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 think the way to solve this problem is:

1. Open up the family courts. Anything shrouded in secrecy is bound to raise suspicion. Plus the scary media reports can't be refuted.

1. Everyone who is seen by SS should have an advocate. Their concern is with the children, they are acting for the children. They are not interested in the parents (except to see how they are looking after the children) and they are not acting for the paretns. As they have so much clout and can get into people's lives so much and can recommend such awful things, I think that parents should have an advocate. When teh police interview you, you get a solicitor to help you. With SS it is just you and them. And what they say goes with the other authorities. One SW came to see us - she could have written anything she wanted and we would have no way of proving otherwise. As it is the report contains some pretty weird (incorrect) stuff. It wouldn't have to be a lawyer. It could be a friend, GP, someone provided by the council etc. To help the parents and hold their hand and be another witness to what is discussed. The current was of doing things is very scary.

I do want to confirm here that every parent whose child is subject to care proceedings in the family court is entitled to free legal aid for a solicitor. I used to issue the certificates for this. It's surprising how many parents did not take them up..

But ImSo I think you suggest an advocate at a much earlier stage, when SS first becomes involved? That does mean it's us and them right from the beginning in every case though (I know a lot of you feel it is that way anyway) and how helpful is that really?

It's more helpful than it being you and them with no-one on your side surely? And would protect people from SW who are incompetant etc.

I was thinking about fiestyfire - doesn't she deserve to have someone on her side when she is being threatened with the removal of her children, including one she is carrying? it sounds like an awfully lonely place to be, i'm not surprised she's becoming depressed.

Look at the people on this thread - SS investigations resulted in people being extremely stressed, losing lots of weight, heading into depression. In my case I had recently stopped drinking having decided I was drinking too much - what sort of result were people expecting by then applying a huge amount of pressure and not offering any support? I didn't go back as it happens, but if ever there was a time I fancied a good drink it was then.

No-one feels confident and happy when they are told someone has resported them to SS do they? No-one says "oh great, well it will be nice to talk to some people and maybe they will help me". Everyone thinks "oh fuck. what am I going to do?"

Having someone who you felt was supporting you and on your side would help I'm sure.

People are never interviewed by police without the offer of someone there to see fair play, and the potential consequences are nowhere near so dire as getting entangles with SS.

I am very loathe to post here as a social worker with 30 years experience in child protection. I know from other threads about cp that I will be shor down in flames BUT I really am concerned at some of scaremongering on here which is it seems going to prevent some women from getting help with mental health problems.

It is ver sad that so many posters haave had negative experiences with social workers and I am in no sense trying to discount those experiences, but I think it needs to be understood that whilst sws might make crass comments at times, these will not serve as reasons to remove children from parents where they are not at risk of significant harm.

So many posters talk of social workers having so much power - this isn't entirely true. I am not going to try to change anyone's mindset as I know from experience this is impossible and I know that my post will make some you even more angry than you already are, but I just want to appeal to those of you still with an open mind that it is not possible for your children to be removed for the flimsiest of reasons and never returned to you. I would ask you to give consideration to the following facts about child protection and the removal of children from parents.

1. No social worker can remove a child from their parents without a Court Order. Fact.

1. The police have powers to remove a child under Powers of Police Protection for a period of not longer than 72 hours.

1. If there is serious concern that a child is being significantly harmed or is likely to be significantly harmed and the sw thinks that the only way to keep the child safe is to remove him from parents they must seek an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) the application is made in court (sometimes at short notice) and the magistates will not usually grant a hearing ex-parte (without the parents being present) so right from the outset the parents have the opportunity to put their side of the case before any decision is made about removing the child.

1. If the court does not make the EPO the child cannot be removed, regardless of what the sw might think. If the Order IS made the child can be removed for a period of 7 days.

1. If the SSD think the child will be unsafe if returned home, they have to within 7 days apply to the court for an Interim Care Order (ICO) The court will need to hear evbidence from the social workers about their reasons for applying for this order. The parents will be legally represented and will be able to put their case to the court.

1. If the ICO is not granted the child is returned home. If it is granted the child is not returned home. Arrangments will be made in almost all cases for their to be ongoing contact between the child and the parents. If it is avery young child, contact can be on a daily basis.

1. There follows a lengthy period where there is a comprehensive assessment of the parents, and the circumstances that are giving rise for concern. They will make a recommendation to the court based on the best interests of the child

1. The parents will have a psychological assessment and sometimes a psychiatric assessment. All those previously involved with the family e.g. HV, midwife, GP, nursery worker etc etc will write reports for the court.

