Munchausens or M by proxy is not diagnosed by SS its diagnosed by psychiatrists/doctors who work for the NHS. I very much doubt there is some interdisciplinary conspiracy to diagnose people without good reason, in order to "sell" kids!! Cmon now. This is a diagnosis given where people continually fake or induce illness on themselves or others to get hospital treament and would not be given lightly!

I have mental health issues and my children were never brought to the attention of SS. I suppose it is all down to those around you who help care for you.

The shoe on the other foot though a friend of mine is a foster parent and today a baby who is 11 weeks old will be coming to her, this baby has a shattered pelvis, a broken arm and upon admission to hospital had a bruised tongue from either force feeding or sexual abuse. Now this is a case where social workers in my opinion are getting it right. Not every social worker is driven by targets, they all join the profession with a view to helping people.

I know there are some cases that raise questions but IMO these are not the majority

Oh yeh I should have said not all with mental health issues do have SS involved aswell (many) ta for that:thumbs: and yes Ive met lots of social workers and its a profession that people go into to help people exactly!

No worries Netto no offence taken lol

As for the munchausens debate, many social workers push for this to be diagnosed, just the fact that they refer to it in documentation give it some bearing! wrong I know but true, it kind of means that they can play god, thankfully not many do.

well yeh Im sure its isolated cases and there is supposed to be quite thorough examinations to fullfill the criteria and other explanations eliminated and what not. Tho I have heard that some areas dont always push for supporting the mother/parents but more likely to go for adoption so Im sure it does go on, thats why there shouldnt be all this secrecy going on they need to be more open

I agree if the systems they used were more open and transparent then people would not worry about conspiracy theories surrounding targets and wrongful removal of children.

I am sure many social workers would love to respond to the often attacks on their profession but are bound by the same secrets that keep them in and out of courts.

yeh theyre damned when they do and damned when they dont and a whole profession gets stick when summat goes wrong!

Yep agreed, they work really hard, I wonder when someone is going to come on here and praise them. Should I start the ball rolling.

As a teenager I had an amazing social worker who tolerated my terrible behaviour, who cared for me when others walked away and who went over and above her professional role to help me become a decent adult.

My social worker was a guest at my wedding when I was 21 and is a kind of surrogate gran to my girls as she was such a big part of my life whilst growing up.

Yayyy big up the social workers!:thumbs: here here lol

Ive never met a social worker who isnt dedicated and lovely and caring!

You may get the "good social worker", however, from my research of cases, including speaking to people who have had problems, it seems that social services departments have a tendency to be Intitutionally lazy.

Saving the Baby P's and the Shannon Matthews of this world take up a lot of effort, where as removing a child at birth, even when there is no real proof of a problem, as in the Fran Lyon case, is a lot cheaper in man hours, plus the family courts are little more than rubber stamps.

As an aside, I found this on the BBC website

OMG "institutionally lazy"? this is your own personal (and totally unbiased) research right? I might agree there are failings sometimes but "Institutionally lazy" haha! Have you had any personal dealings with SWs or any idea of the heavy workloads they have?

and as for these cases you keep bringing up, we dont really know what "proof" there is, you seem to be getting one side of the story only!

Everyone wants a perfect system but noones willing to pay for it! If you want a better more efficient social services and NHS for that matter we have to pay more taxes. Ive worked for both and as far as I can see the main failings come down to underfunding, understaffing and heavy workloads!

Everyone wants a scapegoat for the likes of Baby P but in part we're all to blame!

I find it abhorent that you can say that Sticks, institutionally lazy, you want to tell that to 99% of hard working social workers who work extraordinarily long hours, who never just give up, who care more than most?

I can only suggest that your research has been limited to looking for negative stories about social workers, maybe you could try getting a little balance going Sticks.

I did say there were /are good social workers, when I use the term institutionally lazy I am referring to the system which seems to be broken, not individual overworked social workers at the sharp end.

We are getting cases like Baby P and Shannon Matthews. In the latter case Shannon was removed from the at risk registrar to achieve targets!!

At the same time of these tragedies we have the Fran Lyon case and the Baby G case in Nottingham. In the Nottingham case the Social Services acted outside the law.

Individual social workers may be putting in a lot of hard work, but somewhere at management level decisions are being made with the aim of saving money and cutting resources, leading to overworked social workers and a lack of support. This will ultimately lead to things being missed or not followed up and in some cases taking the easiest and cheapest action. As I mentioned with the Shannon Matthews case, removing her from the At Risk Registrar, just to achieve a target, comes across to me as institutionally lazy

With the issue of forced adoptions, there was a clear financial incentive because a scheme set up by the central government to try and find homes for older children in care was subverted by local social services management. Instead of putting the older children up for adoption they went after babies and softer targets, which is also being institutionally lazy.

