What on earth is social services end goal here?

[Mrbean123]

So in December I posted about what is happening in my life: wife and children asked to leave the family home as our Internet was used to download indecent images. Of the 6 adults living in the house, the 3 males are now only being investigated.

In December, I was arrested and released on conditional bail which stipulated no contact. This was because on my device, 2 images of my daughter was classed by the police officer as Category C indecent. Now, 2 important points to note: the 2 images in question were part of our family photos folder which is not only easy to access and not hidden but containers thousands of photos. Innocent photos I might add. Also, the images used against me weren't exactly 'downloaded from the Internet' nor relate to the apparent images which started all this off.

Is it normal for the police to give social services crumbs or information to work off, with no actual context?

To add to this, me and my wife have followed all the rules to date, which has been noted several times by social services. And she has been identified clearly as a protective factor. What is strange though, is we have another conference next week, and in the social workers report they are now making comments to the fact my wife is believing me innocent until proven guilty. In particular, the social workers manager comment makes reference to "I am worried the mother does not believe the concerns and needs education and support in this regard"

Surely they don't expect my wife to assume I'm guilty until proven innocent? Given the evidence put against me is both weak and arguably stupid. Even the social worker mentioned that I should be innocent until proven guilty (to which I find out recently that via telephone the social worker has been trying to get my wife to change her opinion) And the fact the police have now reallowed supervised contact again should prove that I'm getting closer and closer to being shown as innocent.

Social services have not done anything for my wife and children the past 3 months. They're living in a single room at her brother's, because she doesn't qualify for social housing and is expected to use the children's savings to fund private rent.
Social worker has also hinted at the fact that unless someone is found guilty, this children can never go home - which is ludicrous given the fact it's an internet crime, not physical one and therefore if the police clear the adults of the house, what else can be expected of us? We as a family are already working to figure out how the Internet may have been compromised in the hopes the police wish to pursue as a line of enquiry (instead of just examine devices and dropping investigation)

Social services really don't seem to have a solid idea or end goal to this. I appreciate it's a difficult situation, but whatever they're aiming to do certainly feels outright wrong.

What should I be doing in this situation? Besides raising concerns with the council (social workers line management etc) where else can I turn to for advice/support? I'm worried that because of the uncertainties social are facing, their actions are borderline legal and ethical.

[Bananamilkshake]

Hi, I would be immediately engaging with a family lawyer about this. It sounds absured to me what SS are doing! Good luck!

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear Mrbean123,

Thank you for your post.

You say that you in December, your wife and children were asked to leave the family home as your internet used to download indecent images. The 3 males living in your home are being investigated. You were arrested in December and released on bail which stated that you should have no contact. This was because 2 images were found on your device of your daughter which were classed by the police as Category C indecent images. You deny this and say the photos were part of a family photo album and not downloaded from the internet. You would like to know if the police can give children's services small amounts of information. You say you and your wife have followed all the rules set and that she has been identified as a protective factor. In advance of a conference next week, concerns have been raised that you wife may not believe these concerns. You do not think your wife should be expected to see you as guilty before you are proven innocent. You say that the social worker mentioned you should be innocent until proven guilty. You say that the police have now 'allowed' supervised contact and that shows that you are closer to being shown as innocent. You say children's services have not done anything for your wife and children the past 3 months and that they are living in a single room at her brother's house because she does not qualify for social housing. The social worker has hinted that if no one is found guilty, then the children cannot return home. You say that this is 'ludicrous' as it is an internet crime that has been alleged, not a physical one. You feel children's services do not have an end goal and would like to know what you can do.

Children's services have concerns that you - or someone in your household - has access indecent images of children and therefore may pose a risk of harm to your children. Your children are on a child protection plan, and as per your bail conditions, you are allowed supervised contact. Children's services cannot override the parameters of your bail conditions, so unless these change, there will continue to be this constriction. If this is lifted, children's services may wish to risk assess you for unsupervised contact, although it is not guaranteed that they will endorse this.

You feel that there is no clear end game with children's services involvement. This is understandable and is complicated by the fact that children's services (nor anyone) is fully clear on what may have happened. Once the police investigation is complete (and any possible court proceedings that may take place have happened), they may feel more informed and able to recommend that you either move back into the home or that you do not, and whether contact should be supervised or not. This may also be dictated by any possible sentences, custodial or not, that could be bestowed upon you should you be charged and convicted.

