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?

@Jellycatspyjamas
I don't get why every social worker is being questioned on their professionalism. Do you question all nurses, teachers, Tesco workers about their minimum standard practices?

Yes!! Of course we do. I find it odd this is even doubted!!! It's an extremely difficult job , requiring going into debt to study for years, to be paid poorly, highly stressed and regularly abused. And people ask if we're doing the minimum??)

@Jellyx If you read my posts you’d know I am a social worker, with 25 years in child protection - I have a good knowledge of the varying standards of professionalism in social work, the good, bad and the ugly. It does no one any good to suggest bad practice doesn’t exist and to not challenge that.

The attitude of “it never happens” is both dishonest and dangerous.

I'm
Not saying 'never' but rare! It's like asking if an airline checked your passport. I'm sure some are missed but no1 ever questions whether they do it or not.

Please quote where I have said 'never.'

Thanks

I find it odd this is even doubted!!!

It’s being questioned because the OP has described her experience where none of that happened. Where she was left thinking if she didn’t cancel her meeting to attend a medical, her child would be removed, where all of her children were spoken to without explanation of why that was, where a S47 was initiated when her reading of guidance suggests an initial assessment should have been done. So yes she’s right to question why basic professional standards weren’t met in her case.

To give some examples:

If a child says that a family member smacked him, we must report the family - the example we were given was of Granny tapping the child's hand.
Unexplained bruising or injury.
Injury on a child below a certain age, or in an unusual place.
A child using certain swear words, or in context, must be reported, even if it was picked up at nursery or school. Ofsted tried to pull me up for not reporting that one - I had to prove that the child had learned it at school.
A child using a word or phrase that could be interpreted as racist, even if it was picked up elsewhere.
A child going on holiday to certain destinations.
My LA wants to know about any child who is home-schooled.

Sounds like anxiety and perhaps has been too distressed to listen properly. And sometimes you can explain things a 1000times but people are fearful and still mistrustful.

I know what they are telling you, but the nursery obviously thought it WAS a bit suspicious to refer to SS. They did not have to do that. My clumsy child was always covered in bruises. His nursery and primary school never did this.

And as you'll know/ sometimes children are spoken to without getting parental consent first - particularly in cases of child abuse - to prevent a child from being coaxed. Again, excellent necesscary actions.

What do you think an initial assessment includes??
Speaking to children?
Arranging a medical?

They were doing an assessment via gathering information, seeking other professionals opinions (doctors) , seeking children's views, analysing that info and then making a decision to close.

Tell me where they missed an assessment?

I want to bang my head off a wall here.
Child protection cases are multi-agency so no 1 person can have an agenda!!

@Jellyx you’ve said here no one person can have an agenda. Of course it’s possible for one person to have an agenda, and for that agenda to sway the course of an investigation in a multi-agency context, which is why there’s emphasis on group think and confirmation bias in multi-agency training and concern about the lack of inter-professional challenge.

You’ve also questioned why a social worker would be “out for” a family - your comment was “how weird”, but it does happen - not commonly but it does.

Either you’ve been in a unicorn team where everyone always practices perfectly, or you’ve gone round with your eyes closed.

I'm sorry you went through that.

What do you think an initial assessment includes??

So what you’re saying is every assessment you do is a full multi-agency CP assessment - which is what happened here. You’ve never phoned the parents to ask about a bump or bruise, never made a quick home visit to see the child and parent and get a sense of things. Every single unexplained bruise gets a forensic medical?

I’d love to know which authority you work with because in the 5 I’ve worked in there’s a process of assessment before starting a CP investigation - which I’m sure you know.

I’m interested in why you can’t countenance that, in this case, the practice may not have been ok. Just because you practice in a particular way doesn’t mean everyone else does.

@Jellycatspyjamas

Wish you’d been my SW.

Perhaps the answer to this is to set up an independent body running alongside SS that parents can take their issues to without the fear that the LA will use any challenge to their processes against them?

The following have all been said by SWs either on this thread or by parents who have had dealings with SS:

Parent didn’t listen.

Parent didn’t understand.

Parent is not viewing situation objectively.

SW told me they assumed everything we said was a lie.

SW threatening removal of child for non-compliance because parent didn’t grasp how time sensitive a medical assessment is.