1. A guardian-ad-litem will be appointed (this is a social worker) who is completely independent of the SSD who have brought the aplication. The guardian will also make a comprehensive assessment of the case and make a recommendation to the court based on the best interests of the child. The guardian will appoint a solicitor to act for the child in the court case.

1. Sometimes the family will be offered the opportunity of a residential assessment so that they can be monitored whilst caring for their children. In such cases the staff of the res resource will write a comprehansive report about the parenting capacity of the parents.

10. On occasions the legal representiatives for the parents will request that the court agree to an independent social work assessment of the parents and their ability to parent the child and keep him safe. (I am involved as an ind sw in carrying out these kind of parenting assessments.) All the parties involved in the care proceedings have to agree to the appt of an ind sw and the judge has to agree. The court also have to agree on who is appointed to carry out this work.

11. After all this there is a final hearing. All of the reports are presented to the court, and the parents make their own statements aided by their lawyers. They are fully entitled to legal aid for this purpose.

12. Sometimes the parents will improve their parenting (come off drugs) for instance and the care proceedings are dropped and the child returned home. This can happen at any time before the final hearing.

13. If it still felt the child is unsafe at home, there is a 4/5 day hearing during which everyone who has written a report has to provide evidence to the court (not just what they think/feel) but actual evidence to support what they are saying about the parents and the reasons why they are of the view that the child will not be safe at home.
    PLEASE be assured that evidence of significant harm does not include the things mentioned in some of these posts, eg. mother has depression, not following routines etc etc. Any sw would know better than to try to present these things as risk of significant harm. Indeed the local authority lawyer conducting the case for the sSSD would refuse to act in such a case and it woul dnever reach court.

14. Anyone writing a report or making a written statement can be expected to be examined and cross examined by any lawyer in the proceedings. It is routine for a lawyer acting for the parents to cross examine a social worker (or myself as an ind social worker) for 3/4 or on one occasion 5 hours in total, and woe betide the social worker who cannot evidence what he or she has written because the lawyer for the parents will (quite rightly) make mincemeat of you.

15. At the end of the final hearing the judge and not the social worker or anyone else involved will make the decision about the child's future. He can make a Care Order (a placement Order) which means the child can be adopted, a Supervision Order (which means the child goes home with sw. supervision for a time limited period) or NO order at all and the child returns home.

SO I am trying to point out that it is not as simple as some of you seem to think for social workers to breeze in and remove a child. It is also worth bearing in mind that all social workers have to adhere to the relevant legislation which is the Children Act and the first duty of all social workers is to do all they can to keep families together. I can tell you that if any local authority tries to take a case to court where there has been insufficient support to a family the judge will (quite rightly) throw it and send the l.a. off with a flea in their ear (I have seen it happen though very very rarely) because SSDs know that they have to have the evidence before going anywhere near court.

I sincerely hope that those of you who are anxious about losing your children because of mental healthy problems are in the vast majority of cases worrying without any cause. The task of the SSD in those cases is to support the family and only if the child was at significant risk of harm would removal ever be considered.

I think too that you need to bear in mind that parents whose childreh have been removed are unsurprisingly very angry and will almost always give a very one sided account of the circumstances, for obvious reasons. Sadly the tabloids like to pick this up and run with it and so readers only get to hear one side of the story. The SSD can never give their side of the story because of confidentiality. I can see this happening on this thread - many of you are just totally believing what you read or hear from others without knowing the full story.

And yes whoever it was who said they were surpised John Hemming hadn't come along to add to the scaremongering (as he conducts a ccampaign of bashing social workers and courts based on his own person experiences) I too am surprised - he must have missed this one. If he does find this thread please can I urge you to take what he says with a very large pinch of salt.

OK enough said - probably far too much - I will now put on my hard hat and retreat to a safe distance. I just think it is time for the facts rather than the fantasy of what really happens in child protection in this country.

I am not talking about my personal experiences. I am talking about what has to happen legally before a child can be permanently removed from their parents, though i can see that all my explanations have fallen on stoney ground which I more than half expected.

I'm afriad that if children have been adopted agains the parent's will that will be because the judge made a final decision based on all the evidence in court that the child would be at risk of significant harm if he was returned home.

I don't agree that the family courts should be opened because I don't think it right that all and sundry can be made aware of the facts of the innocent victim at the centre of these proceedings i.e. the child - I think he/she has the right to confidentiality. BUT I wish they were open so that all you people could see what really happens as opposed to what you think happens.

You talk of interrogation by SS - sorry but I think that is a gross exaggeration of what hhappens and parents do have an advocate - ithey're called legal representatives, lawyers who act for them. Parents also have the right for a McKenzie friend, someone who can be with them at all times when dealing with SSD and at all case conferences and in court. If the parents have learning disabilities they are entitled to support from specialist advocates in this field in addition to MCK friends and lawyers.

