My child has been reported to social services

skintchick

THe people who reported the Op could have handled it better. At my local children's centre staff would say 'oh, x, have you been in the wars?' or something like that to the child in front of parent, who would then say 'oh yes, x fell off the sofa/walked into a doorhandle/whatever' and the matter is dealt with easily with no-one feeling accused.

Having said that, there are protocols for SS. My DD fell off her Captain's bed which is 70cms high (there is a bedguard but she got round it) and bumped her head. A couple of days later I was worried about her so took her to the local hospital, who referred us to A&E, and I went there the day after.

At both hospitals they asked about a bruise on her cheek, which I hadn;t mentioned because she got it while out with her dad, she fell forwards onto a toy phone on her bike. They obviously had to bring it up, and while they believed me I think, they did refer it back to my HV who followed it up.

Luckily my HVs know me well and I think know that DD is not a battered child, but they do have to look into things, especially as I may have been making up the fall from the bed to cover up something I or OH had done to her.

milliebear00001

I think it's hit and miss whether these sorts of injuries are followed up to be honest. My youngest has been to hospital quite a few times with various injuries - broken collarbone, falling downstairs, badly bruised arm etc (the latter because his dad accidentally trod on him!) Each time I have felt more trepidation than the last, fully expecting some sort of follow up or questioning! Never once has this happened though. In fact, the only time I've had any follow up at all, was when my daughter was ten months old and she rolled off the bed. She had no injuries at all, but the hospital (in the North) immediately contacted our local HV service (in Kent) and I duly received a call about a week later asking if 'all was well'!

To be honest, although I'm relieved not to have ever had to be investigated further, I don't find the lack of questioning reassuring at all.

bestpud

rinabean wrote: »

So you think they shouldn't look into children who people have seen having a suspicious number/severity of bruises, because you think there's not enough money to just log information when received, because they are understaffed. But social workers should be methodically knocking on the doors of every house to find the kids who aren't taken to places where people will report suspicious injuries? This is the method that uses the least staff, because social workers themselves are only involved at the very last step.

I think it is jumping the gun to inform SS about a bruise on an otherwise healthy and happy child, yes.

Do you think it better that a known, struggling family are left without contact because social workers are faffing about with stuff like this?

It's not about knocking on random doors! There is plenty of families out there who are a known risk but ss don't have the time to support or observe them properly.

Questions should be asked by the people who notice the bruise and in this case, they should have made a note of it and reported if there was other signs of potential abuse at future sessions.

Do all you who think this is a good idea realise how overstretched there services are???

vax2002

What you must remember when dealing with social services is, it is not your child, it's theirs, you registered it the child to the crown.

rinabean

bestpud wrote: »

I think it is jumping the gun to inform SS about a bruise on an otherwise healthy and happy child, yes.

Do you think it better that a known, struggling family are left without contact because social workers are faffing about with stuff like this?

It's not about knocking on random doors! There is plenty of families out there who are a known risk but ss don't have the time to support or observe them properly.

Questions should be asked by the people who notice the bruise and in this case, they should have made a note of it and reported if there was other signs of potential abuse at future sessions.

Do all you who think this is a good idea realise how overstretched there services are???

I think it's best that known injuries are logged. There is no reason for them not to be. Social services will not investigate because of just one suspicious injury - as you say, they are overstretched. If nursery workers and teachers and doctors report suspicious injuries, they're lessening the load on social services, as they don't have to find the injuries themselves. If you read the OP's posts, you'll see that it's not just one bruise, either (not that I'm doubting that the OP's child is not otherwise happy and healthy). But it's not for us to decide whether or not that it's suspicious. Someone with some kind of relevant training has decided that it is suspicious, and they are forwarding it to people with the training to decide whether it's more than that.

"Known" families tend to fit a certain mould. Not all child abusers do. Look at all of you saying that if you can calmly and easily give an excuse for a child's injuries then you are obviously innocent! Not everyone who abuses their children is the kind of dimwit who doesn't know how to lie. I think some people feel that their accents, addresses and perhaps the rings on their fingers mean they should be exempt from scrutiny from social services, which is ridiculous. And of course people are offended at the implication that they are child abusers when they aren't, but there's no way for them to know this unless they investigate! Unless you want CCTV in your home and wherever you go, of course.

bestpud

rinabean wrote: »

I think it's best that known injuries are logged. There is no reason for them not to be. Social services will not investigate because of just one suspicious injury - as you say, they are overstretched. If nursery workers and teachers and doctors report suspicious injuries, they're lessening the load on social services, as they don't have to find the injuries themselves. If you read the OP's posts, you'll see that it's not just one bruise, either (not that I'm doubting that the OP's child is not otherwise happy and healthy). But it's not for us to decide whether or not that it's suspicious. Someone with some kind of relevant training has decided that it is suspicious, and they are forwarding it to people with the training to decide whether it's more than that.

