Guilty of child abuse! (Well, our version.)

[Upwind]

From the times:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article2310550.ece

'?Emotional abuse? has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse, compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and ?neglect? � which replaced the old notion of ?grave concern? in 1989 � have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under ?emotional neglect?.'

.........................

'?You?ll know it when you see it � except that you can?t see it? is no way to make law. Abuse literature repeatedly states how often parent and child are unaware of the damage done by their relationship patterns. How do we weigh that damage against the trauma of the conveyor belt of foster care? In most such situations, isn?t removing a child utterly disproportionate?'

.........................

No doubt most social workers mean well and do a good job. But there will always be the occasional individual who will lack objectivity or kindness and they should not have such absolute power to decree emotional abuse and destroy a family. There is an urgent need for reform of the system so that these people are accountable and family court judgements can realistically be apealled.

that is terrifying
I would imagine very few of us are able to say we have never said anything that falls under

swearing?, ?conditional love? or ?discriminatory remarks?.

So you have people with serious mental health problems where local shopkeepers and truanting streetkids even know that someone is going to severely harm their young child (the Tricia Balthous murder) wh are deemed safe to care for their child.
In the case of babies surely monitoring her in a facility be it hospital or so on is in the babies best interests in at least teh short term.

It is the awfulness of a mother who is about to lose her baby despite no immediate risk to the infant, being unable to do anything about this.

If someone in this circumstance would have ground to seek asylum elsewhere? It seems horribly cruel, but of course we are not allowed to learn the truth!

Wasn't there a case recently where parents, whose children were taken from them and adopted because of an incorrect diagnosis trying to flee to Ireland to have a baby?

"No doubt most social workers mean well and do a good job. But there will always be the occasional individual who will lack objectivity or kindness and they should not have such absolute power to decree emotional abuse and destroy a family."

just a note to say no indivivdual social worker can effect such a decision - it needs backing inside their dept., and the exhorbitant cost of taking children into care, other than anything else considered, makes it an option visited only after a lengthy weighing up. IME.

Backing within a department is often based on the dynamics there and is not good enough.

The exorbitant cost is not bourne by the individuals making such decisions but rather by the taxpayer - and if the decision is inappropriate, by the children involved.

Why are our civil servants allowed to avoid accountability?

That's a pretty poor response Upwind, if you don't mind me saying. It reflects a little of the "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" experience many s.w. have.

And don't worry, civil servants such as s.w.s are 'held to account' regularly, not least by the media.

Thinking about it more - the absence of accountability makes it difficult for people to trust social workers and ask for their help/advice/support when struggling to cope.

Upwind, your right. They did come back to UK and spent months in a parent and baby unit. They got to keep him

I wouldnt want to comment on that story as I doubt the mental issue is the only concern but SW wouldnt be allowed to tell media what the concerns are. Im guessing that a lot of hisotry has happened and if court agreeed 2 removals there must be evidence. Court processes are long and indepth.

I work for ss and we arent allowed to record conversations with families without premission and never allowed to record a whole session either (something to do with some legal stuff) but never have recorded. I have known parents try and record a conversation with SW before, im sure its not the first case and wouldnt be the last.

Still cant believe that SW wouldnt let mum give breast milk, stupid man!

Lisa

"Why are our civil servants allowed to avoid accountability?"

Hardly the truth, SW have to explain every step they make to their manager,the court, the legal teams. I have seen SW ripped in court. You can only make decisons on the facts you recieve, and if you dont get the full facts or false ones, wrong decisons can be made, but hardly SW fault is it?

Lisa