Chilling story about child (allegedly) wrongly taken into care.

[Callisto]

It is from the Mail I'm afraid, but there are quotes from the couples MP which seems to add weight to the story.

Article here.

GBaF I am so sorry for your experiences.

I am also left with the consequences of SW making unfathomable decisions and I wonder how they would feel if it was their child.

I think the SS need people like me to advise them as we know what things are like when people make certain decisions. Not that it will ever happen. When I heard about Baby P I emailed to offer any help I could to anyone who needed it and I got a standard reply saying if I wanted to be a social worker I needed a degree.

My sil is drinking,smoking dope and now taking coke around her kids but ss won't do anything to her it doesn't make any sense.

SS just want to be controlling arseholes, they don't do what's right for the child, they do what they think makes them look better, and when they get proven rong they refuse to admit it and try hiding the evidence, in this case by getting rid of the child.

I hate SS. My Nan spend years trying to adopt her foster daughter, finally has guardianship of her but that was after they tried to take the child without informing my grandparents (she was supposed to be at my great aunt's house, though due to last minute changes she had to be placed with my mother during a court ruling, the court found out what was happening and got furious), they tried to use bogus 'expert' reports to prove that she'd be better off without my family, completely ignoring the reports saying that the removal of the child would be detrimental to her health, they claimed that my family wouldn't support my grandparents, and then when they got full, written support from each of their children and most of their legible grandkids, SS claimed that the man who was to take the child in if the worst happens (my uncle) could not possibly do so, because his girlfriend had a disabled child and they couldn't look after two disabled children! Loads more of it but ergh.

SS disgust me.

I'm going to respond to OP first then I have a point to make but feel that comes in second

It's bloody awful when things like this happen . I;ve tried to find help for people on here before in a similar (claimed, you have to accept face value soemtimes) situation and its incredible how hard it is to access. There needs to be some end to the sdecrecy- I know there's a lot of debate on both sides but there has to be some changes to the system soon, every family is a family too much!

I do wonder

Maybe the sopcial services would have more kindly dedicated workers (I know some darlings, there are two on here at elast) if people didnt make comments like the SS one at the start of this?

Case in point- I've given up te idea of working for the social services becuase of the sheer amounts of negative comments I received.

Now that isn't goping to be just one person is it?

Anyone thinking I am a controlling arsehole can do a search on many years of posts on here- I am a caring person who knows how hard it is to have disabled children, be poor etc- first hand.

OK soapbox over

What gets me is the wrong, imo+e, decisions they made 30 odd years ago they are still appearing to make now.

Peachy - I completely take your point that there are good social workers, though they seem to be in the minority. Unfortunately there is a terrible lack of funding and social worker vacancies are currently running at something like 20-30%. However, there also seems to be a certain social worker mentality that parents don't ever know what is best for their children (unless they are addicts of some kind, in which case it seems it is always in the childs interests to stay with the parents) and absolutely no transparency of actual procedures. That a seige mentality exists within SS is no suprise, but I feel that it is the fault of the service rather than the fault of some very scared parents and carers. I know that I'm not the only person on MN who would run like hell if I suspected SS wanted to have anything to do with my child. It is our perception that SS are not on the side of the family ever.

Hi.
I work in Social Services. I am not qualified but would be if it wasn't so expensive. I work with social workers and do a social work job with 16-21 year olds in and leaving care. All of them have been removed from dangerous situations.
To call social workers 'controlling arseholes' is unbelievably offensive. I really can't be bothered to detail experiences that I have had in family courts but I have never seen SS try to remove a child without serious, serious concerns, and after a lot of effort to get the parents to change first.
There are countless stories like this in the media and SS can never respond so we will never know the truth. I find it very difficult to imagine children being wrongly removed on the stupid grounds that are described here - maybe because I work in an excellent LA with a very high standard of SW, supervision and management. I couldn't say it doesn't happen but this article does not prove anything. the MP has no more information than you or I and professionals always disagree. The most serious allegation is that SS 'mismanaged' the case which does not mean that they were wrong, but that it was badly managed.

I am truly sorry for people's terrible personal experiences of SS and SWs. Believe me that a lot of the 'old school' SWs were dreadful and very judgemental. They are either dropping out of SW or having a lot of retraining as things change.

But not enough is changing, is it?

A basic common sense seems lacking in some cases.

I disagree - as I said, the quality of SWs I come into contact with is overwhelmingly high.

lucky you

What is that supposed to mean? I'm offering an opinion based on my experience and you are sarcastic. Fine. Why don't you try taking your blinkers off?

Perhaps that common sense is alcking in mahy, yes. And absolutely many are ripped off by sSas a reslt often of funding- i've experienced that myself, as a aprent of 2 disabled kids who cant even get assessed let alone any help.

It's the system that needs changing though- training especially.

A friend had to withdraw not becuase she was unsuitable- she wasn't, 5 kids inc. 1 asd herself, years working for crossroads etc- but ecuase the degree wouldn't be flexible about hours ever and were happier to lose her than help her find a placement in our city.

