Social Services a disgrace

[upthealbion1970]

So you could not have just said, it is actually Miss White or better still not worry about it

Professionals that can't get something as simple as a name right righto

 

[LamieRobertson]

In my one dealing with social services - when my father had Alzheimers - I thought they were absolutely appalling. They may well have been good people with well meaning intentions, but it was pathetic. They did not know how anything should be done, so everything was done wrong all the time. They had no clue as to what we were entitled to or how to go about getting it. I was astounded as to how in competent they seemed. After trying to get something sorted for well over a year and nothing seemingly happening, they finally offered us some help - two weeks after he had died. Nothing surprises me any more.

Sorry to learn Of your experience..my mother suffered sane illness before passing away earlier this year and we as a family had the opposite experience.. social services..the mental health service locally and the care home she ended her life in ..helped a lot

 

[Biscuit]

Agreed - so after a final decision. So you therefore can't make public any potential injustice or lies presented to the court before a decision. Family courts should be the same as criminal courts.

The second part is true - the government came very close to putting into law the right of the father to have a 50/50 access right ( with some conditions ). They backed down. So now, as an "estranged" father I'm at the behest of my ex-wife for access to my children. I want 50/50 - she allows me every other weekend ( and time when she wants to go on holiday without them ). The only way I can change this ? Go to court, spend THOUSANDS and probably get an extra night. If the government hadn't been such cowards then I would have a LEGAL RIGHT to have my children 50% of the time.

That's ****ing bullshit. So sorry to hear that mate.

 

[Superphil]

Clearly, the majority of those who have posted on this thread, have a strong dislike of Social Services. I wonder what people think we need instead of our current Social Services?

Corrected for you.

For each time they make a complete **** up like the story here, they carry out thousands and thousands of unreported, perfectly satisfactory actions, doing their job the best they are able.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

That's ****ing bullshit. So sorry to hear that mate.

Thank you. Just winds me up so so so much that the rights seem to fall to the mother - regardless of circumstances !

 

[EDS]

Agreed - so after a final decision. So you therefore can't make public any potential injustice or lies presented to the court before a decision. Family courts should be the same as criminal courts.

Can I ask what injustice or lies though? thats why there are judges. If the judge you are with is not doing their job then you can have it moved up.

The second part is true - the government came very close to putting into law the right of the father to have a 50/50 access right ( with some conditions ). They backed down. So now, as an "estranged" father I'm at the behest of my ex-wife for access to my children. I want 50/50 - she allows me every other weekend ( and time when she wants to go on holiday without them ). The only way I can change this ? Go to court, spend THOUSANDS and probably get an extra night. If the government hadn't been such cowards then I would have a LEGAL RIGHT to have my children 50% of the time.

You do not need to spend thousands, you can do it yourself. The thing is though how can you have the children fifty per cent if you work? who would take them to and collect them from school? who would prepare their meals?
This is not me being awkward, this is what Judges want to know

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Agreed - so after a final decision. So you therefore can't make public any potential injustice or lies presented to the court before a decision. Family courts should be the same as criminal courts.

The second part is true - the government came very close to putting into law the right of the father to have a 50/50 access right ( with some conditions ). They backed down. So now, as an "estranged" father I'm at the behest of my ex-wife for access to my children. I want 50/50 - she allows me every other weekend ( and time when she wants to go on holiday without them ). The only way I can change this ? Go to court, spend THOUSANDS and probably get an extra night. If the government hadn't been such cowards then I would have a LEGAL RIGHT to have my children 50% of the time.

Westdene - have you considered going to court as a litigant in person? quite a few people in the family court system do and have had some success. Families Need Fathers have been campaigning for a presumption of shared care since 1974 - its worth taking a look at their website on www.fnf.org.uk theres a meeting at the Nevil pub next Monday if you want more info to see what else you can do.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You do not need to spend thousands, you can do it yourself. The thing is though how can you have the children fifty per cent if you work? who would take them to and collect them from school? who would prepare their meals?
This is not me being awkward, this is what Judges want to know

I have a flexible working agreement with my employer - besides my ex-wife works full time so why is the presumption that she can deal with it but I can't ?

