Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
wowimagine · 05/08/2023 17:26

NC for this

I HNRWT, but well done to those who are also including the low income vs middle class families in the debate as it is highly relevant. By p 3 this was coming up.

I pretty much scuppered developing my senior lucrative legal career to the top league when I decided I wanted a family one day- So, I decided it was not worth doing much more because of this.

Why? I realised that I had a high probability of ending up somewhere wrong if I had a family and a demanding career. Not so much with SS, but the pol!ce.

Why? Not only am I black (wrong colour), I am female (wrong gender), and perceived as a 'high flyer' whatever that means ( again wrong class), and in a priveleged profession (again wrong class).

Google her: Sally- a lawyer who was wrongly jailed for over ten years when her child died a sudden death. Only improved medical science helped release her after 10 years. Sending you love Sally even if I don't know you. It was awful to watch that trial and it was awful when they just focussed on her career no matter the many medical 'experts' unable to say she was negligent in any way.

On being black- I have heard comments on the radio supporting the opposite view, but combining the whole lot, I knew I couldn't take the risk. Apparently, if an ethnic child goes to a GP with any bruising (including explainable ones) , GPs are mandated (by whom I don't know) to report the parents to the Pol!ce and presumably, so SS. By God, combined with a mum working 12/16 hours as I would have had to do, etc etc I knew I was out.

Luckily I was in position to reduce hours, work flexibly ( at home basically but with all hours spent on work properly documented as my evidence), and I live in a less race focused area; even just for my peace of mind and we have had no reports. Kids are now adults. DH is white too, so that helped with my peace of mind, but instead of enjoying being a mum, I just had to live within everyone else's expectations which was a bit unfair.

They say in some cultures, there are all sorts of things they do to children, hence that policy on all ethnic babies.

Op, I hope you are ok.

wowimagine · 05/08/2023 17:31

Sally was white, but her profession, gender and career focus did it for her. I have more- now imagine and was subjected to some automatic policy at GPs I had no right to object to, nor could my GP not follow them automatically! No rationality, no common sense, because I 'is' black! lovely!

Awwwwooooga · 05/08/2023 17:31

Are you saying OP that you would have preferred an initial assessment - which would still have entailed SS speaking to the family/other children, speaking to other professionals and would still have meant investigating whether your child had been harmed? This would still have meant working with SS for the same amount of time, as social workers gave up to 45 days to complete these assessments

ZoeCM · 05/08/2023 17:33

I can't believe anyone, in this day and age, believes that professionals can't be child abusers! How can anyone be so naive? I've even seen threads on here where people have been stopped by the police for speeding, and have been shocked that the police haven't let them off after they've explained that they're professionals. Having a profession doesn't make anyone some sort of higher form of life, FFS!

Kitkat189 · 05/08/2023 17:34

Jellyx · 05/08/2023 16:56

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

We had an appointment? The normal procedure would have been to refer to social services after the in person appointment, not before

Southwestten · 05/08/2023 17:36

Sending you love Sally even if I don't know you.

wowimagine sadly Sally died quite soon after she was found innocent. There was another woman called Angela Cannings (I think) who was wrongly jailed for supposedly killing her child. When she was found to be innocent the doctor who said she was guilty was rightly struck off.

thatsnotmylifeitstoocrazy · 05/08/2023 17:36

I’d be changing my childcare fpr total o er reaction

SpainToday · 05/08/2023 17:36

Nursery told us they had a statutory duty to report it as it was unexplained. The nursery manager told me she went home and cried when I told her they'd started a section 47 investigation, as she knew we wouldn't have hurt him and she felt awful about what we were subsequently having to go through.

I’m sure there is nothing you can do, and it wouldn’t erase what happened, but I wish there was some robust action you could take against the nursery

Jellycatspyjamas · 05/08/2023 17:36

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.

