Couple feared they would lose baby over false abuse claims (From Daily Echo)

Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Poor couple! Social workers being typical jobworths again!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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!

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 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!

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 police reference is typical echo hype and refers to a CRB check which is hardly unreasonable nor particularly intrusive.

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!

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Not quite you idiot

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

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' ?

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 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?

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!

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

Night Mare wrote:
Social workers: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Quite a reasoned post in my opinion

Social workers are so out of order, look what they did to Lola's baby.

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

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.

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 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!