances knowing that the child should never be returned to the parent. There are a number of different options once a child is adopted one of which is a closed adoption with no contact between child/ adoptive parents and birth parents at all. I have also had the misfortune of being with a parent when their child has been removed at birth, truly heartbreaking but absolutely the best thing for the child.
Finally in Scotland anyway it is a court decision to remove a child not the social worker.

Parents can’t - if they make compliant a these are seen as ‘red flags’ and used against them and if they go to court they are gagged and cannot reveal any details of their case

I agree. Some people will never admit that it would have something to do with them. They would rather blame someone else.

Its sometimes both. People will say they leave children in dangerous homes, others will argue that their baby was taken for no reason

I work closely with them and have seen cases where in my opinion theyve been either too harsh or too lax. Ive seen them work very hard to keep children in homes

What i will say though is that often the people who have their babies taken are the people who dont engage. The people who believe their baby was taken for no reason, are usually the people who dont work with them then shout about it.

For example

A+B have 2 houses that are identically dirty.

Parent A admits the house isnt good, and asks for help. The children are seen playing with something boderline dangerous. Shes upset by this and takes on board social services feed back (even if she doesnt think all of it is true). She keeps her appointments with them, and social services feel she can adequately risk assess, see the improvement and believe her when she says it wont get like this again

Parent B feels their house is fine. When social services tell them its not, they argue about it. All the engagement is tense, shes not always in for appointments, the house barely changes or if it does they dont feel she understood what was dangerous in the first place and dont feel the change is lasting.

Or in the case of police being called to domestic disputes

Person A agrees that its not okay, engages in the freedom programe, akbowledges its not alright for kids to see this. They acknowledge dad is a risk to the kids. Ss then believe that shes got it, and wont be having him back

Parent B thinks the person who called the police was over reacting, and theres no risk to kids. They dont seem commited and there is a fair certainty they will be back with the partner in no time and the cycle goes on.

In both situations person B will be the one raging all over facebook, talking to media etc about how they didnt do anything wrong, and there was never any danger. That belief makes them a lot more vocal but also normally means that they wont have done anything to change the situation and that ss will be confident they will go back to the same pattern again

I was amazed in the field how many women didnt think it was an issue that the police being called to their address etc to break up fights etc. My main advice would be that even if people think they are over reacting, work with them acknowledge faults, and put in place what they ask (even if you dont agree)

In the dv cases i used to compare it to a pet tiger in the house. The person who recognises its a tiger, shouts "its a tiger!", shuts the kids away from playing with it then seeks help to remove the tiger isnt a risk, even if they didnt recognise it to before it growled. You know even if a tiger breaks in, that theyl call someone and get the kids away.

The person who is a risk is the one who says "thats not a tiger, its just a cat, its never hurt my kids, it only bit me once", or "i was trying to train it" or people that get rid of the tiger but keep inviting it back in. You know even if the tigers not there the day you visit, that the tiger will be back soon and their lack of danger awareness will mean they wont keep their kids safe