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?

unless serious abuse is suspected the parent and child do have lots of contact.

See I just don’t believe this. I don’t believe for a second that every SW executes every case perfectly. I believe the women on this thread who say that SS damaged them and took things too far and lied and covered up. I believe every word of it.

Really? Like in this case?

Or how about this one?

Children aren't removed for adoption.
They are removed.
Then SWs look at what permanent solutions are possible.
That is likely to include returning home, possible suitable family members for long term care, adoption or long term permanent foster placements.
To reduce any delays in permanence it isn't unusual to have two or even three different options all being planned for at the same time.
Gradually options tend to be ruled out leaving one preferred option.

when2become3
sorry I just saw your post.
I can honestly say that all the children I have cared for and those of other carers have had a lot of contact.
I did supervised contact for one of my children.
I took them on days out, activities paid for meals, only for parents not to turn up lots of times.
imagine having to take the poor child home when this has happened.

I think the distinction between ‘removed for adoption’ and ‘removed then adopted’ is subtle enough to make no difference, especially if you are the one who’s child has been removed then adopted.

When my son was in FC for 18 months I jumped through every hoop, went to every contact and would have walked over hot coals to retrieve him - I fought the LA and the doctors and won in so far as he was returned to me.

In that time, you’d have thought this proved I was a committed and innocent parent no? Oh no. Apparently I was over invested in my case and also my insistence on fighting meant I was taking up resources from other children in need. The SW was adamant my DS was to be adopted and once actually said to me I should give up, accept my childless state, maybe get a little part time job and a cat….

When my DS came home, she tried to get the GAL investigated as she had recommended rehabilitation. She tried to force the police, who frankly weren’t interested, to re-open the case, and also attempted to get my DS criminal injuries compensation despite no criminal case being brought. The judge did not approve.

Allegedly my case was the second worst case of child abuse in the county that year.

Thank fuck the judge disagreed and I had a very savvy solicitor. This was due to a controversial medical issue - the whole metaphyseal fracture thing.

Yes, still quite disturbed by the whole thing - no apologies, no investigation, no conclusion. My DS had less of a childhood and a damaged parent directly due to the system.

The paranoia never leaves, and getting any sort of support or therapy is off the table because it was made clear any hint I was a less than perfect parent would bring me back under their control - DS came off the At Risk register at 3.

Strangely enough he remained an only child - I couldn’t risk a sibling and automatic child protection proceedings.

But all that could never happen …..

Accountability would indeed be a start.

That's awful! I would have loved to have that kind of contact. We did have a lovely lady supervising but we only got 2 hours 3 times a week which to us was unbearable and we weren't allowed out.

It just all seemed so extreme. My nan is a Childrens guardian and even she just couldn't understand why we were being treated like we were.

It's the minority I guess, we just had a really awful experience by bad luck.

Also it’s upto the courts to decide contact.
I suppose both sides would never agree.
I know as a parent I would want to spend as much time as I could with my child, someone has to put a limit on it I suppose, we trust our courts to make these decisions.
As we know they’re not always right in everything( including criminal cases) but the buck has to stop somewhere.

Oh my god. How are you now? An experience like that stays with you forever. I'm so sorry that happened to you, and thanks for sharing because more people need to know about these types of cases.

There is a huge difference between removing a child for the purpose of adoption and removing a child and after looking at several different options deciding that adoption would be best for them.

I think @when2become3 experience of contact three times a week for a couple of hours is probably the normal starter levels. At least it was in my experience.

I don’t wish to be overly argumentative here, but I don’t think there is a huge difference at all.

And I don’t think removal is always the wrong answer, but nor do I believe that mistakes - whether through incompetence or malice - never happen.

Everyone saying it's up to the courts yes, this may be the case. But the courts and judges don't visit you and your children. It is the social workers etc that give the information to the judges to decide. If you had to decide something purely on what someone else had told you, you would have to take their word for it.

In some cases, SW do not tell the truth, or fabricate it at best. Most will be honest and do their jobs properly but SS are only human and we all know that there are bad eggs which will filter into all professions no matter how important the job.

There may not be huge difference to the parents, but there is, I think, a massive difference to society.

We should not be trying to do social engineering (as happened with unmarried mums in the 60s). We should be protecting children. So removal should only be done if it is considered too risky for the child to remain. Only after removal and working with the birth parents should irrevocable decisions such as adoption be made.

calmlakes
I agree, removing a child for adoption to me sounds like there is no reason for removing the child other than to give them to another family.
As if there are hundreds of parents sitting waiting for a child to be dropped off for them to look after.
When children are removed there is a long process, including looking at family members before the child is adopted.

This is exactly the kind of attitude in SWs I despise. Dehumanising oarents - it does fucking matter that you take children away no matter what you plan to do with them. Saying “oh we will probably return them” doesn’t make a shit of difference.

Then again I’ve seen you post before and I get the impression you think every parent you have a referral for is a bad parent who doesn’t deserve kids, is untrustworthy, will lie and manipulate, right?

In other words - parents don’t stand a chance. “They’re damned if they do and damned if they dont” applies far more to birth parent than it does to SWs

@when2become3 Thank you - I have had to “suck it up” - my son is now 28 and so it’s a long time ago but I think I suffer from residual CPTSD and I have virtually no respect nor trust in authority or the medical profession now.

I have to treat interactions with official bodies as part of a game, if that makes any sense, because it never seemed to be about truth or justice for my son or for me or our traumatised extended family - it was all about winning by the end, even my solicitor said so, and he ended up as a circuit judge in the family court.

The metaphyseal fracture controversy should have been resolved long since…. I believe more scrutiny is given these days, but it depends on your experts…

Thats a whole other can of worms though…..

