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?

When our SW told us she assumed we were lying about everything and I said that’s ridiculous, she replied “But in this job people constantly lie to us”. In other words - we were being punished by the actions of others.

The reality is that people do lie to social workers, sometimes those lies aren’t important, sometimes they are and you can get very jaded about human nature, and very defensive in your approach.

That isn’t reason to assume everyone is lying about everything - investigation gives multiple sources of information so it’s easy to assess quite quickly where there may be anomalies which you then address on a piece by piece basis. Often there are reasons for anomalies which aren’t about the family lying, so even that doesn’t justify an “everyone lies” approach.

Social work is a high stakes profession where being wrong can have life ending/life changing consequences so social workers need to be sure in an area of work where surety is hard to come by. We also work with very traumatised people, which brings its own impact for the worker. Both can lead to defensive, oppressive practice and can mean workers find it very hard to hear things could be done in a different way, but that closed off mindset is harmful and needs challenged.

The OP is questioning why a referral regarding unexplained bruising to a child resulted in a quick investigation? Because if they didn't a child might die or continue to be abused. Pretty straight forward.

The OP is questioning why a referral regarding unexplained bruising to a child resulted in a quick investigation? Because if they didn't a child might die or continue to be abused. Pretty straight forward.

The OP is asking why a bruise on a healthy, cared for child with experienced parents where there have been no previous concerns resulted in a full multi-agency CP investigation, as opposed to the other options available to social services.

She’s asking why a referral from nursery (who have told her they said they had no concerns) resulted in such intrusion to her family and private life.

Either the nursery lied about what was on their referral, or other information came up in the strategy meeting, to merit full investigation. A bruise in and of itself, in the absence of other concerns wouldn’t usually merit a S47, the parent is entitled to know.

So. One instance of unexplained bruising with no supporting concerns always merits a full S47 in a mobile child? Even when the parent is the one who has mentioned it to a nursery that has recorded multiple events regarding said child while in their care?

If one wanted to go the conspiracy route one might wonder if the nursery were covering their backs for lack of supervision there.

The OP has a right to know the details of the referral.

How would they know the child is healthy and cared for without doing an investigation?

And the child wasn't out in a child protection register- they opted not to go down that route immediately. Decisions appear to be proportionate.

And an investigation taking place “over a number of weeks” isn’t quick. Do you really have no empathy for parents who have an investigation imposed on them? You can be concerned for the child and seek to protect them while still acknowledging how devastating it can be for parents going through the process.

No, that’s not what I said. It’s not about the action. It’s about the communication. If that was an initial contact, raising the spectre of possible child removal is not helpful at all. In this scenario, if the parent, who reportedly has had no issues with statutory services previously, said something along the lines of ‘oh, I was going to work, is there any possibility this could wait until tomorrow?’ I’d likely respond with ‘I know it’s difficult organising work, but it’s really important we get this done today so we can get the most accurate and recent medical report’ 9/10 this works just fine. If I still encounter resistance, then I can allude to options to enforcement, but it doesn’t need to be first line. As you’re aware, and have alluded to, numerous times, there are a lot of steps between referral and removal and a CP practitioner doesn’t have the authority to do that unilaterally… would require a judge. So to even be talking that way would be alluding to my having a power that I don’t have and can be perceived as a threat, hence my original point of not being helpful in building that therapeutic alliance which is so incredibly helpful if you’re working with families on an ongoing basis.

im not suggesting any of the actions were wrong in the case, obviously we only have very limited info here and only from one perspective… but it does sound like the communication content and tone could have been improved. and as the contact point with families it’s the CP practitioners responsibility to explain the WHY the team have formed this opinion, not just that they have.

Also the AIBU is whether the OP has a right to feel angry about the situation. Anger is a side effect of fear. The fear of losing your child is a powerful force. Should allegedly routine safeguarding practice generate that level of fear?

I've acknowledged the distress repeatedly. Please review my previous comments.

A couple of weeks IS short compared to other cases and may be very practical reasons (I've also written a comment on possible reasons) why it could not conclude sooner.

I'd be more scared of it not being investigated. She's scared of the wrong thing.

*How would they know the child is healthy and cared for without doing an investigation?

