Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Social workers slammed for wrongly taking girl into care

71 replies

edam · 17/03/2006 14:55

Thought this story was interesting. Social services took the girl into care without even asking the doctors if there was anything wrong FFS - just took it upon themselves to decide that being in touch with ss and taking your child to the doctor meant the poor mother was deliberately causing her daughter's illness in order to gain attention. Appalling - as the judge said.

Council must pay £500,000 for wrongly taking girl into care

A couple had their family life torn apart when social workers wrongly took their nine-year-old daughter into emergency care without good reason and kept her from her parents for 14 months, a high court judge said yesterday.

Mr Justice McFarlane castigated the social workers for "multiple failings" and criticised the family court magistrates who had granted the emergency order. The costs of the case, payable from public funds, were £500,000, including the parents' legal aid costs of £200,000, which the judge ordered the local council to pay. The judge took the unusual step of making his judgment public after a hearing behind closed doors, although the family, the local authority and the magistrates court are all unnamed.

He laid down guidelines to prevent future miscarriages of justice which are certain to lead social services departments and magistrates courts to re-examine their practices. He said it gave him "absolutely no pleasure to have to record the multiple failings of the local authority in this case".

But to do so was "necessary not only in order to come to a conclusion on the issues in this case, but also in order that lessons may be learned for the future".

He said the girl's mother had sought the help of social services and child health services because her daughter, the couple's only child, was displaying some "modest behavioural difficulties".

Mother and daughter had been referred to the child guidance unit for psychotherapy and the girl had been put on the local child protection register.

The notes of a social services planning meeting read: "No neglect issues. Home and care good. Mother and child have good relationship. Detrimental to move."

But social workers suspected it was a case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy - now called fabricated or induced illness (FII) -a rare form of child abuse in which a mother or carer makes a child ill or fakes illness to get attention. At the end of a case conference on the girl in November 2004, social services received a phone call from a nurse at the local hospital.

They were told that the mother had taken the girl there with stomach pains and was asking to see a doctor after the nurse found nothing wrong. Within hours and without any information from the doctor, social workers were at the magistrates court seeking an emergency protection order allowing the girl to be taken from her parents immediately.

They acted without telling the parents and without seeking any medical opinion to try to confirm their suspicions. The girl had had medical treatment before and no doctor had suggested fabricated illness.

The council's actions were described by the mother's counsel as "outrageous" and "inexcusable" leading, as it did, to "the destruction of this family's ordinary life".

Those descriptions "do not, in my view, overstate the quality of what took place on that day", the judge said. The social services team leader, who had no detailed knowledge of the case, made 13 assertions to the magistrates, of which every one was "misleading or incomplete or wrong".

He ruled that the council had no case to take the girl into care and made her a ward of court "to facilitate the child's return home".

OP posts:
nightowl · 18/03/2006 02:11

it is very frightening when you hear stories like this. what about all the women suffering from pnd and such who are afraid to go to their doctor and get help because they think their children will be taken away from them? i find now also that if you take your child to hospital for any kind of accident you are interrogated, or at best subjected to lots of of snide comments from doctors. its happened to me no end of times. ds used to be so poorly with his asthma too, and the attitude of some doctors i had to put up with was unbelievable.

TearsBeforeBedtime · 18/03/2006 10:17

Edam/Expat, agree that there is something extremely disconcerting about the medical profession's attitude towards mothers. As somebody with a history of mental illness and quite socially awkward (i.e. more likely than most to come over as a bit erm weird to the professionals) I do feel concerned that I am exactly the sort of person who could be a prime target for accusations of FII. As some medical professionals do appear to be diagnosing FII on flimsy bases, such as childhood illnesses that don't neatly fit any label, and a mother that doesn't fit the narrow stereotypes of "normal" behaviour.

I appreciate that SW is a difficult, thankless job, but there are cases where mistakes are being made that should have been obvious at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.

Callisto · 18/03/2006 10:27

Social workers may well be underpaid and overworked but that is hardly an excuse to act like little hitlers, keep parents out of the loop about their children, discount the advice of medical professionals and be so secretive in general.

edam · 18/03/2006 10:45

Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't is really no excuse at all. Social workers, like doctors, should concentrate on the case in front of them - what does this child and family need? And they should review their own practice, as individuals and as a profession.

What has the profession done to address the glaring inadeqacies exposed by the series of miscarriages of justice that happened to people wrongly accused of MSbP? Or to acknowledge the serious professional failings over the invented Satanic abuse scandals? Given that people involved in Rochdale are still working? No responsiblity has been taken for the heartrending damage caused to children by the completely irresponsible behaviour of social workers at all levels over Rochdale, Orkney, or Cleveland. No apology has been made to the Rochdale children, at least, for the life-long trauma they have suffered at the hands of social services. That is disgusting.

Seems to me social workers as a profession are happy to embrace fads and fashions without any reflection or attempt to weigh evidence rationally. And that's not an assumption based on reading the news and watching documentaries, it's what I hear from doctors about the way social workers behave when they've got the bit between their teeth about the latest fad. There are equally reprehensible doctors. But at least they are trained in the logic of diagnosis - take a history, explore the most common explanations first. What logic do social workers follow?

