'snatched' by social workers

[DuelingFanjo]

oh ffs

I know it's the Daily Mail but Social workers don't snatch children!

She looks good for 48 mind!

Ah, thank you my dear, I've been waiting for that

cory is mainly right. I have never said all decisions are bad. The figures from Birmingham indicate that only about 50% of practise is "poor" and around 10% is good.

There are two aspects of my initial post about the case today. One is the basic post that as a vindictive act two children aged 1 and 2 have been put into care.

I accept that others don't have the evidence and because the case is currently in the courts it will not get into the public domain in sufficient detail to prove anything.

However, the second point is my description of what happened as evil. I think it is evil. It is entirely possible for others to disagree that this happens, but to agree that it would be wrong if it did.

However, a lot of the vindictive retaliations that I see in individual cases are in my view evil.

I have said this publicly in the press
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/6146654/Uppity-parents-who-challenge-the-authorities-ris k-having-children-taken-away.html

The family concerned in this thread are unhappy that it was their attempt to seek help for their son that caused him to be taken into care.

The problem is that it is very difficult for us to judge that case from this newspaper report. We have no means of judging how likely it seemed to the doctors that this test might save a child from something potentially serious. I can imagine cases where refusing your child tests could be seen as child neglect- even if the test then proved negative, as long as there was a reasonable chance it would reveal something. But again, it could be a case of the doctor getting shirty with a non-cooperative patient.

Anyway, I don't see that the SWs are primarily to blame here.

We have been suspected of child abuse by a doctor and accused of neglecting our dd's education by her school, both due to issues rising from dd's chronic connective tissue condition. I know all about the fear that brings, and I don't feel we will ever get over that. But I would say in those cases, the people to blame were the doctors and teachers with over-vivid imaginations, not the SWs who (in the second instance) had to act on information they were given (they were never involved in the first).

Presumably, a doctor who wants parents punished for failure to cooperate is quite likely to twist the story he feeds the SWs? So they may well be acting in good faith. Even a judge and jury may be helpless when using information provided by a lying policeman: you wouldn't then blame the judge.

As there are SWs on this thread who feel very sensitive, I think you should make it clear when you are criticising their profession, when you are criticising other professionals, and when your criticism is against the system in general.

A person still be critical of John Hemming's comments here and be aware that there are some issues which need addressing in Social services.

JohnHemming is saying presenting cases he doesn't know enough about and making statements on specific cases in an attempt to use them to prove his point. People are criticising him for that and not all the people criticising him are social workers.

Should be "a person can still be critical*

I don' think the focus in all posts is turned on criticising John Hemming.

My point in the post above yours is that failures in child protection concern several professions. You yourself mention the Southall and Meadow cases and that proves my point: the error committed by SWs was to believe dodgy information provided by so-called medical experts- but then believing a doctor who is presented to you as a medical expert on a particular question is hardly professional misconduct.

It wasn't a SW who concocted the infamous?one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder"- rule. It wasn't a SW who claimed to be able to tell that a man had murdered his baby because he fitted a profile, without even checking if he had an alibi for the night in question.

The one redeeming feature is that both Southall and Meadow were struck off by the General Medical Council. But then again, the doctor involved in the Cleveland case (Marietta Higgs, the one with anal dilation) is still practising as a paediatrician, though I believe she has been banned from doing child abuse cases.

I don't understand that you say that policemen are questioned in court, as if this did not also involve SWs. Surely an SW giving evidence is questioned just like anybody else?

I quite agree that we should be addressing the real issues. But the real issues have to be accountability all round, making sure any professional who behaves unprofessionally is struck off, rather than closing in on just one profession.

Then again, it is very important not to be over-lenient because certain professions are adopting a stance of martyrdom and 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'.

The interesting thing though, is how people who have had involvement with social services feel about them.

I recently had cause to ask that question and the responses were about 75% that people had a bad time with SS, that they felt they could not be trusted, that they "went after them", that they were threatening rather than reassuring etc.

I don't understand why no-one is prepared to conceded that if the "clients" are on the whole petrified of SS, then whether that impression is "correct" or not, then SS have at the least a terribel image problem which can only act as a barrier to their work.

A few bad SW and a few stories of mistakes tarnish it for everyone. Then SW wonder why people are scared of them?

Yes you do have a point ISNT. Otoh people may have had awful experiences of members of other professions without judging the whole profession. As I think my previous posts have made clear, I have had some pretty ghastly experiences with the medical and teaching professions. But I still call a doctor when I need to, and my children still attend school, and I try to see each new professional I meet as an unwritten leaf.
And I don't suppose my stories will have influenced MNers not to seek medical advice when they need it.

I suppose part of it may be because most people don't ask to see social workers (though some do), so they feel like more of an intrusion.

The problem is that SW have a power that no-one else does - the power to remove children, to take your children away, which is every parents worst nightmare.