They don't just remove well cared for children. If they've spent months or years removing a child then it is in that child's best interest. I work with some families who have had children removed. They all say it wasn't their fault and the child was loved and cared for. When you look at their lifestyle it's obvious that is not the case.

Everyone saying it's up to the courts yes, this may be the case. But the courts and judges don't visit you and your children. It is the social workers etc that give the information to the judges to decide. If you had to decide something purely on what someone else had told you, you would have to take their word for it

The courts can and often do appoint someone to visit the family and see/speak with the child. Different nations have different names for them but there will usually be someone independent, appointed by the court to meet the family and prepare a report. Their report is then considered along with the social work report, information from education, health and other involved services. The families lawyer has access to all of those reports ahead of time and prepares their report for court submission too. It’s not the case that the court only hears from social work in isolation.

I was illegitimate in the early 1960s. Even in the hospital after giving birth, my mother was put under pressure to hand me over for adoption, even though we were both returning to my grandparents straight away. She was told "what a lovely home" they would find me. I was her first child and the only possible reason for all this was her unmarried status. It was very much a thing then.

Social services are not perfect and I am not going to try to make anyone believe that terrible mistakes don't happen. However, when most children-the vast majority-are removed from their parents now and for the last several decades, it is for very good reason, often after years of effort to keep them (or previous children) with their family. Sadly, some people kill or irreparably harm their child. You must know this to be fact.

So they NEVER made a mistake removing a child in the history of the world?

See my hypothetical post upthread about what would have happened should I have dug my heels in and chosen to disengage with the service that was damaging my DD. She’d be gone all because I believed her story of abuse

Yes, a GAL is appointed to act in the best interests of the child and should be somewhat objective. We had two - the first was a Christian very much invested in the SW because they worked together all the time. She also prayed for me so I would confess…. When she had a heart attack, a new GAL was appointed, a veteran of the probation services, who was actually impartial, and who recommended rehabilitation despite lack of confession because aside from evidence of metaphyseal fractures there was no other evidence that I was an unfit parent. None.

If the original GAL hadn’t had a heart attack, I would not have my son now.

I haven't read every comment but I get the general idea from everyone.

I am an adoptive parent. We didn't go into it without extensive training and we are still reading and learning about trauma and attachment 6 years in.

My two where both under age 2 when they came home with us. We read their reports before hand and I can say they are better off with us. They are loved, they have clothes that are clean and fit them, they have heat, water and food.

Most people on here will live in homes with working fridges, electricity, furniture and carpets. A lot of the children taken into care come from houses with nothing. Speaking to our SW, the children's independent guardian and their SW, their house had no white goods, no carpets, no locks, and one bare mattress.

Mine came from a background of DV which had been documented by police over a 15 year period, where both born with no prenatal care at home and with birth mum drinking heavily during both pregnancies. She drank so much that they were both born early with significant time in hospital and both have FASD.

Birth mum's family were assessed to see if anyone was able to take them but no one was deemed fit.
Both were in FC from when they left hospital which they were only taken to after they were born at home on bare floors.

I once looked up some of the birth family on social media and honestly depending on the person posting you would think that they are either still living with them or that they did no wrong and they should be back with them.

I probably should be angry that their background means they have physical and mental difficulties including my daughter having attachment issues and my son having a hole in his chest were the bones didnt fuse together before he was born, but honestly it is just sad for all involved.

Birth mum has an addiction which will no doubt eventually kill her, birth dad prefers drugs and going out to parenting and both are court ordered not to live together due to DV from both sides. We still do our yearly update letter to them on how well the kids are doing and never hear back from them, yet I bet when my kids become 16-18 they will want to meet them at some point.

This thread has just proved my point really.

Social workers do and will carry on making huge mistakes with massive consequences that will only affect the family as the social worker will just get to carry on and fuck up more lives

I remember my social workers manager having a zoom call with me to apologise about the social worker we had that she had to sack. She said well you know, we get to go home and relax every night but for you it's a never ending nightmare.

She was right but still nothing was done to make right the things they did.

The amount of people on this thread whether social workers or not, who defend them until the cows come home are just as bad in my eyes.

Not all SW are bad at their job there are plenty who do it well and for the children. But to not admit that some are rotten is a huge red flag and makes me believe that some of that rot is right here in front of us.

How is she leaving huge details out...she explained that the children were completely and utterly neglected..not fed properly, not taken to school, their teeth rotting in their heads from lack of care, dirty clothes and riddled with nits, because the mother had no ability to care for them or put them first after years of support and intervention.

And you took from this "sweets instead of dinner from time to time"? WTF are you talking about?

"This is exactly the kind of attitude in SWs I despise. Dehumanising oarents - it does fucking matter that you take children away no matter what you plan to do with them. Saying “oh we will probably return them” doesn’t make a shit of difference.

Then again I’ve seen you post before and I get the impression you think every parent you have a referral for is a bad parent who doesn’t deserve kids, is untrustworthy, will lie and manipulate, right?"

Of course taking children away from their parents matters, both to the children, parents, wider family and often the community.

I do maintain that there is a difference between doing this for reasons of social engineering, removing children for adoption, and for reasons of suspected significant harm. One is at heart child focused the other isn't.
That doesn't mean that there aren't significant levels of distress caused to both children and families.

I don't know any social worker who thinks every child referred to social care should be in care.
I don't think any parent deserves kids, I think parents have a certain level of responsibility towards their kids. That is as true for me as a parent as anyone else.

Social workers have a responsibility to be professionally curious, it is shown again and again in SCRs that it is asking questions, chasing down facts, linking effectively with others which helps reduce risks for children.