Southampton couple feared they would lose baby over false abuse claims

Couple feared they would lose baby over false abuse claims

Kelly Cook and her daughter Ava

The mark on Ava's foot that a health visitor thought was a bruise

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Crime Reporter

A COUPLE suffered “three weeks of hell” after social workers accused them of harming their baby daughter.

Kelly Cook and partner Ian Hutchison found themselves under investigation, leaving them terrified that seven-week-old Ava would be taken away from them.

Their traumatic ordeal began after their health visitor, during a regular check-up a week before Christmas, noticed a reddish mark on the bottom of Ava's right foot and called in Southampton City Council's child services.

Convinced it was a bruise - which a baby so young would have been unable to cause itself - social services immediately drafted in the police and doctors as they launched an investigation into the young family who were left petrified that they would lose their daughter.

Within hours Kelly, 35, and Ian, 31, found themselves under investigation at the hospital where a number of paediatricians and a dermatologist examined Ava.

Unable to rule out a birthmark they were asked to bring Ava back two days later for a second look.

But on this visit the dermatologist was not there and because the mark had faded it was judged to be a bruise and Ava was forced to undergo numerous tests, scans and x-rays.

Desperate Kelly and Ian insisted that the mark was not a bruise and said it kept reappearing and fading.

They even provided photographic evidence to prove it but nobody listened. They were told that social services believed Ava was at serious risk of harm and her parents were only allowed to keep her if they stayed with Ian's parents.

But despite the serious concerns over Ava's safety, the family did not see or hear from social services for nine days over the Christmas period, leaving them totally in the dark of what was happening.

It wasn't until December 31, when a social worker finally did visit, that she witnessed the mark appearing and disappearing on Ava's foot, proving what her parents had been arguing from the start - that it wasn't a bruise.

A week later an examination by a dermatologist at the hospital confirmed that it was not a bruise and within ten minutes Kelly and carpenter Ian got the call they had been longing for.

They were told that the case against them was closed and they could return home with Ava.

But there was no apology or explanation.

Now Kelly and Ian, from Shirley, Southampton, are demanding answers from social services about why they were never listened to, why Ava was never visited while they were staying at her grandparents house if she was deemed to be at serious risk and why they have not yet received an apology.

Kelly, a legal secretary, said: “We were effectively house bound over Christmas. We couldn't go anywhere without Ian's parents and even my parents had to be police checked before we could go to their house on Boxing Day.

“Yet what we cannot understand is that if they were so worried about Ava, why did no one come and visit us for nine days? It makes no sense.

“Had they listened to us, looked at the photos I had taken of Ava's foot, this could have all been cleared up within two days.

“Instead, they refused to listen. They ruined our first Christmas with Ava, which we will never get back and we spent weeks petrified that we might lose her.

“What they have put Ava through, with all the tests, scans and x-rays, being poked and prodded, is abuse in itself. It has been very traumatic for Ava to go through all that.

“I think it is disgusting and they haven't even apologised.

“We were put through three weeks of hell and we want this exposed so that other innocent families do not endure the grief and heartache that we have been through with our baby daughter.”

Ava is now waiting for an outpatient's appointment with the dermatologist to determine what the mark is.

Kelly and Ian have made a formal complaint to Southampton City Council’s social services over their handling of the case in the hope that changes can be made to prevent other parents going through the same trauma.
 

After a meeting with social services bosses earlier this week, the family are now waiting for a report into their case, expected to be complete by Tuesday.
 

When the Daily Echo asked the council to comment on Ava’s case and the claims made by her parents a spokesman said: “We are unable to speak about individual cases but the council does take any complaint it receives seriously and this follows a standard procedure based on national guidelines.
 

“In order to ensure that a complaint is fully investigated, there is a time line to ensure the complainant knows when they will receive an answer.”

Comments (55)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:08am Sat 2 Feb 13

Night Mare says...

Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Night Mare
  • Score: 0

11:13am Sat 2 Feb 13

jade25 says...

Poor couple! Social workers being typical jobworths again!
Poor couple! Social workers being typical jobworths again! jade25
  • Score: 0

11:37am Sat 2 Feb 13

Frank28 says...

I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.
I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule. Frank28
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Northamboy says...

Social workers have a job to do and rightly so. However if they were so concerned in this case why were there no checks for nine days?

