Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
CanNeverThinkOfAName · 05/08/2023 14:15

Just because the doctors ruled out non-accidental injury, that doesn't mean the case should have been closed.

The very fact that the bruising occurred and the parents did not know how it happened, indicates neglect or the toddler not being supervised, crying in pain at time injury occurred ignored etc.

Not saying that happened here.

Also I worked in Safeguarding for some time, there is quite a high threshold for a S47, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was something at else at play, either on the referral, or some other background. Nursery Manager is obviously going to try to minimise their involvement to you as she has to deal with your and your DH face to face and there could be threats of retribution.

Also for the mindless idiots on here, social care DO NOT make the decision as to whether a child is removed or returned to a family.

Look at the horrendous case of Ellie Butler!

Vintagecreamandcottagepie · 05/08/2023 14:15

Ridiculous. So sorry for you all.

SecretVictoria · 05/08/2023 14:21

crapactually · 05/08/2023 11:04

And how do they know whether children are or aren't being abused without investigating?

The point is they don’t investigate the more troubled families. SW would have been shit scared of families like Peter Connolly’s and the many, many other children that have been killed by their families.

There was a case in east London a few years ago, the woman was known to be violent towards authorities, so they did nothing and the child was found dead.

TheHouseElf · 05/08/2023 14:24

So sorry that this happened to you OP and your family but thank you for sharing with us this event. We shouldn't, as the vast majority of us are decent, caring parents be put in a situation where we should fear the state, via SS, taking our kids away from us for no good reason, for normal childhood accidents. In your shoes I wouldn't want to just 'drop it' but would certainly look at options to lodge a complaint or more.

maddening · 05/08/2023 14:26

Easy family to deal with - good for the case load and not having to deal with the more difficult cases.

RedRosette2023 · 05/08/2023 14:29

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.

Absolutely. Taking what OP says as face value this whole process was totally unnecessary and should have been dismissed immediately.

Babyroobs · 05/08/2023 14:30

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.

Exactly what I was thinking. So many children dying through abuse from their parents, how is this happening and yet other ( innnocent) parents are being subjected to this.

Annoyingnamechangerperson · 05/08/2023 14:40

maddening · 05/08/2023 14:26

Easy family to deal with - good for the case load and not having to deal with the more difficult cases.

This!

everetting · 05/08/2023 14:45

Professional families who do abuse their children and get legal representation are not easy to deal with.

everetting · 05/08/2023 14:47

MargaretThursday · 05/08/2023 13:50

Parents who abuse will say exactly the same as the OP. Injured innocents being hassled by a mean SS is a typical response. Very few admit it's deserved.

But also maybe this report was the trigger, but there have been several other reports across the children which have been filed as potential red flags, then adding up to going over the threshold to investigate.

Anyone saying complain, it's not fair, should not then be on another thread blaming SS for not picking another child's case up quickly enough.

Abusive parents go to all sorts of hoops to hide it

I agree the response is very typical.

Keha · 05/08/2023 14:53

From someone working in an off shoot of SS...I think it's reasonable to complain about any delays, slow process, not communicating well. I'd be interested to know what nursery actually put in their referral. You could contact the council and ask what records they have. However unfortunately the process is intrusive and SW are meant to question and ask GP, school, other kids etc as of course abusive parents aren't going to just own up to it.

Jellyx · 05/08/2023 14:54

everetting · 05/08/2023 14:45

Professional families who do abuse their children and get legal representation are not easy to deal with.

Low income familes get legal aid.
And those with offences in their background are very quick to get a solicitor.

ANd social work normally encourage parents to seek legal /advice support

SiobhanSharpe · 05/08/2023 14:54

It seems clear that on one hand, with serious child abuse cases being missed while reports of possible minor abuse are subject to lengthy and intrusive investigation despite medical and other reports stating it was not needed, (as in this case) that the system itself needs investigation and overhaul.
Otherwise the current situation which costs so much in terms of time, effort and money will not only continue but will worsen, distressing for everyone concerned, and may result in yet another expensive, lengthy government enquiry.

Whoisnttriggeredbyawonkypicture · 05/08/2023 14:55

RugbyMom123 · 05/08/2023 13:12

Sounds like you raising it with the nursery caused them to go into defence mode and make the first strike.

