Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to be angry we were subjected to Social Services Section 47 Investigation?

733 replies

Morbihanmum33 · 05/08/2023 10:13

Long post - sorry: My husband and I have 4 children, 14, 11, 7 & 2. No prior involvement with social services whatsoever. No ‘risk factors’ - criminal records / addiction issues / mental health problems / domestic violence / no issues at schools. Both of us have enhanced DBS. Professional jobs.

Our family recently had to endure the considerable distress and intrusion of a Section 47 child protection investigation.

Our 2 year old had light bruising across his thighs. Both my husband and I saw it but did not know how he’d done it. We flagged it when we took him to nursery, he is very active, trying to keep up with his bigger brothers. In the last 6 months at nursery, the nursery has filed 6 accident reports for incidents in their care, so they know what he’s like.

They rang me to tell me they had a statutory duty to report the bruises as they were unexplained and on a part of his body not normally associated with bruising. However, they assured me it was routine and nothing to worry about. They told me they made it clear on the referral that they did not believe we were responsible for the bruising.

The next morning a social worker called me and told me I had to take my son for a medical examination. This had to be done at the hospital - 45 mins away - immediately. I was due at work and had an important meeting so asked if it could be another time. I was told they could take my son into care if I did not go.

My son was given an examination by 2 doctors and I was interviewed at length. While waiting the social worker told me this was a Section 47 and that they would also have to see my other 3 children, and could go into their schools that same day if necessary to interview them! They also told me they had chosen not to involve the police at this stage!

The Drs found no evidence of non accidental injury. This was communicated to me and the SW at the time.

Despite this, the investigation still had to run its course over a number of weeks, with a visit to our home and interviews with the other 3 children, and them speaking to our GP and schools.

We all found the whole process deeply distressing and a total invasion of our privacy. I was fraught with worry the entire time. We were made to feel like criminals, with SS adopting a ‘guilty until proven innocent approach’. I’ve been left traumatised by the whole experience.

Having read up on this I understand that bruising in a non mobile infant under 6 months is always a major cause for concern, and some local authorities authorise automatic Section 47’s for referrals like this. However, government guidance is that (even with a non mobile infant) an initial enquiry or assessment should be made with the family before initiating an investigation.

Secondly, my child is fully mobile and the original referral explicitly said the bruising was not considered suspicious - so I do not understand why this was escalated in this way.

The cases (against all 4 of my children!) have been closed, but I’m so angry we were put through this. I also understand the fact an investigation was carried out will stay on file for a long time. I’m considering pursuing a judicial review on the basis an initial assessment should have been carried out and the lack of medical evidence did not warrant an investigation.

AIBU to feel like this - or should I just let it go?

OP posts:
ExcitingTimes2021 · 05/08/2023 13:12

It’s terrible that innocent family like yourselves have to go through this. However I’m sure we are all grateful there are systems in place with the sole purpose of protecting our children. It’s just a shame that so many children and vulnerable families seam to fall through the cracks, or massive gaping holes in some tragic cases x

Yellowlegobrick · 05/08/2023 13:13

No one is doubting that there should be investigations where there is evidence of potential abuse.

Light bruising to the legs of a mobile, active happy and well cared for 2 year old, in the absence of any other shred of evidence, is not sufficient evidence to investigate a whole family. It sometimes feels like social services investigate easy cases that can be "ticked off" rather than focussing resources on the very challenging situations with uncooperative families where a case is likely to last years and drain resource.

GoodChat · 05/08/2023 13:13

I disagreed @Rachie1973
I'd think any communication from SS was them treating something as a serious issue regardless of how minor I thought it was

FictionalCharacter · 05/08/2023 13:14

Morbihanmum33 · 05/08/2023 13:10

Of course, the irony of this whole situation is that, had I been abusing my child, there would have been no referral in the first place, because if I had inflicted those injuries I would have had a plausible alternative explanation. Nursery gave us a chance to explain, but we were honest & said ‘I don’t know’. Had we been able to explain they would not have referred, because the statutory duty in this instance relates to unexplained bruising.
So, sadly, there are probably many many cases of abuse being ‘explained’ away all the time.

Exactly that. An abuser would say they saw their child run into the coffee table. Or they wouldn’t mention the bruises at all, and when the nursery discovered them, they’d say they weren’t there before and the nursery must be responsible. And there’s the millions of children who don’t go to nursery, so nobody sees and reports their bruises.

GoodChat · 05/08/2023 13:15

Morbihanmum33 · 05/08/2023 13:10

Of course, the irony of this whole situation is that, had I been abusing my child, there would have been no referral in the first place, because if I had inflicted those injuries I would have had a plausible alternative explanation. Nursery gave us a chance to explain, but we were honest & said ‘I don’t know’. Had we been able to explain they would not have referred, because the statutory duty in this instance relates to unexplained bruising.
So, sadly, there are probably many many cases of abuse being ‘explained’ away all the time.

Maybe they referred a concern of neglect rather than abuse?