As for no apology that is just disgusting! It would only have taken a few seconds to explain and to say sorry.
Social workers have a job to do and rightly so. However if they were so concerned in this case why were there no checks for nine days? As for no apology that is just disgusting! It would only have taken a few seconds to explain and to say sorry. Northamboy
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Sat 2 Feb 13

nedscrumpo says...

Frank28 wrote:
I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.
It seems to me that SCC is risk averse and that needs to be laid at the door of the cabinet member and senior managers.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.[/p][/quote]It seems to me that SCC is risk averse and that needs to be laid at the door of the cabinet member and senior managers. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Sat 2 Feb 13

cliffwalker says...

Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media.

Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.
[quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media. Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation. cliffwalker
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Sat 2 Feb 13

cliffwalker says...

Frank28 wrote:
I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.
I'm sure there are dud social workers just as in every other occupation but, having had some dealings with social workers over several decades, I have not found even one who would fit this extereme description. More specifically I met none who would have made such a cruel and jealous comment with, probably, very little knowledge.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there are dud social workers just as in every other occupation but, having had some dealings with social workers over several decades, I have not found even one who would fit this extereme description. More specifically I met none who would have made such a cruel and jealous comment with, probably, very little knowledge. cliffwalker
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Reality-man says...

Better to be safe than sorry. everyone would be up in arms if social services missed an opportunity to step in when a child is injured/abused.
Better to be safe than sorry. everyone would be up in arms if social services missed an opportunity to step in when a child is injured/abused. Reality-man
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Sat 2 Feb 13

cookb5 says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Frank28 wrote:
I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.
I'm sure there are dud social workers just as in every other occupation but, having had some dealings with social workers over several decades, I have not found even one who would fit this extereme description. More specifically I met none who would have made such a cruel and jealous comment with, probably, very little knowledge.
They made accusations without any facts. This story isn't about social services being thorough rather to be safe than sorry, it is about how the investigation was dealt with from start to finish.
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: I sometimes wonder if social workers deliberately set out to break up families. Many of them are cruel and jealous individuals, probably fed up of being made objects of ridicule.[/p][/quote]I'm sure there are dud social workers just as in every other occupation but, having had some dealings with social workers over several decades, I have not found even one who would fit this extereme description. More specifically I met none who would have made such a cruel and jealous comment with, probably, very little knowledge.[/p][/quote]They made accusations without any facts. This story isn't about social services being thorough rather to be safe than sorry, it is about how the investigation was dealt with from start to finish. cookb5
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Sat 2 Feb 13

cookb5 says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily. cookb5
  • Score: 1

2:21pm Sat 2 Feb 13

resq999 says...

cookb5 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.
The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed.

It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child.

If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc.

Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern
[quote][p][bold]cookb5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.[/p][/quote]The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed. It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child. If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc. Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern resq999
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

resq999 wrote:
cookb5 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.
The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed.

It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child.

If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc.

Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern
It sounds like this is a social worker talking! You are totally missing the point of the story. If the social we're following guidelines and doing their job why was the family not visited for 9 days?? That is why you have cases like baby p where babies are being genuinely abused and end up dead. There was evidence there to prove the mark was not a case of abuse but the social ignored this and still proceeded to put the family through grief and heartache not knowing what was going to happen. Read the story thoroughly before you make such comments!
[quote][p][bold]resq999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookb5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.[/p][/quote]The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed. It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child. If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc. Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern[/p][/quote]It sounds like this is a social worker talking! You are totally missing the point of the story. If the social we're following guidelines and doing their job why was the family not visited for 9 days?? That is why you have cases like baby p where babies are being genuinely abused and end up dead. There was evidence there to prove the mark was not a case of abuse but the social ignored this and still proceeded to put the family through grief and heartache not knowing what was going to happen. Read the story thoroughly before you make such comments! Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Sat 2 Feb 13

cookb5 says...

resq999 wrote:
cookb5 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.
The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed.

It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child.

If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc.

Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern
Have u read the story properly??? It isn't about social services doing there job it was how they did it, they were so concerned about my niece however they didn't visit or contact them for 9 days? Why shouldn't they speak out it was very traumatising the thought of losing such a loved baby all because they didn't listen. Do u have kids? Have u been through this? Luckily my sister had her family to lean on for support ihow would someone cope with going through something like this on there own.
[quote][p][bold]resq999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookb5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.[/p][/quote]The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed. It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child. If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc. Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern[/p][/quote]Have u read the story properly??? It isn't about social services doing there job it was how they did it, they were so concerned about my niece however they didn't visit or contact them for 9 days? Why shouldn't they speak out it was very traumatising the thought of losing such a loved baby all because they didn't listen. Do u have kids? Have u been through this? Luckily my sister had her family to lean on for support ihow would someone cope with going through something like this on there own. cookb5
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Sat 2 Feb 13

lisa whitemore says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
are you a parent? have some compassion,3 weeks of hell for something they never did,id be demanding explanation & apology! Even worse over xmas and new year. Baby's first christmas are so special as parents and wont ever get that time back. Round of Applause SCC,Silence seems to be your speciality where ruining peoples lives!
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]are you a parent? have some compassion,3 weeks of hell for something they never did,id be demanding explanation & apology! Even worse over xmas and new year. Baby's first christmas are so special as parents and wont ever get that time back. Round of Applause SCC,Silence seems to be your speciality where ruining peoples lives! lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Sat 2 Feb 13

nedscrumpo says...

How many working days though? 7 of them were likely to have been non-working days e.g 2 w/e's and 3 bank holidays.
How many working days though? 7 of them were likely to have been non-working days e.g 2 w/e's and 3 bank holidays. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

nedscrumpo wrote:
How many working days though? 7 of them were likely to have been non-working days e.g 2 w/e's and 3 bank holidays.
Does it matter if there were weekends and bank holidays in between thought social workers were always on duty. Kids don't stop being abused just because its a weekend or bank holiday!
[quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: How many working days though? 7 of them were likely to have been non-working days e.g 2 w/e's and 3 bank holidays.[/p][/quote]Does it matter if there were weekends and bank holidays in between thought social workers were always on duty. Kids don't stop being abused just because its a weekend or bank holiday! Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Sat 2 Feb 13

eurogordi says...

This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place.

Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited.

The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks.

It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed.

These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.
This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place. Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited. The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks. It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed. These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense. eurogordi
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sat 2 Feb 13

SotonGreen says...

lisa whitemore wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
are you a parent? have some compassion,3 weeks of hell for something they never did,id be demanding explanation & apology! Even worse over xmas and new year. Baby's first christmas are so special as parents and wont ever get that time back. Round of Applause SCC,Silence seems to be your speciality where ruining peoples lives!
I have no issue with these parents seeking an apology if process was not followed properly. Learning lessons from mistakes is important for any profession.

I would have thought for the sake of the child the parents would avoid splashing this all over the front page of the local paper. Particularly given the social workers legally and ethically cannot respond.
[quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]are you a parent? have some compassion,3 weeks of hell for something they never did,id be demanding explanation & apology! Even worse over xmas and new year. Baby's first christmas are so special as parents and wont ever get that time back. Round of Applause SCC,Silence seems to be your speciality where ruining peoples lives![/p][/quote]I have no issue with these parents seeking an apology if process was not followed properly. Learning lessons from mistakes is important for any profession. I would have thought for the sake of the child the parents would avoid splashing this all over the front page of the local paper. Particularly given the social workers legally and ethically cannot respond. SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Sat 2 Feb 13

bigal007 says...

sue sue go though there complaints get it to stage 3 of the complants of the council way of doing things then sue them for what they put u though
sue sue go though there complaints get it to stage 3 of the complants of the council way of doing things then sue them for what they put u though bigal007
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Sat 2 Feb 13

SotonGreen says...

eurogordi wrote:
This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place.

Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited.

The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks.

It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed.

These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.
Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place. Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited. The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks. It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed. These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.[/p][/quote]Where in the article does it mention police being called in ? SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

SotonGreen wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place.

Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited.

The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks.

It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed.

These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.
Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?
Convinced it was a bruise - which a baby so young would have been unable to cause itself - social services immediately drafted in the police and doctors as they launched an investigation into the young family who were left petrified that they would lose their daughter.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place. Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited. The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks. It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed. These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.[/p][/quote]Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?[/p][/quote]Convinced it was a bruise - which a baby so young would have been unable to cause itself - social services immediately drafted in the police and doctors as they launched an investigation into the young family who were left petrified that they would lose their daughter. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

SotonGreen wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place.

Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited.

