Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Jellyx · 06/08/2023 01:12

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:07

So the system is breaking dedicated SWs and some of the families they support.

Ergo the system needs an overhaul.

It's also not designed to break anyone. It's just not well funded /resourced.
Processes and dedicated staff are there - but lots of other things missing.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:13

And neglect is often the result of poverty. It’s just going to escalate considering the state of the economy.

Titicacacandle · 06/08/2023 01:14

Social workers have been asking for a centralised system since the serious case review of Victoria Climbie. That was the recommendation to the government and has never been implemented.

We have such high numbers because we are becoming poorer and poorer. Money stress goes hand in hand with abuse and neglect. Or do you think cash strapped LAs actually want more children then foster or adoption placements for? Placements that cost so much?

There are issues, the less money LAs have the less universal help is available. SWs fire fight and that costs more money then universal and early intervention. Agency and locum workers cost more.

Maybe if we would kept open the sure start centres, the early intervention programmes that worked and all the numerous other good things that worked but have been cut and cut under Conservative government social care wouldn't be so cash strapped. It's a lot cheaper to support a child to stay at home, it's a lot harder to do that without services they can be referred to.

RattleRattle · 06/08/2023 01:16

This reply has been deleted

This user is a goady troll so we've removed their posts.

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 01:19

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:13

And neglect is often the result of poverty. It’s just going to escalate considering the state of the economy.

No - neglect often relates to substance use and the substance use often means there's no money in the home.

Neglect isn't just about putting food on the table - a parent is also as responsible for the emotional welfare of the child.

Neglect also happens when there is domestic abuse in home.

Neglect when they don't take their child for medical treatment (nothing to do with money)

Neglect when a parent leaves their 3year old home alone to go see their friend.

Very rarely see neglect being financially based - especially not with provision of food banks, child tax credits etc

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:19

No, I don’t think LAs want more fodder for the system and I agree that underfunding of early intervention services is a huge part of the overall problem. Tories think poverty is a personal failing, and the sins of the fathers shall therefore be visited on the children.

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 01:21

This reply has been deleted

This user is a goady troll so we've removed their posts.

I worked in a team with many 'unaccompanied children' - many claiming to be 15 but in reality the MAJORITY over 20 and just abusing the children's systems.

JMSA · 06/08/2023 01:24

@Jellyx

Fair point, but surely you must see that this is a nightmarish situation from an innocent parent's point of view.
Yes, it's important that these incidences are investigated. I completely recognise that. But it doesn't stop me feeling for the OP!

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 01:27

JMSA · 06/08/2023 01:24

@Jellyx

Fair point, but surely you must see that this is a nightmarish situation from an innocent parent's point of view.
Yes, it's important that these incidences are investigated. I completely recognise that. But it doesn't stop me feeling for the OP!

I have no doubt it was distressing. I hope , on reflection, they are thankful to professionals for reporting things and undertaking a thorough investigation.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:31

I’m out.

I’m not stupid. I’m relatively well informed. I have been in the system and seen and experienced things that SWs have said and done and I know I am not believed.

So be it.

I have supported people informally going through the system recently and things do, eventually, get investigated but it takes persistence and education to get those wheels in motion. Those without support and resources are often left mired in it all.

Being in the system as an accused parent or a child takes a huge emotional toll. Outcomes for the child can be poor.

Parting trauma shot - I was advised not to have any more children after my DS came home, as it would trigger another investigation. When I fell accidentally pregnant I immediately sought an abortion. Despite explaining why I needed the procedure (definitely to protect my mental health) - they made me pay for it.

The system is in dire need of an overhaul.

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 01:35

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:31

I’m out.

I’m not stupid. I’m relatively well informed. I have been in the system and seen and experienced things that SWs have said and done and I know I am not believed.

So be it.

I have supported people informally going through the system recently and things do, eventually, get investigated but it takes persistence and education to get those wheels in motion. Those without support and resources are often left mired in it all.

Being in the system as an accused parent or a child takes a huge emotional toll. Outcomes for the child can be poor.

