17 week pregnant - child in need meeting.

[bhammumx]

When I was around 6weeks pregnant me and my boyfriend had a verbal argument where I rang the police as he refused to leave my property.

I have then spoke to the social and they have spoken with my boyfriend. We didn’t hear anything for a while.

i am now 17 weeks pregnant and just received a phone call saying there will be a child in need meeting held next week with me , the social worker and midwifery.

has anyone been in this position before? What does this mean?
im scared and confused now as i dont want to loose my baby, we haven’t had any domestics before or since this one incident. No criminal record etc

@Karensalright this may come as a shock, but many women DO put their own needs ahead of their child. There are countless posts on Mumsnet, and many high profile cases where that’s exactly what’s gone on.

@Karensalright the SWs job is to keep the CHILD safe.

@bhammumx just to add, if you refuse a Child in Need meeting/plan (and, yes, it is ‘voluntary’) there is every likelihood of children’s services escalating to a S47 inquiry on the grounds of the concern of significant harm and with a view to taking you to an Initial Child Protection Conference and the possibility of your baby either being placed on the Child Protection Register or the LA beginning full care proceedings to have your baby removed. Honestly, a Child in Need meeting or plan is just an extra layer of support and could provide you with access to services that could really benefit you and your child.

The social workers role in this case is to keep the child safe. First and foremost. This is not a discussion about how DV victims are being failed by the system (which they undoubtedly are). That aside, you've been giving OP frankly incorrect information which simply is not helping her.

It is still referred to as a child in need meeting. It generally happens after a pre-birth assessment where a social worker thinks the child is not at immediate risk of significant harm when born but the family will need some extra help. If the social worker thinks there is a risk of significant harm, they would arrange a pre-birth child protection conference.

Contrary to what you have said a couple of times on this thread, these meetings are perfectly legal and any decisions taken have the same legal standing as decisions taken after the child is born.

@WinterMorn No they do not as a rule

Although i can agree to some extent where very young, and care leavers and severe mental health issues are involved.

But that is never teased apart properly, i have seen such variations in practice, where a child is left swinging in the wind in foster placements, where it was clear to me that mum could never successfully parent but proceedings were not issued .

To cases where assessments were so poor and did not take into account coercive control.

In the latter i would be called in to assess DV impact alongside, an independent social worker and clinical psychologist.

What pisses me of all the money spent on legal representation and experts would have been better spent on a parenting assessment centre. I believe they are now a rare service.

I accept social workers are over stressed, and under resourced, but i stand by what i said that putting a perp in the same room as a victim is wrong.

You should read Evan Stark on coercive control a worthy book that sits it all out.

I have met him he and what an intelligent sensitive man he is.

@Karensalright I can assure you that women outside of the categories you identify can also put their own needs above those of their children. As for the rest of your post, thank you for the book recommendation.

@Karensalright
So you why exactly did you lie/give false information to the OP - head of safeguarding? 🤔

I was about to say the same. There is something going on in the background with this man that you don't know about but the police/social service are clearly concerned.

@prh47bridge I would not usually disagree with you (why would I) but i did not say meetings were illegal, but they have no legal force. Can be evidential of course once there is a human to safeguard.

I have a big, big problem as a pro choice advocate when meetings are convened about what is in law a feotus. And especially at 17 weeks.

The law is clear that they have no independent rights of the mother.

Also it is very very wrong to put a pregnant mother under such stress in this stage of a pregnancy.

Its more about societal morals than law.

Yes, I also think this.

Sadly they do.
The man in the lives of women comes before a vulnerable child.

I too thought that.
The fact he wouldn’t leave without threat of police is alarming.

And how he scuttled off before they arrived.

Consider doing a Claire's Law information request. Better to know than be unsure.

Another one suggesting you fill out a Clare’s law request in case there is anything in his background that you don’t know.

This is not accurate and is scaremongering. The vast majority of CiN cases are nowhere near the threshold for CP let alone care proceedings so saying that there is 'every likelihood' is wrong. It's a possibility, one which the OP needs to discuss with the social worker, but it's not actually very likely.

Information from the Family Rights Group website:

https://frg.org.uk/get-help-and-advice/what/child-in-need/do-parents-have-a-choice-whether-to-have-a-child-in-need-assessment/#

I write from very personal experience too but I am so tired that I am off to bed now and I will share my story in the morning.

Your child deserves better than this.