Westdene - have you considered going to court as a litigant in person? quite a few people in the family court system do and have had some success. Families Need Fathers have been campaigning for a presumption of shared care since 1974 - its worth taking a look at their website on www.fnf.org.uk theres a meeting at the Nevil pub next Monday if you want more info to see what else you can do.

Thank you CR - I can't make this coming Monday but is it a regular thing at the Neville ( or indeed locally ) ? I will certainly look into that. It drives me up the wall that I spend a fortune on maintenance and then the same again ensuring my children have a safe and happy place to come and stay with me but I'm not automatically allowed them 50% of the time.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

That is totally wrong, totally. You can discuss the case with anybody you like but after the case has finished. The only thing you cannot reveal are the names of the parties and any children involved in the case.
The other part is also not totally true either, there is more and more movement towards shared parenting. What does screw this up somewhat is mud slinging and pure lies from one of the parties in the case

He's not wrong totally - you can talk about the case and show details with someone and get advice, what you can't do it post stuff all over the internet and divulge information that can allow the parties to be recognised. This change happened in the last few years, before that you were not supposed to discuss it with anyone except a legal advisor. I would add that whilst the public and many people are moving towards THE IDEA of shared parenting the courts ARE NOT. Whilst more and more people are sharing care and parenting, court and cafcass in most cases won't go near it and would prefer to go with "if mother is happy then the children will be happy"
The main rule of care is that whoever gets the Child benefit is main carer. In most cases thats mothers and getting it changed is a problem and its also (probably) the reason the government backed down on the shared parenting presumption - image the country having to pay 2 lots of C benefit to families and what about families where the children have 3or 4 sets of fathers?

 

[BadFish]

I for one don't agree that they are a disgrace as my wife is a social worker - there are good people and bad working for local authorities across the country in challenging situations and this is a sensationalist story where not all facts are in the public domain. It's like saying all football fans are hooligans. Rant over.

I concur, there must be more to this story than meets the eye. It just doesn't add up.

I bloody hope so anyway or this is one almighty human rights abuse and hideous mistake.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

I have a flexible working agreement with my employer - besides my ex-wife works full time so why is the presumption that she can deal with it but I can't ?



Thank you CR - I can't make this coming Monday but is it a regular thing at the Neville ( or indeed locally ) ? I will certainly look into that. It drives me up the wall that I spend a fortune on maintenance and then the same again ensuring my children have a safe and happy place to come and stay with me but I'm not automatically allowed them 50% of the time.

Its every 2nd Monday of the month so next week then 13th Jan - 8pm, women also welcome so are wags and partners

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Its every 2nd Monday of the month so next week then 13th Jan - 8pm, women also welcome so are wags and partners

Thank you so much. I guess I can just turn up - no invite required ? 13th is now in my diary !

 

[EDS]

He's not wrong totally - you can talk about the case and show details with someone and get advice, what you can't do it post stuff all over the internet and divulge information that can allow the parties to be recognised.
So exactly what I said then.
This change happened in the last few years, before that you were not supposed to discuss it with anyone except a legal advisor. I would add that whilst the public and many people are moving towards THE IDEA of shared parenting the courts ARE NOT. Whilst more and more people are sharing care and parenting, court and cafcass in most cases won't go near it and would prefer to go with "if mother is happy then the children will be happy"
The main rule of care is that whoever gets the Child benefit is main carer. In most cases thats mothers and getting it changed is a problem and its also (probably) the reason the government backed down on the shared parenting presumption - image the country having to pay 2 lots of C benefit to families and what about families where the children have 3or 4 sets of fathers?

Why would they have to pay two sets of Child benefit? I know one father tried this with housing benefit and was told no, so I fail to see why child benefit would be any different.
Maybe your experience of the courts is different to mine

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Why would they have to pay two sets of Child benefit? I know one father tried this with housing benefit and was told no, so I fail to see why child benefit would be any different.
Maybe your experience of the courts is different to mine

Because with shared care there is a presumption of equality and why should one parent get £22 a week to spend on the child if the other with care doesn't.

And without child benefit you can't get any other Child based credits such as working tax or housing so why should one parent get these and the other not?


No government will want to open the door to that and also Womens Aid will be up in arms if Men start getting benefits

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Except it didn't actually happen as the initial reports stated

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/02/forced-caesarean-risk-mother-child

The health trust asked for the court order, not social services

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Why would they have to pay two sets of Child benefit? I know one father tried this with housing benefit and was told no, so I fail to see why child benefit would be any different.
Maybe your experience of the courts is different to mine

I should add that above I'm only talking about benefit where there is a single child - If you can get Benefits to agree you have equal care you can get the C Benefit split if there are two or more children.