The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks.

It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed.

These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.
Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?
4th paragraph down, maybe if you read the article properly before making such comments you would understand the point of the story. The police work with the social as it is protocol under any child abuse allegations.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place. Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited. The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks. It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed. These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.[/p][/quote]Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?[/p][/quote]4th paragraph down, maybe if you read the article properly before making such comments you would understand the point of the story. The police work with the social as it is protocol under any child abuse allegations. Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Mary80 says...

Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it
Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it Mary80
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

SotonGreen wrote:
lisa whitemore wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
are you a parent? have some compassion,3 weeks of hell for something they never did,id be demanding explanation & apology! Even worse over xmas and new year. Baby's first christmas are so special as parents and wont ever get that time back. Round of Applause SCC,Silence seems to be your speciality where ruining peoples lives!
I have no issue with these parents seeking an apology if process was not followed properly. Learning lessons from mistakes is important for any profession.

I would have thought for the sake of the child the parents would avoid splashing this all over the front page of the local paper. Particularly given the social workers legally and ethically cannot respond.
Maybe the family wanted the story to make people aware of the mistakes social services can make and in most cases the families are too relieved to speak out about the nightmare they have been put through.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa whitemore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]are you a parent? have some compassion,3 weeks of hell for something they never did,id be demanding explanation & apology! Even worse over xmas and new year. Baby's first christmas are so special as parents and wont ever get that time back. Round of Applause SCC,Silence seems to be your speciality where ruining peoples lives![/p][/quote]I have no issue with these parents seeking an apology if process was not followed properly. Learning lessons from mistakes is important for any profession. I would have thought for the sake of the child the parents would avoid splashing this all over the front page of the local paper. Particularly given the social workers legally and ethically cannot respond.[/p][/quote]Maybe the family wanted the story to make people aware of the mistakes social services can make and in most cases the families are too relieved to speak out about the nightmare they have been put through. Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

Mary80 wrote:
Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it
I agree if a mark is found it should be looked into but i think the point the family are making is they had evidence to prove it was not a bruise and could therefore have been resolved in a matter of days but were not listened too, there were no visits for 9 days and hardly any communication from social services. People need to read the story thoroughly and look at the daily echo comment on page 30 of the paper.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it[/p][/quote]I agree if a mark is found it should be looked into but i think the point the family are making is they had evidence to prove it was not a bruise and could therefore have been resolved in a matter of days but were not listened too, there were no visits for 9 days and hardly any communication from social services. People need to read the story thoroughly and look at the daily echo comment on page 30 of the paper. Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Mary80 wrote:
Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it
I do tend to agree with you. The above story just gives one side. I'm not for one minute suggesting anything in the above report is made up, but it's always good to have both sides versions before drawing any conclusions.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it[/p][/quote]I do tend to agree with you. The above story just gives one side. I'm not for one minute suggesting anything in the above report is made up, but it's always good to have both sides versions before drawing any conclusions. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Sat 2 Feb 13

cliffwalker says...

Even without hearing both sides of the story, we can be glad about one aspect of this case, social services acted fast enough to prevent serious damage to the child. Happily, the child was never at risk but perhaps the next one will be.

Whether, in detail, they carried out their responsibilities properly, even the child's family must be glad that there are people out there prepared to provide a service risking their jobs and reputation every day in protection of the child. This time their suspicions were wrong and they may have to accept blame for that. They should not have to accept insult and abuse on a public forum for erring on the side of the child.
Even without hearing both sides of the story, we can be glad about one aspect of this case, social services acted fast enough to prevent serious damage to the child. Happily, the child was never at risk but perhaps the next one will be. Whether, in detail, they carried out their responsibilities properly, even the child's family must be glad that there are people out there prepared to provide a service risking their jobs and reputation every day in protection of the child. This time their suspicions were wrong and they may have to accept blame for that. They should not have to accept insult and abuse on a public forum for erring on the side of the child. cliffwalker
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Donald2000 says...

SotonGreen wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place.

Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited.

The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks.

It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed.

These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.
Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?
Convinced it was a bruise - which a baby so young would have been unable to cause itself - social services immediately drafted in the police and doctors as they launched an investigation into the young family who were left petrified that they would lose their daughter.