TiredCatLady · 05/08/2023 13:15

Moveoverdarlin · 05/08/2023 11:17

I would take him out of that nursery with immediate effect. I would find it hard paying them hundreds of pounds a month when they instigated all this stress for you. You trust them to look after your child, not make life a thousand times harder for you. If they didn’t think it was deliberate why did they refer you to social services? Surely that’s a big step for them to take? Loads of kids must have bruised legs. I’d be furious. Absolutely livid in fact.

Similar - you say the nursery have filed six accident reports for him for things that have occurred at the nursery… could it be possible the reason for SS interest isn’t related to an excess of incidents at the nursery itself?

CaffeineAndCrochet · 05/08/2023 13:16

Think a lot of people are missing the point. The nursery had a mandatory duty to report, but in this situation, it didn't need to lead to the full invasive investigation it did. There's an interim step that it appears SS chose to ignore, which is the initial assessment. OP has every right to ask why the report triggered an automatic S47 investigation when that doesn't seem to be the agreed process.

GoodChat · 05/08/2023 13:16

An abuser would say they saw their child run into the coffee table.

Stop it, mine actually did run into a coffee table and cut her eye open 😩 I was convinced I was getting a referral for that!

Mischance · 05/08/2023 13:16

wlana · 05/08/2023 10:26

It seems astonishing that they wasted all that time investigating you, when children who are really being abused aren’t identified and sometimes die as a result.

It was not a waste of time. Professional middle class families abuse their children too.

I absolutely sympathise with the OP and others who have had to undergo this sort of investigation - it can be very traumatic.

But what else can SSD do? If they miss an instance of abuse, everyone comes down on them like a ton of bricks; if they investigate an innocent family, everyone piles in with criticism.

I have to assure you that no-one is more pleased than the SWs involved when it turns out that all is well.

Morbihanmum33 · 05/08/2023 13:16

Willmafrockfit · 05/08/2023 13:11

@Morbihanmum33 you said he tripped over a bike

This only came out during the investigation when they interviewed our 7 year old who saw it happen, helped 2 year old but didn’t tell us.

OP posts:
Rachie1973 · 05/08/2023 13:21

GoodChat · 05/08/2023 13:13

I disagreed @Rachie1973
I'd think any communication from SS was them treating something as a serious issue regardless of how minor I thought it was

But we’re not supposed to live in fear of a group of people because they are ‘social workers’. I wouldn’t jump because a policeman told me to either.

As an adult I believe I’m entitled to an explanation as to why this needs to happen. When the explanation was forthcoming OP responded accordingly. Not reacting blindly because a person in authority demands it isn’t the awful response you seem to believe it is.

BlossomCloud · 05/08/2023 13:21

HarrietJet · 05/08/2023 12:43

I'm finding the whole "but we're professionals! A decent family" thing a bit jarring, tbh.

I know. And it's the reason I can't keep my kids safe and away from their dad. A judge literally referenced him being "middle class" as a quality that meant he could not possibly be abusive.

Yellowlegobrick · 05/08/2023 13:21

Think a lot of people are missing the point. The nursery had a mandatory duty to report, but in this situation, it didn't need to lead to the full invasive investigation it did. There's an interim step that it appears SS chose to ignore, which is the initial assessment. OP has every right to ask why the report triggered an automatic S47 investigation when that doesn't seem to be the agreed process.

This. Public resource has been wasted when they should have identified via an initial assessment that there was nothing here to investigate. They are trained and have the experience and expertise to make judgement calls from the evidence they have. Imagine investigating all families for weeks every time a toddler has an unexplained bruise?! Completely pointless.

LakieLady · 05/08/2023 13:22

Summertiempo · 05/08/2023 11:59

Maybe from SS point of view, it is easier to investigate professional people, than those living in shit conditions, druggies.

Looks like they prefer through investigations of easier cases. Otherwise at some point in this case, they would have decided to stop the investigation when they found nothing suspicious.

I've raised safeguardings in respect of children living in exactly those "shit conditions", with drug using or alcohol dependent parents, or where an abusive partner has moved in. A couple of them have been for families living on some of the roughest estates in the county.

I have never known them fail to investigate thoroughly or take appropriate action, including where it required the removal of the child. In one case, the father ended up going to prison for threatening to kill the SW who was trying to protect his kids, but even being threatened like that didn't stop them from doing what was necessary to protect the children.

Ime, the notion that SWs prefer to investigate "professional people" is absurd.

truthhurts23 · 05/08/2023 13:22

wlana · 05/08/2023 10:26

It seems astonishing that they wasted all that time investigating you, when children who are really being abused aren’t identified and sometimes die as a result.

I was about to say this ,
it always seems like social services are there scrutinising accidental injuries
but children like jacob crouch, victoria climbie, baby p and arthur hughes always fall through the cracks, where they had multiple signs of horrific abuse, it doesnt make sense to me

Willmafrockfit · 05/08/2023 13:23

please dont raise a complaint op.
it is over now

Humpobottomous · 05/08/2023 13:23

OP this does sound really annoying and the nursery sound a bit overzealous and possibly box-ticking for ofsted however sadly lack of risk factors, enhanced DBS and professional jobs doesn’t prevent people from abusing their child.

