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?

Nursery told us they had a statutory duty to report it as it was unexplained.

Unexplained is normal to an extent. It seems from your initial post that it was the location of the bruising that triggered the report.

Agreed

I don’t want to discount the stress and fear of your experience. Having government agents come into your home and threaten to take your children if you don’t comply with every command is the stuff of nightmares.

Pursuing this isn’t going to accomplish anything. The workers read a report and decided to investigate. You won’t win any kind of formal complaint process, but you will keep this at the forefront of your mind and force yourself to keep reliving it instead of working past it. the best thing you can do is seek support to process your trauma.

yes of course. Maybe OP is missing something key out. But if she is genuine and if I were OP, I’d want answers/ to know if there were other concerns and what those other concerns were

Well, they're not called the SS for nothing! This happened because you are a soft target OP. It's so much easier for social workers to justify their existence by involving themselves with families like yours who are co-operative and where the chances that abuse has taken place are very small. On the other hand, it's really difficult and I imagine, incredibly stressful and possibly dangerous, to try and engage with families where there are obvious and visible serious issues and who are abusive and challenging when SS tries to investigate.

I have a whole story about SS involvement in a 'safeguarding' issue, but to provide precise details would be terribly outing, so suffice it to say that one of my family members was told that their children were not permitted to help move their disabled and immobile parent (the family member's spouse) from wheelchair to bed despite the fact that the family had been denied any funding to install a much-needed, but incredibly expensive hoist. It took three - yes three! - 'terribly overworked' social workers to visit unannounced to relay this fact and my family member was advised that they would likely face a safeguarding enquiry and would "just have to manage somehow!" Meanwhile, seldom a week goes by without us hearing terrible details about a child, already well-known to SS and other agencies, who has been brutalised and murdered by a parent or step-parent!

This happened because you are a soft target OP. It's so much easier for social workers to justify their existence by involving themselves with families like yours who are co-operative and where the chances that abuse has taken place are very small
Another ridiculous conspiracy theorist 🙄. Have a day off, why don't you?

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

So your argument is that since multiple professionals are involved , mistakes can never be made, and it’s never legitimate to ask questions/ complain/ push for accountability?

You clearly have a vendetta against the whole of social work. Please note it has repeatedly been said this was a multi-agency decision.

Yes, fair enough. If there was an explanation and the bruising was consistent with that explanation, with no evidence of non accidental injury, then I’d not expect it to go further. I imagine in this case as there was no explanation - very usual - that’s why an assessment was carried out.

@Skinthin you’ve surmised that’s my argument, but I didn’t actually say that. My point was that it is a decision made by several professionals, therefore there is shared accountability

We had this happen @Morbihanmum33 during lockdown our dd had rectal bleeding, I called 111 for advice and a referral, they referred us to a clinic and ended the call by saying that we would automatically be reported to SS due to the nature of dd’s bleeding. I was completely shocked that they would make a decision like that over the phone. We decided to go straight to a&e instead of attending the appointment they made for us. I explained to a&e that we had been reported and they said it was completely unheard of to make a decision like that based on a phone call, if at all it would happen after an examination of the child showed signs for concern.

This was not the case with dd so they made a note in her journal to say there were zero concerns of abuse (shudder!) so when SS called us the next day it was to say that the case had been closed.

It was the worst 24h, not only were we worried sick about dd but we had SS after us too!

I don’t know if mistakes were made; I know nothing of the situation, but if OP is genuine and I were her I would use the legitimate complaints procedure to demand accountability as to why it was necessary to conduct a section 47 investigation in the circumstances .

So your argument is that since multiple professionals are involved , mistakes can never be made, and it’s never legitimate to ask questions/ complain/ push for accountability?

Of course mistakes can be made, we see the tragic results of mistakes being made all the time.

Multiple professionals being involved lessens the chances of mistakes being made because multi-agency assessment and decision making means a more holistic assessment with fuller information on which to base an assessment. It also lessens the chance of any one professional pursuing a vendetta against a family because that assessment is challenged and unpicked and children aren’t removed because of one persons view or opinion. It safeguards the process to have other professionals involved.

Well- if it was during lockdown then of course it was done by phone. Can't afford to hang round with child protection.

@Kitkat189
And it's not a reflection of parents - it's all about protecting the child.

Plenty of parents are horrified to find their spouse, parent, sibling has abused their child.

Actually 'unexplained' did seem to be the main issue.

I recall a previous incident involving one of my older children when they had fallen from play equipment in a playground, and scraped their back on a wooden post as they fell. That (different) nursery called both my husband and myself - one of us said 'he fell from the monkey bars', the other said 'he scraped his back on the wooden post of the climbing frame'. I then had to explain the whole story to show both accounts were in fact accurate. No action was taken.

There's no doubt in my mind that had I known that the 2 year old had fallen onto the bike while playing with his brothers in the garden, and told nursery that, there would not have been a referral.

As uncomfortable as the situation was for you, abused children are in far more discomfort and this is why these investigations take place - more likely than not when they happen they are closed with no abuse found, however, the number of cases where they do uncover abuse and protect children mean that they should continue even for the innocent families as a process to go through.

As you have enhanced DBS checks you will absolutely know this is the case though so I'm unsure why you are so angry.

I work with young children and completed a full level 3 safeguarding course last week - nursery were way ott imo. You make notes and keep them on file and if a pattern of repeat unexplained bruising occurs then you make a referral
You dont refer to LADO on the face of one bruise, every child who is mobile has unexplained bruising at some point - half the toddlers in my care are pickled with bruising from falling over toys etc.

For all those saying it's normal to go straight to a strategy meeting rather than carry out an initial assessment, that seems to go against advice given to the government.

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2022/10/05/pre-mobile-infant-bruising-should-not-automatically-prompt-section-47s-say-government-advisers/

This involves pre-mobile infants - my point is that bruising of any kind must be far more common in mobile infants, and therefore, the bar for the justification of abandoning the initial assessment must be even higher.

The bruising, although on the thighs, had none of the other indicators of abuse - clustering / grip marks / petechiae. And although the thighs are not a common area for accidental injury, they are equally - according to NSPCC - not a common location for abusive injuries either - those being abdomen, back, buttocks, head, ear and neck.

I have requested all of the information held about me. It's possible there is something else I don't know about which has led to this, but I cannot for the life of me think what it could possibly be.

I did try to ask the social worker, and put it to him that there was no other information on file about us. He acknowledged that and almost suggested that made us more suspicious - this family have never been on the radar, so better go check them out. I maintain that could - and should - have been done with an initial assessment.