This fear that social services will come and take your children...

[willsurvivethis]

...it worries me!

There seem to be so many women out there who are afraid to seek help for depression and other problems out of fear that they will lose their children.

I have just asked MNHQ if they would consider doing something with this. Because surely if so many of us fear to lose our children something is going wrong somewhere! Surely we should all be albe to seek help with confidence?

What are your thoughts on this? I struggle with PTSD and even told my doctor that I tended to keep emotional distance from my ds when he's ill without even considering the possibility of that having repercussions.

I have not read all of the thread, I just wanted to add something.

I am still traumatised due to my experience with CAFCASS.

My emotionally abusive exh with his mental health issues and delusions/paranoia and goodness knows what else, took me to family court when there was really no need, the man didn't want to have regular contact with his children and was using the court system to continue abuse and force someone the children did not want in their lives on them against their will, and mine. I have no idea what he had been telling CAFCASS, I can't go into it all, as it is too painfull.

After a few hearings, and some stomach churning untrue accusations that were made against me, the judge withdrew the CAFCASS (strange one's) officers from the case and appointed a Guardian which I dumbly thought was a good idea, as I was self representing legally. The CAFCASS guardian was a collegue of the CAFCASS officers (strange one's) who had been taken off the case by the judge who could not understand why they were making bizarre accusations, as I had a ss assessment triggered by them and it was ok, and I had many many statements from people I knew at the time supporting me as a parent, why there was two CAFCASS officers (strange one's) is beyond me in the first place, one was American and I suspect trying to make a name for herself, I later found out from the Guardian that they were no longer working at his office with his teeth beared to me with anger, as I was foolish to make a complaint about CAFCASS, that made the whole situation worse and them gun for me more. The origional CAFCASS officer left CAFCASS and was replaced with the two strange ones, who made mistake after mistake. After the judge removed the strange one's, the guardian pretended that he was ok with me, as time went on his true motives came out, this former social worker, lied to me many times, would pretend he was goign to say one thing in court and would say another, would not give me reports he gave to the judge even during the hearing, I ws not legally represented, he did not send documents to a psychiatric assessor that made me look good he was ordeered to send by the judge, so the report that was made was not based on all available information, so the good ss report and various other reprots that were favorable to me, including one from the school stating that the two strange one's had misquoted them in their report were left out, even with all of that the psych report showed nothing too bad about me, did about the ex it was ignored by the Gardian, as well as ex lying to Guardian, who was a man who had no contact with his own children.... seriously these people with power and control have their own agenda's and they damage when pretending to be helping!

I pray that one day that Guardian and people like him will be stopped and showed up for who they are, if you try and report these people it makes it worse!

Bit scared - sounds like you have had a nightmare experience. I got a bit lost in your long para about changes of CAFCASS workers to be honest. However CAFCASS workers are social workers who deal with public and private law. If they are involved in a public law case (say care proceedings) they are acting as a guardian and if in a private law case (like yours) they are as a CAFCASS worker. The same social worker can be either a guardian or CAFCASS worker. The difference is that the role of the guardian in public law (care proceedings) is significantly different from the worker who is acting in a pricate law
(as in your case) They all work together in the same office.

So I can only assume the judge was asking for someone from CAFCASS to act as a guardian in your case (most unusual) or was merely asking for a change of CAFCASS worker.

TAnyway if you have the time or inclination to maybe split up your long para with a bit more clarity I will re-read.

Another problem is that CAFCASS social workers are under enormous pressure of work and unfortunately this means lengthy delays and reports that are more adult focussed than child focussed (in some cases) or reports are written on the basis of 1 visit to each parent, etc.

Also because (as I've already explained) social workers for CAFCASS can be guardians in care proceedings as well as investigating matters in private law, they are absolutely snowed under with work and are getting criticised by judges for the delays and poor quality of reports. The overload has in part been caused by the fact that there has been a 50% increase in applications before the courts for care proceedings since the death of Baby Peter, and hence much of their time is taken up with acting as guardians in care pproceedings. Also social workers are (unsurprisingly) leaving CAFCASS as they cannot cope with the workloads and are under a great deal of pressure.

This of course does nothing to help parents involved in public or prvate law cases and I am not trying to make excuses, but trying ti point out the reality.

