Reasonable Criticism

[special_dx]

Has anyone been through supervised visitation and been criticsised for seemingly ridiculous things?

Social services are pushing for a permanent care order based on my son's injuries (which we hope to prove are accidental) and their assertion that his mother allows our daughter to do dangerous things, such as:-

Playing in the garden with bare feet

Standing near an open window on the sofa (in case she is abducted or falls)

Jumping on a bed or sofa

Standing on a step to help mummy in the kitchen

Being given a bath towel that is too big in case she trips

These were all listed as reasons which they are going to use to request a permanent care order, even if our son's injuries are ruled accidental as they still feel it was due to negligence.

To my mind this seems absolutely absurd, but they have not given us any criteria for their assessments.

[KatKat10]

Had the same thing during supervised contact sessions. The SW has picked something out and has tried to spin it as something sexual orientated. I feel the SW is going through the contact reports with a fine tooth comb, looking for a something or anything to justify decision making.

I find it very concerning that professionals are allowed to twist and speculate and project their own ideology.

KatKat10

[special_dx]

Sorry to hear that, it sounds really unsettling.

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear special_dx,

You say that children's services are seeking a care order for your son who is subject to care proceedings due to suspected non-accidental injury. You say that even if the injuries are proven to be accidental, they will still seek a care order due to concerns of neglect. You have listed a number of reasons why they are concerned about neglect, which you say you find absurd.

For a Care Order to be made, the court must be satisfied that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to:

- the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him, if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him/her; or

- the child being beyond parental control.

The duty is on the local authority to show that the ‘threshold criteria’ has been met. Therefore, the local authority would need to evidence to the court that any neglect the children have or may experience amounts to significant harm.

If you do not agree with the local authority's proposed care plan, it is important that you speak to your solicitor, who will be able to advise you on next steps, including how you may contest this at the final hearing.

Best wishes,

Suzie.