BlossomCloud · 05/08/2023 13:24

6WeekCountdown · 05/08/2023 12:16

They are professional people with well looked after kids, what a waste of space they are. Easy couple of weeks work for them though. Bet they said yes to a brew in their house too 🤣 (my friend is a social worker and says there's only ever been 1 or 2 houses ever she accepted a brew in, the rest she wouldn't even want to sit on the sofa!).

I'd go mad if this was my kids. Teenagers aren't stupid and will know why they are being asked leading questions about their parents. Distressing all round.

How on earth is their professional status relevant ?

The classism on this thread is vile.

Middle class people can be just as horribly abusive. Their children deserve protection too.

And equally non-professionals can be amazing, wonderful, dedicated parents and have every right to be just as unsettled by an investigation.

Yetanothernewname101 · 05/08/2023 13:27

I read 2 year old, bruises on thighs, and went 'he's bumped into the coffee table or a table at nursery '. Because I used to get similar 'no idea where they came from' bruises on my thighs when I taught in early years.
I'm so sorry that you went through all of this, it's not overreaching to say it's traumatising for you as a family.
If your son has already had 5 accidents at nursery, I'd be questioning if they are supervising adequately, or it may just be that you've got an active into everything boy, but I'm not sure I would be keeping him at that nursery given what's happened.

Yellowlegobrick · 05/08/2023 13:27

The reality is the children most at risk, who slip through cracks, are often the off radar ones and that's where resource should be directed.

The parents who never bring baby to weighing clinic. Who decline HV visits. The kids who are born, but are then missing vaccines, who aren't registered with with a doctor, who don't appear in EYFS funding paperwork anywhere, don't appear on school registrations.

Although it is horrifying when children die and people have been raising the alarm for years - teachers, doctors, neighbours, HVs. I never quite understand how that happens.

WobbIy · 05/08/2023 13:28

MySugarBabyLove · 05/08/2023 11:54

Innocent families comply with everything and dont make a fuss. Great for getting boxes ticked and targets met. my DP’s mum complied with SS, went to the weekly HV clinics, attended parent and baby groups, did everything that was being asked of her.

DP was made disabled due to his injuries, initially explained as an accident by the mother, and ultimately both he and his three other siblings were removed into permanent care. In fact his youngest sister was removed at birth and adopted.

The mother came from a well-to-do family, we’re talking middle class in the 60’s.

So the whole argument that if someone complies they’re innocent holds no water. In fact a lot of people will comply if they know there’s a chance that SS will stay on their back they’re wise.

DP’s mother never bothered with the kids again after that. The father (who was equally abusive) did for a few years but then he disappeared. Hopefully he’s dead.

That's not what she said. She said the innocent parents do, not that guilty people can't pretend to comply!

Example:

If people with remorse will always apologise, does that mean everyone who has remorse?

Answer:

Of course not.

Saywhanow · 05/08/2023 13:28

So your nursery have listed 6 accidents while your kid is in their care but one incident you self report of light bruises to nursery and they file to SS.

Something is up OP. I'd want to see the original referral too!

Personally I wouldn't let it go.

BlossomCloud · 05/08/2023 13:31

YetMoreNewBeginnings · 05/08/2023 12:27

It’s always the same on here when a MNetter faces SS. It’s always a ‘waste of time’, they’re always ‘professional people’ and they should go an bother someone else.

Yet when a child is abused or hurt it’s always “why were they not involved” and “why didn’t they ask questions”

If we want to protect children then SS need to be able to investigate parents. Abusive parents don’t wear labels on their foreheads. Nice professional people harm their children too.

The policy can’t be “investigate anything that seems suspicious unless the parent is a nice, professional MNetter”

Agreed.

According to this thread anyone with tattoos and a menial job is a child abuser and any boden-wearing professional should get an award for being the world's best parent.

I'm afraid I've experienced abuse from a "lovely middle class professional" and I have witnessed his abuse to our son (I then left, to keep myself and the children safe, but cafcass didn't want to believe how abusive dad is because they "had a lovely cup of tea" with him, and the judge referenced dad being "middle class" like it was a mark of honour... In the end my son had to vote with his feet)

I am tediously boringly MC and professional but I am astonished by the assumptions on this thread

Fluff11 · 05/08/2023 13:31

I am a health care professional who does sadly have to refer families to SS on a very regular basis and I am very shocked and torn by this.

The response seems disproportionate to the circumstances and understandably traumatic for you and your family, for that I am sorry.

However I can see that a toddler cannot advocate for themselves so when you say “and why instead a decision was made to drag our other 3 children and their schools into this” I disagree. Of course they needed to speak to your other children who can give an insight into your home situation.

In regards to speaking to the schools, in many serious case reviews one of the key findings is that professionals do not speak to other agencies and things get missed. So I think it’s entirely appropriate they checked with the schools but this could have just been an email to their safeguarding officers asking if there were any previous historical concerns, alongside contacting the GP, HV etc and then if they all agreed there are no safeguarding concerns they should have closed the case quickly.

Inkpotlover · 05/08/2023 13:32

The investigations have to be robust because for every 1,000 parents like you who have done nothing wrong there will one who has.