It’s not that it makes you more suspicious, it’s that they don’t know because they don’t know you. When a referral comes in and the family are known to services workers can have a look at the new information in context and assess whether it’s consistent with what’s gone before, whether there’s a context for the concern etc. When a family isn’t known to services we’re starting from scratch because we literally don’t know if it’s a mistaken referral, a malicious one, a parent whose struggling, whether there are other people in the child’s life who might be a concern, whether the parent is neglectful and abusive. Abusive parents don’t tend to come with a sign on their foreheads, so we need to check..

The vast majority of families have no involvement beyond universal health and education services, it’s certainly not the case that no previous involvement is suspicious because the majority of families live their lives with no involvement - it does mean the initial assessment/investigation needs to be more thorough because we simply don’t know.

Golaz · 05/08/2023 17:41

Awwwwooooga · 05/08/2023 17:31

Are you saying OP that you would have preferred an initial assessment - which would still have entailed SS speaking to the family/other children, speaking to other professionals and would still have meant investigating whether your child had been harmed? This would still have meant working with SS for the same amount of time, as social workers gave up to 45 days to complete these assessments

My friend was recently reported to SS . Unexplained head bruise. Nursery said they had no concerns but had a duty to report. Medical assessment done and doctor said no concerns. Social services interviewed parents. Case was closed within about 48 hours. It was still incredibly stressful and upsetting for my friend and has left her shaken and anxious for the future . But nothing compared to what OP has been through.

Twyford · 05/08/2023 17:46

SpainToday · 05/08/2023 17:36

Nursery told us they had a statutory duty to report it as it was unexplained. The nursery manager told me she went home and cried when I told her they'd started a section 47 investigation, as she knew we wouldn't have hurt him and she felt awful about what we were subsequently having to go through.

I’m sure there is nothing you can do, and it wouldn’t erase what happened, but I wish there was some robust action you could take against the nursery

Why? The nursery was simply doing its duty. If nurseries become scared of reporting suspicious injuries because of the fear of litigation, that is a sure route to more children being abused and killed.

Morbihanmum33 · 05/08/2023 17:46

Golaz · 05/08/2023 17:41

My friend was recently reported to SS . Unexplained head bruise. Nursery said they had no concerns but had a duty to report. Medical assessment done and doctor said no concerns. Social services interviewed parents. Case was closed within about 48 hours. It was still incredibly stressful and upsetting for my friend and has left her shaken and anxious for the future . But nothing compared to what OP has been through.

Thank you. This seems reasonable course of action. If concerns are justified then by all means launch S47.

OP posts:
wowimagine · 05/08/2023 17:48

Southwestten · 05/08/2023 17:36

Sending you love Sally even if I don't know you.

wowimagine sadly Sally died quite soon after she was found innocent. There was another woman called Angela Cannings (I think) who was wrongly jailed for supposedly killing her child. When she was found to be innocent the doctor who said she was guilty was rightly struck off.

Oh, just brought tears to my eyes. I very intentionally omitted 'if you are still alive' as Sally was BROKEN during the trial already. I don't cry easily, but, I honestly felt for her. It just sounded so UNFAIR that the focus was on a her career.

At least you all can see, how, I KNEW, I stood NO CHANCE at all. In fact, I pretty much didn't work AT ALL when they were small because of that and DH was always supportive and understood.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 05/08/2023 17:49

While I am in favour of protecting children from abuse, the system is very broken at the moment.

Sometimes despite multi-agency involvement procedures are not followed correctly - minutes of CP conferences not provided in timely manner, parenting assessments required but not implemented, erroneous reports made etc.

Yes, it is the courts decision to remove children but if it is based on less than robust or accurate reporting from SWs or other professionals the effects can be catastrophic either way.

Complaints procedures are complex especially if a parent has no legal representation to identify exactly what has gone wrong where. As a rule solicitors don’t get involved unless court proceedings are issued, when legal aid may be available, income dependent.

If it hasn’t gone to court, getting a knowledgeable advocate isn’t easy. Mackenzie friends come in at around 30.00 an hour in this neck of the woods.