WHY do you want to believe that parents are ridden over and not afforded any rights when this is not the case, regardless of what people might tell you or what you read in the tabloids. I wish I knew the answer to this.

Nananina

I need to quickly respond to you saying that a judge makes the decision to remove a child.
I do not agree with this I think the 'judge making the decision' is a formallity and rarely much more than that.

The child gaurdian in my case who tells the court the child's best stood up for me and said the social services hadn't given me a chance with any support and that I should be in a mother and baby unit with my child as I had done nothing wrong.

However I was advised by my soliciter, barrister, and teh child gaurdian that they were afraid that the judge very rarely will go against what the social services want, despite the case.
That judge didn't know me from Adam, if he knew ME and not just the shit the social services had wrote he would have known that I could have been a good mother and only 5 years later I was a good mother and still am to another son.

The judge doesn't really make the decision they just OK whatever the social services want, unless it's an exceptionally ridiculous case of crap social workers.

And how is it that my son was adopted because of 'an established serious risk to my child' when only 5 years later (me being absolutely the same person) they just do a half hour visit and leave me alone with a new son and say i'm fine.
How can they say I was at risk of hurting my first child (but hadn't yet) and that i'm not a risk to my second child?
It's absolute bullshit.
I have never had any drug addictions or anything, they said I could possibly hurt him emotionally in future because of 'my depression', but my doctor can tell anyone I never had depression before my son was separated from me.
What a mess of a case.

Social workers get their way by not telling parent's their rights.
My soliciter informed me that during the first few months of my son being in care i could have taken him back at any time because it was 'voluntry' but SS made a point of keeping that info from me, they lied and said i couldnt have him back.
They never told me i should have had a social worker for myself and never gave me one (as i was under 18)
ANY support i should have had to help me and tell me my rights was withheld from my knowledge purposely so they could take my child more easily.
My solicitor told me that they wouldn't offer me a mother and baby unit (which was the obvious solution) because it cost too much and they didnt have the funds.
That's fucked up.

It makes their jobs easier to just adopt a baby than give a mother support in keeping their child.

NanaNina I am very grateful that you have posted this even though you knew you would get some negative responses. I knew a bit but found it very helpful to see an outline of what needs to happen before a child can be removed and to have the view of a seasoned professional.

Thank you

Nickname it does NOT

It is NOT easy to have a child adopted. You keep repeating it but it is not true. The number of hoops that need to be jumped through is huge. I'm not going to minimise your story or your pain but you repeating over and over again how easy it is to adopt children is very subjective and not helpful.

nickname123 I feel physically sick in my stomach reading your posts, what happened to you is every parents worst nightmare.

nananina thank you for telling us the protocols. Of course the system is supposed to be fair, evenhanded and just.

the problem is that while the courts are closed, people will be feasrful. while there are stories of SW behaving incompetently or maliciously, people will be fearful.

SS has a terrible reputation and something needs to be done to change that. Giving people support in their dealings with them, and ensuring they know their rights would be a help.

Nana - I haven't noticed any 'scaremongering' on this thread. I read some people who are telling their own stories. telling people what happened to you isn't scaremongering. Having no experience and saying "SS will take away your kids because I read it on facebook" is scaremongering.

then there are the people who are afraid that ss would/could take their children. Again, that is not scaremongering. Sharing your own fears is not scaremongering. Saying things that you hope will strike fear into others is scaremongering.

I think that saying that people who are sharing their own fears and / or telling others what happened to them personally is scaremongering is like saying "shut up" - and isn't that part of the problem? people are supposed to shut up?

I have to say that although I knew logically that my children wouldn't be removed, at least not "just like that", in the deep of night when I lay awake worrying I felt a terrible fear. I cried a few times, very unlike me. I lost a lot of weight (also very unlike me!).

When you hear that SS are coming knocking you panic. It is not logical, maybe, but it is a natural emotional response, I think. Because they are the ones who are involved in taking your children. Yes there are procedures but no-one else can do this. That is very scary.

I think that SW need to be aware that people are terrified of them. Are they aware of this?

willsurvivethis - glad that you are to some extent reassured by my post. It wasn't meant to discount people's experiences but to try to outline the legal aspects which everyone has to adhere to.