I suspect the fact that you were not legally represented did not help your case. The Legal Services Commission are withdrawing legal aid in private law cases, so there will be many more people representing themselves in court (a daunting task)for most people.

Incidentally what was the outcome of your case?

CAFCASS Social Workers are Family Court Advisers. Often parents, particularly in public law cases, are totally unaware that the person is a social worker and required to meet the stringent terms of the Code of Practice of Social Workers - which many fail to do.

There is also the CAFCASS Safeguarding Children Framework which set out very stringent procedures for FCA's to work within.

There is also the CAFCASS Concerns and Complaints Procedure which is reviewed in May each year.

DOn't be fooled that a CAFCASS FCA is going to typically be helpful. Many, perhaps most, are not and can be counter productive. They take the side of the LA or the most neutral position possible depending on who's got the balance of probability at any point in time.

I've watched one CAFCASS FAC swing from one view one hearing to the opposite the next as the parents gained position.

Then the same person took an either or position, which was just totally bizarre.

It's a good idea to also make sure that the FCA gives the children uses the practice tool kit and children's booklets, although most don't and we heard of one instance where a parent gave the children the booklets and the local authority confiscated them!

I'm yet to find a CAFCASS worker who 'investigates' anything. My advocacy colleagues spend inordinate amounts of time chasing CAFCASS FCA's seeking production of information that is required to be disclosed, or insight as to their view, which is never forth coming.

Incidentally Baby P is a subject of Collateral Damage. Prima facia it does appear that there was an increase in removals post Baby P, however if you look at the figures properly and over lay the removals with budgets, you can see that the budgets were increasing several months before, and removals were in fact in reduction, with CIN being lowered quite properly and with good outcomes.

Someone decided this wasn't good for business, as money wasn't being channelled to Adoption and Foster care processes, so the public needed a shake up ...

There is a great documentary coming our that traces the money trail, the people involved, strangely one is now deceased and the other has 'departed' the CEO role.

How strange. Maybe Baby P's ghost is working to rebalance the future of children?

Why won't you tell me legalmums (which incidentally I don't think you are although I notice you pepper your posts with legal phrases)exactly the nature of your work.

Again there are many inaccuracies in your post above.The nature of CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory Service) is as I set out in my recent post. Social workers employed by CAFCASS in private law could be called Family Court Advisors (but they are still social workers) and the same sw can be involved in public law as a guardian-ad-litem in care proceedings. In addition there are independent social workers who are guardians, and are self employed. I have acted in this capacity myself in many cases of care proceedings.

You say that parents are often unaware that these professionals are social workers I find this incredibly difficult to believe. It is the job of the sw (be they FCAs or guardians) to explain their role to the parents.

I think another point of inaccuracy is that you say and FCA will take the side of the LA. In private law where FCAs areinvolved, in the vast majority of cases there is no involvement (past or present) with SSDs. When CAFCASS workers are acting as guardians I can assure you that they do not simply take the view of the LA. In my experience it is the other way round, social workers often agree with the guardian because they know how influential guardians are in court.

You say you have "yet to find a CAFCASS worker who investigates anything" - this is patent nonsense I'm afraid. I have explained in my recent post that sometimes reports arre a little scant but I can assure you that the Judge would have a great deal to say if he/she wa presented with a case where the CAFCASS worker had not investigated anything! It is this report that guides the judge in his/her final decision on the case.

You talk about your "advocacy colleagues" - WHO are these people. What rights do you or your colleagues to be present in public and private law cases, and to be chasing CAFCASS workers. The only way you can be present is by being a lawyer (which I am quite sure you aren't)or as a McKenzie friend whose remit is extremely limited.

I'm afriad that your last paras don't make any sense though I can see you are attempting to "blind with science" but sadly it just shows more of your muddled thinking. ARE you going to answer my queries about your role, your qualifications, your rights to be involved in court proceedings etc. If not, why not? I suspect you are trying to pass yourself off as a lawyer but I'm afraid it is patently obvious that you are not.

NanaNina,

It's interesting because I've spoken at length to two CAFCASS team leaders in the last 2 months and both have said similar. When challenging as to why their 'Social Workers' have failed to do exactly what they and you have stated, the response is always the same:

That they fall below the standards expected of a social worker, and of a cafcass employee.