If bad practice isn’t called out then the same frustrations will be experienced time and time again.

I was “in the system” nearly 30 years ago, when my 6 week old, 5 week prem DS had multiple metaphyseal fractures. (Think the Webster case).

Back then I did have a good solicitor who prevented my son being adopted - 18 months of very fraught court proceedings and a concerted effort from SS to make me confess to something I, nor anyone else had done. I couldn’t prove my “innocence” but had to “accept responsibility”.

Said solicitor went on to be a highly respected family court circuit judge, and would not have fought so hard for us if he truly thought we were dangerous.

These investigations are traumatic especially if it is not a clear cut case. But even if there are issues, some - not all - professionals involved in CP can develop a zeal that makes them determined to see “abuse” at all costs.

I keep an eye on the system out of interest now, and have knowledge of various situations going on today which would make your hair curl.

Yes, protecting children is of paramount importance, but it’s supposed to be about the best interests of the child, and sometimes that too is overlooked.

I’m sure there are many excellent SWs out there who are doing wonderful things within an underfunded and beleaguered system. But there are also some with slightly sadistic tendencies who seem to get off on being able to exert power and “punish” parents for perceived wrong-doing.

OP I wish you well. I think there’s no harm in addressing your situation to help understand it fully, for me knowledge was the power that kept me sane (ish). Took me a while to get over my abject fear of spontaneous combustion which was how my anxiety manifested- many an hour spent trembling the bath in the wee small hours….. therapy helped.

Errors in procedures should be examined otherwise there’s no point in having procedures at all. And if parents have to demonstrate compliance, so should the agencies “supporting” / investigating them.

TheFireflies · 05/08/2023 17:52

Golaz · 05/08/2023 17:41

My friend was recently reported to SS . Unexplained head bruise. Nursery said they had no concerns but had a duty to report. Medical assessment done and doctor said no concerns. Social services interviewed parents. Case was closed within about 48 hours. It was still incredibly stressful and upsetting for my friend and has left her shaken and anxious for the future . But nothing compared to what OP has been through.

This is a sensible approach all around.

Beveren · 05/08/2023 17:55

wowimagine · 05/08/2023 17:26

NC for this

I HNRWT, but well done to those who are also including the low income vs middle class families in the debate as it is highly relevant. By p 3 this was coming up.

I pretty much scuppered developing my senior lucrative legal career to the top league when I decided I wanted a family one day- So, I decided it was not worth doing much more because of this.

Why? I realised that I had a high probability of ending up somewhere wrong if I had a family and a demanding career. Not so much with SS, but the pol!ce.

Why? Not only am I black (wrong colour), I am female (wrong gender), and perceived as a 'high flyer' whatever that means ( again wrong class), and in a priveleged profession (again wrong class).

Google her: Sally- a lawyer who was wrongly jailed for over ten years when her child died a sudden death. Only improved medical science helped release her after 10 years. Sending you love Sally even if I don't know you. It was awful to watch that trial and it was awful when they just focussed on her career no matter the many medical 'experts' unable to say she was negligent in any way.

On being black- I have heard comments on the radio supporting the opposite view, but combining the whole lot, I knew I couldn't take the risk. Apparently, if an ethnic child goes to a GP with any bruising (including explainable ones) , GPs are mandated (by whom I don't know) to report the parents to the Pol!ce and presumably, so SS. By God, combined with a mum working 12/16 hours as I would have had to do, etc etc I knew I was out.

Luckily I was in position to reduce hours, work flexibly ( at home basically but with all hours spent on work properly documented as my evidence), and I live in a less race focused area; even just for my peace of mind and we have had no reports. Kids are now adults. DH is white too, so that helped with my peace of mind, but instead of enjoying being a mum, I just had to live within everyone else's expectations which was a bit unfair.

They say in some cultures, there are all sorts of things they do to children, hence that policy on all ethnic babies.

Op, I hope you are ok.