You mention that children's services are concerned about your wife's position that you are innocent until proven guilty. This is a legal principle that is used within the criminal justice system. This is not the principle that children's services follow because it is does not appropriately tend to safeguarding risks when making decisions about the welfare of children. Therefore - even if you are not charged, or convicted - children's services can and may continue to be concerned about you living with your children, or being around them unsupervised. That is because these facts merely show that the crown prosecution service did not think there was a reasonable chance of conviction or that a jury did not think there was guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - it does not, in the eyes of children's services, mean that the alleged offence did not happen or that you pose no risk. This why they are unable to tell you whether they would ever support you moving back into the home.
Additionally, the alleged offence being committed via the internet does not mean the children in the home would be at no risk due to the nature of online sex offences. Children's services will expect your wife to understand this in order to evidence protective capacity. One way to more accurately understand the risk that someone may pose is for that person to undergo a specialist risk assessment by an expert - you may want to speak to the Lucy Faithful organisation about this, who offer these kind of assessments.

As I understand, your bail conditions prevent you from living with your children. If these were not in place, you and your wife could decide to move back in with each other. This could be against children's services recommendations, but they do not have the legal power to stop you. This may make them very concerned, and in response, they could seek legal advice and potentially escalate the matter to court for permission to remove your children. It is advisable therefore that you work with children's services before you and your wife make such a decision. If you think their recommendation is unfair, you could make a formal complaint to the local authority.

You may also wish to speak to a solicitor about the possibility of applying to the courts for a child arrangements order, now or in the future, to deal with the issue of contact with your children and supervision. Child Law Advice provide free and confidential advice on private law orders on 0300 330 5480.

Finally, I am sorry to hear about your wife and children's living situation. You say that she is not entitled to council accommodation. Children's services must work the local housing authority and are also able to provide accommodation/financial assistance under Section 17 of the Children Act.

I hope this has been helpful.

Best wishes,

Suzie.

[Mrbean123]

Thank you Suzie,

"You mention that children's services are concerned about your wife's position that you are innocent until proven guilty. This is a legal principle that is used within the criminal justice system. This is not the principle that children's services follow because it is does not appropriately tend to safeguarding risks when making decisions about the welfare of children."
It's been evidenced on paper by social services on several occasions, and at both child protection conferences, that my wife has demonstrated to be a protective factor for the children and they have no concerns about that fact. However, it's strange that they still bring the fact up that she (my wife) has her opinion on the situation. She is fully aware of the evidence used in the allegation against me and has seen the 2 images. She also queried the police officers reasoning as to why they were deemed indecent - as it transpires, the reasoning is flawed and can immediately debunk the categorisation (a head and/or legs need to be present in the image which are) The police officer then advised my wife they no longer wanted her statement, which added to the conclusion my wife came to. (Again to note, unrelated the cause of the investigation)
Despite my wife feeding this back to the social worker, and even showing them one of the pictures (because again, we're an open and transparent family with nothing hidden from each other), they have still on several occasions, have tried to push for her to change her opinion and turn her against me. This is not my interpretation but observations from my wife, and those she and the children live with at present.
(Because social has said, until yesterday, for no one to contact me)

The actions and comments from the social worker to this day, do not demonstrate any priority for the children's welfare and instead lean towards an easier workload. It's as if they're not used to working with a family who, having shared all possible details of the situation with each other, all have come to the same conclusion of innocence.
Topped with the key facts that both children are unharmed, doing amazing both personally and academically. And that all family members have followed all rules to the dot.

This was all again reinforced again yesterday, when we had our family group conference. Of which we left with a solid plan, but to the coordinators surprise the plan not being approved pending a managerial approval instead. (To add, the social worker joined part 1 whilst driving - both unsure and not confidential)

I can assure you that at no point have we ever considered bypassing the rules, however unfair they may be.

I've constantly asked about any assessments or training that I could undertake. It was the recent independent chair that suggested that the LFF, whilst yes on paper looks to target convicted or people found guilty - training on understanding signs and risks might be useful. Otherwise I've pretty much been ignored.

Honestly, it's very clear and not disguised that I'm being treated as guilty without the investigation concluding. And it's my children suffering because of the complete lack of motivation to support safe family contact..

It's also worth noting that the police have now reworded the initial investigation of our household. Previously it states "a device has accessed images" but now reads "a device may have.." which leads me to believe that a rogue device or something malicious has used our Internet. If anything, maybe social services will also start believing us !

My wife has been told my social services that she must source housing herself, because she can access the children's savings.