Sorry state of affairs
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:32 pm
Our daughter sucessfully got her child back after social services were criticised as acting hastily. This took nearly 4 months of hard work.
She has proved thorough her assessments and observations she is a good mum.
Sadly 6 weeks on from her child returning to her, the child is back in foster care on an interim care order.
Our daughter was concerned about some marks on her baby, which she believed to be a rash, not going under a glass. This resulted in her getting advice and going to hospital.
She was told they would need to stay in. She was allowed to care for her child for 4 nights. Answered lots of questions and saw her child examined and tested numerous times.
After 4 nights she was told one consultant had concluded there were non accidental injuries and the social worker tried to get her to sign a section 20.
She didnt on advice of her solicitor but was told she could no longer see her daughter unsupervised and was then given 2 hours supervised contact and had to leave her baby in hospital. Up until then she was left with no observation , so why if they were saying NAI. They also went behind her back to try and get the babys dad to sign, they are not together.
She was treated with contempt by a large number of the nurses and overheard them discussing her child at the nurses station. Saying they were non accidental, two days after admission, they did also treat the baby for an infection. So they had already judged them both without evidence.
All seems back to front, no one spoke to us, her support workers or friend who was with her before she took her baby to hospital.
Feel there is discrimination due to her own background and the fact her child was in care.
All her support network are behind her and there is a strong probability the marks were caused in a baby walker the child is too small for yet and topples forward in andvto the side. A young mums mistake, not deliberate or malicious but unexpected and accidental.
A sorry sorry state childrens services have got to, risk aversion gone mad.
We asked why the child could bnot come to us, told wecwere not assessed. Previously we were a place of safety for another child innour family, with no formal assessment.
She has proved thorough her assessments and observations she is a good mum.
Sadly 6 weeks on from her child returning to her, the child is back in foster care on an interim care order.
Our daughter was concerned about some marks on her baby, which she believed to be a rash, not going under a glass. This resulted in her getting advice and going to hospital.
She was told they would need to stay in. She was allowed to care for her child for 4 nights. Answered lots of questions and saw her child examined and tested numerous times.
After 4 nights she was told one consultant had concluded there were non accidental injuries and the social worker tried to get her to sign a section 20.
She didnt on advice of her solicitor but was told she could no longer see her daughter unsupervised and was then given 2 hours supervised contact and had to leave her baby in hospital. Up until then she was left with no observation , so why if they were saying NAI. They also went behind her back to try and get the babys dad to sign, they are not together.
She was treated with contempt by a large number of the nurses and overheard them discussing her child at the nurses station. Saying they were non accidental, two days after admission, they did also treat the baby for an infection. So they had already judged them both without evidence.
All seems back to front, no one spoke to us, her support workers or friend who was with her before she took her baby to hospital.
Feel there is discrimination due to her own background and the fact her child was in care.
All her support network are behind her and there is a strong probability the marks were caused in a baby walker the child is too small for yet and topples forward in andvto the side. A young mums mistake, not deliberate or malicious but unexpected and accidental.
A sorry sorry state childrens services have got to, risk aversion gone mad.
We asked why the child could bnot come to us, told wecwere not assessed. Previously we were a place of safety for another child innour family, with no formal assessment.