An internal alert went out this morning because a strange phone call came in asking the organization I work with is part of CAFCASS. I had forgotten in my reporting that this had been a recent focus of discussion here.

I'll tell you what, send me your email address, I'll send you a letter I've been handed from parent, that was written by their childrens CAFCASS FCA and you tell me if it's the standard expected.

I think we are here for a common purpose, maybe a few. 1) To educate people with the reality of what others experience, be whichever side of the line that is. 2) bring enlightenment to the disparity and disproportionate conduct and processes. 3) hope that a uniform and common way forward can be found.

With regards to reports being a little scant, explain to me how a CAFCASS officer writes a report about the care given to a child without speaking with the parents (and admitting in a letter after 9 months that they have NOT done this, despite repeated requests to and by the court to do so) and not speaking with the children about the care given.

Nine Months is a LONG time to not do any investigating to create a final report that will be so scant there isn't anything in it because the officer admits to acting contrary to CAFCASS Safeguading Procedure and court directions.

But please, you don't have to agree with me. How can you, you can't see the documents, be at the meetings, read the transcripts or see the mountains of correspondence.

When the story breaks in the media in the near future, you will remember all these 'tales of nonsense' I have touted and be able to write a simple reply: I'm sorry I didn't believe you.

As to passing myself off as a lawyer, god no. Why would I want to undertake a role in a profession that thrives on peoples deceptions?

No, I'm not going to publish my qualifications or any of the questions you ask about me personally as this has nothing to do with the facts of the anonymized information I have shared.

I am reporting on concerns, not proving my existence. If you wish to sling qualification, quid per pro - you go first.

I'm not sure that asking anyone to state their qualifications or affiliation is a helpful way of establishing credibility or otherwise. This is MN, and we have a strong culture of respecting the anonymity of one another.

When I was quoted on the Community Care forums, two of the SW who commented expressed appreciation that I haven't named the LA which victimised me for complaining. Many SWs, it seems, are scared of being made identifiable online because of a (probably well-founded) fear of stalking or harrassment. And I don't think any of us here would regard that as an ethical or constructive approproach.

So if women are being asked to justify and prove themselves by providing more personal information than they are comfortable disclosing whilst professionals remain (quite appropriately) anonymous, we risk creating a double standard which plays into the existing (and inevitable and unavoidable) power imbalance which exists between professionals and service users.

Legalmums - end of "discussion" for me. I can only hope that other MNs don't believe the inaccurate and sensational comments that you make. I am aware of the problems with CAFCASS and have posted quite comprehensively on the matter.

Breatmilk - I take your point but when someone is posting wholly inaccurte, scaremongering and sensational posts, about a profession in which I have worked for over 30 years, then it is not unreasonable to ask about their role in these matters. I think however that it is inappropriate for legalmums to ask for my e mail address, especially as it gives my full name, and I have no intention of giving this.

However I do not intend to make any further comment on this thread.

Breastmilkdoesafablatte

Loved your double standards comment. You are so right. See on Community care the Mums over here are being accused of being ignorant and stupid, amongst, the hint of 'mentally unstable'

The basis is that a parent has no right to 'make up' allegations against a social worker. Yet, social workers make up allegations against parents all the time!

How can a social worker who never witnessed an event and there is no evidence of an event, accusing a parent of the event, be less different to the parent accusing the social worker of the actual experience they had with the social worker.

It's not a risk of double standards, it already exists.

A Team Leader in a local authority suspended contact with a parent on the grounds that they had completed an investigation into an incident that had occurred at contact.

The Team Leader wrote to the parent 3 days later, and said that they arranged a meeting, for 2 days on, with the parent to discuss the incident. By this stage the parent had already been banned form contact with their children for the only 2 days in that week scheduled and won't have contact again till the next week, assuming not still banned. (Noting that S34(6) only permits a max of 7 days suspension)

The parent put an agenda to the Team Leader - who is a social worker, setting out the purpose of the meeting, the process by which the issue of investigation and hearing the other side of the event would be put forward, setting out how to relate the incident to the Well Being Model and then proposed some outcomes.