Copied and pasted directly from the article above.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: This is a terrible story. Not only should there be an apology from SCC, but the social workers should also be suspended while further enquiries take place. Any parent harming their child is likely to disguise bodily marks. This was why Baby P went unnoticed until it was too late because his face was smeared with chocolate and other foods when social workers visited. The parents in this case did not try to hide what is probably nothing more than an intermittent rash, perhaps caused by an slight allergic reaction. And yet the social worker/s still seem to have called the Police without gathering additional evidence over a period of days/weeks. It is highly irregular for social services to call the Police immediately unless there is an obvious 100% risk of physical or sexual abuse. Even then there are set procedures that must be followed, for example the social worker/s need to gain clearance from senior managers to proceed. These parents deserve an apology for what they have had to endure, particularly as it was meant to be their first Christmas together as a family. As the article states, that special time can never be given back to them, but I very much hope that an apologetic response from SCC will provide some recompense.[/p][/quote]Where in the article does it mention police being called in ?[/p][/quote]Convinced it was a bruise - which a baby so young would have been unable to cause itself - social services immediately drafted in the police and doctors as they launched an investigation into the young family who were left petrified that they would lose their daughter. Copied and pasted directly from the article above. Donald2000
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Sat 2 Feb 13

redsnapper says...

resq999 wrote:
cookb5 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.
The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed.

It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child.

If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc.

Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern
Happy !, why should they be happy having been put thru all this farce with the embarrassment of police checks etc.

Especially when the wretched department left them in limbo for 9 days whilst they took all their cares away for 9 days.

Too many public staff are just bloody jobsworths who cannot apply common sense.
[quote][p][bold]resq999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookb5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.[/p][/quote]The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed. It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child. If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc. Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern[/p][/quote]Happy !, why should they be happy having been put thru all this farce with the embarrassment of police checks etc. Especially when the wretched department left them in limbo for 9 days whilst they took all their cares away for 9 days. Too many public staff are just bloody jobsworths who cannot apply common sense. redsnapper
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

redsnapper wrote:
resq999 wrote:
cookb5 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.
The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed.

It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child.

If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc.

Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern
Happy !, why should they be happy having been put thru all this farce with the embarrassment of police checks etc.

Especially when the wretched department left them in limbo for 9 days whilst they took all their cares away for 9 days.

Too many public staff are just bloody jobsworths who cannot apply common sense.
It's a really distressing situation for all parties. I'm sure the Social Worker had the best interests of the child at heart and didn't go out of their way to cause stress for the family.

It is now down to Social Services to investigate any complaint and they are quite right not to make an apology until the investigation is complete.

There may well be facts that are not mentioned in this article. I am not taking any side as this obviuosly needs to be investigated further.

I would like to wish the family the very best and hope you can put this behind you after you get a satisfactory reply from your complaint.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]resq999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookb5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]This is my sister and niece this has happened too and this is to raise awareness. The way the case was handled was disgusting and the rules need to be changed in how these cases are handled. My sister is trying to stop other innocent familes going through the same thing, 5 minutes of fame does not come into this. People need to know because innocent parents are having there kids taken away daily.[/p][/quote]The rules are there to protect the child. In the first instance if there is doubt then the child's welfare is primary concern. Whilst in this individual case you sister has no case to answer in many many others if child safety was not the overiding concern then the child would continue to be harmed. It is a stressful situation however if there is ANY doubt about a child's safety then it MUST be investigated to maintain the safety of the child. If this was not the case you would end up with tragic cases like baby P etc. Your sister and family have gone through a difficult time however as they are innocent they would have nothing to fear and should be happy that your nieces safety and well-being is the overriding concern[/p][/quote]Happy !, why should they be happy having been put thru all this farce with the embarrassment of police checks etc. Especially when the wretched department left them in limbo for 9 days whilst they took all their cares away for 9 days. Too many public staff are just bloody jobsworths who cannot apply common sense.[/p][/quote]It's a really distressing situation for all parties. I'm sure the Social Worker had the best interests of the child at heart and didn't go out of their way to cause stress for the family. It is now down to Social Services to investigate any complaint and they are quite right not to make an apology until the investigation is complete. There may well be facts that are not mentioned in this article. I am not taking any side as this obviuosly needs to be investigated further. I would like to wish the family the very best and hope you can put this behind you after you get a satisfactory reply from your complaint. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Sat 2 Feb 13

nedscrumpo says...

