Calling social workers...

[edam]

inspired by somethihng WWW said on the Fran Lyon thread...

Do you think that it is possible that social workers sometimes make mistakes?

You appear to be trying to change the parameters of the discussion LaDiDaDi. Nobody is criticising investigations, we are talking about removals. Why are you trying to change the subject? The point is that Mamazon was saying that it was better to remove a child where there was only a risk to supposedly save it from harm, totally ignoring that the act of taking a child from its parents and putting it into care is harmful in itself.

And I didn't say his violence was acceptable I just pointed out that the provocation was extreme. If his child hadn't been taken away and then treated roughly in front of him he'd probably have gone through life never punching any pregnant women. It had nothing to do with the woman's status as a social worker and everything to do with the way the child was being treated by her and her colleague and the circumstances surrounding them being able to act in that manner towards a child.

Hello,

In all seriousness, what could I do to show that I am not witholding information? I can't release documents which identify others - I'm not allowed. Everything else has been released.

I take your points of course, that there is always the doubt and the worry that all the information is not present. The argument that that must be the case though seems to run counter to the premise of this thread which is that things which "must be" are not always so - mistakes do happen.

Somewhere I saw a reference to a judge having to have been involved in this decision. No judge, or judicial process, is involved until Molly is born. So far as I'm concerned I believe that to be a fundamental flaw in the system - there is no judicial authority or supervision for these "pre-birth" cases.

Thanks,

Fran

Fran I wasn't remotely suggesting that you were withholding information, I don't want to add to your stress by suggesting so. I hope your moving is seen as a golden opportunity by the new social services department to decide to be sensible. Because they won't have made the original decisions I hope they will feel no responsibility for it and will be able to start from scratch and, hopefully, come to a different conclusion than the Hexham ss dept. It wouldn't be hard (to come to a different conclusion) by the sound of it.

how tfkingf anyone thinks a woman who has just given birth and is in a hospital could be physically capable of poisoning herself or her own breastmilk is just beyond me.

I'm with Elizabeth.

There's a disquieting little undercurrent here - a suggestion that The State is better placed to care for children than their parents Just In Case, where surely we've all read our Bowlby and know that children are best off with their families, supported where necessary, except in the absolute extreme.

And as Elizabeth says: removing a child from its family CERTAINLY causes harm. I see how SS might get to that as the only way they can imagine of preventing known abuse, but surely there are a zillion avenues of support for the family to stay as a unit which have to have been exhausted before this ghastly option is selected?

Elizabetth, I was trying to highlight the guidance for healthcare professionals in dealing with possible child abuse that may well lead to social services receiving more referrals with child protection concerns. Clearly this is intended to ensure that children who are vulnerable don't slip through the net but it will also have the effect of the families of children who are not being harmed being investigated.

Whilst you may want to talk about removals only, and I wouldn't criticise you for doing so, I also think that it's useful to consider the underlying thinking behind the increase in child protection referrals.

Poor little Victoria Climbie was failed so badly by every sodding professional she ever came into contact with. And now in death she is being used as an excuse for all sorts of wrong-doing. Instead of taking some responsibility for professional failures, those in charge lash out at the people they serve.

The only professional who suffered any consequences from allowing Victoria to be tortured to death was the very junior social worker who was hung out to dry - her bosses were actually promoted, FGS.

On a personal note- it's because of the heavy handed approach of the Ss that many cases of neglect/possible abuse are NOT reported at the ealiest opportunity because of the general feelling that it is "opening a can of worms" there is a need for professionals to be able to express concern for vulnerable families without going the whole hg of referring to child protection.

There has GOT to be more sharing of information between different disciplines to ensure no-one slips through the net.

BB, do you mean as a professional you fear passing on any concerns to SS because they may go in all guns blazing? Because that echos what I was told by a very, very, senior doctor who had seen a bizarre SS witch-hunt against one of his patients...

"Whilst you may want to talk about removals only, and I wouldn't criticise you for doing so, I also think that it's useful to consider the underlying thinking behind the increase in child protection referrals."

Go ahead, but I think you may be having that conversation with yourself.

As I was saying Mamazon's statement that "just in case" was a good enough reason to remove a child to care when that will definitely damage it is very disturbing example of how social workers appear to think at the moment.

I'm beginning to wonder if social services wouldn't be better trying to support families rather than use this adversarial system that sets parents against children.

Elizabeth social services do work on a policy of help in order to keep a child with its oparents until there is evedence that this will not work.

i speak generaly and i keep being drawn back to a discusssion about FL. as i have said time and time again i cannot comment on a specific case as i have not got teh details.

