Pool of Perpetrators

[special_dx]

My boy ,(13 months) was admitted to hospital weeks ago with a bleed on the brain and social services got involved. It is my belief that his injuries were accidental, but SS and the police have gone after his mother.

I was told at the start that I had been excluded from the pool of perpetrators by the lead social worker, but since I started questioning their procedures and lack of communication, they've told me I have not been excluded, despite being the only person allowed to visit in hospital
unsupervised for several weeks.

The excuse given was that one of his injuries could not be dated and although I was ruled out for the other injuries recorded, I may have had access during this timeframe.

Despite this, I was told a family friend may be able to supervise my visitation with him and his sister in future, despite the fact that the friend has had at least the same amount of access to him as they've looked after him during the timeframe.

The only conclusion I can draw is that I am being punished for speaking up. How do I approach this? my solicitor does not seem to have an answer.

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear special_dx,

Welcome to the parents' board and thank you for your post.

I am sorry to hear that your son has been unwell and admitted to hospital. You say that this was due to a bleed on the brain and that children's are now involved as they believe this is a non-accidental injury. You believe that the injuries were accidental. Initially, you were excluded from the pool of perpetrators, but have now been told that this is not the case as you may have had access to your son during a time that he sustained an injury that cannot be dated. You have been having unsupervised contact in the hospital and believe that this change is due to you questioning procedures and communication. You have been told that a family friend could supervised contact but this friend also had access to your son during the period of time under question.

Firstly, you mention you have a solicitor - have the local authority initiated care proceedings and if so, are there any orders in place? If your son is under an interim care order, the local authority have shared parental responsibility for him and are able to stipulate conditions around contact. They should allow reasonable contact between him and his parent (s) so long as this is in line with the child's welfare. If the local authority wants to stop contact between a child in care and parent, they need permission from the court.

If there are no court orders in place, the local authority can still make recommendations around contact. If you do not follow these recommendations, they may escalate their level of involvement, which could include applying to the courts immediately for an order or asking the police to take the child into police protection.

If medical evidence has just come to light that now places you in the pool of perpetrators, I would expect the local authority to respond to this. It is not unusual in this circumstance that the local authority recommend contact be supervised. I would advise you write to the social worker and ask why they are now recommending supervised contact, when this was previously unsupervised and to point you in the direction of the medical evidence they are using to back this up.

It is appropriate for the social worker team to respond to new evidence which places you in the pool of perpetrators and to make stipulations around contact that are in your son's best interests. It is not acceptable to alter contact based on how you may have interacted with them or due to you raising concerns.

If you feel this is the case, I would suggest you ask to speak to the social worker and the team manager to discuss this. I would also advise you seek legal advice from your solicitor.

Best wishes,

Suzie.

[special_dx]

Thanks Suzie

I've had almost no correspondence from social services since I had an initial interview and attended a care meeting which appears to have been just before the decision to put me back in the perpetrator pool. At the care meeting I was critical of several mistakes and the lack of communication from social services. I'm concerned that it is not coincidental and my disability (ADHD) not been discussed in terms of accomodations in these proceedings. It was shortly after this that the local authority started to move towards putting me back in the pool, despite telling me I had been excluded based in the same evidence available today.

I first became concerned about social services when my description of their mum's parenting, based on observation was described simply as too supportive of her in their initial report without any explanation or justification. I strongly object to this on the grounds that I merely described things I had witnessed, often via the internet baby cameras, so their mum would not have been aware I could see, but had consented enthusiastically to me having access. I explained the latter when the suggested I did not know what went on when I wasn't there, it feels like they are determined to undermine anything I put forward.

There was a threshold document and a court hearing several weeks ago, but this only mentioned his mum. We have always lived a distance apart, but have an ongoing relationship and I visit when I can (we are not well off), so the perpetrator pool status is based on the assertion that I may have spent a few minutes alone with our son while his mum was in the loo or kitchen. This can only apply to a single injury on the medical report out of 7 that I believe can be attributed to two accidents, the rest can be shown to have happened when I was not present and his mum has never left me in the house alone with either of our children that I can remember as I am there infrequently.

I'm not aware of any new medical evidence that has come to light, but there has been a sudden change of attitude and I believe I will be the subject of a second threshold document submitted at a hearing this week. I've had nothing from court or social services since the last hearing, although they may have sent it to my solicitor. I have a call scheduled with the barrister my solicitor has appointed just before the hearing, but I feel I've had insufficient information about why I've been named. I am also aware that other people with considerably more unaccompanied contact during the window for this injury have been ignored by social services, but we can't raise that because at least one is a close friend who is being put forward by social services to supervise visitation for myself and their mum.

Even my solicitor thinks they are stretching, but does not seem hopeful that the judge will do anything about it and my children are suffering as a result. I'm even concerned that I will be arrested by the police for questioning despite giving a voluntary statement that took almost 4 hours.

I see my children too infrequently due to our life circumstances, this has been catastrophic. Due to the appointment of five medical experts and the request by my solicitor for a sixth, it is also likely that the 26 week timetable will be exceeded and I will be placed in situation where I cannot see my children properly for more than six months.

I view this as harmful to my family as I will need to travel 300 miles round trip to see them for a supervised visit for an hour.

[special_dx]

I should add, I am concerned that talking to the social worker concerned would only make things worse as I feel I am being punished for raising concerns about their failures.

My concerns included:-

Lack of communication in general

Refusal to put things in writing

Contradicting things they had said previously, often with potentially serious repercussions

Not giving us rules and restrictions before enforcing them

Lack of appropriate support to the children's mum