Parting trauma shot - I was advised not to have any more children after my DS came home, as it would trigger another investigation. When I fell accidentally pregnant I immediately sought an abortion. Despite explaining why I needed the procedure (definitely to protect my mental health) - they made me pay for it.

The system is in dire need of an overhaul.

Parents now have access to free legal advice.

Informing you that a new pregnancy will likely lead to a new investigation is then being honest - I doubt someone has told you not to bother getting pregnant but simply told you the likely outcome.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:42

Doubt all you like. It was both a threat and a promise. I was there. You were not.

Oh and try getting that free legal advice nowadays. I was lucky enough to get Legal Aid back in the 90s. It’s been massively cut back now. Mackenzie friends currently charge 30.00 an hour here.

ShinyYellowTeapot · 06/08/2023 02:44

@Jellyx just wanted to say that I'm really appreciating your responses here. I'm not a SW but literally work side by side with them daily in my HCP role. It's ridiculous what your scope is. Untenable.

ShinyYellowTeapot · 06/08/2023 02:44

*unsustainable, sorry

Tohaveandtohold · 06/08/2023 03:58

The SS are not wrong to be involved when they have a report but the issue is with that level of involvement based on what the OP has described. It seems so over the top and I feel she should pursue a judicial review. If everything has been done above board and no discrimination, etc then fine.
I used to believe that there’s more to these stories until it happened to a work colleague 2 months ago. Colleague’s daughter as had eczema since she was a baby and this is well known by nursery and everyone close to her. She went to the surgery when it first started 2 years ago and was always taking the child back for almost a year, asking for referral etc.
She was told last year that they no longer prescribe creams, etc that can be bought over the counter and no longer see people with mild eczema. At that point, the eczema was milder but it has been worse, basically, no more help was offered. It was as if she was an inconvenience.
Since then she has been using methods like oat bath, trying creams bought online after hearing reviews etc and the eczema has been contained.
However 2 months ago, she noticed some oozing and the next day, saw that it appears that some of the scratched spots were infected so she went to the surgery again so they can prescribe antibiotics. She met a new doctor who spent less than a minute looking at the infected spots and called the police and social services and reported her for abuse and neglect and a S47 investigation started. The police and SS were in their house that day with cameras, etc, the older children, their school, subject child's nursery, neighbours, etc interviewed, she was stressed. When the police got to their house, they immediately said there's no evidence of neglect as they could see from the child's room lots of creams they were trying, etc but the SS didn't back off and dragged everyone else into it before closing their case as no concerns.

She pursued a judicial review and the SS involvement was found to be excessive for a lot of reasons,
first one is the child is 3 and from the get go, when they started interviewing her, she said 'my skin is poorly and very itchy', there was nothing she said that could indicate the parents inflicted the pain.
Next in their house, the child showed them the creams she uses in the morning , at night, the routines, how she has to wear mittens sometimes etc and these were part of the reasons the police closed the case.
SS went to nursery who assured them that there's no indication of abuse, etc but they still went ahead and dragged the older children's school, nursery, etc into it.
Worst part was that they explained to the GP that started this investigation that the reason child has not been to the surgery was because they'd been told they won't be prescribing anything else like creams a year before and as a result, they have been managing this at home but that GP didn't even prescribe the antibiotics that made them go to the surgery in the first place, when all the issues with SS was going on, the infection got worse and they had to go to out of hours GP who saw that it was indeed infected eczema and he prescribed antibiotics and the whole thing almost cleared up within 2 days.
All these evidence were there before SS went to the older children's school but they still went anyway.
She will be reporting the initial GP as well now because be basically did nothing to help the child but cause stress to the child and the parents.
After that issue, I now believe that there's just not much to every story, SS are definitely not perfect and based on how they perceive you, or how power hungry your case worker is, you may be subjected to something like this with no justification.
If in OP’s case, SS is found to have done nothing wrong then that’s fine but she has a right to pursue a review at least for closure.

Dhama · 06/08/2023 05:51

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 00:55

@Titicacacandle

It's so sad and frustrating and part of the reason why there is massive shortage of workers.

I've just left the job and off to a better paid much less stressful job! Sad to leave families have built a relationship with by my own health and children need to come first.

