Children's services use people for their own benefit.

[Sunshineandpool]

Just wondering if anyone else has experienced this?

I feel that Children's services were happy to use my family when they felt it benefited them. But quick to drop us when it doesn't. And it is very much to benefit them and not the child.

I don't want to go into massive detail but we were asked to be very involved with the child - myself and my children. Once plans changed my children were not able to see the child again. I continued working with Children's services and helping with whatever they asked, while advocating for the relationship between the child and my DC to be maintained. They wanted me to support contact between the child and parent which I have done. They no longer want me to do that but instead of giving me the courtesy of telling me themself they left it for there to be a huge scene with the contact staff and us, really distressing and upsetting the child.

It's all really upset me, not for myself as, as an adult I will have to get on with it. But for the children that are collateral damage.

Bump

Is the child related to your children? Very difficult to comment when it is extremely unclear what happened, or why you and your children were involved in the first place.

Sorry, I think we need more details in order to give an opinion.

I'm sorry you are upset though, it sounds like you've been a very safe adult to the child with SS involvement- well done you ❤️

What was the benefit that Children's services received?

They expect family to care enough to safeguard and give overnight + care, but then not show any emotions. I temporarily fostered a relatives child, but then when I and other relatives approached the SW for contact we were told that it's unnatural the way we "all want a piece of the child". "We" were the people offering and who had given residency and contact support etc. They do use people and children's law when it suits, but disregard it as quickly.

Surely the benefit is for the child in these circumstances, rather than to the Social Service?

Sorry, I know I've been a bit vague.

My DC are related to this DC by marriage. I was asked to support a family member (by marriage) whose DC was in foster care and transitioning to live with them.

It sounds like ONE social worker made a mistake and overlooked the need to communicate with you. Most people don't have a clue what the workload of a social worker can be and it's only human to make mistakes sometimes. Of course social workers rely on family members to support children and parents. Who else is going to do it? I'm not sure why any of this has led you to generalise about the whole of children's services. That's hardly fair or helpful.

That's kind of you to say. The poor DC has had so much confusion with relationships just stopped. It upsets me to think about how they must wonder where these people just went. They are too young to understand.

They didn't have to put in support or support themselves. As I did it.

I'm sorry you have been through this too. But yes, they want these bonds there when it suits them but as soon as they don't need you anymore, they couldn't care less about the bonds. It must be so damaging to all the children involved. But that never seems to be a consideration. No wonder people who have been in foster care struggle so much.

Children who have a bond not seeing each other is absolutely not to the benefit of the child. It suits CS as they don't have to organise it. But when they do need to put support in place it suits them to get someone else to do it so they don't have to do it themself.

Because it is very much in the child's best interests to be supported by family members instead of strangers or authority figures they might have been taught to fear.

Why do they not want your children to see this child anymore? Is the other child going to be adopted?

I meant being temporarily cared for by family members rather than being put into foster care with foster carers that are not known to them in a home they don't know. Not the subsequent separation and lack of contact for you and your children.

Lack of communication is probably not helping the situation. Social Services are understaffed, overtasked and under funded and have been for a long time. Improvements can clearly be made, but that needs proper long term investment and a drive to change things from central govt. Recruiting social workers is hard, it is job that places a lot of risk and responsibility on individuals for not much reward.

Absolutely not. I believe it is the system as it has not been only one SW or only one situation. And I'm aware of their workloads. It's still not acceptable for DC to be made to suffer like this.

Who else is going to do it? Well, no one now. Children's services will now have to do it all themself. Alienating helpful family members and damaging their children is a sure fire way to mean the child has no support. I'm not even blood related to this child so he's really not my responsibility.

It's in their interest to be supported by family members and then that family member just disappearing? It's really not.

I'm sorry you have misunderstood I have been desperately trying to keep the relationship between my DC and this child. But Children's services has not been interested. It has now got to the point that I can't allow my children to be damaged by the situation anymore.

I agree it is very under funded.

I do not agree that that makes it ok to damage children like this.

And when the over worked SW wants help again they'll find that help is no longer available and they'll have to deal with it themself. So a very short sighted policy.

You've completely lost me.

I've no doubt it's out of desperation rather than outright malice but that doesn't make it any easier on those who get hurt along the way. I hope you and your DC are able to find some peace over this situation.

Children's services want DC to be looked after by family when it means less work for them. However, they are happy for that family to disappear from that DC's life rather than put the work in to maintain contact.

I have not stopped my DC seeing the child - Children's services have.

I have come to the painful conclusion today that I have to walk away as it is too damaging to my DC and to this vulnerable child.

I agree it is not malice. But I can't see that it is desperation either, tbh. There is something dreadfully wrong in the system and while it persists it will keep on churning out damaged foster children.

They go to families first as it is often better for the child. Children's homes are often not great and there are loads of crap stranger foster carers.

Make a formal complaint, they will then have to respond

Why have they stopped you seeing the child? Does it have to be supervised contact?? If so I would guess they have no one to supervise. Or they feel there is a risk to one of the children.

This child is in foster care with no relationship with the family who they bonded with as encouraged by Children's services.