A SW of 25 years experience has provided their balanced perspective and is being spoken to as if they are a traitor to the cause.

Perhaps if, when an investigation opens and the over-stressed SW cannot give clear information the answer is an independent third party who can do so with perhaps a modicum of compassion?

SWs focus quite rightly on the best interests of the child, but some of those best interests are inseparable from the wider family dynamic.

Every case is unique but systems can only deal with a finite amount of variables. Which can lead to square pegs being forced into round holes.

One of the biggest issues is parents receiving reports from meetings that do not reflect their recollection of proceedings. A simple remedy would be recording things in a similar fashion to the police. Body cams even. It might be a good safeguard for families and SWs.

When this has been suggested SWs have claimed that their clients wouldn’t like it. Yet it would probably help to clear up so many “misunderstandings” and in this day and age it’s hardly challenging. Secure servers, monitored access etc etc obviously.

Just a thought.

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.

You’ve also said social workers have very little power, while we may not have the power to remove a child we do have the power to start and lead an investigation, to enquire into every area of a families life, to provide or gate keep supports and services, and ultimately to seek compulsory powers. While the decision to compel may sit with children’s hearing or court social workers have the power to instigate and influence that process in a way other professionals don’t.

That’s aside from issues of perceived power that we need to be aware of and tread lightly with. I know I can’t remove a child without a legal order, most people don’t know that so I need to be careful in how I communicate. I know social work can’t stop me collecting my child from school and yet schools are asked to keep a child in school until social work arrive - I could go on. It’s disingenuous to pretend the use of power isn’t a key consideration in social work practice.

The SW told OP it was a S47 while they were at the hospital - so if a multi-agency decision was made to proceed, it would have to have been made before the medical assessment was carried out.

And as you'll know/ sometimes children are spoken to without getting parental consent first - particularly in cases of child abuse - to prevent a child from being coaxed. Again, excellent necesscary actions.

And you’ll know that it’s pretty rare to speak to a child without parental consent, usual practice is to seek consent unless there’s very clear reasons to think that seeking consent would place the child at further risk.

If a social worker tried to speak to my child without my knowledge and consent they’d better be very sure of their decision making, because unlike most parents I do know what good practice looks like, and I do know the limits of their duties and powers. Too many workers rely on parents being too anxious and too scared to challenge. Which is the very definition of misuse of power.

Think that poster is proving the point, decides the op os wrong and doesn't understand etc even though she's read policies which seem to show errors in procedures followed and said the sw explicitly said a threat of taking the child away. Yet this poster thing all social workers are following good practice and this case was no matter what the op says, parents with the involvement deserve it. I think this is a clear example of the sanctimonious attitude and the twisting so the op must be lying as social workers are never involved otherwise! Wtf?

So much shite being spouted on this thread by people who clearly have no knowledge of the process. A child with a suspicious injury MUST be seen a doctor in a hospital completing a Child Protection Medical, obviously this has to happen the same day - injuries change as times go on, surely this is common sense. So obviously it couldn’t wait for your important meeting OP, social workers can’t wait around on the parent’s commitments as with all cases where there is an innocent outcome, there are plenty where there is not. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. In order to meet threshold to have a Child Protection Medical, a strategy meeting has to be held with partner agencies and it is agreed within this meeting whether there is cause for concern, whether a Child Protection Medical is necessary and if it is, this has to be completed under the threshold of Section 47 Enquiries. Whether you like it or not OP, procedure has been followed, an assessment has completed and closed on your family. You need to let it go and complaining will only take away from valuable resources.

I've not decided - I've suggested it's a possibility - please review my wording.

Couldn't agree more. Thankyou for writing this.

There would have been a strategy meeting to decide to proceed to a medical! The decision to go to a medical will have been made by health, social work and police. Then following outcome of medical , all 3 disciplines would meet to agree next step I.e. social work to see siblings.

I think the sentiment with a lot of us who’ve been through this hell is that we understand the process needs to be followed but the communication is always piss poor and very little consideration is given to the feelings of children (especially the ‘other’ children) because Tick Boxing Needs to Happen. Social workers never acknowledge this - they only parrot about “process” and “we can’t do right for doing wrong”. Things need to change - because it ISNT helping the most vulnerable