Broken hearted over my DS

[DistressedMumHELP]

Okay, i want help and reassurance really. I have name changed for this in case anyone recognises me. I was stopped and asked for an account of events yesterday after witnessing an altercation and the police officer noticed the bruise on my little boys cheek. Which i explained was where he had fallen in between the step and bench in my garden, they then noticed he has bruises on his legs around his knees, so eventually they arrested me on suspicion of ABH. I was of course a mess, but i was told at the time that it was procedure etc, so i was compliant with them, Last night i got released on police bail and was of course expecting my little boy back, but today after seeing social services they have said i cant have him returned to me. I am heart broken, i have never hurt my child on purpose, and i look after him as best as possible. Originally they were saying he didnt talk, but today in front of the social worker he was talking, and i am trying to explain that he gets shy about talking, when they say he is friendly etc. They went through all my history and i have been as open as possible with them, and i dont know what to do. They want to keep him in care and are applying for a court order on friday to do so. I plan on seeing a solicitor tomorrow, the only reason i didnt today was because i didnt leave the social services until half 5 so no where was open.

I NEED A HUG. I PROMISE I WOULD NEVER HURT HIM AND FEEL THAT JUST A FEW BRUISES HAVE TAKEN MY SON FROM ME.

I want him home. Does anyone have any experiences? How long will it take? They said they couldnt say,

The test is that a child must have suffered significant harm or be at risk of such harm.

Obviousky, you have t have the test to include harm not yet suffered but considered to be a risk. You don't just wait until harm has been done. That would be barabaric.

If you can give me the reference of these cases where the harm was not specified, I'd like to read them.

In other countries (most countries) actual harm has to have occured.

'risk of harm' is a ridiculous reason to remove a child and shouldn't be leag.

Imagine if we locked up men 'at risk of' abusing their partners, raping women, murdering women- there would be an outcry.

But it's ok for the law to say women can have their children removed without any harm having ever osccured.

I agree with wordfactory. 100%

They're threads on here All. The. Time about how dad shouldn't have access because he beat his wife.

You simply cannot have it both ways..

It's SS's job to investigate things OP has mentioned. I, myself, sympathised with the OP and I do hope she gets her child back.

But to vilify the entire system isn't right. Especially after the pressure after Baby-P to 'crack down.'

Yes, there are mistakes. Of course there are. Harsh as it sounds, it's a profession. They do what the law states. Yes there are mistakes. But to make the system even MORE lenient (talking about my country, not the UK) is wrong.

SS can't really win, can they? They're either under zealous or over zealous. The rage (understandably) after the Baby P case was more SS involvement. As I stated, you can'y have it both ways. And I'll state again, yes, there are mistakes as in any profession. Yes, it's horrific either way.

Honest question: Does anyone truly want a different approach? If so...What? (Genuinely curiously, not a personal attack on any poster)

Margery I'm confused at why you wouldn't want action when I child is at risk of harm.

the test is actually at risk of immediate and significant harm. Thats the only way to get a PPO.

Pickles- because that action itself causes harm.

Seperating a child from his loving mother will cause seperation anxiety and potential long term psychological damage.

Have child deaths decreased since baby P?

Workers are working in a way to protect their own skins in case baby P happens again, because they got the balme when blame should rest on the perpetrators.

Social Services are trained and educated to know the difference between a loving mother and a dangerous environment. Sadly they can coincide. :(

All professions make mistakes. I VERY MUCH doubt most SS workers in cases were there was actually no abuse want to cause a child trauma.

Sorry but that is wrong-cant think of a decent legal system that has no ability to remove at risk dc.

Scenario one: child has never suffered known harm. Then mums new man is arrested for having sex with other children. Mum thinks he is innocent and refuses to ask him to leave. Are you suggesting that child should stay in situ until she has been abused?

Scenario two: child is disabled-unfortunately house is not prpoperly adapted. Mum refuses to leave. Do you leave child in situ until there is a fire and she can't get herself out?

In both cases the mums loved their kids! No doubt about itm

Me too lynette. Leaving a child in serious risk of harm to me seems very wrong.

The system is not perfect but where children are concerned surely we HAVE to have this option available.

"'risk of harm' is a ridiculous reason to remove a child"

In my experience the "risk of significant harm" is generally used when siblings have suffered real harm (most commonly in my experience again) real physical harm. Older siblings removed with cigarette burns, sexual abuse, video'd evidence of throwing child against a wall, broken bones. You'd really leave the baby there and wait until the same thing happened? Really?

I know some people do think that.

I hope the outcome works out in your childs best interests OP, though I would be hesitant relying on advise from Ian Joseph/Forced adoption, his advice always seems to err on the side of the hysterical in my very humble opinion. There are other advocates who can give you better advice.

The system does need reform and I'm sure this is a very scary time for you so you have my sympathies.

Ah I have read thread properly now and I see you have a solicitor. Thats good and it sounds like she is giving you good advise and you are taking it.

'risk of harm' is a ridiculous reason to remove a child and shouldn't be leag.

Imagine if we locked up men 'at risk of' abusing their partners, raping women, murdering women- there would be an outcry.

There is no comparison because removing children isn't a punishment it's a protection. If a man threatens to hit his wife do we advise her to stay until he has actually hit her? No. If social workers have real, genuine reason to believe children at risk (ie previous siblings abused, schedule one offender moves into the home, parent discloses intention to harm) then the child must be removed from the situation for their own safety. Suggesting otherwise is extraordinarily obtuse and suggests a naivety and lack of knowledge of just how vile people can be to their children. Yes, even 'loving' parents.

Exactly Erik - as adults we can remove ourselves, children can't. We have a responsibility to protect those children who parents are unable to do so.