The parent also set out that the time wasn't suitable due to other appointments arranged long before and that a later time was more suited.

The parent wrote the next day saying that they couldn't make the meeting at the very first time and that it needed to be later.

So over 2 days that's 2 letters, stating that the time was not practicable and stipulating another time a few hours later.

Then another party at the LA wrote to the parent and said that the meeting wasn't to discuss what happened on the day but to discuss the parents future behaviour.

But wait - the original letter said to 'further investigate' the events, upon which the LA had already suspended the parent ... so punish first and investigate later.

More shocking is the police report we obtained on the event and the video recording the parent made.

See the police approached the parent, in the STREET and said that the parent was prohibited by an injunction from filming the children or social workers, and that there was a penal notice attached and the parent would be arrested, the police also named the person who gave them the information.

I sought advice from the court on ALL the injunctions and orders and was told that the LA had tried unsuccessfully three times to have the said injunction made by the court refuses to make the order because there is no basis in law and it would be contrary to Human Rights.

So how does a social worker who's never been in the court room, never been a part of the family's case, know of an injunction that doesn't exist, tell the police by telephone that the parent is to be arrested for breach

So now we have 2 issues:

1. The Team Leader saying they want to investigate despite already punishing the parent, and another department saying there is no investigation this is prescriptive.

1. A social worker (below the team leader) telling police a court injunction exists when one does not.

Please tell me this is NORMAL and PROPER conduct of both Social Workers, and please tell me that this is all in the best interests of the children who have been reported in the contact notes repeatedly as demanding to be sent home and that foster care is 'hell'

I'm happy to discuss with NanaNina how this is nonsense, but I'm also happy to demonstrate to NanaNina if she provides me with her contact details that this is in fact all on LA letter head.

There is no power imbalance, a parent who's children have been removed for the purpose of punishing a parent, and that is the only reason that has been demonstrated in this case in the last 9 months, because when a Judge quesitoned the LAC Team Leaader, they said they didn't know anything about the family after 6 months.

They then asked the foster carers to ask the children to ask the parents the same quesitons at contact.

But remember, a parent is not permitted to talk to their children about the proceeding, yet the children are integrated by foster carers and social workers not only about what goes in on the court room, but encouraging them by psychological manipulation to interrogate the parents at contact so the answers about employment, income, residence and relationships can be recorded on contact notes.

Now since when was it age appropriate for a social worker or foster carers to ask a child to ask their parent where they are living, where they get their income from, what they have done with their relationship (I must add that this family is nuclear, with no separations or ex partners and all the children are of the parents. So are you more puzzled?)

The parent isn't even allowed to ask the children what they did at school what they had for dinner the night before (only cause the quality of food in foster care as the children have repeatedly stated falls well below the diet they had before coming into care - so much so they haven't seen a CARROT in 9 months and haven't had FRESH fish either - battered reformed fish is NOT FRESH)

So, NanaNina, I'm happy to discuss this with you offline and in person, with the authentic documents and maybe you can help change a trauma and ongoing abuse into a positive outcome?

Or you can sit there and defend, what I suspect are hundreds of fraud deicide you have made that have destroyed families in the UK, and probably only saved one or 2 children if that.

And on a final note, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to make this stuff up, because if I was able to, I'd be a writer with far more success than J.K Rowlings.

As to being inappropriate to ask your email address, NanaNina, your social worker speak continues to haunt you. You asked me to produce my name, my organizations name and other details.

I asked you to provide an email address. You could have just registered a new anonymous one on Hotmail and I'd never have been the wiser.

You live by a double standard that you are superior and right because you have convinced yourself to believe only your version of events despite evidence and challenge to the contrary.

I do hope that in our investigations we do happen to come across your work as a social worker and that we do eventually link you back to these postings.

These investigations are in their infancy and are being carried out nationally. The stories are mostly horrendous and appalling.

The few stories of true child abuse so far are few and far between, and even in those cases social workers have totally screwed up, to the opposite extreme to that where they have torn a family part.

I live a moment in my career of despair and I've investigated human, child and sex slave trafficking, and it was nowhere near as devastating as these stories.

