Nobby, what IS it with UK social services?Follow

Best explanation is that some Social Workers are fUcking idiots.

Some, however, although experienced and dedicated, are so overburdened that they know stuff is slipping through the net and become ludicrously risk-averse. We've had a few child deaths where Social Services had the child on their books, but Social Workers hadn't enough hours in the day to see them all, and were vilified in the press.

Another factor is our artificial distinction between Health Services and Social Services. Separate budgets, different governance & accountability, and competing priorities.

This sounds like a classic case of Social Services having a stab at clinical diagnosis and fUcking up.

Borderline personality is a tough one.

Yeah, and I work close enough to our social sevices to know there is probably alot more in her files that are confindential that she's certainly not gonna spill to the media.

...and there's always the flipside. They let her keep her baby, she hurts the kid, and this thread could just as easily be titled the same, but a completely different story eh.

Firstly, I apologise for being a name which isn't known here and for that unknown name not to be Nobby. I lurk, I don't usually post, but this thread grabbed my attention.

I have worked both in a child's team within Social Services (i.e. "for" Social Services) and for lawyers who are involved in child care cases ("against" Social Services) here in the UK (we usually act for the child via their children's guardian and the guardian's view isn't necessarily the one that Social Services takes). The childen's guardian acts purely in the child's best interests. Social Services might have their own theories about what to do for an at-risk newborn, but believe me they have to jump through the hoops to get an emergency protection order (EPO) or a child protection order (CPO) from the Court. As buggered up as our justice system is, there's still a whole lot of ratification that goes on within the Court system before a conclusion is reached.

Having said that, Social Services are under a duty to each and every child in this country. They must ensure that not a single minor is at risk, including newborns or soon-to-be-borns. Of course, this is almost impossible to do. Social workers are by far the most under-funded, most over-stretched group of employees I have had the experience of working with and I pity them their role. They are being careful here - if they didn't take such precautions and, perhaps, be seen as "overreacting", they might well have another Victoria Climbie situation on their hands.

There is no way that the mother mentioned in the article would have been cut off entirely from her baby - any right-minded Judge would not have allowed that when Social Services applied for the EPO or any future CPOs (and believe me, it is very, very, VERY unusual for a Judge to order no familial contact whatsoever). Likely, Social Services would have applied to have taken the newborn infant into care straight away, but mum would have been granted access (albeit supervised) until Social Services weren't so nervous of leaving baby in mum's care.

Most probably, Social Services were relying on experts' reports when devising their birth plan. Taking into consideration mum's background mental history, I'm not surprised they baulked at allowing her free reign with her child. Surely it's better to be safe than sorry, so far as a child's life is concerned?

No, this is assuming we use the same criteria for incarcerating people, for whatever reason, as we do for protecting kids. We don't.

That's what child protective services is all about, and of course, what makes it such a difficult profression. We do charge our social service workers to protect kids 'before' they're hurt or killed.

**have't a clue about laws pertaining to unborn kids, unless it's a question of abortion.

Oh c'mon Smash. Relative risk, baby. Someone has to take a judgement call based on probability, avoidability and severity of impact. A more systematic approach to 'might', but 'might' none the less.

I can't see how that point of view would be considered reasonable and practical, but it's just not mine. People are entitled to the opportunity to fail at things and they should face the consequences of those failures. What I see as ethically wrong, and morally for that matter, is *actively* denying them that chance to fail (or succeed, obviously). By which I mean I'd be ok with not allowing this woman to adopt, but not in taking a child away from her. Risk avoidance isn't the same as invasively taking action based on likely outcomes.

People are entitled to the opportunity to fail at things and they should face the consequences of those failures.

Hmm, yes, because more f*cked up children (and, therefore, later adults) are what society needs, eh? So therefore anyone who falls pregnant is entitled to raise that child - in whatever squalid or abusive circumstances might exist - and fail. Nope, sorry, can't see the logic there.

As an aside, the original newspaper article quoted smacks to me of mum saying to Social Services, "If you don't let me keep my child, I'm going to the papers". Unfortunately for her, looks like The Northern Echo with its circulation of 51188 as of June 07 was the only newspaper interested enough to run the story, possibly in the hope of raising that figure to 51189.