Of course with that responsibility comes the duty to wield the power that society has vested in social workers and the courts wisely, to apply appropriate checks and balances, to adequately train and resource social workers. Which doesn't always happen and we need to continually strive to ensure that vulnerable families get the best efforts that we can provide.

Waiting until harm has taken place - I mean WTAF?

'Workers are working in a way to protect their own skins in case baby P happens again, because they got the balme when blame should rest on the perpetrators.'

You really think that that is the prime concern of a social worker? if they were bothered about protecting themselves from blame, more than saving a child from abuse, harm or murder, then they would go and work in retail or something where they could close their eyes and pretend that all parents love their children.
It is easy to do nothing. Easiest thing in the world.

In fact yes child deaths due to abuse or foul paly etc has reduced and contiues to reduce.

I am back, last night i stayed at a near by friends, with police consent to do so have a friend over later to keep an eye so i "dont do anything stupid" but hey thats trust for you. No they saw me in a state. It went to a court hearing today and i didnt oppose the order for him to remain in Local authority care, but i did oppose the contact which was offered of twice a week, and instead my solicitor said this should be 5 times a week, which the solicitor working on behalf of my son was also in agreeance with, which is what i have got. Which obviously makes me feel a little better that i will be getting to see him on a regular basis, my solicitor also pushed social services so that i am able to see him tomorrow as i wasnt able to today cos of the court case etc.

It hurts like hell him not being here with me. They suggested in the court hearing the contact only be twice a week because the quality of contact had been low ( after 1 45 minute session, in which i sat mainly in tears after having just been told that he wouldnt be coming home with me, and seeing him obviously set me off all over again) he was running around and playing with me and i sat on the floor, i cuddled and kissed him numberous times and then he had to go, so of course more tears, I mean what did they expect and how can you judge the quality of contact on one session? You cant really, hence, the court agreed with me.

According to SS two of the bruises are teeth marks, which i have never bitten him, the police this afternoon have taken imprints of my teeth to compare to his bruises by an expert, so that will come back as not matching. Which is of course in a way a bit of a relief, i know going to police stations isnt exactly great, but like i said before whatever it takes.

I know they all have a job to do, but that doesnt make it any less painful for me as a mother who is seperated from her child.

And at the court hearing today a lot of my history was bought up, which seeing as i have had the help and done everything they asked i feel is a little unfair and a good few things they have written as well were completely inaccurate. They failed to point out that as soon as my son saw the domestic violence i took him and left, yet they mentioned that i had allowed him to have seen that? They are missing things. As to moving, i left a violent person, and moved into the only place possible at my mums which was far too cramped, and then into a suitable property.

My house has been assessed as being suitable actually, and they remarked on his bedroom all being in a "boys" theme of disney cars but obviously that shows i do try to do my best with him.

It sounds as if you are doing everything possible to show that you are a caring and loving parent, and that you are seen to be co-operating fully.
Do you think the bruises are bites? Do you have any idea how he may have come by them?

I now have been wondering if they are anything to do with someone who had been staying with me for about the last 10 days, I feel stupid, i had known the person for a long long time, and trusted them result of which was of course that i let them be around my son, but apparently whilst i had been away they have done various criminal offences, including domestic violence, criminal damage, fire arms offences, theft, racially aggravated assaults...what happened to the person i knew, obviously now my reaction is OMG!!! Injunction tuesday to stop him returning, police have arrested, questioned and bailed him not to return to my address.

I know they all have a job to do, but that doesnt make it any less painful for me as a mother who is separated from her child.

That is exactly the way I feel. Its all very well people saying that they are doing their job well and that it is a good system etc, but it doesn't make it any easier to go through the motions of having your DC taken off you. I know. I do believe that the majority of times they (the SS) do get it right though and that they do have a hard job.

Sounds as positive as it can be OP, I know that wont make you feel much better, but its true. My social workers didn't always get the facts right in reports. They would often spell our names wrong, thats when they actually gave us the right names. Thats something your solicitor needs to address in court in future. IIRC all reports that were submitted to the courts were passed between solicitors so any obvious mistakes can be ironed out. Also if there are things in the report that is not true your solicitor can argue them in court.

I know this sounds really bad, but in a weird way having SS involved with us has actually helped us. It meant we got a diagnosis of DS's autism at a young age. We also got a lot of help regarding his slow development as the SS pushed the hospital to see to him. We rather he wasn't taken from us in the first place, but once he was back in our care the SS were still involved, but it was during this time we had lots of really valuable help from them.

Ooh one bit of advice I do have which does contradict one piece of advice earlier on in the thread is please please do not read scare stories. They wont do anything to help you and will make you feel a lot worse. If you do please remember that these are worded in a specific way and that it might not be the whole truth too. Each case is very very individual so please whatever you do do not compare yourself to them.

Ten days?
It does sound as if the police and SS have grounds to be concerned. Have you left him alone with your DS ever? Even for ten minutes?

I have always been there. This isnt someone off the street, this was someone i thought i knew and could trust, only ever left when i went toilet or to put the kettle on, so no length of time. When you have known someone since 13/14 and stayed in touch you think you can trust them, until all that came out today, result oh god i went mad, shook with fear and anger It does seem that the police are putting them in the frame though now, more so than me, because it has never happened before and i am frequently at my doctors for me and of course he always comes with and i have raised concerns about how easily he bruises with regards to his knees etc, so that is documented and its possible he could have a similar blood condition to me as well/

Distressed mum. I'm sorry to hear of what has happened. Does your child attend nursery? Or do you know who might have bitten him otherwise?

why was this person staying with you?