Sotontalker wrote:
nedscrumpo wrote:
How many working days though? 7 of them were likely to have been non-working days e.g 2 w/e's and 3 bank holidays.
Does it matter if there were weekends and bank holidays in between thought social workers were always on duty. Kids don't stop being abused just because its a weekend or bank holiday!
actually they don't.
[quote][p][bold]Sotontalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nedscrumpo[/bold] wrote: How many working days though? 7 of them were likely to have been non-working days e.g 2 w/e's and 3 bank holidays.[/p][/quote]Does it matter if there were weekends and bank holidays in between thought social workers were always on duty. Kids don't stop being abused just because its a weekend or bank holiday![/p][/quote]actually they don't. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Sat 2 Feb 13

mursmurja says...

The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.
The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect. mursmurja
  • Score: 0

12:23am Sun 3 Feb 13

SotonGreen says...

The police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.
The police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive. SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

12:40am Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

SotonGreen wrote:
The police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.
Are you part of the Green Party? That's you with a no vote if so!
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: The police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.[/p][/quote]Are you part of the Green Party? That's you with a no vote if so! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

1:03am Sun 3 Feb 13

Lucy Allan says...

Mary80 wrote:
Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it
wait till it happens to you -
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it[/p][/quote]wait till it happens to you - Lucy Allan
  • Score: 0

1:06am Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Lucy Allan wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it
wait till it happens to you -
Lucy, that is a very irresponsible comment.

We would all hope no child would come to the attention of Social Services.

By stating 'Wait til it happens to you' is a pointless and stupid statement.
[quote][p][bold]Lucy Allan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Social workers are slated for not acting fast enough or for acting too quickly...we should at least be glad in this case they acted quickly when seeing a mark on a baby. We are too quick to judge a situation only on one side of it[/p][/quote]wait till it happens to you -[/p][/quote]Lucy, that is a very irresponsible comment. We would all hope no child would come to the attention of Social Services. By stating 'Wait til it happens to you' is a pointless and stupid statement. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

1:09am Sun 3 Feb 13

Lucy Allan says...

Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Too many families are being terrorised by well meaning politically correct fantasists who believe ordinary parents are dangerous abusers .....and then they claim best interests of the child and that these actions protect children. It would be laughable - if it did not cause so much harm and distress. This family were lucky many, many families are not..they find themselves accused of risk of emotional harm - which you cannot disprove - and is purely subjective judgment.

See familyfirstgroup.co.
uk
[quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]Too many families are being terrorised by well meaning politically correct fantasists who believe ordinary parents are dangerous abusers .....and then they claim best interests of the child and that these actions protect children. It would be laughable - if it did not cause so much harm and distress. This family were lucky many, many families are not..they find themselves accused of risk of emotional harm - which you cannot disprove - and is purely subjective judgment. See familyfirstgroup.co. uk Lucy Allan
  • Score: 0

1:11am Sun 3 Feb 13

Lucy Allan says...

mursmurja wrote:
The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.
A social worker not a parent wrote that.
[quote][p][bold]mursmurja[/bold] wrote: The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.[/p][/quote]A social worker not a parent wrote that. Lucy Allan
  • Score: 0

1:18am Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Lucy Allan wrote:
mursmurja wrote:
The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.
A social worker not a parent wrote that.
So what if it was a Social Worker? You are missing the point that we as a reader have only seen one side. There are always two sides especially when someone goes to the media!

I'm happy to listen to all sides and am so far sitting on the fence as I believe our Child Care is of a good standard.

The family are going to make a complaint and I would hope the Echo follow that up when the issue has been investigated.
[quote][p][bold]Lucy Allan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mursmurja[/bold] wrote: The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.[/p][/quote]A social worker not a parent wrote that.[/p][/quote]So what if it was a Social Worker? You are missing the point that we as a reader have only seen one side. There are always two sides especially when someone goes to the media! I'm happy to listen to all sides and am so far sitting on the fence as I believe our Child Care is of a good standard. The family are going to make a complaint and I would hope the Echo follow that up when the issue has been investigated. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:52am Sun 3 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

mursmurja wrote:
The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.
If this baby was low risk then why was she placed under a section 47. Is that not high risk? Why was the family's photographic evidence not looked at from day one to prove it was not a bruise then there would have been no need for a section 47 to be put in place! Not contacted by the social for 9 days is a joke that's why babies carry on getting abused. I think this family have gone to the paper to outline the mistakes that have been made.