The only thing putting me off is peoples reaction- after being called names for even contemplating training wondered if the boys could handle any resultant flak and decided no. I'd have been good, i used to work for homestart in a role that often meant working with SW's, but when I get called an effing itch for thinking about it (in front of the boys) you have to wonder don't you? (Am revuisiting the idea of teaching instead)

Other professions have realised that in order to get the best- and in this sort of job its often people with real experience of life- people for the job you have to be flexible. but thats simply not being refected in training, esp.locally. And whilst I ahve a DH who will be about a lot for childcare (also a student, very different subject) when I am doing my postgrad, many don't

Sarcasm? No, just pleased that everything is rosy in your world.

I do not have blinkers on. I have real life experiences caused by people in your profession being shite, so yes, I can give my opinion too.

Yes - and it's expensive and leads to a lifetime of pretty crappy pay compared to other professions with a similar level of training.

Please reconsider. You sound like you would be great.

"Believe me that a lot of the 'old school' SWs were dreadful and very judgemental. They are either dropping out of SW or having a lot of retraining as things change."

But they should be fired shouldn't they ?

If I was bad at my job I'd be given three chances to myself out and if I didn't I'd be out the door, I know from my friend that SW play the system and go off with stress regularly which makes keeping track of disciplinary procedures difficult and throughout any action being taken they are still allowed and trusted in their judgmental life ruining decisions.
And here you are deciding somebody sounds like a great potential SW on an internet forum, she could be a serial killer for all you know but you like the sound of her so she's ok. Just like my friend, far too keep to put people into the good and bad categories.

They do actually check you know LOL, am no serial killer (and actually know people on here though I suppose if I were a serial killer even dh wouldnt know)

All you can do is assess the info in front of you and suggest people go for things after all.

And actually I WOULD be a good SW, I now that from RL.

Should people be automatically dismissed? sometimes but if retraining allows them to improve- given the amount of training and investment in them- then it has to be worth considering doesn't it? I mean in all jobs there is a warning ssytem, better training is given after first issue than just left until warning and sacked.

Attacking kat btw is unfair, she has done nothing wrong but sadly THAT is why I decided not to do it. But hey that's OK coz this serial killer may end up teaching your kids RE. I may even be volunteering with your kids, or have done in the past (there is one Mum on MN who knows me that way) RIGHT NOW

Go on- RUN

I think if you're not prepared for people to hate you for the job you do, then it's probably best not to become a social worker (or traffic warden). Both do important jobs, but people are rarely going to welcome social services into their lives.

Even if they didn't do some of their most damaging work without any external scrutiny at all, people would be wary of social workers.

Under current circumstances, of course people will be suspcious, distrustful and quick to lash out.

Imagine if traffic wardens had the power to take away your car and you were not allowed to tell anyone at all that it was happening and the hearing took place in a secret court... People would be furious at the very idea of it, and most people love their children a great deal more than their car.

I really don't think it's reasonable to ask people not to be critical of social workers. Part of the problem here is that they operate with far too little critical oversight. Until that changes, people are not being stupid to consider them with hostility and suspicion.

And as for "they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't" argument that is always trotted out to excuse taking children away from homes where they weren't actually in any serious danger - no, sorry. That's your job - to make the right call.

It is never OK to remove a child from a happy home, and everything must be done to make sure that it never happens. You don't get a free pass just because your other colleagues were shite in another way and left Baby P and Victorial Climbié to their sad fates.

Personally I think it should not be legally possible for children to be permanently removed (i.e. adopted) from parents who still want them. That at least would stop the (so-called) permanent hurt that is caused in cases where children need not have been taken but where it is deemed somehow impossible to return them to the parents they knew and loved.

So much frightening magical thinking always seems to come out from people who work with or for SS on these threads - you saw it here earlier "oh, well the fact that your children weren't taken just proves that the system works", the reverse of which is "if you're children had been taken it would just prove that the system works and you were a shit parent", which we saw with the attempts to smear the father in the case in question as being mentally ill (as though that is a reason to permanently remove his child from his care).

I'm not attacking kat.

I object to her tone in relation to what I have posted.

Ah now clients I dont mind, my sister / friends etc OTOH is a very different kettle of fish, people who have had no dealings with SW whatsoever

which I guess is what makes me - if I had done something to upset them I'd get it.

I ahve recommended for kids to be removed from homes where they are wanted and beleive it was right, aprents may want but if at 3am 6 year old kid* is wandering streets because Mum is shooting up and / or drunk then aprents concerns are very least important I think.

*Not actual scenario in my case.

I'd be more prepared to believe that all SWs are excellent and no mistakes are ever made these days if the profession had ever owned up to previous scandals. Yet the Rochdale social workers are STILL working - people who were shown on their own CCTV recordings tormenting children and co-ercing them into making false allegations (of satanic abuse - remember that?).

Those children are now adults - they have spoken out about what happened to them, but no-one in authority gives a toss. Nothing has been done to stop the same thing happening again, under a different label.

