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

[Morbihanmum33]

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?

@onefinemess
The drug one isn't quite comparable.

We're talking about a 2year old child with an injury.

If I had the smell of drugs in my car then sure strip search me. You're suggesting the police randomly stop people. Social work didn't not randomly start an investigation here - unexplained injuries on a 2year old were visible.

@onefinemess I have read the OP talking about how they felt and have empathised.

You seem to have an axe to grind here that seems little to do with the OP.

It seems the nursery will have said that the bruising was on the child’s thighs, in an unusual place for bruising, and unexplained. That’s what they told OP. They will also have said that they did not have suspicions about OP, but what they did say would be enough for a strategy discussion.

If the bruising was on shins, knees etc - it wouldn’t have even merited a referral.

I think it needed a paediatric medical examination of the bruising, given that the nursery reported it as unusual, but in my experience if that concluded it was accidental bruising and there was at that point a valid explanation, that should be the end of it.

Good idea. Research guidance from your local authority and read children's legislation. You'll see the nursery and social work acted appropriately.

It's the placement of brushes, the age of child (and the inherent risk that comes with being age 2) AND that it was unexplained

yes I get that, but unexplained bruising on a two year olds legs is incredibly common, and certainly does not justify a leap to a section 47 investigation. I understand the location on the upper thighs might be more unusual, but still I don’t see how it alone justify’s straight to that outcome. I think there are definitely legitimate questions/ concerns to be raised here about proportionality and whether guidance was properly followed. If I was OP I’d definitely want some answers / explanations.

👍🏻

.

That sounds horrible. My 2 year old has bruising on some weird parts as well sometimes. Thighs, back etc. Never even mentioned those to the nursery, wouldnt do anything else in the morning.
I am happy its all over for you.

Bruises on shins are very unlikely to lead to a referral, most kids have them!

@onefinemess

I sympathise because it must have been a difficult experience for the family.

I believe that social work were correct to investigate because the child presented with unexplained bruising in an unusual part of the body.

Yes. If...

@Fitflop5
So unprofessional and probably contrary to their care standard. Id be reporting her as I'd be so worried she wouldn't report bruising again in the future and isn't showing respect to her health/police and social work colleagues (as per her care standards)

I remember my daughter had bruises on her legs but I had no idea how she got them. My aunt (an ex social worker) said that if someone reported them, I could be made to explain how she got them.

You can't be made to explain something you don't know. As someone who has worked with SS and had over 40yrs experience with young children I have found that it's always more suspicious if a parent can explain every single bruise that they have.

My own boys were covered in bruises. They used to have competitions about who had the most at any one time. The majority of the time they couldn't explain where they came from, nor did they remember doing anything (like bumping into furniture etc), that might have caused them.

For children who cannot speak for themselves it's entirely right that unusual unexplained bruises are looked at if necessary. The nursery in this case felt that the location was not the usual place for the 'normal' bruising from general play.

I get thighs are more unusual than lower part of leg, however I disagree that this alone (in a mobile child) is enough to go straight to a section 47 investigation, especially as nursery specified they had no concerns and medical practitioner said no evidence of non accidental injured.

I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask questions as to why leaping straight to a section 47 was necessary.

Yes, I'm sure you could do a much better job.
So why aren't you?

My attached screenshot will be why the bruising caused so much concern. Research evidences that bruising in fleshy areas, such as the thigh, are less likely to be accidental. Equally, the pattern of the bruising is important (clustering), as it’s more likely to suggest that the bruising was inflicted. These factors, combined with a non-verbal child and no explanation from parents would mean that the risk heightened significantly.

As previously mentioned, the decision to proceed to s47 would have been agreed by multiple professionals within a strategy discussion, consisting of at least the police, health services and social care. Good practice would have meant that the nursery also attended.

Having conducted s47 investigations for 13 years, you cannot take at face value anything told to you and must do further investigations. It’s not true that abusive parents will make up an explanation. I was frequently told that they didn’t know how their child got the injury.

Finally, doctors are notoriously ambiguous when examining injuries. They rarely say that an injury is accidental or non-accidental (they weren’t there when the injury occurred so wouldn’t be able to confirm). Instead they will say whether they consider the injury to be consistent with the explanation given. If no explanation is given, they will consider, on the balance of probabilities, whether there are any obvious grab marks, etc, usually indicative of non-accidental harm. They cannot categorically rule out non-accidental.