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?

This is the folly, again you are assuming that because the decision was made by social services it must be correct. That’s incredibly dangerous logic/ it implies mistakes are never made and we all know that’s not true. OP has every right to demand an explanation- was it the nature of the injury, in what case what was it that made it so suspicious , or was it something else?

Of course, my point is that OP has a right to understand the criteria on which a section 47 was launched. Bruise on the thigh is not sufficient in and of itself, as everyone on this thread has acknowledged.

Not necessarily via a section47 though!!! That is the point. Going round in circles now.

So. The Webster case and my own are based on medical opinion. Sorry to bang on but I need to clarify a few things.

Child presents with unusual injury or condition. Parents are clueless. Quite rightly every step should be taken to protect the child from potential abuse, and also identify other possible causes including medical conditions.

Some injuries are considered diagnostic of child abuse. Shaken babies often have brain damage, retinal haemorrhaging and rib fracture - the diagnostic triad. Metaphyseal fractures have also sometimes been seen in shaken babies.

So, if a child presents with metaphyseal fractures, and routine examination doesn’t show up an obvious medical condition, abuse is the default diagnosis.

This overlooks things like Osteogenesis Imperfecta for example which is a collagen disorder. There are quite a few such conditions that can cause the appearance of abuse in infants. If a child is not verbal and is otherwise healthy the case will be passed to SS and the courts.

The doctors say it’s abuse, so from there it’s down to SWs to investigate, identify the perpetrator, understand what lead to it based on the medical opinion that certain things can only be caused by child abuse.

Once your child is removed and in foster care, and court proceedings begin, you have to have the leave of the court to get expert opinions, and all parties must agree. There is a finite amount of investigation that can be done due to time constraints and resources.

In addition things like testing for OI is done by biopsy and this can be construed as further abuse.

Even if something comes to light, you may come up against the argument that children with conditions are higher risk for abuse due to the challenges associated with their condition - which is non-sensical if the child hasn’t been diagnosed at the point of initial investigation.

If you challenge the abuse diagnosing doctor you may be told it’s up to the SS to decide if it is abuse after further investigation. If you challenge the SW they will argue that if a doctor says it’s abuse, it must be abuse.

Catch 22.

As an accused parent you start out accepting that investigation is necessary because you know abuse has not occurred. As time goes on you realise that the thrust of the investigation is to prove abuse has occurred.

I accept I am talking about specific medical grey areas but there are rare conditions that do look like abuse, but once the system is in play looking for them takes a back seat in the face of conclusions already drawn.

There’s a horrible moment where you almost hope your child has another fracture in foster care, while also hoping they don’t, because that would trigger further investigation.

It’s rare and it’s a nightmare but it does happen.

So the multi-agency approach may help, but not if they are all coming at a case from the opinion that abuse has definitely occurred based solely on medical opinion.

A child's death would be more destabilising... and yes you can have a difficult time and later reflect on the good safeguarding decisions

Oh stop it. You and I have completely different perspectives and you are just enjoying the baiting.

It's providing a balance of views. Only fair.
You don't see me telling you to stop sharing your view your entitled to it.

I'm particularly interested in how, in detail, you could improve the current CP processes (without the obvious need fur additional resources).

I’ve offered suggestions such as recording meetings and an independent service to guide parents through the process.

And far more thorough investigation into complex cases, especially those based on alleged medical evidence alone.

Accuracy is probably the most important thing.

And clear explanation of rationale behind decision making.

Independent advocacy services are available widely -at least in Scotland.

I'd be happy with meeting being recorded (they are in the form of a live minute taker with parents/professionals allowed to request amendment s)

I suspect its families who are likely to oppose recording. I'd LOVE to wear a body cam on home visits with the evidence available to use in court.

I would love that too.

We had a situation with social services a few years back.
My son was born with a birth defect, makes him very poorly. We were always in hospital and doctors etc.
My sons named pead thought I was ‘too worried about my son’ and did a social services referral for ‘support’. Anyway it was just horrific. It ended up going down a child in need route…
My sons ENT doctor (main doctor for his birth defect) attended the meeting and said it was the most ridiculous referral ever and that we had always been completely appropriate.
I was having therapy for PTSD at the time, as due to the defect- he almost died after nobody believed me that he was unwell for over 6 weeks until his diagnosis.
The therapist and HV also attended the meeting to support us.
It was absolutely terrifying, it torn us apart for weeks. The case was closed very quickly but left me worried sick about seeking healthcare when he was unwell.
The doctor ended up apologising to us for making the referral.
The way I look at it is, I would rather them point the finger at 9 innocent families to catch that 1 child in need. I was extremely upset but I complied with everything they wanted and the case was closed very quickly and labelled as abit of a misunderstanding.
I hope your okay OP.

If you would love those things and feel it would improve things why don’t you advocate for them?

Advocacy for parents in England is rare as rocking horse shit.

My 22 month has a bruise on his thigh. No idea where from, I imagine nursery and he fell on something because its like a longish mark, sort of like when you run into a table.
He also had a bruise on his lower back sometimes. Again, must be from nursery but not ever noticed and reported to me.

The OP stated “light bruising across the thighs” , not inner thighs.

Thanks, I'll have a look

My boys bruise is on the outer thigh but I can see ways he could end up with a bruise on his inner thigh as well tbf. The nursery has an outdoor area where they have trikes etc and a slide.

I think an occasional bruise is fine. I dont have any experience with this but I would imagine abused children have many bruises repeatedly. But yeah, I am glad I dont have make those calls, its really really hard.

A referral stating unexplained bruising to an unusual area of the thigh absolutely would trigger a S47 investigation.

I’m just catching up with this now. @MistressoftheDarkSide I am sorry to hear everything you went through. Clearly the distress still lives with you, and I’m thankful my case is a lot more straightforward.

i found the following online relating to another LA. I understand practices vary between LA’s - but do feel there ought to be consistency in the system. Unexplained bruising falls in column 2, unexplained suspicious bruising in column 3. Only bruising in non mobile infant falls in column 4 where S47 is the default action, or bruising judged by Dr to be non-accidental, which this was not. I maintain there is a huge difference in the propensity for a non mobile infant to sustain bruises compared with an active 2 year old, who has already proved to be somewhat accident prone at nursery.

I also attach photo of the bruising which was the subject of the referral.

I can see why they thought that bruising was suspicious OP. I'm not accusing you, I'm just saying that two bruises on two legs almost on the same level would generate suspension. That isn't a falling into something bruise.

I think you should make a formal complaint, if you've not done so already, and ask why it was a Section 47 investigation. Ask for a meeting with the Director of Children's Services as well. You need a proper explanation of why this had happened.

No, we now know he fell onto a bike lying on it’s side in our garden. If I’d have known about that incident at the outset, nursery would never have made the referral in the first place. If I’ve learnt anything from this it’s to always have an ‘explanation’