I should highlight that many LAC's (some on the edge of departing the care system) are being or have approached, to tell their story and to validate the backgrounds from their perspective and it's very compelling to hear that most believe they have suffered gross injustice.

But then the British Social Workers did export 100,000 British children to Australia post world war 2, telling these children that their parents and family were dead, when in fact for most, that wasn't the case.

England has a terrible track record for human rights (if Brave Heart has anything to demonstrate) and certainly in World War 2, Britain used hundreds of thousands of non British man as machine gun fodder commanding the deaths of most.

Lets not get into Britain's conduct in India, Hong Kong and the list just goes on.

I'm not Anti-Britain. I'm Anti-Human Rights Abuse. I just happen to be here on a project right now that is exemplifying the atrocities that are penultimate to Hitler. Get it right and Britain will be a great country.

If any MNer is afraid, concerned or wants to share a story, you can PM me and I'll find the right person to hear you.

But my advice and the advice that is given, is READ READ READ everything about policies and procedures NOW before they knock on your door with a S47 investigation that you know nothing about.

And if you are in a divorce, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE leave the children out of the game. You only hurt them regardless of who you think you are hurting.

I have read all of the comments on this thread re "This fear that social services will come and take your children..." and would make the following initial comments.

1. If social workers knock on your door unannounced, definitely refuse to allow them to enter, especially if they are accompanied by one or more psychiatrists, and or the police, unless they have a warrant with them, which the police will be able to show you before you let any of them enter your place of residence.

1. Lets assume they don't have a warrant. Don't bother spending much time talking to them, just say it isn't convenient to speak to them, or such like, regardless of how nicely or threateningly they request entry, you will contact their office and go and see them there, with a friend or family member to witness what is discussed at the meeting.

1. I'm not sure what the situation is re Health Visitors, I think RainbowSpiral who posted a comment at 19:38:06 on Friday 28 Jan 11 did the right thing, take your child to their place, preferably accompanied by a friend or family member

1. Re info passing between GPs etc and social workers. It is definitely correct that if the SWs contact a GP, or other health worker, the medic isn't obliged to tell them anything. However a medic, such as a GP, can contact the SWs and tell them anything he or she decides to tell them. So, if a Mum decides she needs and wants mental health related help, it is probably best to go and get it, but be careful not to say anything too alarming, because there is a fairly high probability that any alarming comments will end up being transferred from the GP, or other medic, to the SWs.

Here is a 2007 video of Eric Pickles MP, now Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, talking about Social Services and the Family Courts.

He says that many years ago he was Chairman of the Social Services Committee of a large Local Authority and was appalled by the partiality of files he saw. More time was spent trying to prevent people discovering what was in their file than trying to ensure the file was accurate. Allegations which had been proven to be false continued to be used.....etc

That link wasn't live, so here it is with two square brackets round it :-

John Hemming MP is the bloke sitting next to Eric Pickles MP

Mr Pickles describes SW's record keeping as "sloppy" and says that secrecy has a cancerous effect on the whole proceedings, ie from the initial investigation all the way through the family courts :-

Here is the SW's American cousin, Child Protective Worker (USA). You know what to do when she knocks on the door. Sorry, you can't come in, I'll come and see you at your office, with a friend or family member, bye bye, see you later, close the door :-

If you are worried about children services taking your children away, dont hesitate to contact Family Rights Group or see the website www.frg.org.uk. There is a team of people ready to help!

I just wanted to add a huge 'thanks' - I have a history of depression and anxiety, and this week I've just felt awful but have been terrified of addressing this possible reoccurance of affective disorders with the doctors due to the horrific tales told pertaining to SS involvement following parental admission of feeling low. I felt like I was the only person to have experienced this, so it is reassuring [how cliche :p] to know that I'm not alone, Thank you

the utter fear of the consequences subsequent to admitting to feeling depressed, irrespective of knowing the detrimental effects of allowing such emotions to continue [and the horrific cycle of distress and effect], overrides any logical thoughts to seek help - surely the system should put our minds at ease concerning the proliferation of horror stories told about children being snatched away with the SS representing to awful witch in fairy stories stealing away children in the night, when all the parent was trying to do was address something that may prove to be problematic when handling a child - that's the opposite of not caring, it's caring so much that you're willing to face the doctor and seek help.