"Known" families tend to fit a certain mould. Not all child abusers do. Look at all of you saying that if you can calmly and easily give an excuse for a child's injuries then you are obviously innocent! Not everyone who abuses their children is the kind of dimwit who doesn't know how to lie. I think some people feel that their accents, addresses and perhaps the rings on their fingers mean they should be exempt from scrutiny from social services, which is ridiculous. And of course people are offended at the implication that they are child abusers when they aren't, but there's no way for them to know this unless they investigate! Unless you want CCTV in your home and wherever you go, of course.

Erm, where did I say people are innocent if they are able to give a plausible excuse?? I'd be grateful if you'd take that back!!

You have no idea how I feel about the kind of abuse that goes undetected behind 'respectable' doors!

But, that does not mean I think it appropriate to have overstretched social workers dealing with a bruise on an otherwise healthy and happy child.

What exactly will they know after one phone call anyway? It may or may not be picked up in any future reports and they will have no idea what the mother looks like, lives like or even if they are speaking with the mother!!

But anyway, we will obviously have to agree to disagree, but please do not put words in my mouth - you are sooo wrong in your assumption!

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

DD2 was (still is) a permanent walking disaster. She could sit on the floor and fall off (and frequently does).

Every week she attended after school club, there would be a bruise in some place or another. As I was at work, the odds were that I didn't have a clue how she got them. All that happened was that the more spectacular ones were entered into the accident book at the club and they told me quietly and privately each time they felt they had to note them. No further comeback.

Oh, plus the emergency attendance when a friend babysat and her eldest son imbedded a space shuttle in her scalp. That's on record somewhere. So is the headfirst plunge down the slope on roller skates. I was there for that one, I retrieved her by her ankles. And the day she shut her thumb in the back door. Took her to the doctor for that one. They laughed as she told them that the door slammed as she was talking to her friend next door and I got out of the bath, bringing most of it with me and probably giving next door's kid nightmares for the rest of their life. 9 year old humour, eh?


Some kids are like that. I've never felt I've been looked at funny because of it, but I daresay, had she been younger (she's 12 now), these days I would have had at least one mention to SS.



Conversely, when two of us - myself and my brother - out of five children were being battered, SS got involved with him, but she got away with that because he then had 3 accidents at school in a row. And she was well used to them and what she needed to say by the time I came along for her to take her rages out on. Having a posh voice also helped her. So anything that may help stop that in a child is fine by me, no matter how irritating it may be at times.

Candy53

It's all gone mad hasn't it?!

When my daughter was 6 she fell over and banged her leg. The next day she went to school with a bruise on it. Her teacher noticed it and 'reported' it to the head teacher. They both took her to the office and asked her where she had got the bruise from, but before she could answer, one of them actually asked her if mummy or daddy hits her!!

Even at a young age my daughter was very independant, and spoke her mind. She said she got angry with them and told them we did not hit her, and said she had fallen down. She told me the teachers looked embarassed.

I was so angry and shocked when she came home and told me! It's common for kids of that age to be getting bruises on their knees and legs.

Candy

milliebear00001

Candy53 wrote: »

It's all gone mad hasn't it?!

When my daughter was 6 she fell over and banged her leg. The next day she went to school with a bruise on it. Her teacher noticed it and 'reported' it to the head teacher. They both took her to the office and asked her where she had got the bruise from, but before she could answer, one of them actually asked her if mummy or daddy hits her!!

Even at a young age my daughter was very independant, and spoke her mind. She said she got angry with them and told them we did not hit her, and said she had fallen down. She told me the teachers looked embarassed.

I was so angry and shocked when she came home and told me! It's common for kids of that age to be getting bruises on their knees and legs.

Candy

This is something all teachers (and others involved in child protection) are taught never to do. Asking such a question would prejudice any court proceedings further down the line as it would be deemed to be leading the child's response.

We are told to listen, record, never promise confidentiality to the child and report onwards. We do not probe or question - that's not our job.

(Incidentally, we are also trained to spot signs of potential abuse. Bruises to legs and knees are less likely to be a result of physical abuse than the bruising in other areas (such as upper arms/faces etc that we are taught to look out for).

Candy53

Well perhaps this training has been updated. This happend to my daughter 11 years ago. We were always hearing about children being questioned by teachers. I remember it became so bad that parents were scared to send their kids to school if they had a bruise anywhere.

Candy