Yeh i think the health visitors need more training on what is a bruise and what is not then maybe innocent families would not have to go through the heartache and pain of what this family has been through.
[quote][p][bold]mursmurja[/bold] wrote: The reactions to this story are outrageous. Social workers have a difficult enough to do, but as soon as someone's circumstances are investigated who dont fit the profile of a typical 'at risk' family' we are expected to accept the argument that social workers must be doing their job badly. Its interesting that no complaint is levelled at the health visitor who reported the issue in the first place. No one, including the echo has bothered to check the rules on minimal levels of contact and the family have missed the point that it is clear that the risks were likely and quickly assessed as low risk early on - so as a minimum the family would have been contacted within the statutory minimum of ten days. The editorial lambasts the rules for not allowing families who have children removed speak out without any thought to the fact that families who do are often some of the most risky and unsafe people in our society, especially risky to children. Do you want people to do their job or is it that the rules only apply to people perceived to be at the bottom of the heap? The families anguish is understandable but going public in this way is in its self questionable - in whose interest is this a story? Certainly not the hundreds of families on southampton who are proven to harm their children and many of whom do not fit the stereotype most would expect.[/p][/quote]If this baby was low risk then why was she placed under a section 47. Is that not high risk? Why was the family's photographic evidence not looked at from day one to prove it was not a bruise then there would have been no need for a section 47 to be put in place! Not contacted by the social for 9 days is a joke that's why babies carry on getting abused. I think this family have gone to the paper to outline the mistakes that have been made. Yeh i think the health visitors need more training on what is a bruise and what is not then maybe innocent families would not have to go through the heartache and pain of what this family has been through. Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

7:59am Sun 3 Feb 13

Sotontalker says...

SotonGreen wrote:
The police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.
Check your facts the police are called in from day one and are part of the process of determining what happens to the child i.e a section 47. The hospital, police and social all work together but it is unfortunate that they all like to pass the buck.
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: The police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.[/p][/quote]Check your facts the police are called in from day one and are part of the process of determining what happens to the child i.e a section 47. The hospital, police and social all work together but it is unfortunate that they all like to pass the buck. Sotontalker
  • Score: 0

8:13am Sun 3 Feb 13

sophialdh says...

social workers r not all bad. they hav to follow up all reports it is sad this happend over xmas but least they were able to b with theor daughter even if it was supervised by family. they could hav placed in foster care. 9days is a long time but like mentioned abovebank hols n wkends do not count n there r only duty social workers on through the night n these times for absolute emergency cases. they ovi thought this lil girl with extra family around was safe enough to wait 4 the social worker on the case to b on shift. .I kno its hard I hav been through it I missed my sons first skool nativity 4yrs ago n I had no 1to support me but I coped on my own n with social workers help I am now stronger n more confident than I ever was. n
social workers r not all bad. they hav to follow up all reports it is sad this happend over xmas but least they were able to b with theor daughter even if it was supervised by family. they could hav placed in foster care. 9days is a long time but like mentioned abovebank hols n wkends do not count n there r only duty social workers on through the night n these times for absolute emergency cases. they ovi thought this lil girl with extra family around was safe enough to wait 4 the social worker on the case to b on shift. .I kno its hard I hav been through it I missed my sons first skool nativity 4yrs ago n I had no 1to support me but I coped on my own n with social workers help I am now stronger n more confident than I ever was. n sophialdh
  • Score: 0

10:32am Sun 3 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Not quite you idiot
[quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]Not quite you idiot andysaints007
  • Score: 0

10:34am Sun 3 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
PR*CK
[quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]PR*CK andysaints007
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sun 3 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media.

Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.
What id your definition of 'ordinary' ?
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media. Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.[/p][/quote]What id your definition of 'ordinary' ? andysaints007
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sun 3 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media.

Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.
What is your definition of 'ordinary'?
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media. Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.[/p][/quote]What is your definition of 'ordinary'? andysaints007
  • Score: 0

11:49am Sun 3 Feb 13

Night Mare says...

andysaints007 wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media.

Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.
What is your definition of 'ordinary'?
andysaints007 - What is your point?
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media. Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.[/p][/quote]What is your definition of 'ordinary'?[/p][/quote]andysaints007 - What is your point? Night Mare
  • Score: 0

11:57am Sun 3 Feb 13

Hugh4me says...