I have also stated that my own social work experince is within the field of youth justice. i do not work in child protection or within teh families field. i would have np bearing in a case of a child being placed in care, unless i was working with that child as part of a court order.

I have given my opinion, it is not the opinion of social workers generally it is not a position statement of the GSCC it is my own, personal opinion.

i have reached that opinion through years of working with children who have suffered abuse and from having a child adopted into my family after being fostered by my family having suffered at the hands of a mother who suffered from the then described MSbP.

SW's arent the evil numpty's - the powers that be that sort the funding are!
Therefore as for 'opening a can of worms' in our area, no funding = no bed spaces = no removal of children. Very frustrating for those that are in serious need. If only they would go in all guns blazing......

Also work in YOT Mamazon - and have to add a about the whole thing

"just in case" is indeed very worrying. Because the care system is such an appalling parent. Children in care generally end up in prison/sectioned/pregnant as teenagers. You have to be very, very lucky to come out with any qualifications, let alone unscathed.

My godmother was an eminent social worker in her day (she's now in her late 80s). And she is horrified by what she sees today.

So how does a system that tries to help children stay with their families end up determined to take an unborn child from its first-time mother, then?

I can see how it might be the case for a raddled drug addict who lives a chaotic life and can't get it together in any shape or form. But not a woman who holds down a decent job and whose colleagues and friends clearly think she's a normal human being...

Yes Edam I have had a potential child protection issue (cocerns raised by staff) & thought long & hard about the implications. luckily I was able to get hold of the relevant HV who was VERY supportive & gave the family a lot of attention & guidance & it resolved without going the whole nine yards. She is also keeping a close eye on them & will refer immediately if there are any further concerns. There is no mechanism for non-NHS individuals to flag up concerns &/or ask advice other than "off record" without starting a whole Child protection bandwagon going.

I haven't seen anybody asking you to comment on the Fran Lyon case Mamazon, although you actually have, saying that there must be more to it that Fran is saying and that you believe that social workers are making the right decision.

I know you've said that "just in case" is your own personal opinion but from what we've seen and heard a number of other social workers share that attitude.

i have no idea. obviously there are pieces of information we are not beng given here, which is why i do not wish to be the social workers spokesperson on these threads.

i am happy to give my personal opinion, im happy to tell you how policy and procedure goes along but i cannot comment on a case thati have not worked on. i have only the information you have.

???? It's not like Sw's are Police Officers Kerrymum

yes your right there are some in the job that shouldnt be.

but there really isnt that much power that a single SW can wield.
any big decisions will need to be signed off by a superior.

Being able to remove a child from its parents is an enormous amount of power. You can literally destroy someone's life (and their child's life) doing that.

Even prisoners get to keep their families if their families want to stick by them.

I would say that even being able to recommend that a child is removed from its parents IS an ENORMOUS amount of power. Of course it is.

Mamazon of course a superior would sign of such an action.

But if a junior social worker had got all the "facts" stacked up in such a way as to present a case as so serious, then the supervisor isn't going to unravel all the threads to check for factual & thorough evidence is she/he? They haven't the time or resources.

Yeah, it's like the line that 'oh, it's the courts who make the decision, not the SWs'. And who makes the case for removal to the courts? And how often have courts turned down a SS request for removal/adoption against the parent's wishes?

A few decades ago society used to force unmarried mothers to hand their babies over - the penalty imposed for daring to transgress social norms. There's a huge amount of personal testimony and evidence that it caused a massive amount of harm. Now we allow unmarried mothers to keep their babies but have found a new group to target...

I have been speaking to a couple of old colleagues today actualy and i brought Fl up.

we had avery lond talk about not just her case but teh way cases liek this are dealt with in general. i was glad to know they agreed with me as they are actually working with looked after children and children and families teams.

I SW will meet a family, do an assesment and then report back her findings to her supervising officer. the So will then decide if she agrees with the SW's conclusion and suggested actions.

in a great many cases the SO will read teh fiel and hand it back saying there needs more evedence, or that she disagrees totally and suggests something else.

it is also the case where a SW will find a family is managing ok and she will be overruled.
each team will have a clinical psycologuist assigned and that CP will have a much greater stauts placed upon their opinion.
one of my friends is dealing with a case where she feels a family of 3 children should remain together, the CP doesn't. despite her working with this family for almost a year and the CP jhaving seen them only one its teh CP's opinion that is counted.

so no actually SW do not have as much power as people think.