Samantha I had decided to end my involvement on this thread, but came across it by accident, as it were. There is an awful lot of totally inaccurate information on this thread, especially by legalmums (which they clearly are not) and moreover the poster refuses to give information to what organisation she belongs. It has been pointed out that she has a perfect right to do so and I agree but when quoting such misleading information, and refusing to say on what basis she has all this information does not help.

As for melvins comment he has been dismissed by many MNs as someone who also gives totally misleading and inaccurate information and is best ignored to be honest. I still think he is John Hemmings as he spouts the same sort of dramatic inaccuracies, and JH has disappeared from the threads - bit strange but there we are....

Samantha I really do hope that you have not drawn your conclusions from some of the posts on this thread - I really do. I have 30 years experience is child protection/fostering and adoption for a LA (now retired) and I have never ever known a child removed from a parent because they have depression and anxiety unless the parent has asked for some respite care to allow them to be less stressed. SWs do not have any authority to remove a child, contrary to popular belief. This can only be done by police in an emergency situation where the child is being significantly harmed and is called a Police Protection Order and last 72 hours. The sw can then go before a court to request an Emergency ProtectionOrder (lasts for 28 days) and the parents need to attend this hearing to put their side of the story or get legal representation, and then the court decides whether to make the Order or not.

I could write a great deal more but I fear it may fall on stoney ground. There is a great deal of scaremongering about sws "snatching" children and it is in fact patent nonsense. The first duty of the sw under the terms of the Children Act 1989 is to keep the family together and provide whatever support is necessary.

I know from personal experience the horror of depression and anxiety and have suffered 2 major episodes in my life, so I have every sympathy with you, but please believe me that this will not be seen as a reason to remove your child/ren.

Legalmum and Melvin I will not respond to any more of your posts, just wanted to try and reassure Samantha

NanaNina Thankyou for your post.
I had only just come across this thread so have only read bits here and there. I have to say it is pretty scary!!

I have only just over the last month got help for depression/anxiety and am getting counselling. When I started reading this it has sent my anxiety through the roof!!

I am hoping you are right NanaNina that the SS would only get involved if they thought the child was at risk.

Blackcat - I know that I am right. There has been some dreadful scaremongering on here and posts that should have been reported. Legalmums on 11th Feb states "me pretending to be a lawyer - oh no - why would I want to be part of a profession that thrives on people's deceptions." (or words to that effect - I can't do that pasting thing) She is best ignored to be honest and one only has to try to read her posts that twist and turn and are bordering on the bizarre to realise this. Melvins comments - he turns up on all these threads and many social workers on threads have agreed that he is best ignored too.

The reason I am so sure Blackcat is because I have a working knowledge of the legislation related to child care law. I have been a social worker and tm mgr for 30 years (now retired) and no court of law would make an order to remove a child without evidence that the child was suffering significant harm - and no social worker would dare tro go to court without evidence - believe me.

As I said I have also suffered from this horrid ilness and it really upsets me to hear young mothers afraid to go to the GP for help because they are scared of social workers trying to remove their children. It is complete nonsense. I (and many other social workers and lawyers and a family law barrister (MN name is Spero) have tried on so many threads to stop this scaremongering but it keeps on coming. If you put a callout for Spero she will I am sure answer you. She has even offered to take MNs into court with her to see what actually happens as opposed to what these people think happens. Thus far she has had no takers. Think that says it all really.

It is true that social services nationwide are very short of experienced social workers and are trying to run services in the inner cities with 30 or 40% vacancy rates and many workers off sick with stress related illnesses i.e. depression and anxiety (there 's an irony for you)but sadly I think this means that more children who should be removed are being left uncared for by their parents.

