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?

That’s your opinion, it’s not mine.

*@Jellycatspyjamas
I'd also expect any professional in CP to be offered good supervision - so there's even challenges within your own discipline.

It doesn't sound , in OPs case, there were any unusual or biased decisions made.*

The quality of supervision for social workers is something that comes up time and again in any review of any work, it’s repeatedly recognised that access to good quality clinical (as opposed to case management supervision) is very lacking so no I wouldn’t be confident that bias would always be picked up and challenged in supervision.

There may not have been any unusual or biased decisions made in the OPs case, but she should have a clear understanding of why a S47 was needed as opposed to an initial assessment, or if an initial assessment was done and showed the need for a S47, the OP should know why that was the case. It’s not enough to hide behind the veil of multi-agency practice to say the decisions must have been fine, the individual social worker investigating has professional accountability for their work and - if everything is as it should be - should be happy to explain their reasoning. If they had, I doubt the OP would be as unhappy as they are now.

❤️ 100% all of this

*a social worker rushing a family because they dislike them should receive more than just being “challenged” in a case meeting

it indicates that they are chronically and acutely unprofessional*

And depending on my role with them I might do more, including having the case reassigned where that’s been possible.

It’s not always about unprofessionalism, sometimes you’ve worked with a family for a long time and can’t see that you’re reacting to them from a place of bias, sometimes you become very fearful of the family (it’s not unusual to be threatened with violence, to be tracked in the community, met with extreme aggression) and your practice becomes very defensive. If you’ve been involved in a case where a child has died you’ll tend to be very cautious in your practice - overly dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s. All of which are very human responses and need support, challenge and time to unpick.

We ask social workers to do an incredibly difficult job, building complex relationships with people. They will have feelings, responses and reactions to those people and those situations - which is why there’s such an emphasis on reflective practice, challenge and supervision. It’s not unprofessional to have a reaction, it’s unprofessional to never challenge and explore your motives in your work and to let those reactions leach out into your work with families.

@Fitflop5

Of course things will have changed. I’m not daft.

However, I do have current knowledge of the system through people I have supported informally and I have seen paperwork that suggests some things really don’t change.

My concerns are that those parents who don’t get to court proceedings level therefore are unlikely to have a solicitor or advocate have little redress when it comes to errors and failures in processes which often haven’t been explained to them transparently. It is very hard to both co-operate with SS, keeping your child at the forefront of things as they should be and also navigate a complaints process without legally informed support of some kind.

Which is why professional accountability is so important.

I've not read everything here, but what stood out for me was that they've (nursery) filed 6 accident reports in as many months....
This suggests that even though they know that he is into everything that they are not adequately supervising and who knows how many things he or other kids have had happen that have not been reported.... legs caught on a slide or swing or got a glancing blow from something moving in the play area....

You sound incredibly naive. Of course personal bias seeps into all situations where human judgements need to be made. This can happen to the most professional of social workers. There is a need for reflection and accountability to minimise this bias. It’s concerning if you are a practicing social worker and don’t have this kind of self awareness.

Btw.... I now see you think it may have been an accident at a party... I'd still be querying that number of accident reports

I feel sorry for the social work department (please contact them all if you were unhappy with the JOINT decisions) because of the time they have to waste on people who can't see the wood for the trees - they're all stretched as it is.

I’ll defend social workers til the day I die, but you’re being unreasonable here. Social work departments are public bodies with huge reach into people’s private lives, often they’re uninvited and unwanted. It’s reasonable for families to want to know why they’ve acted in the way they have, to understand the processes and why they need to be in place in this particular case (as opposed to broad policy, eg why did this process happen for this family).

It’s not about being able to see the woods for the trees, it’s why has my families life been disrupted in this way. And families have a right to know. I rather feel sorry for families who have had a social worker pick through their lives without clearly explaining why. If the social work practice was better, the department wouldn’t need to waste time doing something that should have been done in the first place.

My point was if you are aware of a SW pursuing a family unfairly, as the PP has said she has been, then what was her response knowing that this is appallingly unprofessional and dangerous

Ok, I’m not going to give examples here for obvious reasons but my response has varied depending on my role eg whether the colleague was a peer, a direct report or someone in another team. Responses have included taking the file and my concerns to managers who have then dealt with the situation, co-working the case and redirecting the work, reassigning the case, sending the staff member for counselling support, and disciplinary processes including suspension. Each situation has been different and needed a different response, usually a combination of responses.

Its relatively rare to find someone just acting from personal dislike, there’s usually other stuff fuelling the fire hence no one size fits all response.

Sorry if I’ve got you muddled with another poster. I thought you were one of the ones insisting from the beginning the (circular) argument that the decision to pursue a section 47 must be correct because it was the decision that was made , also citing multi agency working.

I think procedure was followed. Once a section 47 is started they have to see it through and complete within 15 working days. Before it was started they would have hold a strategy meeting which would have been attended by health professionals, nursery, schools and police. So it wasn’t a decision only made by SS.
the outcome of the section 47 was that it was accidental.
im so sorry for the impact this has had on you op, as a mother I know this would have been so stressful. However given recent children who have died at the hands of their parents and step parents like Arthur and Star, there is a process in place particularly around bruising. Without a full investigation they couldn’t have known what the cause was. Sadly somethings ss do have to investigate families who are innocent, it seems to me that the right outcome was reached and that will be recorded on your children’s file.
never the less it has been traumatising for you.
I hear what you are saying about the delay in knowing the outcome. Sadly social workers can have between 15-40 children on their case load some of which are actually being abused and need urgent help so I would imagine this has an impact xx

@Jellycatspyjamas
They do explain why. You don't just show up asking questions. You literally say ''I am here for this reason''

The beginning of child protection meetings with family start with ''we are convening this ..under this legislation..for this purpose..following a referall saying xyz'

That's is standard practice.

The beginning of child protection meetings with family start with ''we are convening this ..under this legislation..for this purpose..following a referall saying xyz'

Yep, but how many then explain why all the children in the home need to be spoken to when the referral related to one child, or that the investigation will take X amount of time, or that even though the medical showed no signs of wrongdoing the investigation process needs to continue to it’s conclusion, or why the referral needs a full investigation instead of an initial discussion and assessment or why an approach has changed as a process has continued. None of that is secret and can be shared.

And how many people are going to know what X section of Y legislation says? Social workers need to be able to clearly explain, in layman’s terms, what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.

I can only speak for myself and colleagues I've witnessed/ but it's something I've done EVERY time. It's standard good practice,

Or even explain that the medical examination is time sensitive so I need to ask that you or the child’s other parent is available to attend today - instead of “if you don’t come we’ll remove your child.”