Thought you were considered innocent till proven guilty in this country !!! at the very least they should have ensured checks were made before taking this action. Yes the babies health must come first.But it seems to me that the Departments Christmas was more important than finding a way to clarify things!
Thought you were considered innocent till proven guilty in this country !!! at the very least they should have ensured checks were made before taking this action. Yes the babies health must come first.But it seems to me that the Departments Christmas was more important than finding a way to clarify things! Hugh4me
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

Night Mare wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
cliffwalker wrote:
Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media.

Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.
What is your definition of 'ordinary'?
andysaints007 - What is your point?
Ignore Night Mare ...... He is just a troll
[quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]You're absolutely right, NM, I have to admire people who are prepared to do this job for very ordinary salaries and constant attacks in the media. Of course, mistakes are made and in this case it looks as if an apology should be forthcoming. But, even this can be a dangerous response since an apology for an overcautious assessment can seem like an admission of negligence which might lead to litigation.[/p][/quote]What is your definition of 'ordinary'?[/p][/quote]andysaints007 - What is your point?[/p][/quote]Ignore Night Mare ...... He is just a troll Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Pikey-Biker says...

Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Quite a reasoned post in my opinion
[quote][p][bold]Night Mare[/bold] wrote: Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.[/p][/quote]Quite a reasoned post in my opinion Pikey-Biker
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Sun 3 Feb 13

bigfella777 says...

Social workers are so out of order, look what they did to Lola's baby.
Social workers are so out of order, look what they did to Lola's baby. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Sun 3 Feb 13

SotonGreen says...

andysaints007 wrote:
SotonGreen wrote:
Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed.

Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.
PR*CK
Get over yourself. This isn't the place for insulting each other
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonGreen[/bold] wrote: Social workers following process and doing their job. We would lynch them if the wee one had been harmed. Parents on the other hand looking for 5 minutes of fame go screeching to the media instead of getting on with their lives.[/p][/quote]PR*CK[/p][/quote]Get over yourself. This isn't the place for insulting each other SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 4 Feb 13

tootle says...

Social workers are in a difficult position but also in a position of power which some enjoy, some abuse, some use wisely and well. However to leave a babe they believe is being abused without a visit for 9 days is criminal if true(just my opinion). Just because it is Christmas doesn't mean the child wouldn't be at risk of more harm if their suspicions had been correct.
Social workers are in a difficult position but also in a position of power which some enjoy, some abuse, some use wisely and well. However to leave a babe they believe is being abused without a visit for 9 days is criminal if true(just my opinion). Just because it is Christmas doesn't mean the child wouldn't be at risk of more harm if their suspicions had been correct. tootle
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Mon 4 Feb 13

proud husky owner says...

i know for a fact that social workers come and go frequently and most of them have not got a clue what there doing, talk about over reaction.....shame they didnt over react when baby P was being beaten!
i know for a fact that social workers come and go frequently and most of them have not got a clue what there doing, talk about over reaction.....shame they didnt over react when baby P was being beaten! proud husky owner
  • Score: 0

10:42am Tue 5 Feb 13

dhmands says...

I have written a book about our experience of a false allegation of Shaken Baby that nearly led to the removal of our children in the UK. The book "When Truth no longer Matters" details what happened and the eventual correct diagnosis for our son. (All proceeds to the campaign)
I am working with Rioch Edwards-Brown, campaigner and founder of The 5%ers - a support group for wrongfully accused parents and we have set up an e-petition to try and get the UK Government to ensure there are better protocols to stop wrongful allegations and to stop abused children slipping through the net.
Any support would be gratefully received and your can sign the e-petition here:
http://epetitions.di
rect.gov.uk/petition
s/39967
Thank you!
I have written a book about our experience of a false allegation of Shaken Baby that nearly led to the removal of our children in the UK. The book "When Truth no longer Matters" details what happened and the eventual correct diagnosis for our son. (All proceeds to the campaign) I am working with Rioch Edwards-Brown, campaigner and founder of The 5%ers - a support group for wrongfully accused parents and we have set up an e-petition to try and get the UK Government to ensure there are better protocols to stop wrongful allegations and to stop abused children slipping through the net. Any support would be gratefully received and your can sign the e-petition here: http://epetitions.di rect.gov.uk/petition s/39967 Thank you! dhmands
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree