great article here about social workers removign kids from homes imo

[TheDaVinciCod]

here

'I promise you that removing a child is the very last resort and unless they have real concerns that the child is in imediate harm it would be weeks or months of lots of intensive support offered. it costs a hell of a lot more to remove a child than it does to train a mum how to cope.'

From my experience I feel deeply disallusioned with ss and don't entirely agree with the above quote. I've been on a roller coaster with ss involvement, from resisting all their involvement to accepting that there was a problem with dp and accpeting that. They also accused me of neglect at one point which was totally voted against at the case protection. then, despite my acceptance of the problems with dp and being totally willing to work with them and do whatever they offered to sort these problems out, and they are offering no help whatsoever! All the ideas that were bandied around at the hearing have been since disreagrded as unavailable or unsuitable and I feel that we have been left alone to deal with the situation alone and the only thing that they are providing is supervision. It worries me, because although I feel that we can work through this in any case, what about those who can't? I think about those who do have problems, maybe with both parents who need help and if they can't get that then they will jsut end up getting their children removed anyway because they don't get the help that could help them resolve their problems.

I know that my experiences would make me think twice before reporting someone to ss. My experience has brought me immense benefits in realising what went on behind my back, and my original sw was wonderful and I will never be able to repay what she has done for us as a family. But now I feel on my own again, except under supervision, and I do feel that the while system needs a big shake up.

misdee, you haven't upse4t me in the least, what you are saying is right, they were correct in intervening. I jsut wish they had followed through properly! I can imagine how you feel the same about nurses.

the trouble is that even though we can identify that there is a problem, the system is so critically under funded that there is often a situation where unless you are considered to be actually abusing your child then there isn't much that can be offered as all the support projects have had to be cancelled.

But its not fair to balme the Social workers for that. its not for the want of trying im sure, that they cannot find you adequate support Kelly.

Also your children weren't removed, and they did find good cause to investigate what was happening. I know that this is a pretty sore subject and really dont wish to offend you.

I have also been told i was neglecting my children (see my earlier post about the run in with a vile woman who had no place working within social care) I was told that the fact i had called teh police to prevent my partner beating me again was a form of neglect and that i was clearly unstable and would probably have my kids taken from me as she was going to ask that they be put on the at risk register.

fortuanatly she had no idea that i was a SW and so i knew that what she was saying was ludicrouse. as soon as she left i called her line manager and had her supsended.

there are some out there who qualified at about the same time the Ark set sail.
i am pleased to say that they have reformed the training that SW's are given and much of their qualifications are earned on practicle learning aspects rather than just reading a book.

you also have to continue training even after you have got your degree, and yes you do have to specialise. (hence my only fleeting knowledge of child protection)

I know that Scummy has recently qualified so maybe she can tell you more about the new training courses....she may well have more knowledge on CP as well.

I am not blaming my sw for lack of finding me support, more the whole of ss. I can see your point that they don't have the funding - and that is the problem with social services. I am stressed enough as it is tring to deal with 18mnth old twins, a ds with sn and a dd without their intervention and I do resent them putting extra stress on me without being able to offer any help.

I have issues with my sw for simple things such as not making ds pre school aware of the core group meeting that was scheduled and asking about a representive from them. They didn't even know about it untit I mentioned it. That sort of thing doesn't require funding - jsut a phone call! The write up was a 20 min job, but why should I be doing it? Why is he asking for my suggestions then asking me (as if he doesnt have a clue) what I think the core group will say when he has x many years of experience (he is in his late 30s/early 40s)? This is how I feel let down by my sw. He isn't offering me anything valuable, he looks befuddled, says he has never met anyone like us, and jsut wants rid of us! I want rid of him too, but I want us sorted first! I don't want my children to ever go through this again.

sorry I really shouldn't be using this thread to vent my frustrations

and i fully understand why you feel that way.
Your right your SW does sound as if he is over worked and isn't offerign you as much attention as he should.

In his defence the pressure that has bee added to you was found to be warrented. its better that you found out now that there was the beginning of a problem than in a few years time when things piral out of control.

Its definatly more difficult to find help for those who are intelligent articulate and where the children are clearly being cared for with love. its hard to hear but if thinsg were worse in your home life then you would probably qualify for more help.

Your pre school should have been informed about the meeting but it is understandable (from an insiders point of view) that this would have been missed. we will have a list of the school involved and if the child is at a nursary or pre school this sometimes wouldn't flag up to us staright away....particularly with male colleagues who maybe dont have children.

im not trying to make excuses, but i do feel the need to defend social workers in general.
we are the front line and often get blamed for the underfunding and red tape of those higher up the chain of command

Theya re all over worked, at least that was my experience workinga longside them. As sa result I am afris many do seem to become jaded and unresponsive (again imo, which was working in a particularly underfunded area) but still the vast majority are genuine and probably go home and weep every time they have to reject a plea for help

Kelly, I think you have an excellent excuse for ranting on any thread you like. As this is about ss and you have first hand experience then I think that everything you have said is very relevant.

I didn't find the social worker who came out to my house supportive. She terrified me and my kids.