Labour really stuffed up the system when they changed the amount of CB for the first child and again when they created Child tax credits. Linking other tax credits to familes and children helped increase the arguing in divorce because whereas before it was just an argument about who the children would live mainly with it can now become an argument over whether one aprent can afford to even have home to have their children come round to and with the cost of housing in the south east its a big problem. A single parent with 3 children getting cb tax credits etc can get 10K per annum in the right circumstances whilst the non resident parent earning £20k gets nothing.

You can even get some parents splitting up because they are better off and getting together for "social ocassions"

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Thank you so much. I guess I can just turn up - no invite required ? 13th is now in my diary !

Its just turn up - all welcome

 

[EDS]

I should add that above I'm only talking about benefit where there is a single child - If you can get Benefits to agree you have equal care you can get the C Benefit split if there are two or more children.

Labour really stuffed up the system when they changed the amount of CB for the first child and again when they created Child tax credits. Linking other tax credits to familes and children helped increase the arguing in divorce because whereas before it was just an argument about who the children would live mainly with it can now become an argument over whether one aprent can afford to even have home to have their children come round to and with the cost of housing in the south east its a big problem. A single parent with 3 children getting cb tax credits etc can get 10K per annum in the right circumstances whilst the non resident parent earning £20k gets nothing.

You can even get some parents splitting up because they are better off and getting together for "social ocassions"

I personally believe that it should not be about benefits but about whom is best placed to care for the children and I think the courts largely do strive for that. I do not see how that is the fault of the social services or the courts though.
I thought we were talking about Westdene seagull, seeing his kids more. I have personally took a case to appeal myself and to be honest the Judges seem more favourable than when I had counsel. In nine months I spent 50k, I had a solicitor on £220+VAT per hour and a barrister on £200+VAT per hour.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You do not need to spend thousands, you can do it yourself.

I thought we were talking about Westdene seagull, seeing his kids more. I have personally took a case to appeal myself and to be honest the Judges seem more favourable than when I had counsel. In nine months I spent 50k, I had a solicitor on £220+VAT per hour and a barrister on £200+VAT per hour.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here but

 

[drew]

this is Social Service growing some. cast your mind back a few weeks to the tragic case of the dead 4 year left in the house, or the other recent similar stories of serious fatal child neglect, they represent examples of the standard responce. in this scenario, which we dont know all the details of, who are you going to protect, mother or child? you cant always choose both.

This. There are numerous cases where people have moaned that Social Services didn't do enough to protect the kid, baby P as the prime example. Before I read the Guardian I already assumed there was far more to this than the original link to the Independent. It seems clear there was a risk to the baby hence the reason a court ordered the c-section and I have absolutely no problem with that. Where it appears to have fallen down is the lack of communication with the Italian authorities. However, what would you think of social services is the Italians took the view that it is the woman's child therefore she has to have it and within a couple of months she hasn't taken her meds again and the baby ends up abused or even dead. There is a whole lot of info that we aren't privvy to and it is therefore very difficult to be objective about the decisions made.

Agreed - so after a final decision. So you therefore can't make public any potential injustice or lies presented to the court before a decision. Family courts should be the same as criminal courts.

The second part is true - the government came very close to putting into law the right of the father to have a 50/50 access right ( with some conditions ). They backed down. So now, as an "estranged" father I'm at the behest of my ex-wife for access to my children. I want 50/50 - she allows me every other weekend ( and time when she wants to go on holiday without them ). The only way I can change this ? Go to court, spend THOUSANDS and probably get an extra night. If the government hadn't been such cowards then I would have a LEGAL RIGHT to have my children 50% of the time.

I thought the proposal was that the starting point would be 50/50 access, not that you have the right to 50/50. In other words, mother and father start on an equal footing then all other factors are then taken into account, most importantly, what is best for the child. I'm no expert on the subject but read the following which gave it a bit of clarity.

http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media...iscusses-the-5050-shared-parenting-principle/

Feel for your situation and hope you can eventually reach an amicable solution for all parties. Best of British.