These are my thoughts. I had something similar happen when my children were KS1. I think people who do this - make defensive or malicious reports to SS - should be punished.

I was the PITA parent whom the Head of Department detested. That is not an easy admission to make by the way. I was persuaded to go along with a school choice all of my instincts told me wasn’t a good one. The school had a Mallory Towers aren’t-our-grounds-and facilities-great vibe, but In actual fact I came to realised had poor teaching and role modelling. It was archaic in its practises.

I asked questions; the HOD didn’t like that and she wanted to punish me. I had this verified by a member of staff who I bumped into in John Lewis months later. The teacher in question, who had subsequently left (high staff turnover because of the Trunchball character as Department Head) said to me ‘we couldn’t believe what She did to you, we knew she was only doing it because she didn’t like you’.

By then we had taken the children out of the school.

Anyway this Head of Department rang SS. She made up a lot of nonsense about me not being ‘stable’ and being ‘over—anxious’.

Fortunately SS recognised it as a spiteful report but there were no consequences to the school for making a false accusation.

A less experienced social worker taking the call, someone looking to rack up a bit of easy experience, might not have recognised it as spite and things may have escalated.

The school or nursery can always hide behind ‘any concerns have to be reported to SS’. They can be as vague or malicious as they like.

Why would schools or nurseries attract fewer pernicious/spiteful/defensive/chip-on-the-shoulder or jealous people than the general population?

These spurious complaints create ‘noise’ for SS, so that their workload is too great and they can’t operate as efficiently.

I feel really strongly that people reporting to SS out of malice rather than real concern for children, should be prosecuted.

I am so sorry this happened to you @Morbihanmum33. The horrid feeling will subside over time. But it makes one realise what it must feel like to be witch hunted.

Jellyx · 05/08/2023 14:55

maddening · 05/08/2023 14:26

Easy family to deal with - good for the case load and not having to deal with the more difficult cases.

Why do you have this view? Are you lazy and do the minimum and act illegally in your own job? So bizarre to assume a whole group of people do this.

CaffeineAndCrochet · 05/08/2023 14:55

@CanNeverThinkOfAName

Also I worked in Safeguarding for some time, there is quite a high threshold for a S47, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was something at else at play, either on the referral, or some other background. Nursery Manager is obviously going to try to minimise their involvement to you as she has to deal with your and your DH face to face and there could be threats of retribution.

If there's a high threshold then surely OP has the right to ask why the S47 investigation was considered necessary here.

everetting · 05/08/2023 14:57

You are making things up. No report said that it was not necessary to talk to the other children.
The child wS seen by a Dr and the social workers talked to all the children and a few professionals.

funinthesun19 · 05/08/2023 15:06

Professional jobs.

I think it’s a good thing that they don’t turn a blind eye just because someone has a “professional job.”
SS isn’t just for people with certain job titles and salaries.

maddening · 05/08/2023 15:08

Jellyx · 05/08/2023 14:55

Why do you have this view? Are you lazy and do the minimum and act illegally in your own job? So bizarre to assume a whole group of people do this.

Not a whole group of people, just the ones in this case based on op statement, just an opinion. There is shite in every field of work, it is possible the op has encountered some here, bizarre that you should think that such a suggestion is aimed at an entire group.

baloosbaloos · 05/08/2023 15:13

Think you’re letting your nursery off lightly here OP. They see your child day in, day out and are in a much, much better position than social services to make a judgement call as to whether you needed investigation. If they didn’t think that, then they shouldn’t have made the referral. Social services aren’t psychic. They investigated and they exonerated you, reasonably quickly all things considered. Put it behind you.

Willmafrockfit · 05/08/2023 15:15

the nursery were doing their job, they had procedures to follow, which includes a safeguarding report due to the unexplained bruises.

Stomacharmeleon · 05/08/2023 15:17

All the high profile cases of abuse in the last couple of years the children WERE known to social services in some way. Not flying under the radar.

FictionalCharacter · 05/08/2023 15:28

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!

Oh believe me, mine ran into everything!

FictionalCharacter · 05/08/2023 15:36

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.

Excellent point.