Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Fitflop5 · 06/08/2023 15:33

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Fitflop5 · 06/08/2023 15:34

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 15:34

My case was in 1994.

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 15:34

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

I’m reporting this. Absolute disgrace.

Fitflop5 · 06/08/2023 15:43

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Fitflop5 · 06/08/2023 15:44

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 15:44

I only share my case because the narrative that false accusations don’t happen and that SWs never have bias or agenda is harmful to all involved.

I have said in this thread that unless you have been through it you can’t fully grasp how once the juggernaut that is the system gets rolling it can get out of hand if good practice and accountability are not kept in mind.
There are complex cases out there that get passed around like hot potatoes to the detriment of children and families. Some distress could be alleviated by better communication and procedures being properly followed.

I’m in no way opposed to children being protected, I am opposed to shoddy practice.

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 15:45

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Sorry I misunderstood. My bad xx

Fitflop5 · 06/08/2023 15:46

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

Teder · 06/08/2023 15:47

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 13:45

No. it’s ridiculous that people are saying that this alone- one isolated case of bruising on the thigh of a mobile toddler- is suspicious enough that it should inevitably automatically result in a section 47 investigation.

It should not automatically be a S47 but depending on location and size, it can absolutely be a giant, whopping red flag in a 2 year old. I shan’t go into details, it’s horrific.

I am exceptionally sorry for the OP and her experience. It must have been extremely traumatic. I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone unnecessarily.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 15:49

Phew - glad that got sorted - thank you both !!

I promise I do totally get that my story is unbelievable. But I also promise, for what it’s worth, everything I relate, and much more really did happen. It is positively Kafkaesque.

Wife2b · 06/08/2023 15:54

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 14:11

So if judgement is required based on variable criteria (eg no “one size fits all”) why is OP unreasonable in wanting an explanation as to why her particular case was judged to be so alarming/ suspicious to meet the threshold for such invasive action? What is wrong with asking for accountability concerning decisions made by our public institutions?

Well we haven’t seen the bruising to the child to judge.

Southwestten · 06/08/2023 16:56

I’ve mentioned the Webster case. They didn’t just lose the child with fractures that turned out to be down to nutritional issues, they lost all four, and when a fifth was born they had to be investigated all over again.

That’s appalling. Did they get their children back once the real cause has been discovered?

MistressoftheDarkSide · 06/08/2023 17:20

Unfortunately by the time the cause of the fractures was established the children had been adopted. They were settled in a new environment and in their best interests the court ruled against returning them.

The fifth child was allowed to remain with them but they were re-assessed. An absolutely tragic case.

Southwestten · 06/08/2023 17:22

MistressoftheDarkSide · Today 17:20
Unfortunately by the time the cause of the fractures was established the children had been adopted. They were settled in a new environment and in their best interests the court ruled against returning them.

That’s so terrible. If something like this happens, is there any comeback in the courts?
Will the children be allowed to know the name of their real parents and be allowed to see them?

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 18:12

Teder · 06/08/2023 15:47

It should not automatically be a S47 but depending on location and size, it can absolutely be a giant, whopping red flag in a 2 year old. I shan’t go into details, it’s horrific.

I am exceptionally sorry for the OP and her experience. It must have been extremely traumatic. I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone unnecessarily.

Exactly. It’s not inevitable that a bruise on thigh would lead to that outcome. A decision was made to do a section 47 investigation (presumably) based on various factors.
OP has every right to know what those factors are.

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 18:13

Wife2b · 06/08/2023 15:54

Well we haven’t seen the bruising to the child to judge.

No but OP has and she has questions as to proportionality : so…

Southwestten · 06/08/2023 18:15

Thank you for that mistress. Those poor parents and children. How helpless one must feel in a situation like that part as there doesn’t seem to be any comeback or redress.
As a pp said, no wonder people don’t always trust ‘experts’.

HarrietJet · 06/08/2023 18:19

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 18:13

No but OP has and she has questions as to proportionality : so…

Op is hardly an impartial observer...

RattleRattle · 06/08/2023 18:32

This reply has been deleted

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

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 18:33

HarrietJet · 06/08/2023 18:19

Op is hardly an impartial observer...

Well OP is the only person who actually knows whether she abused her child or not. Assuming she is telling the truth that she didn’t (and social services have now concluded there is no evidence she did), she has every right right to understand the criteria / basis on which a decision to launch a section 47 investigation was made. This decision was not automatic/ inevitable , it’s a high threshold to jump straight to this, so understanding why this decision way made in her case is understandably important to the OP , especially given the impact the investigation has had on her family.
Why are people so afraid of the idea that someone should be allowed to ask for transparency?

RattleRattle · 06/08/2023 18:35

This reply has been deleted

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

Wife2b · 06/08/2023 18:40

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 18:33

Well OP is the only person who actually knows whether she abused her child or not. Assuming she is telling the truth that she didn’t (and social services have now concluded there is no evidence she did), she has every right right to understand the criteria / basis on which a decision to launch a section 47 investigation was made. This decision was not automatic/ inevitable , it’s a high threshold to jump straight to this, so understanding why this decision way made in her case is understandably important to the OP , especially given the impact the investigation has had on her family.
Why are people so afraid of the idea that someone should be allowed to ask for transparency?

Nothing wrong with transparency but i’d say it’s obvious. The bruise clearly was severe enough to warrant an opinion from a doctor because the social worker was unable to say it was non-accidental.

Skinthin · 06/08/2023 18:44

This reply has been deleted

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

wEll if it’s likely someone else did then OP absolutely needs to know this too!!

Swipe left for the next trending thread