I had to take DS to hosp recently as my CM thought he may have broken his arm. He threw himself on the floor in a tantrum. I was a bit worried that someone might think I had hurt him. Sounds ridiculous now, but one of my neices took her DD to hosp 3 times in 6 months and had SS round to interview her several times, which I found shocking as she is a really good mum. Part of me was sooo glad that he had hurt himself at the CM's and not with me although he hadn't broken it (thank god) and was doing a bit of a wounded soldier, little rascal held his arm dead still for over an hour until I got a ribena from the machine, he then leapt up with no apparent injury to his arm whatsoever to retrieve it from me!!!

I think the vast majority of sw are doing a great job in difficult circs. Unfortunately success stories don't often get told in the news.
Of course there are systemic problems and the odd weirdo, but show me a profession where everyone is perfect?

I am a professionally qualified social worker but I am so disillusioned with the lack of resources and professional respect that I am considering leaving the profession for good.

I am employed within the adult services field so do not work in child protection. In their defence, child protection sw's have a thankless job. If they did not investigate where there are indicators of abuse then actual cases would definitely be missed. Often it is health visitors, schools, doctors or nurses who report the initial concern and sw's must under law follow these up. The police and court services are also heavily involved if an order needs to be takien i.e. sw's don't just work in isolation in these cases but they are the ones who often take the bashing.

I do feel very very sorry for those innocent families that get caught up in these processes as well. I also know that there are good and bad social workers just like in any other job.

Unfortunately, many many sw's feel just like me and leave the profession after a few years of unmanageable case loads and the lack of resources and supports to truly make a difference in their work with people. We do truly feel terrible that better support cannot be offered but the funding decisions are rarely if ever made by the actual sw. That is why many people only encounter the "dinosaur-age" workers or the recently qualified workers who may feel overwhelmed by some of their cases.

wotnot, I really empathise. I am a psychiatric social worker, so thats not a barrel of laughs but do think that child protection is incredibly draining. I am a SAHM atm, but will go back at some point.
I am dreading it, as although very commited to the mental health field, I know how stressed, disillusioned and over worked I will be when I return.
Can I also just say in response to some earlier posts, that sw's do get good training. A 3 year degree with practice placements is not to sniffed at. Also when you specialise you get further training, I have had extensive training in mental health after I completed my MA way back in 1996.
I too feel that although I know SSD leave a lot to be desired (lack of resources being the main problem), I have to defend people who step up to the mark and do a bloody difficult job because we care.

great post Overrun

So what's your objection to the article then Overrun? Do you disagree with the writer's basic premise, that individual SW's should be tracked (not necessarily losing their "outside" anonymity as it were) so that those involved in cases where children are taken away because of the latest fashion (MSbP in this case) can be followed in case they are doing it on a regular basis?

I will never have any faith in the SW profession as long as I know that the people who were responsible for the Satanic Abuse fiasco are still working (and indeed have been promoted) in Social Work.

Yes, they seem to close ranks when something like that happens and the enquiries never seem to come to any conclusions and no-one ever gets sacked. Sorry Overrun - just my personal impression.

Thanks Battymama
Its not that particular article per se, but just the whole bandwagen thing. I must admit I thought that individual social workers are named, look at the Victoria Cl (sorry can't remember how to spell it), that social worker was named. And no I am not defending her, just pointing out that she was named.
AS an ASW I would be named. I have always had the fear of making a mistake and then being hung out to dry by local authority.Becasue in my experience it is usually the practitioners that lose their jobs not managers. Which I can assure you is what a lot of social workers worry about.
Management's not picnic as well I can tell you.

You mention this Satantic abuse scandal, well, I have no way of knowing if what you are saying is true, where you get your sources, I just don't know. Even if its the worse traversty ever, it is one local authority, one case, so you can't judge a whole profession on it. Do you take that approach with other professions?
Remember that only clients/service users are able to comment on cases in public. They will go public if they are aggrieved, either because they are innocent or because they are angry. We are very limited in what we can say in defence, because of confidentiality issues. So you are only ever going to get one side of a story on lots of public cases.
I know you have strong views on this subject Caligua, so have your response by all means, but I really don't want to get into a heated debate. So I will try not to keep going with this one, I will only get upset, and I don't need that right now.

Fair enough Overrun, the info about the SW's who were promoted came from that TV programme the BBC did about the case a couple of months ago.

The Satanic abuse thing wasn't just one case, was it, it was the fact that these people were allowed to go on and have more power within the profession (in a different area) - surely there's something structurally wrong with the way things are, when that can happen?

I take your point about confidentiality, but that's what this article is saying - how damaging that confidentiality thing is and how easy it is to use it to perpetrate a cover up.

Re the Victoria Climbie thing, I seem to remember that the SW in question was completely scapegoated and she took her employers to court. I can't remember the outcome though.

Its deffinately a fine line.
Intervene and be accused of "taking innocent kids" or stay at a distance and end up with more tragedies like "Toni Ann Byfield" and the hundreds of other "social services failed to protect ..." stories the press loves so much.

Dont get me wrong, the thought that SS could snatch away my DD when I took her to A&E with handprints on her legs (turned out to be jelly die but I didnt know that at the time, thought someone at nursery had hurt her) scared the living daylights out of me, especially as there were about 10 different docs and nurses and special "child support" staff coming in and out but...

I do think the media hype things up and try to make things look 10x worse. As someone else stated, because of confidentiality in the cases themselves SS cant step up and defend their actions especially where minors are concerned so its impossible to know how much of the media reports are even true. They are increadibly biased.