Thank you so much NanaNina, to be honest the availability of this thread [regardless of some of the scarier aspects] helped, just to know that I wasn't alone in nursing such concerns. I have had really limited experience with children and the two individuals closest to me with young children are my partners sister in law [who is the sort to never lose her car keys and somehow had a month old baby sleeping through the nigh, presumably after doing their taxes and developing a fuel to replace oil - so I hardly felt it appropriate to jump up an ask ''did you ever feel that you'd be so terrible that your child may suffer''] and a friend [opposite end of the scale - who has a rather dim view concerning SS, and had scared me senseless in her attempts to 'help'] - so it's brilliant to read all of this, rather than sat putting off work because I'm fretting that I haven't purchased enough baby-vests or have allowed the milk to go off and this obviously means that I'll be a terrible mother :p I guess that any parent that shows concerns must be on the right track as they are displaying the rather innate compulsion to worry

whilst I didn't think that having horns and access to a sadistic poking device was a requisite social workers, it seems that [with many things] the only tales that are told regarding them are via people with bad experiences - I suppose that those people that who have has problematic issues more passionate about it and thus express it more freely than those that haven't -so it's brilliant that there are people like you to address the other side of the story and explain things in terms that are a little less emotionally imvolved. :D

Thank you :]

sorry, I just re-read my post, I hope that you can translate the awful typos and English skills :/

Hi Samantha - glad I have put your mind at rest. Couldn't work out whether yu actually had a baby or are you pregnant. You made me smile about your dp's SIL.....she probably isn't as organised as she looks, anyway it doesn't really matter one way or the other does it. The last sentence of your first par is absolsutely right.

Also I agree with your 2nd para - there will be some posters on threads like these who have had children removed and will naturally be mightily opposed to social services. Parents in this position have to have a "cover story" for friends/rels and probably for themselves if the truth be known. Do you see what I mean eg. one mother whose 2 children had been removed told the foster carer that it was because she didn't take them to the dentist! forgetting to mention that they were being left home alone (both under5) whilst she went to play bingo. They were being fed cereal x 3 per day 7 days per week etc etc.

SO whether you have your baby or are waiting for him/her relax - that's an order and ignore any stupid posts that don't make any sense - oh and go and get some more vests!!!

All good wishes - you are/will be a super mum...........NNx

Sorry, I have not been able to read the whole thead but please be reassured that mental health professionals do not equate having a mental health problem with being a bad parent. So if you are a parent experiencing MH issues, you are not going to have an automatic referrral to social services. MH professionals will actually advocate for you if cases where social services are involved. Perinatal mental health services exist to support pregnant and new mums before and after the birth of their children, they wouldn't exist if babies were automatically taken into care. Social services can't take your child without going though the courts so they cannot arrive on your doorstep and take your child from you without your consent. Unfortunately cases exist in the general population where children are experiencing significant harm impacting on all areas of their development. In these circumstances removal from that environment is in the chiild's best interest. Having a mental health problem does NOT place you in ths category.

Thank you, both of you, reading your responses has made me feel 100 percent more confident, thanks :]

Hi, I have to say from personal experience, do not give to much information to social services. I have a son who has extreme mental health issues and we got a new disability social worker recently. Until this point no one had ever said that i was not able to care for my son, however, after a incident where a personal teacher witness, this new social worker decided my son would be better off institulased due to him being a risk to himself and others. Please bear in mind this social worker had only seen my son 2 times. This was last november. I had an emergency visit where i was bullied to try and get me to Voluntarty, put my son into a theraputic care home. When i refused to do so, i have been put through a formal parenting assessment, had threats of my other children being taken into care. After months of assessment, harressment. Nothing has been found against me infact i have been praised for all i do by every other agency involved in my sons care. After a 3 hour, JSF (Joint Solution Forum) with education, medical, and social workers (who came in force of 3). The chairperson agrees with me that to insitutionalise my son would be of great disservice to him. I did engage a solictor. My son is home and will remain home. I do suffer from depression, which i did disclose and that i have anti depressants. After all this, Have we recieved the support services that we need, No afraid not.

They cant legally take your child, never ever agree to sign a voluntary care order no matter how much they pressurise you. Get a solictor, if they begin to threaten. It takes a lot to forcable put a child into care now. Section 47 is a very hard section to impliment.

socialservices = should encourege familys to see theme for help.
thay have given them selfs a bad name by beeing plane nosey and prying on perhaps un educated and or single parents. which is discriminating for a start.

familys like baby p (well known case) who are on a child protection register are the familys thay need to work with.

as a care leaver my self it is in my opinion thay tend to over dramatise and actualy put children at risk more so. abuse is more common in goverment care.

i like what ninanina has to say !!x