social services took my beautiful children

[user1491683745]

it really is not fair to do it to someone who absolutely loves and adores them they really need me and are probably so unhappy i am so done with life and really really want them with me

But it's not about someone throwing malicious accusations around. The child himself said something to Childline that worried them enough to break confidence and involve SS. We have to believe the child.

I dont understand why people can not see that reacting to malicious reports which are totally untrue is not damaging to mothers and children. Prior to our experience we would have agreed that it would be best to err on the side of caution.
The problem arises that Social Workers disregarded a Court Order and put the children in a position where access was gained by a person refused by a Judge. Do laws not matter to Social Workers.
Social Services disregarded the written statement of two hospital consultants because they are fired on by a man who is angry at woman.
This shows no professional respect. I have seen the scathing letters from the Consultants to Social Services.
Above all the woman and children were harmed by the poor judgement of Social Workers and no apology made. Do Social Workers not have basic good manners?
I get that an apology may appear to show weakness. The alternative is that this has been talked about for many years and may well be talked about for another 50 years. Over 50 years of being talked against when if they had apologised the woman knowing the man is a creep may even have agreed that they were taken in by a con man.
There is paperwork to prove everything and that paperwork will never be destroyed in order to prove the case.
I wonder how many Social Workers are on here that cant actually see through this. Damage limitation would have been an apology not a great difficulty if a person has good manners and professional dignity.
The very last thing a Social Worker should do is harm children. They were in pain with the tests and upset by the disruption. Not a great experience.
This was only the start. They can never admit they are wrong. I don't believe they will ever "learn lessons"

A rambling, accusatory handful of posts from someone no-one knows and who gives no information at all, results in this bunch of SW bashing and defending. MN at its finest

In most cases, in the eyes of the law, in murder cases, most crime cases:

The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And that's right. Most people, morally, see that as the right stance. We want people to be given the benefit of the doubt, unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. We want our police officers to uphold the law in that way. Because it's what we see as correct.

But not re parents, as far as SS is concerned. They are presumed guilty.
SS take the opposite stance.

As Gallavich herself, and other Social Workers, concur.

I find that aspect hard to accept.

That's not strictly true though is it? It's just that the welfare of the CHILD trumps everything else.
These orders are NOT easy to obtain. SS don't drive around with long noses promising candy to catch children!
Yet again, we never hear about the success. The many, many people who have put their lives back together. And the children who are thriving with their new families.
When SS 'believe' parents over children then sometimes terrible terrible things happen.

@oblomov - there's a lot of things wrong with your post such as your ideas of how ss or criminal courts usually work, but I'll pick just one point here:

What do you propose would be the way it should work if, for example, a child comes to you and tells you they are being raped by their stepfather who lives in their home?

You appear to suggest that the risk of the allegation being false should trump everything else and the child should be made to stay in the home while the alleged abuser stays there too.

The alternative, and the way the police and social care both currently work, is cases lb the belief that while the truth is still unknown it's probably best to make sure the child isn't still in potential danger.

To my mind that's pretty sensible, no?

NewDay, you have misunderstood what I have said.

I never said the child shouldn't be believed. Child's interests come first. I and most people support that. I never said they shouldn't.

However the next step, the next issue is the one I was addressing.

And it's a huge step to jump from putting the child's interests first, to necessarily believing that parent is lying. Not believing the parent.

If you believe most people are lying, which has been stated, that sets a cynical precedence.
First part does not justify leap to the second.

And even if that is the case. 2nd fits, i.e. Parents lie or cant accept that abuse has occurred, then the objective should still be the same : to work on all areas, so that child is safe and returned to family unit.

Returning child to family unit is supposed to be the target, where possible.

If parents are willing to work with the professionals, who should be trying to perform their statutory - i.e. SS duty of trying to reunite families.

It is however quite unreasonable to expect parents to assist social workers, whose clearly declared objective is to remove the child.

What do you propose would be the way it should work if, for example, a child comes to you and tells you they are being raped by their stepfather who lives in their home

Wouldn't removing the step father and arresting him be the way forward not removing the child from their home.
Removing a child in this instance would be leaving the child thinking they have done something wrong as they are the one being punished whilst the sf gets to stay in the home maybe things have been kept secret from the mother who is left wondering what is going on

Oliversmum
Sometimes the mother has been implicit in the abuse of the child by the perpetrator, or turns a blind eye to it.
Social workers often have no way of telling this until further investigation and assessments are completed, so it's better to remove the child for their own safety in some cases. It also protects the child from having pressure put on them, or even awful threats made to them, to withdraw their allegations. If the child does withdraw it's statement, then there may not ever be another opportunity for that child to escape abuse. It happens.

