Yet another baby wrongly taken away

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

here
Thank God it was only for 2 weeks.
The bit that makes me mad is the way depression seems to count as a big black mark against you. I wonder how justified that is - what proportion of depressed mothers really harm their children?

Retiredgoth2. please don't imply that they are wankers. My mum was one and a very good one for many years - working with children and then the elderly.

It makes me very cross when the whole profession is judged on a few cases.

Contrast this thread with what people said on Baby P thread.........damned if they do, damned if they don't.

See, this is part of the problem, people like kat say things like 'that's not how it works' and 'I know the system' and steadfastly refuse to entertain even the notion that there are huge mistakes made and it's not unique.

Imagine dealing with such intrinsic stubbornness if it's your child who's been removed and you can sort of imagine what these parents are up against.

It's like a whole system dotted through with Roy Meadowses.

Look mistakes are made BUT for a child even to have been on the child protection register (prior to this injury even) there would have had to be strong evidence that this was a child at risk of serious harm.

I don't know what happened in this case but it's a bit much for the press to complain if agencies are over zealous when a matter of a few weeks ago they (inc the Mail) were calling for all kinds of statutory and intrusive checks on children regardless of family history.

people like kat?

are you comparing me to roy meadows?????

that's not how it works. In the local authority I work for it would not be possible for a baby to be removed because of a bump to the head, or depression in the mother. The process is too long, too involved, and not to mention you have to persuade the family court judges to grant the order - it's not down to SSD. I know that family courts are secret but I don't know if you have ever attended a care order or adoption hearing - judges do not grant them willy nilly. You also have a guardian ad litem to ensure the child's needs are kept in the forefront of the decision making process.

I fully admit that mistakes are made, and the are usually in the order of baby P, not the other way round. And this particular story is bullshit, but you won't ever hear the whole story as 1- SS can't discuss it and 2 - it wouldn't fit the Mail's agenda.

Also - re depression. Research has shown that children are more at risk from abuse or neglect where there are certain factors. Mental health is one of them. Like it or lump it - it is a fact.

"Look mistakes are made BUT for a child even to have been on the child protection register (prior to this injury even) there would have had to be strong evidence that this was a child at risk of serious harm."

That isn't true, it may be where you live/work? but not everywhere, i know this for fact too.

I beg to differ Tamarto but there is a legal process to go through before a child is placed on the child protection register. Look at the Every Child Matters website where it outlines the process.

It is the law in the UK so it does apply everywhere.

Strong evidence is very subjective though isn't it.

You can beg to differ all you like but i know there doesn't always have to be strong evidence to have a child put on the register.

IME there has to be general agreement by the child protection conference that the child is at significant risk of continuing harm.

Yes there is a degree of subjectivity in all of this which is why there are various professionals involved. IME the thresholds are quite high which is why some children are not protected and are killed or injured further.

Reshearch has shown a lot of things.

Research had show there is a link with MMR and Autism.

That was in response to fifitot.

Damned when they do and damned when they don't. FFS who would want to be a SW . Threads like this irritate the fuck out of me tbh. A load of women who don't know the facts criticising SWs based upon a story printed in the bloody Daily Mail which isn't exactly known for it's balanced reporting.

Lets get real here - or if you think the decisions are so black and white then get training to become a SW in child protection - believe me you'd rapidly get the reality check some of you seem to need. Most SWs in this field don't last 3 years thanks to the stress and the poor press they receive.

Exactly in your experience, but IME there are occasions where the thresholds are ridiculously low. So you can't know for definite what the reasons were.

Jollypirate - Actually i think most people on this thread acknowledge how hard it is for social workers but that the system is flawed.

I think if a court is faced with an emmergency application for an order and it is fasced with 'evidence' from a Dr saying the child has fresh non-accidental injuries and that child is already on the CPR then it's a no brainer.
It has to err on the side of protecting that child, whatever that takes, while the investigation is on-going.
Yes, when it turns out there's a mistake it is terrible but surely much much better than allowing the possiblity of a child to remain with a potentially abusive parent?

What is your evidence for this then? The thresholds don't vary, they are set and are pretty much the same across the UK.

What is your experience? Have you sat on alot of case conferences or been involved in legal decisions on children's welfare? I have and have never come across a situation where a child was registered where there was not a good deal of evidence around the risk to that child.

BTW LynetteScavo - there is reams and reams of evidence which has a strong base. Google it all if you can be arsed. This contrasts with the very limited and discredited research into mmr and autism which has a limited evidential base.

And I see the calls on here for residential placements while the investigations are on going but, frankly, there are hardly any and you have to fight like tooth and nail for them. And of course get the enormous funding needed.
It would be more usual for a child to be placed with a relative...don't know why that didn't happen here.

Once again, it's the doctor who makes a silly mistake- and the social services who end up in the headlines. Why is everything always their fault? And why can't doctors learn to google?

Although the adoption targets and specific funds were scrapped from 1st April 2008 Ofsted are still putting pressure on to increase adoptions.

The adoption targets were changed in 2006 to include special guardianships.

There are so many problems with the system that I hope to fill a 2 hour inteview with Edge TV on Monday.

johnhemming, thanks for clarifying about adoption targets.

Is this interview to be broadcast on Monday or just recorded?

How do you reconcile the fact that social workers on this thread say that procedures do not allow children to be removed on a whim and that is not their experience where they work, against the negative press reports to the contrary? Are the bulk of abuses coming out of a few boroughs, or do they cut across the board?

Just want to offer some support to kat. There are mistakes made in all areas of work, and a few idiots in every profession, but this country's routine slagging off of social workers is really depressing. Child protection is fantastically hard to get right - we expect SWs to exercise the judgment of Solomon while having to work in situations where they are truly vulnerable (go into the home of a violent family and discuss how they might be damaging their child? You'd have to pay me three times as much as we pay social workers) and then we call the whole profession wankers when things go wrong. Personally, I'm amazed that there are so many good, committed social workers out there, trying to patch up the casualties of our damaged society. By all means let's discuss how the child protection system should be improved, but to pretend the problem is about evil SWs noseying around for opportunities to snatch children from their innocent parents (in order to meet targets, fgs) is just facile.

what are special guardianships?