Imsonotelling - I do appreciate that people are fearful - I read it on these posts - I honestly think the media has a lot to be responsible for - the tabloids love printing one sided accounts from parents who are involved in care proceedings. I have always always ensured that parents know their rights (and this was certainly ingrained into every social worker) in the l.a. where I worked for 25 years. Clearly there are sws (according to these posts) that do not do this and this is very worrying. At the risk of repeating myself, people can be supported in their dealings with SSD (they can have anyone present (doesn't have to be a MCK friend) can be anyone - family member or friend. The SSD must keep all facts of the case confidential but if the parents want their family or friend to know all the fact s and be present that is a matter for them. Also I can assure you that lawyers for parents rigorously fight their corner all the way through (which is how it should be)

Nickname and Leonie - I know you are both very angry and I am not going to try to change your mindset - this would be impossible. I don't however agree at all that Judges go along with social workers - as I said there are a host of professionals involved, not just social workers. Whoever said that judges go along with social workers in my view was incorrect. I will say however that in my experience guardians are very influential in care proceedings and I have known cases where social workers will change their care plan because it does not accord with the views so of the guardian. This I find worrying because I think people need to be honest and have the courage of theri convictions and for all the evidence to b heard in court - and I'm sorry but the judge does make the final decision. Of course he is influenced by what he has heard and he bases his judgement (which is in writing and very lengthy) on the facts of the case. How else could he make a judgement.

FWIW I sometimes as an ind sw disagree with the l.a. care plan to remove a child and have no hesitation in saying so in my independent parenting assessments. This is usually because I think the parents haven't been given enough opportunity to prove (or disprove) that they are capable of properly caring for a child. In these cases I ask for the parents to have a residential assessment and mostly judges agree but not always, dependent upon the facts of the case. In one caseit was refused because the mother who was a heroin addict refused to attend a drug rehab clinic prior to a res assessment, which said it all really.

I think some of you would be very surprised if you really knew how some parents abuse and neglect their children. You would be even more surprised to know how many parents don't even bother to turn up to court for final hearings to fight for their children. There is much much more to this than what you read or hear about second hand and I would urge those of you who are worried to take a step back and ask yourself if a judge really is going to just "rubber stamp" some social worker's thoughts.........again I stress you must be able to provide hard evidence to support your case. Honestly.

If there are children being really abused and neglected then why are they hassling us lot then?

To posters who are talking of the feeling of being scared of SSD involvement - of course I can understand this - fear of losing our children must be one of our greatest fears - as a mother and grandmother I can't think of anything worse.

What I am trying to say is that I think there is a lot of misinformation/misconceptions about social work activity and this so called power that they have - this is totally exaggerated - many people don't even realise that the courts have to sanction everything, every step of the way. I think the media are responsible for a lot of these misconceptions and people who have had children removed are going to be agry (natureally) and they are going to have a different perception of why their children were removed from the reality. I'm sorry but that's the way it is. Then a biased account is given in the press or on TV and the SSD have to stay stum and so it is easy for people to believe the parents especially as they are often very compelling in giving their side of the story.

Having said all that there are obviously some very inexperienced social workers around who are making inappropriate/crass comments to parents and they should probably be in a different job but that is a far cry from going to court and giving evidence to convince a judge that what you are saying has some merit.

There is also a notion it seems that sws love nothing better than seeking to remove children. In my experience the vast majority of them would rather walk over broken glass - its's incredibly stressful and time consuming and anxiety provoking for the workers as well as the family. Indeed my worry is that too few children are removed for their own safety and that's why there are tragedies like baby Peter and the like. I am not criticising however because I know how horrrendously difficult and stressful cp work has become in this country.

Thos of you that call for reform will probably get it sooner rather than later as SSDs are in crisis because of trying to run services at 30/40% vacancy rates, high sickness rates (through stress) savage spending cuts and a media that wants to discredit them at every turn. I fear more children will remain unprotected for these reasons.

Sorry if I sound a bit negative regarding social workers, health visitors, etc., but reiterating that social workers can't just take a child away, or that social workers have never sought removal of a baby to satisfy the government's adoption targets, doesn't really help.

Social workers who post here are not going to be the type of person who would put the fear of god into a parent. There are people in all walks of life who are uncaring or brusque or power-mad, and there have been too many people posting about their experiences with people like that at a time in their lives when they feel vulnerable. And that includes social workers, just as in any other profession.

Many people here, including social workers, have the opinion that the system itself is flawed and maybe in time the system will improve, especially in light of the many official reports recently into social services' failures. But many parents and their children can't wait for that, because they're dealing with their situation right now.

The fear does exist, and that is what needs to be addressed, irrespective of whether social workers feel that fear is unjustified.

LeonieDelt's experience is worth thinking about. To be suddenly confronted with strangers at the front door demanding to come in under threat of the removal of a child, is the stuff of nightmares. Has there ever been any research into the long-term effects of such sudden involvement by social services on families where such an approach was unwarranted?