Murderers typically have a very very low recidivism rate. I think too often people hear the word murderer and think "Serial Killer" - when the reality is most murders occur out of a fit of rage combined with - or correlating with - substance abuse, mental problems, or "passion"

This topic is interesting.

Personally, I think this comes from the fact that we glorify birth, without understanding the dynamics. As a society, we assume that getting pregnant and creating flesh made genetic packages makes us special in some way. It doesn't and it never has.

Procreation is a biological function of existence. This isn't some moral grand reality, it just is. And that that is, is, it's not isn't. So, we deal with this strange sort of reality in a way that best fits our social reality. We try and be as understanding as we can be, given the complexity of the situation, trying our hardest not to hurt innocent people.

Easy answers are very rarely found. The truth is, when it comes to social dynamics, academic types don't even really have a clue. They just have a 'kind of sort of in the area of' clue.

From my point of view...at the end of the article, the mum-to-be said social services wouild allow her to stay in a mother and baby home - which she refused.

As I see it, rather than, '10 minutes after birth we are taking your child', the first approach, they should have offered the mother and baby home first , or even allowing the mother to care for her baby, under supervision in the hospital.

A little of my history - I had Bi-polar depresson for 7 years, from the age of 11-18 had an extremely ******** insane period about 6 years ago , self-harmed, attempted suicide , the lot . Because of some other stuff in my past, I WAS considered a potential risk to my child when I got pregnant 4 years ago - I was stable by that point, but they never knew if the added pressure of having a kid might tip me over.

They helped me out a lot - they made it possible for me to have an extended stay in hospital to ensure I was bonding with my child and knew how to care for it ( and I'm glad they did, she was born with a pneumonial infection that was only picked up after I mentioned she snored when suckling), for a healh visitor to visit me every two days and phone every day, and for me to have a gp appointment every week to see how I was coping.

I'm glad they did all this for me . I came down with PND avout 3 months after my daughters birth, and while I never considered harming my daughter, its scary to know how quickly you can slide back into depression when you think you've kicked it.

Social services should have offered more help - protect the child, yes. Take it away without letting the mother even have the chance to prove herself, no.

I proved myself. It was a struggle, and I didn't do it without a good deal of help from social services and health professionals, but I did. I've had three unmedicated and undepressed years, my daughter is happy any healthy (and a pain in the backside to boot) and social service's now have very minimal interference in my life ( they phone every six months or so to see if I'm still bearing up well, and have contact with my GP in case I ever come down with depression again).

Oh, and for fatalillusion, I'm glad to know that your emotional situation from your perspective was dealt with in a way that helped both you and your child. Perception is 9/10ths of reality, and that's what psychologists often miss. Psychology is a science that has to bend with the trees, sort of speak. That's what makes it so dang complicated.

With my first child social services was in the room talking with my ex 5 hours after she had the baby. (I had gone home for a change of clothes) I get to the hospital and they have a guard outside the room with my ex and children's aid inside, I get into the room and find out the reason they are there. My ex had complained to one of her friends that I wouldn't buy hooded towels...which is true, because we had perfectly good' f'n towels in the closet. I straightened them out right quick.

I've met quite a few people in social services. There is only 1 person in children's aid that I've met that had any sense, the rest were all idiots, and I mean completely f'n retarded not just slightly lacking. Most of these people don't even have kids of their own, they have no idea how to be a parent, but they are more than happy to tell you that you have to do this, this, and this because you're 19 and couldn't possibly know wtf you are doing. Yeah, that didn't fly with me. I had them out of my house minutes after they started telling me how to raise my child, and there was nothing they could do about it. Unless they can prove that the children are in danger you don't have to comply with their terms (and in a lot of cases shouldn't). It's the parents responsibility to raise their child, not the governments.

All that being said this story sounds a little fishy to me, it has to be a pretty damn serious situation for a court to authorize taking your child 10 minutes after birth. I think we're missing some pretty damning information about the mother.

in short this mom has a small chance of some strange side affect of giving birth that might make her go a bit crazy and do strange things.

No. While that would make the better Law and Order episode, she has a history of mental illness that makes it far more likely than not that she's going to mess the kid up somehow, probably by causing actual physical injury.