Even with out the incentives, it has been reported that if a family are in trouble, it is cheaper to take the children into care and adopt them out, instead of trying to help the family. Such a management decision, based on cost, if the reports are accurate, smacks of taking the easiest route and being institutionally lazy.

I am friends on facebook of a grandmother, whose daughter was targeted unjustly by her local social services. Thankfully the baby is now with her grandmother in Ireland. When her daughter was due to give birth after she fled to Ireland, her local social services sent representatives to the social services in Ireland to argue for removing her baby at birth. The Social Services in Ireland were a little more humane and had no concerns. I am not getting all of this from the media. I have also been in contact with Fran Lyon, the most notorious case from this part of the world.

To quote from Hamlet, "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark", If we are getting the dichotomy of Baby P on one hand and the case of my friend on facebook on the other, are we not talking about two sides of the same coin. In the management of Social Services in local authorities, it does seem like this "Institutional laziness" has taken hold

There is now a government review of social services , I would hope it would deal with both sides here and lead to better practice by social services management and policies of the various local authorities.

I dont think this has anything to do with institutional laziness and cutting costs! There are not enough funds coming from the govt and I repeat we expect them to perform miracles with what they do have when we refuse to pay more taxes to enable a better service. I dont think there is sufficient evidence to say that the social services on the whole are unlawfully pushing for adoptions without GOOD reason just to meet targets, infact I think the idea is insane. And your arguments seem to come from the one side (media, people who have had their children taken off them)

"To quote from Hamlet, "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark", If we are getting the dichotomy of Baby P on one hand and the case of my friend on facebook on the other, are we not talking about two sides of the same coin. In the management of Social Services in local authorities, it does seem like this "Institutional laziness" has taken hold"

This makes no sense

"There is now a government review of social services , I would hope it would deal with both sides here and lead to better practice by social services management and policies of the various local authorities."

Social Services are continually trying to learn from mistakes and improve practice. But without the funding and the staffing, mistakes will be made. Im interested to see what theyre findings on the Baby P situation is, my guess is too many different people going in there and no continuity of contact with the mother, who no doubt was very good at pulling the wool over everyones eyes and should take 99% of the blame along with those animals that lived with her!

I would refer you to the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming who has a file on this.

As for forced adoptions - see this article from the Daily Telegraph

Of course they going to fight the decision theyve not adopted them out voluntarily! Im sure mistakes get made but to suggest social services are doing this to get cash is crazy.

"The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) said it was "dangerous" to suggest children were being taken into care unnecessarily.

Chief executive David Holmes said: "Children come into care for many reasons including parental abuse and neglect. The rise in the numbers of young children coming into care may be explained by a variety of factors including a rise in parental substance misuse."

He pointed out that the decision to take a child into care was scrutinised by an independent children's guardian and the courts. Adoption is scrutinised by the guardian, the courts and an adoption panel.

Mr Holmes added: "If birth parents believe they have had their child taken into care unfairly, they should lodge a formal complaint with their local authority. I believe that this is rare. I certainly do not believe children are systematically being taken into care to meet adoption targets."

Adoption targets were brought in to prevent children in care from waiting months or even years before finding an adoptive family"

BBC NEWS

Link?

From that article

"Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption targets, MPs have claimed." (YES theyve claimed that but they have no proof)

"The government said the courts decided on care cases but there had to be evidence a child was being harmed." (Evidence needed in a court of law)


...and then they balance it out by saying that it is mad to make such claims and there are other explanations (such as the rise in substance abuse)

and these kids are taken into care for reasons. An independant court then listens to those reasons before making a decision

I'll just add a couple of theories of my own as we all are- There have been significant advances in psychological profiling of abusers and also SWs are probably more likely to push for adoption where there are signs of abuse due to high profile cases where children have died and warning signs were not given due attention.

Having read through this thread, and having no personal experience with SW departments, I only have one thing to say.

If it were less cloak & dagger, then everyone would have access to all the facts, and would be able to intervene if they felt someone was being unfairly treated.

So, I'm in agreement with the open/transparent comment posted by Netto & Sunny.

Other than that, I'm reluctant to take a position in this thread, because I feel I'm not aware of all the facts.

Yeh they should be more open apart from maybe giving out names and such like. But to suggest that management or social work teams would take a baby away from the mother for no good reason other than meeting targets and getting cash incentives is barmy. And the courts that they go to to plead the case and produce EVIDENCE are independant from social services!