Aibu to feel very sorry for Ben & Marina Fogle who were wrongly reported to social services by a neighbour

[Autumnalove]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13787467/Marina-Fogle-reveals-husband-Ben-wrongly-reported-social-services-shouting-children-amid-row-Kirstie-Allsopp-sons-interrailing-trip.html

I really like the Fogles, so sorry they had to endure this stress.

I’ve seen people mention ss on here just for people suggesting they may leave their under 16 home alone for a night. It’s not a stretch to think that someone may phone ss when finding out about a child travelling through Europe without an adult. But the sounds of it the report came to nothing and was resolved over a phone call. I don’t think we can really comment on the other ss report as we obviously don’t know the details apart from the dates were potentially wrong

You're unreasonable to link to a DM article that's for sure. A DM article that is just a re-hash of a piece Marina Fogle wrote for The Times.

The tl;dr and not clicking on the Fail version is: someone, apparently a neighbour, reported they were shouting at their children. Social services came by to speak to them about the concerns. The Fogles provided proof they were on holiday at the time so not even there. Social services closed the case. Malicious complaints happen.

Why on earth is this news?

Shouldn't we be glad that reports are made and followed up? If there's no concern, it's all good.

Big non event. SW followed up a call, found it was malicious, case closed.

No harm done I'm sure

Doesn't take much to make her tremble with fear. I agree with KA on letting her son do the trip. However when WC kids 15-18 get into bother the parents are instantly critised for not knowing were they are/what they are doing, so her reaction is exceptionally arrogant. We safeguard young adults, it's for all our benefit. I can remember 14/15 year olds homeless in the 80's and no-one cared. The investigation is part of a system that works to keep youngsters looked after.

I didn't link The Times article as it is behind a pay wall.

Not malicious calls. It takes away from those in real need.

I’d much rather SS responded to all reports and did their due diligence by investigating (even if the subject of the report is rich and famous!) than ignore a referral and a single child at risk is missed.

Of course malicious reports are made, but the only way to sort out the malicious from the genuine is to investigate.

I've had dealings with SS recently , twice by me once by HT. Absolutely dreadful 2 phone calls. Not even one visit.
Currently complaining.

People.make malicious calls to SS all the time. I haven't read the article, but if this was a malicious referral and case closed then that's just the system working as it should.

I don't think anyone should be protected from SS involvement just because they are famous and some people think they 'really like' them based on the fact they enjoy their TV programmes and like their public persona.

Celebrities will write anything if they get paid.
Any little drama that us plebs have to cope with is a welcome income stream for them.

Quite. It’s news because beautiful Insta-worthy Marina and famous Ben wrote a piece for the Times about it. It’s total puffery and I wish journalism was better. Neither The Times nor the Mail has any real information or opinion about SS referrals - just anecdotal information from celebs.

But that's the case for all malicious calls. It can't just be assumed a case is malicious because the dad of the family is rich and famous and ignored.

Sadly, abuse happens in families of all socio-economic backgrounds

Look you can’t have it both ways. I’ve not read the daily heil for obvious reasons but I have followed the KA story. People are rightly appalled when there are cases like baby P etc where children are horribly abused and it’s missed by social services but equally appalled when naice middle class people have to have one conversion with social services. I’d obviously hate being on the receiving end of a complaint but better for people to report, social services to investigate and close the case than for people not to report at all. Obviously if the report is malicious that’s different, but I imagine social services will quite rightly be slow to assume this as, well, that’s exactly what someone who’s abusing their kids would say.

There’s also the case of that mad insta-mum in the US, Ruby Franke, who has recently gone to prison for horrible abuse against her kids- plenty of people liked her. Until they didn’t.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/20/ruby-franke-youtube-vlogger-prison-child-abuse

Friends of is out a few months of hell with SS after a doctor reported a "suspicious" injury. I'm not sure if it was exactly malicious... but it was definitely a miscommunication when the (non English) mother misunderstood a question.

But... there is either a system where people report suspicions, even if they turn out to be unfounded... or there isn't. Because until there is an investigation, all it is is a suspicion.

They wrote a personal piece

Why is that 'anecdotal'? What's wrong with that? Many articles are and still interesting

What I found interesting that the Fogles provided proof they were away but still the SWs stayed to chat and observe.

Surely they had more pressing cases?

I have dealt with a malicious SS call. SS did not deal with it at all sensitively. Turned up unannounced in the middle of the day and insisted on entering and getting responses there and then. We subsequently made a DSAR request which was strongly resisted. I understand the need to follow up reports carefully but sensitivity and training appear to be missing from this process.

It was a malicious report and they were away on holiday at the time it was supposed to have happened.

My vexatious neighbours reported me repeatedly and we were investigated. I was surprised as it was obvious nonsense. The neighbours were constantly fighting and there was severe DV as well, the Police never looked into any of this. I think they like cases they can create, tick off and close down instantly as it reduced the 'case times' and makes the stats look better.

You can see why they need to address it then and there, right? I mean going away and coming back at your convenience? What if something terrible was happening/happened?