Why do social services take children away from parents who are NOT abusing or neglecting their children in any way, and have nothing to hide at all, but people like the parents of Baby P got away scot-free with abusing him until he died?
I mean, a child pulls a muscle in his leg, the worried parent takes him to the doctor, then a few days later they get social services knocking at their door and asking the parents a bunch of questions about their child's accident, and all of a sudden the children are took away, leaving the parents devastated and the children frightened.
It's what I read about in magazines a lot, and it sickens me. In the end, the parents fight to get their children back, and often they do win. But Baby P got health visitors coming, and they saw all the bruises and other injuries on his body, and they believed the parents when they said the baby was accident-prone. But genuine parents with accident-prone children get overlooked and accused of abusing their children.
Why is this?
_________________
Female
You can't believe most of what you read in magazines. During the current period of austerity, continual cost cutting and efficiency savings, social services are short of funding, staffing and safe places in which to relocate children. I therefore find it difficult to believe that they'd place children into care for no good reason. They can't simply walk into a house and remove a child, they first need to obtain a court order and to have one granted they need to legally prove that the child is in danger.
_________________
Gamsediog biptol ap simdeg Bimog, toto absolimoth dep nimtec gwarg. Am in litipol wedi memsodth tobetreg bim nib.
Somewhere completely different:
Autism Social Forum
I am no longer active on this forum, I've quit.
social service workers don't always perfectly interpret situations. Some are overcautious and others overlook more obvious seeming cases. Social services workers don't intentionally take children out of a home without good reason. It is more that they believed that there was good reason to do so, acted accordingly, and in the aftermath were found to be overly cautious.
There have been documented examples of local authorities acting in such ways. Dismiss the idea at you peril.
A good example is the Satanic ritual abuse hysteria such as Cleveland child abuse scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland ... se_scandal
The problem is the amount of power social services have. If a child is put into protection, what the parent can do is quite limited. Also family courts are notoriously secretive.