Then speak to the mother as well.
As far as the ops case is concerned nobody knows anything because it is a secret.

We teach are children that there mustn't be any secrets yet the first thing SS do is create a big secret.

How is anyone supposed to defend themselves when you don't know what your defending yourself against.

Wouldn't removing the step father and arresting him be the way forward not removing the child from their home.

But what about the "We believe you" principle, Oliversmumsarmy? Doesn't that apply to stepfathers? And what is to happen if he gets bail and the mother is happy for him to come back to the house?

Is op even coming back?

I can't believe some of the comments on here. Children are the priority here not the adults. Nobody knows what the allegations are or whats happened, but if anyone of you thought a child was at risk, what would you want to happen? I would rather an adult go through having children be removed and be proved innocent that leave a child at risk of serious harm or abuse just to stay with a parent.

None of you know OP her family or friends so how you can blindly support without any information is frankly dangerous. Many wives have husbands who are paedophiles and know nothing about it until the police come knocking on the door. Sometimes we don't know the people closest to us, because they will go to great lengths to hide it.

The fact is we don't know anything and as heartbreaking as it is for OP, ultimately, children need to come first, not the adults.

I would rather an adult go through having children be removed and be proved innocent that leave a child at risk of serious harm or abuse just to stay with a parent

Its hardly that simple is it.
Removing children can cause huge trauma and damage to the child even in cases where the parenting is far less than perfect.
Which is why it is best avoided unless there is no alternative.

That is thinking of the child.

Removing children can cause huge trauma and damage to the child even in cases where the parenting is far less than perfect

Do you really believe that children are removed for 'less than perfect parenting'?

From my experience there is a massive shortage of foster carers and placements another reason SW work with the family when sometimes it would be better to remove. There is also an assumption that everyone parents to a certain level but sadly for some children, they don't.

Do you really believe that children are removed for 'less than perfect parenting'?

What are you talking about

Please do continue to lecture me on this subject though. I am fascinated.

Removing children can cause huge trauma and damage to the child even in cases where the parenting is far less than perfect.

I don't know, what are you talking about TBH, your posts suggests that children are removed 'where the parenting is less than perfect'.

As I said on my original post, we DON'T KNOW the reasons behind this, but IMO children should always come first before the adults and I stand by that.

No it doesn't.
It suggests that when even when the parenting is less than perfect children can still be traumatised by being removed from their home.

Because you said 'I would rather an adult go through having children be removed and be proved innocent......'
Totally ignoring the harm done to children when they are removed.
As if the only person upset is the adult.

Its the most traumatic thing that can happen to a child and not something that should be treated as collateral damage.
Which is why we have such stringent laws and special courts to deal with it.

@Oliversmumsarmy
Absolutely, if it's safe to do so.
I wasn't suggesting anything otherwise and certainly didn't say a child would necessarily have to be removed in that situation. But if the step father is asked to leave, he might complain that he is being treared as though he is guilty before it is proven

@Oblomov17 was saying about innocent until proven guilty, but in that case we would ask this man to leave even though we don't know of his guilt yet. Because If someone discloses such a serious allegation it can't just be left. If true the child would be at even more risk having disclosed it.

As @oblomov I probably misunderstood some of their post and I completely agree with the biggest priority being keeping families together. In fact I don't know a social worker that doesn't. We are so often the last professionals defending and standing up for the family unit when teachers, health visitors etc are saying that children should be removed.

My issue was with the innocent until proven guilty idea. If that was as far reaching as @oblomov first appeared to suggest neither the alleged offender or the child would be moved in my example, and in policing terms, there wouldn't be a remand and bail: people would just be free until proven guilty.

Social workers have to step in in urgent situations when the risk is not yet fully known yet, and that's the kind of situation where these difficult ethical choices are made...ideally with families and not for them. That's my opinion anyway.

MrsDV knows whereof she speaks.

Yes it does Oops I've seen it happen

We don't know what the allegations are.

What is 'less than perfect parenting' that a child would be immediately removed from home?

Did the OP come back?