Are you seriously suggesting that black women don't become successful lawyers because they will be accused of child abuse? I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. Look at the careers of women on this list and this one, to say nothing of people like Judge Linda Dobbs and Angela Jackman KC.

10 inspirational Black lawyers - Legal Cheek

7BR marketing exec Christianah Omobosola Babajide pays homage to her favourite legal heroes

https://www.legalcheek.com/2022/10/10-inspirational-black-lawyers/

Newphony · 05/08/2023 17:55

2 year old should not be in nursery for this very reason. There is a reason the official starting age is 3.

HarrietJet · 05/08/2023 17:58

That is pure paranoia, @wowimagine 😵‍💫

Waffle78 · 05/08/2023 18:04

They still investigate the same as they would a non mobile infant. Because they're under 3 and likely can't say how they got the bruises. They even give they're age in months not years. After recent cases of children killed by they're parents. Social services are right to take all suspected cases seriously.

Asoiaf · 05/08/2023 18:04

Safeguarding is everyone's business and no one is above investigation if a 2 year old child is presenting with an unexplained injury on an unusual part of the body. In my authority a CP medical would be part of a S47 and it would require urgency due to the type of concern. Noting it was deemed 'unexplained' at that time and not 'accidental'. If an explanation was given its unlikely the nursery would have made the referral (unless of course they had concerns the explanation was not truthful). I am sorry you have been traumatised by the experience and I get that entirely but I am uncertain how your SS could have proceeded differently? Unexplained injuries of young children who cannot communicate themselves what happened are more likely to trigger S47s than S17 assessments

MistressoftheDarkSide · 05/08/2023 18:05

Oh and one more thing - if Ogaden a quid for every time someone said “But they can’t do that!” And basically accused me of lying or misinterpreting things despite having hard evidence of it all, I’d be a rich woman.

Example:

We agreed to voluntary accommodation with the foster parents on legal advice. Right up to the final hearing 18 months in, because we co-operated so hard, there were no Court orders on DS. SS were absolutely convinced that he would be adopted so a few weeks before the final hearing he was placed before the adoption panel. Not correct procedure. My solicitor and the GAL went ballistic as the GAL was recommending rehabilitation and a phased return. I did get a letter of apology for that administrative error….

Unfortunately it is impossible to have any true idea of what the system is like until you’re in it. Prior to my experience I would have been in the no smoke without fire camp too. Nowadays I have a different view.

Asoiaf · 05/08/2023 18:06

Newphony · 05/08/2023 17:55

2 year old should not be in nursery for this very reason. There is a reason the official starting age is 3.

Oh my goodness... I'm hoping you're going for sarcasm here.

Asoiaf · 05/08/2023 18:10

Actually there is one thing from your OP that struck me with concern - your comment that the sw said your child would enter care if you did not comply. I do think that justifies complaint as that's unlawful and untrue! SS do not have those powers and the threshold for removal is rightly very high

Sausagedogmum · 05/08/2023 18:17

To the posters who are demonising social workers, please don’t, you have no idea what they have to go through, what their work entails, and the barriers they face.
Is the system flawed, of course it is, but it’s not social workers who can decide how it has to be changed.

I will be honest and say I’m training to be a social worker and even I don’t know what they have to do day in day out. I will say it’s not as easy to say just remove the child, or don’t let the child return to their parents, you need to get through a judge first and show why they child has to be removed/cannot return.

I am a foster carer and I can tell you all right now how many many families pull the wool over social workers eyes, how judges refuse to allow social services to remove a child as there isn’t enough proof or grant permission for a child to be returned.

OP I am really really glad your ordeal is over and I hope you can eventually move on and get the answers you look for.

RedRosette2023 · 05/08/2023 18:20

Asoiaf · 05/08/2023 18:10

Actually there is one thing from your OP that struck me with concern - your comment that the sw said your child would enter care if you did not comply. I do think that justifies complaint as that's unlawful and untrue! SS do not have those powers and the threshold for removal is rightly very high

Yes that’s threatening and totally OT, that comment would traumatise a caring parent.