OP posts:
edam · 18/03/2006 10:48

Oh, it's also what I hear from my sister who has worked in social care for more than a decade - social worker's prejudices are sometimes, at least, allowed to over-rule logic and compassion. Every 'caring' profession attracts its fair share of people who go into it for the wrong reasons - or end up that way - to have power over vulnerable people. What do social services do to weed those people out, rather than encourage them?

OP posts:
WideWebWitch · 18/03/2006 10:55

This is awful. How can a mother asking for help with 'mild behavioural issues' turn into this? It's so wrong and I agree about the attitudes towards mothers, very frightening.

ScummyMummy · 18/03/2006 11:22

This story sounds dreadful.

I think the newish BA degree in social work, which will eventually result in a graduate only profession for the first time, and the equally newish requirement for social workers to register with the General Social Care Council and sign up to their code of practice are designed to address some of the issues you raise, edam. Whether they will be effective is a different matter. What do you think should be done to improve things?

edam · 18/03/2006 12:48

Well, at a guess, I'd say social workers and magistrate's courts need to heed the judge's warning in this case.

Social work education needs to be addressed so social workers learn how to assess evidence and are warned off using prejudice or jumping to conclusions.

Social workers should have to undertake continuing professional development (as doctors do) and keep up to date in their training. That training should re-emphasise the importance of assessing evidence.

All social workers should have to attend a performance of Arthur Miller's play on the Salem Witch Trials. And be taught about sexism and prejudice about people with disabilities as well as racism.

The people involved in the Rochdale cases (and any similar cases) should be drummed out of the profession and everyone else warned that the tactics used are in themselves abusive. And that liars will be thrown out of the job.

Then they need to have some system of whistle-blowing - people who have concerns about their colleagues need to be supported in raising those concerns. The NHS has a National Patient Safety Agency which is supposed to run along the lines of airlines reporting near misses. Maybe that's a model?

Will that do for starters?

OP posts:
ScummyMummy · 18/03/2006 13:57

Good list.:) But I honestly think almost all of those ideas, apart from mandatory attendance of the Arthur Miller play, are now in place, edam. Having said that, I have no idea why the Rochdale workers are still in the business. I think the code of practice is partly designed to make it easier to get rid of social workers showing such awful practice.

I am not disagreeing for one second that the cases you and others have cited on this thread are disgraceful. But I am SO glad I've not opted to do children's social work when I read about the general scorn in which social workers are held by you and others. I think it is understandable that such appalling practice makes for extremely negative public perceptions of social work but it must be incredibly hard to do a good job if the default position of service users and the world is that you are an incompetent, prejudiced witch hunter.

hellywobs · 18/03/2006 14:32

Yes it is very scary - the problem is there is no accountability with the family courts being so secretive. There's no way that I would go to a doctor with pnd or any other kind of depression and I hope my ds is never ill with a strange illness that they can't name so therefore it can't exist. I even worry if my ds is having such a nice time at nursery that he does not want to come home with me in the evening and the nursery will think something is wrong at home and call social services.

getbakainyourjimjams · 18/03/2006 14:41

TBH I think the biggest problem with SW is the lack of resources. They are frighteningly under-resourced (at least locally). So under-resourced they are ineffecitve and inefficient, and the working conditions are such that many good ones leave.

SS keep sending me more forms to fill in (to do with dp's). Now I know I need to be accountable for the money they give me, that's fine, but they keep sending more and more pointless returns. I've noticed that if I ignore them I don't get chased (does that make me bad :o). I do have all the info and file the relevant stuff quarterly, but am not going to get into pointless extra papaerwork.

earthtomummy · 18/03/2006 16:04

Lack of resources and sheer amount of cases are huge problems. I worked for a wealthy London borough which made work much easier because we could purchase services and care that clients needed. Edam, continuous professional dev. and registration are now part of being a SW. It makes me so annouyed and frustrated when people just view an entire profession as people who follow fads and trends. I and many many of my and DH's colleagues are highly educated, intelligent people with a lot of experience who did really good jobs. And you would not believe many of the cases we have worked with and the extent of some of the problems.
I agree that there is an issue of beter training and management. However, I really still can't believe that people think a SW can waltz into their house and remove their child without a second thought. The process is time-consuming, lengthy and requires legal involvement.
The problem is, with sw being so under-valued and derided, many SWs who are doing a good job get fed up or leave.

getbakainyourjimjams · 18/03/2006 16:20

The problem is that as soon as you have to deal with SS you find the process is frustrating, impossible and frankly hard work. I know the problems are due to lack of resources, but of all the angencies I've had to deal with SS have been the hardest work.