And Lord Laming is regularly called in to advise governments when there are SS fuck-ups - despite his key part in the Islington childrens' homes child abuse scandal (refusal to take appropriate action). His failure to act involved the family of Baby P when the mother was a girl - maybe, just maybe, if he had done his job rather than covering up for Margaret Hodge, the poor child would have grown up in a functional family.

Lots of the big bosses responsible for the department involved in the Climbie case were actually promoted, some to positions of national significance, while the overworked junior SW was hung out to dry.

In that context, I find it impossible to trust the system. There are, of course, good social workers and well-run departments, but there are also bad SWs, bad depts and systemic problems running through the whole system.

I don't think children should be left with parents that are seriously neglectful. I just don't think the state should be allowed to take a decision to remove them on a permanent basis.

The junkie mother might quit, the battered mother might eventually leave her abuser.

And on the other side, like with execution, the consequences are too final and too dire to be tolerated when (inevitably) mistakes are made.

As for people with no dealings with SS - I think a lot of that has to do with suspicions that have arisen because of the secrecy involved in family court. People hear stories like the one referred to here and they are terrified that they could end up in that situation. No amount of assurances are going to work if they are not allowed to know what goes on. It's a terrifying prospect that you could permantently lose your chidren while you were helpless to stop it.

Of course the tabloids will exploit people's fear to sell papers, but in this case they've got a story of a child being permanently removed from parents who want her even though an expert in the field thinks the case has been mishandled. People are bound to wonder how such a major decision can be made if there is doubt from a professional involved that it is the right one. How could they not?

The blithe assurances from the people who work in SS that "professionals disagree" and that therefore those disagreements can be overlooked just emphasises the point that there seems to be a culture of making an early decision and sticking to it no matter what evidence comes to light later.

absolutely there are Edam, no question

ANyone who claim ANY profession is staffed all by good people is talking out of their arse though aren't they?

But equally so is anyonew who says ALL SW's are crap evil child snatchers

but you now after considering this thread on walk to Cubs in pouring rain (grrrrr) I decided I will reconsider applying

I'd be a great SW

I will apply for both Post grads and see which one I like best at interview (it's always been 50 /50 since I was about 18 which I do).

Because anyone who assumes I am a child santcher / fuckwit / bitch absed on their experience of anyone else is not my problem

My problem is knowing that I can do something to help kids out there who are being held as victims and that i will give my all to do that

I know what its like to experience mental health issues (partner not me), disability, poverty and be brought up on a shit council estate

I know from working with homestart that a great many aprents can be excellent with the right support and that must be a priority to get that in palce

But I also know that some are never going to cut it- and thats aying they want their kid is not the point if they allow child to be at severe risk, harm them or allow their violent boyfriend to beat them up in front of the child and- xcrucially- refuse to do anything about it

If people want to swear at me about taht Ok. I fpeople want to swear at me in front of my kids well that automatically proves they're the fuckup doesn't it?

Perhaps I just need the confidence to say fuck off to them without worrying waht they think secure in the knowledge that I am never going to do anything other than my best for kids whatever job route I take

'I don't think children should be left with parents that are seriously neglectful. I just don't think the state should be allowed to take a decision to remove them on a permanent basis'

ah now that I thinkI agree qwth, though can also see arguments in favour of stability through adoption

it's a complex balancing act though I do believe that never ever should adoptions be seen through if aprents are still fighting in any way which would prevent a good deal of these terrible cases

"I fpeople want to swear at me in front of my kids well that automatically proves they're the fuckup doesn't it?"

Erm... no?

You're kind of proving Apple's poing earlier about a wish to divide the world into the good people who live right and the fuck ups.

"secure in the knowledge that I am never going to do anything other than my best for kids whatever job route I take"

I think to be a good child social worker you need to not be secure in the knowledge that you are always doing things in the best interest of the kids.

You need to be able to interrogate yourself and be honest if there are times you're actually allowing your own biases or preferences to colour the way you're seeing a complex and emotional situation.

Because no matter how good your are, or how much you care, you are fallible, you have your own experiences that colour how you see things, and you will sometimes get things wrong, even when you mean well.

Self-doubt is crucial in a position like this. Somehow it has to live side-by-side with self-confidence.

Certainty in your own goodness is a very dangerous (and intoxicating) influence.

No

secure in the knowledge that I am always doing my best FOR the kids

if you dont beleive what you are doing is for the best you need to seriosuly worry, that doesnt preclude reflection and consideration in any way whatsover.

AS for the swearing- yes sorry but anyone who is willing to swear at me in front of my kids is outside my remit of worry. I absolutely beleive that. Swear at me if you want but my children should be exempt. they are after all small (and indeed disabled in 2 cases)

I have plenty of self doubt I can assure you (a large part of why its taken me until 36 to getb this far) however I do not doubt my best intentions one bit, or my ability to make a decent edcision. I do not either doubt my fallability God knows, I wish it were otherwise! but tahst hman, and SS needs humans not state machines. Empathy and conviction