And the child wasn't out in a child protection register- they opted not to go down that route immediately. Decisions appear to be proportionate.*

The more you answer the more I doubt your knowledge of CP.

A child can’t be placed on the Register until the conclusion of the investigation - there’s no option to immediately register a child - as a social worker you should know that. You can immediately seek a CPO to remove a child but you need more than a bruise to do that.

The medical would give an immediate assessment of the health and physical care of the child, as would a conversation with the nursery. To be honest a decent social worker should be able to assess immediate care of a child on a home visit observing the parent and child and discussing their care.

You seem to lack the most basic understanding of legislation, process, assessment, ethics, issues of power and relationship based practice in social work. You’ve said you’re in Scotland as am I so it’s not a legislative difference.

Oh FFs. You’re absolutely demonstrating a complete lack of understanding and determination to paint the OP as being unreasonable. You also keep banging on about how parents should be grateful for the intrusion and disruption and distress that a badly handled investigation can cause.

Do you have an unsatisfied need for validation?

In Scotland you can immediately proceed to arranging a case conference that has to be held within a certain timeframe.

@Jellycatspyjamas

You're saying don't do an investigation until the medical is complete. The medical is part of the investigator!!!!!

@Jellycatspyjamas
Ummm plenty of abusive parents are manipulative , present extremely well and have perfect looking homes! It is absolutely good practice to speak to siblings - in fact, dangerous practice to make an assessment on 1 conversation with parents.

I'm scared for kids if you're the CP worker. Don't bother speaking to the kids..let parents pretend to be nicely nice. Dear god.

No - what Jellycat is saying is that there are other options for SWs to gather pertinent information alongside the medical bit which are not as official as the Section 47. Straight to Section 47 is unusual without other concerns in a case like this. If I’m wrong perhaps Jellycat can explain further.

@Jellycatspyjamas
Any decent worker would include child's views. It's wild to me you wouldn't seek them

Normally you'd ask a teacher to check in but it's summer holidays !!

In Scotland you can immediately proceed to arranging a case conference that has to be held within a certain timeframe.

Yes you can, but you need to complete the investigation and have evidenced grounds for registration. Registration isn’t an inevitable outcome of a case conference, it’s one of a number of outcomes. You said they didn’t immediately place the child on the register, that can’t be done without multi-agency investigation.

You said the health and care of the child couldn’t be assessed without investigation - when it can. Enquiries can be made into the health and welfare of the child without a CP label, enquiring with the child’s health visitor and GP, discussion with nursery and/or observing the parents and child together. If a medical has been decided on that examination will give a full report on the child’s health so should inform further decision making about the need for further investigation.

There were many options open to social work here, in the OPs position it’s reasonable to want to know why they chose CP investigation.

Are you saying the views of the children in the home are NOT pertinate to the imvestogation? Given it's summer holidays - how would they get their views without speaking to them?

Oh I forgot - they'd use their crystal ball

No- you don't. For e.g serious report of domestic abuse - straight to CP

You’re really reaching now. You’re comparing apples with oranges. The OPs situation is not comparable to serious DV.

@Jellyx i don’t know if you’re purposely misrepresenting me or honestly don’t understand what I’m saying.

I’ve never said don’t talk to the kids, I am saying be clear about why that’s needed. I’m not saying don’t explore what’s happened, I’m saying be proportionate, I’m not saying only talk to/observe the parents, I’m saying take the fullest picture into account.

I’m saying treat people in a compassionate, humane way. Understand the process is anxiety provoking so ensure people know what’s happening and why. I’m saying it’s not all or nothing. I’m saying it’s ridiculous to suggest people should be grateful for social work ripping through their lives and giving no clear reason for doing so beyond “we got a referral”.

I’m also saying social workers need to consider the impact of their practice on families particularly when there are no concerns found and social work leave, leaving parents to pick up the pieces.

You admitted that your own stated logic is:

’the decision must be correct, because it was the decision that was made’, citing multiagency working.

According to such logic mistakes can never be made.

it is a dangerous viewpoint, and it’s precisely these kinds of dangerous attitudes that make the social work system as poor as it is.

No- you don't. For e.g serious report of domestic abuse - straight to CP

Yes straight to CP process but you still need the bones of an investigation to place a child on the CP register - we don’t register children at point of referral.