I had a SW, who then changed, who then changed who then changed again. I now don't have one (although am allowed to ring the duty desk I think). Our care plan took a year to draw up- a year! Phonecalls go unreturned, SWs appear to be always in meetings- as a user it is incredibly frustrating. SS are meant to be there to make life easier, but as soon as you have to deal with them it becomes harder. Individual SWs may not deserve to be derided, just for being SWs, BUT the service does- because ime (and that of the majority of people on the SN section of the board for example) it is absolutely hopeless. Yes its lack of resources, but unfortunately clients are the ones who are affected the most by that.

earthtomummy · 18/03/2006 16:48

I know - it is depressing - and I'm one of the mums on the SN board (DS is being assessed for AS / dyspraxia). I am finding this process frustrating - perm. hsaving to prompt the school, Inclusion Support etc. I know there are rubbish SWs out there who frankly should not be allowed anywhere nr. vulnerable people and lazy ones and 'burnt out' ones. The system is bureaucratic - frustrating for many SWs too. SW does need to improve its training and post-qualification training - some of the istuations inexperienced workers are expected to deal with are scary. Lack of resources and staff really can't be underestimated. Maybe now it is a profession with proper registration etc. sw's profile will be raised and attract some more high calibre workers and investment. I only know how hard DH works (he's now in NHS and training to be a family therapist). He used to get up at 5.30ish sometimes to get to clients' houses for breakfast to work through behavioural morning issues with them and their kids and help with the schoolrun. Meanwhile I was stuck at home with 2 under 3s screaming at me, wishing he were there. The irony..! I don't want to be defensive of an entire profession, or be worthy. I just wish people could sometimes see the good work that is achieved.

AngelaD · 18/03/2006 22:27

I have a friend who was a social worker who freely admits as a single woman she used to write reports stating that as the mother didn't offer eye contact to her newborn there were isues with bonding, now as a parent herself she realises the poor woman was probably exhausted but you wonder how many littl mistake like get added together and equal abuse/neglect in SS eyes.

chipkid · 18/03/2006 22:41

will probably get lambasted for this but I have never been in favour of the Magistrates being given the authority to determine the removal of children from their parents.
Decisions such as these should only be taken by Judges experienced in family law, not members of the public, with no legal training who are often (in my experience)overly influenced by the views of the Local Auhtority.
The stakes are just too high for the families involved
shall now run for cover

jetsetmum · 18/03/2006 22:51

Reading these cases always stirs up my emotions and I feel the medical profession & SW's lurch from one high profile case to another in how they behave.

When my DS1 was 2 weeks old a bruise appeared on his arm, as a new mum I was worried, spoke to HV who referred me to the GP, or sent us to the hospital.

To cut a long and distressing story short we were accused of abusing our DS1, the police were called & our DS1 had to stay in hospital for a fortnight while they made their mind up on what to do. Fortunately because I was BF him they let me stay too.

It was a really distressing time for months, daily visits by SW, hv & family support. But what annoyed me most was they kept going on about V. Climbie case to me and I just felt they were all following a text book & not making sensible judgements.

I'm shaking now thinking about it all.

waterfalls · 18/03/2006 22:54

jetsetmum
Thats terribleSad so sorry you had to go through that.

getbakainyourjimjams · 18/03/2006 23:07

good grief jetsetmum- that's awful.

getbakainyourjimjams · 18/03/2006 23:07

Agree chipkid

goosey · 18/03/2006 23:14

I made a blog entry about the same subject two days ago. It still terrifies me. \link{http://freerangechildcare.blogspot.com/2006/03/little-knowledge-can-be-frightening.html\Here}

jetsetmum · 18/03/2006 23:16

It was really horrific - I am glad he was obviously too young to know about it - only I carry the emotional baggage but I do wonder about his health - they x-rayed him twice, a full body scan, squirted stuff in his eyes to look at the retna - all to try to find signs of abuse.

I would add it turned out he had give himself a lovebite - he had a strong suck and was a hungry baby. Even when it had been witnessed by the hv, the hospital doctor still kept saying this was not possible & that he should be placed in care!!!!

getbakainyourjimjams · 18/03/2006 23:28

I"m glad ds1 goes to you goosey (he is always covered in bruises!) And ds3 come to that!

Jetsetmum that is just awful, I'm going all shivery thinking about it. It's so easy for children to get bruises - even tiny babies- the thought that someone over-zealous (and presumably with limited experience of childcare) could setn in motion a chain of events that led to the removal of your baby....... Has your HV been supportive?

Just thought - my mum knew of somoene whose child was removed due to bruising on the backs of the legs- turned out to be from wearing well boots without trousers- but the child was removed from the family home for a couple of weeks. Awful for all concerned (including the child).

getbakainyourjimjams · 18/03/2006 23:28

welly boots I mean obviously

jetsetmum · 18/03/2006 23:45

HV & GP (female) have been supportive - they used their head & assessed our family & backed us all the way in the case conferences.

SW (male) was a joke, he didn't have kids, was more interested in what childcare books I'd read than how I was with DS1 in real life. He wanted DS1 to go in care immediately & when I said I was bf - he said we will make arrangements for you to visit to carry this out. ffs!!

Sorry - realised I'm just banging on about me on this thread now - it was 3 years ok now & thought I had my feeling under control on this one.