You called the police! It was obviously more than a disagreement. No one calls the police over a disagreement. I agree with other posters that you’re minimising it.

Your first post on this thread said, "legally they cannot call a meeting about a child who is yet to be". So yes, you did say meetings were illegal.

From reading your following posts, I would say that your issue should be with the law around parental responsibility, rather than social care. I also think you have a very biased and one-sided opinion of social care.

Many SW do understand coercive control within DV relationships. However, going to a refuge is an optional decision for the woman. It is strongly advised repeatedly. I'm sure you must be aware that a woman has to be ready to leave that relationship, and as you said many are not due to the 'brainwashing'. It can take multiple attempts to leave and YEARS. Social care cannot force a person to make the decision to act in their own best interest. Its like expecting the police to stop a victim of DV returning to their partner days/weeks/months later after they've been arrested. As an adult who is not sectioned, you have to be responsible for your own actions.

The priority in this situation is to protect the children from harm. So although it may be coercive etc the woman is putting her needs or her partners needs above those of her children. Why should they wait years for the mum to be ready?

Yes there are some terrible SW who don't do a good job, as there is in every job sector going. They are not the majority. From the sound of it your job is to pick away at any mistakes that are made, in order to say that the SW evidence cannot be upheld due to these mistakes. As you mentioned, it's no secret that social care is vastly underfunded, with SW having high caseloads and therefore having very high thresholds. From what you say is your experience, you should be aware that it takes a lot for children to go into foster care. Multiple professionals have to give their opinion and evidence for that to happen. Not just the whim of a social worker who is 'over-zealous' expectations with crap evidence.

As for the father being present at the meetings, they have to be invited if they have parental responsibility. No it's not ideal to be in the same room but with the amount of professionals involved, they can't have 2 separate meetings. In my area many of them take place via teams so no need to be in the same room. However, it is important to note that mums are also the ones doing harm, not the dad. It would be bad practice by automatically assuming who is in the wrong without evidence. For the sake of the child, both need to be listened to.

Usually the mother has the main caring responsibilities and want to keep the children, with the Dad having little or supervised contact. So yes, if the parents aren't together, the mum is the one having to make most of the changes and attend groups etc to prove they are capable of putting the children's needs first and make the right choices to keep them safe.

Coercive or not, making the choice to return to an unsafe partner because they are afraid, dont want to be alone or not coping financially is NOT putting the children's needs first. There are sadly many mothers who are not vulnerable or in controlling relationships who do not care about their children's needs.

The unborn child can still be a child in need under a section 17 - so they can call a CP or CiN meeting if it is believed the unborn child is at risk.

OP Gently, you maybe minimalising what has happened- there is little Local Authority resource and the threshold for referral is quite high which means the team think there is something not quite right and you may need extra support when the baby arrives.

@prh47bridge you are just being pedantic now. But in law there is no child to have a meeting about. So technically speaking it is not lawful, but also not illegal to have a pre birth enquiry. A woman at this stage could have a termination, so it is just plain stupid in law to have a meeting about the safety of a foetus who could lawfully be aborted.

Or indeed might just be a failed pregnancy ergo a miscarriage.

oh and by the way there is an increase in investigating women for alleged illegal abortions are on the increase.

This is a women’s rights issue. The state intervening about a woman and bodily rights.

Case law is clear about this the various applications by men’s rights and Christian agencies re abortion, additionally there was one about an action against a person who by virtue of a car accident, caused a miscarriage. They lost.

I think overall your contributions to mumsnet legals are much appreciated by many.

I have seen you lurking in court hearings via tribunal tweets.

So are you just a fisher for business or someone who can contribute freely for women’s rights?

@2boyzNosleep thank you for thinking about this issue a bit. I agree that the children come first. I agree i am biased as an advocate for victims, because there is no effort, funding to help women who are in the grip of coercive control.

And it takes an awful lot of effort to de program them.

please go read Evan Stark domestic terrorism.

OP it’s not complicated. Having to call the police is not part of a normal healthy relationship. I’m in my mid 50s, I’ve had many relationships, and never once have I come close to calling the police. It’s a sign of a toxic relationship. And kids don’t do well growing up in toxic environments. So I assume they’re trying to check if your relationship is toxic, and therefore harmful to your child.

But I’m confused - why wouldn’t your boyfriend leave when you asked him to? And if you weren’t scared of him, why would you call the police?