What is this job?!? Reading all the utter misinformation and ignorance about social workers is making me reconsider my own career right now. It’s so frustrating and hates off to you trying to explain with such patience to people on this thread ❤️

Dhama · 06/08/2023 05:57

*hats off ffs 😂

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 06:36

@Tohaveandtohold
It seems like a very odd thing for the GP to do. We generally trust our health colleagues and again, complete a full investigation, before closing a case especially when small children are involved.

It's possible your friend has not been transparent with you.

I'm not sure why you'd suggest 'power hungry' -social work have very little power - can not remove children etc We are also too busy to waste time on things so if we're involved it's for good reason.

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 06:37

@Dhama I am actually moving to Dubai for a role in a school (tax free salary, free accomodation etc) feel free to PM if you're interested in more info!

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 06:41

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 01:42

Doubt all you like. It was both a threat and a promise. I was there. You were not.

Oh and try getting that free legal advice nowadays. I was lucky enough to get Legal Aid back in the 90s. It’s been massively cut back now. Mackenzie friends currently charge 30.00 an hour here.

I'd suggest that any future information is in written form.
It's just very odd a social worker would get 'personal' in this way - a bit 'off the wall' to say they were giving a 'threat and a promise' and actually any social worker would have informed you off that outcome.

I've always known parents to get free legal aid. Free advocacy services are also available. And again- I've always encouraged parents to use these services - even when there is no conflict in views.

HaveYouHeardOfARoadAtlas · 06/08/2023 07:02

It does seem overkill. Yes there needs to be an investigation of some description but surely when on Day One the dr said he couldn’t find any evidence of non accidental injuries that would be that? 🤷‍♀️. Or was he not including the bruising in that?

Do you mean he couldn’t find any other non accidental injuries? Because if the dr and SS still felt the bruising was unexplained then I guess in their minds that could be a non accidental injury so the investigation needs to continue?

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 07:10

HaveYouHeardOfARoadAtlas · 06/08/2023 07:02

It does seem overkill. Yes there needs to be an investigation of some description but surely when on Day One the dr said he couldn’t find any evidence of non accidental injuries that would be that? 🤷‍♀️. Or was he not including the bruising in that?

Do you mean he couldn’t find any other non accidental injuries? Because if the dr and SS still felt the bruising was unexplained then I guess in their minds that could be a non accidental injury so the investigation needs to continue?

It might have been 'inconclusive.'

It's so sad to hear you say 'overkill.'
If this was abuse but doctors couldn't confirm you would slate social work for NOT speaking with siblings.

Medical exams are not 100% and therefore social work have a duty to complete a thorough investigation. They are skilled working with all age groups and won't have interrogated siblings but done things gently. Sometimes we ask a teacher to 'check in' with a child about any worries rather than introduce them to a social work (usually in lower level referrals) so please stop thinking that social work aren't also aware about potential impact on other children. We care about kids and thus in a very stressful, demanding job...full of judgement as evidenced all over the the thread and apparently social work doing too little and too much all at the same time.

HaveYouHeardOfARoadAtlas · 06/08/2023 07:18

I said “seems” overkill and then went on to say why maybe the investigation needed to continue. 🤷‍♀️

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 07:30

HaveYouHeardOfARoadAtlas · 06/08/2023 07:18

I said “seems” overkill and then went on to say why maybe the investigation needed to continue. 🤷‍♀️

I've not said it's overkill. I was responding to another's comment to say why it wasn't...

TheFireflies · 06/08/2023 08:09

Jellyx · 06/08/2023 06:41

I'd suggest that any future information is in written form.
It's just very odd a social worker would get 'personal' in this way - a bit 'off the wall' to say they were giving a 'threat and a promise' and actually any social worker would have informed you off that outcome.

I've always known parents to get free legal aid. Free advocacy services are also available. And again- I've always encouraged parents to use these services - even when there is no conflict in views.

Parents only get legal aid when they’re in the “public law outline” process, i.e. the concerns are so serious that the local authority intend to bring care proceedings if nothing changes.

This isn’t the case for OP.

Swipe left for the next trending thread