The police can have a go at you, but usually don't unless you have done something quite badly wrong. Doctors can cock things up for your health but you can ask to see another doctor, get a second opinion, there is a complaint pathway. Teachers can make life a bit difficult, inconvenient and stressful. But only social workers can take your children away.

Yes, I see what you mean dittany, but I still think the onus in the Southall/Meadow cases must lie with the doctors themselves, who were in the best position to know their limitations. To some extent also with their colleagues. They should have known what was going on- why did nobody shop them?

JH - I think this time you have finally exposed yourself (as others have said here) for the fanatical unbalanced person that you actually are, and yes I agree your actions are driven by some personal vendetta. You actually alluded to this recently but have backtracked now.

The people I feel most sorry for are the parents who are caught up in care proceedings and who turn to you for help. People in this situation need clear, accurate information and advice, presented to them in an understandable way, and the services of a good lawyer on the children's panel. What they DON'T need is some misguided MP, fuelling their irrational anger and protesting their innocence and building false hopes that by his outrage and rhetoric that he can somehow assist them.

Yes myself and colleagues who looked at the posts by JH on my computer (they are no MN members) were so incensed that we agreed to contact Nick Clegg but through pressure of work we didn't get around to doing it. However I don't think any self respecting social worker can now stand by and let him carry on in this reckless, irresponsible manner.

I appreciate that MPs are elected or not by the electorate as someone has pointed out but I cannot imagine that the leader of the LibDems would not be concerned about the scurrilous lies and complete nonsense that JH posts on here and writes in the press. Anyway it is time this matter was brought to his attention and it is for him to decide. I suspect he may already know as I am aware that there have been numerous complaints made about JH by members of Birmingham City Council. Spero gives an account of another problem JH has had in the courts and I am more or less sure that this is by no means a "one-off" so maybe something can be done about him.

SO Spero has provided an e mail address - anyone else willing to get together on this, WahWah, Staggerlee, STGr's mom etc ? As for all you posters who know absolutely nothing about child protection procedures and yet have the arrogance to think you are in a position to criticise and tell others how it should be done, you are not worththy of any response as far as I'm concerned.

Can't recall who asked why social workers can know that other social worker in other areas are not making mistakes. NO of course we cannot be certain of this and no social worker has ever said mistakes aren't made. What we are saying is that it simply isn't possible to "snatch children" and get them adopted. BUT what this poster doesn't realise is that the court procedures following children being removed are exactly the same throughout the country and all the same procedures will be followed through the lengthy court process. On another thread I posted 10 steps of what actually has to happen before and after a child is removed, but JH and his supporters made no comment - no surprise there as it didn't fit in with this nonsensical hypothesis about "snatching children"

I am shocked and very disturbed by the bullying nature of SWs on this thread. Everyone who has expressed concerns about the system, including JH, has said that the vast majority of SWs do a very good job in very difficult circumstances. But just the mere mention of of criticism sends some of you into apoplectic rage. I would never have believed that SWs were capable of malicious retaliation and abusing their powers until I read posts by NanaNina and Spero. Now I do believe it. You would like to destroy JH's career if you could. If some things he says are inaccurate, then counter those inaccuracies, but can you not say by threatening him and insulting him repeatedly you do your own argument a huge disservice.

can you not see, not say.

Nana I think you are showing yourself to be a bully, anyone who holds a different view from you should be ganged up on a silenced, is that how it works ?
I'd like to think that Whah and the other respected SW's on this site would distance themselves from this, what ever you think of him JH is an elected MP.

So anyone, including journalists like Camilla Cavendish, who dares to express concern about the system , are beneath any response save contempt? I am utterly, utterly shocked by you NN.

Nana, Spero and any of those who seek to gag JH. This is a forum where everyone has a right to express a view. Even if it disagrees with yours. If you don't like that view, feel free to disagree. But don't bully, threaten, abuse or try to suggest that people don't have a right to express an opinion. That's the very nature of a democracy. If you don't like it, then find another forum - MN is proud to have debate and dissent, and most MNetters would hate to think that censorship of opinion happens here.

Wahwah,Ceres, Staggerlee - I think you will loose a lot of creditability of this forum if you get involved with this.

quote from NN about Camilla Cavendish

'She is a journalist, so why do you think there is any validity in what she says?'

I agree with poface. I think alot of people have a reasonable respect for sw's and do not make silly outlandish comments. but we are given no respect at all.
We don't even warrant a response ? how can that be right ?

A very balanced post SGM. I agree it is not a choice between one or the other. I think JH's interest may have been sparked by a personal experience, but I don't think he is motivated by a personal vendetta. If he believes those who come to him for help first hand that does not make him a liar. It is very hard to pick out the truth in all of this. However if I am judging just on posts by NN and JH, one has been calm and polite throughout, one has been threatening and bullying. As I said if there are inaccuracies in things that JH says, then of course it is fair to point them out. But just to say' that is rubbish and you are a tool and I am going to get you fired' over and over again is not going to really help.