Social worker power

[Babyonboardinthesticks]

...needs to be curbed. Also if cases in the press there should be more rights for social workers to publicise their own evidence to some extent too. Openness is more important than confidentiality sometimes. Justice needing to be seen to be done as much as done.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7052599.ece

It feels at times like the book 1984. You suspect if the state really wants to take your children they could come into any of our homes and find anything that every average parent has done and claim that's "abuse" and remove the child and that once you're in their clutches that's that.

We should let parents waive anonymity and set up web sites with access to all correspondence and reports.

Ohh, forgot to say, goodnight.

"I have shitloads more experience of any of you lot of 'the system' "

Erm well I have now had 6 years of dealing with SS and will carry on having to deal with them until the day I die, so I feel somewhat qualified to have an opinion on how the system works (also happen to work with a few SW's)

Every child protection conference I've been at (and there have been many) has included reps from police, housing, education solicitors for all parties, guardians for the children, doctors, and others. As well as several sw. These decisions are not made solely by SWs with a ulterior motive. The ultimate decisions re a childs future are made in court by a judge with a the information from all parties at his disposal. SWs take so much crap I see it every day. Very few people could do the job they do so they shouldn't be so quick to judge. Some SWs I know have caseloads of 35 or more families. This is stupid it's no wonder mistakes are made. More funding is needed.

Oh yes, I remember that comment and have tried to track down the source of that information... I was reliably informed that working practices (not sure when) was that a social worker could foster a child for up to a year and would be paid a salary for doing this ( as fostering rules meant a carer had to be home with the child during non school hours- age dependent) hence the take a child from the kiddie pool comment.

Well if a social worker was so inclined and you'd hope some of them are given they must believe in their work, then it's not like there aren't enough children already in the pool for them to pick from.
I don't think they have the time or resources to find their ideal child, currently with loving parents and think I know I'll have that one for a year, surely that's not what you're suggesting ?

The more reports etc put in the public domain the better.

This is not a case of a child being taken away. It's an apparently vindictive nursery making a spurious complaint to get their own back, mother panics and disappears for 2 months, now back and child will stay with family (although perhaps not if not for the publicity which is the interesting bit, you never know) but subject to possible inspections but if those were the only reasons to investigate that does show the threshold is far far far too low to interfere and investigate family life.

I disagree the thresholds are too low, this particular one was just lacking in any sort of logic or common sense.

These decisions are not made solely by SWs
Actually at times decisions are made by the Social Workers against the majority of the conference. (There was an example of this in Norfolk.)

" this particular one was just lacking in any sort of logic or common sense. "

But it's not just this one and thats the problem.

No one is saying that there aren't good sw's doing good jobs but fgs there are also really bad ones doing really bad jobs, you look at the so called 'evidence' and you go WTF was this person on, and some of these cases get into court and some are rubber stamped by the judge, it happens and it's irreversable and lives are ruined.

It has to stop.

wahwah The journalist should not have a copy of the conference report and I am disgusted that she has.

And what is wrong with a journalist getting his facts right and being properly informed.

This demonstrates the need for greater transparency in the family courts.

I have an inbuilt sense of fear and hostility towards state care. Notwithstanding the cases of serious physical and emotional abuse. I think children are often better off with inadequate parents than in state care. I've read of cases on here of random neglect and rather hopeless parental care (which other posters have been concerned about and helped with) and each time I've thought they're still better off with their parents. Even if they smack, or swear at their children, or abandon them with relatives for days at a time. My relative (a social worker and very defensive of the profession) used to be on tribunals dealing with children's home abuse. And when you look at other forms of state care, the NHS, homes for the elderly the whole thing just fills me with dreadful concern for children in the system.

It's not that I don't think those families need support: but you can understand that fear of SS stops them asking for support.

That might dissipate with measures Xenia suggests. They might actually mean that people are less afraid of asking for help.

The more I think about this, I approve of the idea of reducing privacy.

I used to think I would be on a list somewhere, because of the two or three times I took my children to A and E out of panic over nothing maybe some fall or banged head. After each time would come the knock on the door and the check up: "just to make sure they're alright -- and shall we weigh him at the same time?" ie get all their clothes off and look for bruises.

I think the check ups were a good thing, but I remember feeling very frightened at the quiet and insistent power this smiling lady had. Another type of person might have stopped taking their children to A and E after an accident.

Reducing privacy and increasing information would ameliorate this situation.

Damned if they do - damned it they don't. Sigh..........

I've never known of any child being removed by a social worker and then going to live with them, it sounds entirely inappropriate. Social workers can foster or care for children in the same way as anyone else, there are no special measures or years off.

Re my comments on 'shitloads of experience', I really didn't want to come off as bad as that sounded, just to say from the perspective of an 'insider' things seemed odd and I have some experience to back that up at different levels.

Re the journalist having the conference report- it would be great if information led to accurate reporting, but I have read many poor and indifferent accounts which add nothing of value. In any case the journalist is not entitled to this information, however we feel, this is the child's life and should be respected. That doesn't mean I disagree with a wider public debate at all- I really think that is the way to go and as I've said, safeguard the child's privacy and I can't see any real objections.

Family court proceedings are private as they deal with a child's life.

As usual the reporting on the case is one sided. SS aren't allowed to comment on the specifics of a case for privacy reasons so to read something in the press and then think it gives a true and balanced picture is very naive.

"On balance I'd rather more children died at the hands of their parents then innocent parents had children removed from their care. Have we had that debate in the UK? It will always be a balance."

I am someone who has been suspected of child abuse and might well have had care proceedings instituted against my family. I still do not want any child to die at the hands of their parents. Dd may be slightly traumatised but she is still alive. And alive is not a bad thing to be.

Incidentally, my own experience was that when doctors and headteachers were making perfectly unfounded suggestions, the social workers were the ones that kept their head and calmed the situation down.

Btw in several of the well known abuse hysteria cases of the 80s and 90s, it was paediatricians who were the worst scaremongers. Remember the lady with the anal dilation fixation? Last time I checked, she was still working as a paediatrician- though apparently, she has been banned from doing child protection cases. Yet it's always the social workers who take the flak. Is it because of their lower social status? Or because we all need doctors so much that we are less willing to accept that some of them are actually, with the greatest respect, bonkers?

The problem that I have with it all is that there is no recourse, you have no power. You just have to toe the linem bite your tongue, do whatever you are told and hope they will go away.

My experience was that I had them called on me for totally spurious reasons.

The things that caused me a lot of anxiety were:

No-one explaining the process - what a visit means, do I go on a list, what are they looking for, what are their powers?

No-one there on our side. If you talk to the police you have a lawyer. Yet a SW comes into your home, they ask you all sorts of questions, you have no idea whether you are saying teh right things or what they want from you. You don't know by what criteria you are being judged.

They write a report and you have no right of return. Our report contains glaring inaccuracies - things that we did not say that make us sound awful. There is no opportunity to agree the notes, as there would be in any other sort of meeting. You don't have to sign them to say you agree or anything. Yet they are on our permanent record.

The fact that it took 2.5 months between seeing us and sending the report which said no further action. So 2.5 months of being worried sick what was going to happen next.

No-one has explained the ongoing repurcussions for our lives. Who is told that we have been seen by SS? Who does the report go to? If one of the children gets hurt and goes to hospital will it cause a red flag and SS called immediately? Will the school be told when my children start school? And so on. Basically I will have to spend my time looking over my shoulder until teh children are 16 - so nearly 2 decades of worry.

The otehr thing that was unprofessional was that she said she would contact GP and nursery and so I had to sit down with them and have excrutiating conversations to tell them to expect a call. She never called them.

Anyone who says "call SS where's the harm" should know that there is a harm, and it never goes away. Like a criminal record, it will stay with you forever.

There are international comparisons that have been done about how many children die from child abuse an neglect.

Unicef's report card on this found that the countries with the least interventionist systems (Ireland/Spain for example) had fewer deaths per capita.

The most aggressive child protection systems with forced adoption (UK/USA) had higher levels of child deaths.

I think the big difference arises from the attitudes of the system. In Spain, for example, the system works to try to keep families together. In England they bring out a big hammer and hit the family with it.

(the word "hammer" is a word suggested to me by a social worker)

I'msonottelling, you are entitled to know all that you are asking. I understand better than most the pressures on SWs that lead to delays and anxieties for people, but I would suggest that you speak to the Sw or their manager to understand where things are at for you. You shouldbe able to access information about initial and core assessments, ask under what basis their involvement was with you, have access to complaints etc and certainly comment on assessments including changing any inaccuracies. This is just usual practice and really should happen at the beginning rather than the end. Good luck in getting what you need.

All of these things should be explained to people at the beginning of the process though. Maybe a leaflet or a website. What will happen, what it is for, what the SW are looking for, what powers they have, what the right of recourse is.

The other thing with this is that people who have had experience with being involved with the authorities will know how to play the game better than people who have never been in trouble before, which surely is a concern. That the SW will end up concetrating on someone nice because she doesn't seem to be toeing the line (like many posters on here) while the ones who really are abusive cover it up as they know what to say and do.

Where things are at for us is that I have had a report through saying no further action at this time. That doesn't answer any of my questions though.

Why isn't there a leaflet or something - to tell people what it all means. Most people will not approach their SW and ask these questions are the general advice seems t be keep quiet and do what you're told, and don't question them. No way would I call them up now and ask these questions, why put myself back in the forefront of her mind.

As a general thing, why are people involved with SS not given full and complete information as to what it all means, what happens next, what the impact will be on their lives? At the moment people are left flailing around with no idea what it's all about.

You see posts on here all the time with people saying they are going to have one or another sort of assessment and asking what does that mean. Shouldn't people be told what it means before it happens to them.

I know the basis of their involvement - a helpline shopped me.

After they shopped me and the woman on the helpline told me that SS had the power to take my children, and was basically a total bitch. Then SW came and said that I had to engage with the organisation, and particularly with the woman who had shopped me in the first place. WHY? I told her that I didn't see how that would help as I didn't need any help anyway and if I did then they would be the last people I'd ask but she said that I had to as they were the best people.

So I went to see them once and it was bizarre and I haven't been back.

The orgainsation said I would have to keep seeing them "indefinitely", the SW said I had to do what the organisation said, I think it is bloody ridiculous and am not doing it, is anyone checking up on this? If so, will SW turn up on my doorstep again? If not, what was the point of telling me I had to do it?

I am not looking for answers to my specific story. I am raising these things as the only experience I have had of SS, and these experiences seem to chime with some others on here. I think the points raised are valid, that the system could run better and be more reassuring for people caught up in it.

I do know there are lots of people on here who have had good experiences, I am by no means saying that all SW are awful. But I do think that the system should be looked at as at the moment it is causing trauma and distess to many innocent people.