Post #1,469
7/11/01 1:39:23 PM
|
Stakes are high
And you think they (the social services) do this for fun?
"Gee, that kid has a bruise that could be suspicious. Let's add to our already enormous workload and vast ocean of paperwork by accusing the parents of neglect and abuse! That way, we can disenfranchise the parents AND fundamentally disorient the child, all at once!"
My ex's mother is a social worker, working in Children and Families - the sharp end, in other words. She has told me many things about her job. I know what the people who do this kind of work are like, and they give a shit like you wouldn't believe. Hell, no-one would be able to do the job if it wasn't for love.
Rule Number One Of Being A Social Worker : You Can't Win.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,472
7/11/01 1:42:13 PM
|
Yup
"Gee, that kid has a bruise that could be suspicious. Let's add to our already enormous workload and vast ocean of paperwork by accusing the parents of neglect and abuse!
Happened to me
"Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #1,478
7/11/01 1:52:35 PM
|
And?
You're extrapolating out from your own experience, to what the whole system *should* be, based on the fact that you are a good parent - as I truly believe you to be.
There are a LOT of children out there who are with very, very bad parents. The really sad thing is that some of them are going to die horrible, painful deaths because the social services DARE NOT ACT lest they invoke the wrath of people like you.
In order to understand why the social services do what they do you have to understand that they routinely deal with people for whom beating a child half to death is "discipline".
No, the social services is most definitely not geared up for dealing with good parents. But as I have seen and heard, it can be very difficult to tell the really bad parent from the really good one, because these "people" can be consummate and articulate liars, prepared to say anything at all to continue doing what they do.
It's your call. You're a social worker. You have 10 minutes to decide whether this kid really fell and bruised herself and is telling you the truth, or if she's being systematically brutalised by her parents and dare not tell you anything like the truth.
The clock is ticking.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,484
7/11/01 2:07:52 PM
|
Re: And?
It's your call. You're a cop. You have 10 minutes to decide whether the man slipped and hit his head or was murderd
Point is that social services face the same kinds of situations as cops and must make the same kinds of life/death judgements. However, at least in this country, social service people are not under the same restrictions as police officers. Things like "innocent until proven guilty" and "unreasonable search and seizure" and "search warrents" and "due process" do not apply
"Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting
|
Post #1,485
7/11/01 2:12:06 PM
|
Er?
No, you have a bloody long time in the trial in front of a duly appointed judge and 12 good men and true.
The guy is *already* dead. He's not in a hurry to go anywhere.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,486
7/11/01 2:19:14 PM
|
Same thing
Maybe a bad example but what aboot a woman accusing a man of assault, or stalking. Is she telling the truth? Is he innocent? Should he be locked up for her safety? Is she just out to get him in trouble?
"Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #1,488
7/11/01 2:22:56 PM
|
It's slightly different
Firstly, the balance of power is not utterly one-sided, like it is with a child/adult situation.
Secondly, both parties are usually at least in the same ball park when it comes to reasoning and explicative capacity.
It's no better a situation - being falsely accused sucks, full stop - but it is quite different.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,490
7/11/01 2:28:32 PM
|
Re: It's slightly different
Firstly, the balance of power is not utterly one-sided, like it is with a child/adult situation.
Ask Ross about that. Balance of power can be very one-sided in adult interactions. And children have more 'power' then you realize when it comes to making accusations against adults
Secondly, both parties are usually at least in the same ball park when it comes to reasoning and explicative capacity.
Again, ask Ross
but it is quite different
The situations are quite similar. You have people with enormous power making life and death judgement decisions. What's different is that in one case there are controls over that power to try to ensure that good judgment prevails, in the other, there is not.
|
Post #1,531
7/11/01 6:38:40 PM
|
Re: It's slightly different
You know better than this, Pete, what with all the recent cases of children falsely accusing adults. And the system here is so biased against the male it's silly. Teachers cannot discipline children any more.
I was assaulted a week ago by a gang of kids (14-15). I had to stand there and let myself get hit. Had I retaliated, I would have spent the night in the cells and likely been prosecuted.
A friend was falsely accused of a number of things by his wife and spent the night in the cells. His wife still got custody of the kids in the divorce. In a rape case, a woman is entitled to anonymity, but the man is not; her anonymity is maintained even if he is found innocent.
qts
|
Post #1,543
7/11/01 9:25:20 PM
|
couldnt you have just pulled out yer gun and?
oh forgot where you lived. In Alaska they had one case of a couple of 20yo pounding on a 15yo and regardless of fault passed a new law making it a felony to smack down on a minor, until a sixteen yo 6ft 2inches 270lbs nicknamed monster attacked and half killed a worker in the facility he was being held at. The guards pulling him off were charged under the law. Needless to say a self defence claus has been enacted. It is intolerable that in a free society that you must allow yourself to be attacked to avoid jail. Alice in wonderland. thanx, bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #1,491
7/11/01 2:31:37 PM
|
Limitations of social workers
I'm not going to get into a big linkfest here -- I'll do you the courtesy of believing what you say is factually true, if you'll return the favour.
In the UK, it takes a court order from a Magistrate to place a child into *temporary* custody - it's called (IIRC) an Emergency Protection Order. It's usually used to get a child out of an immediately dangerous situation.
To permanently take the children away, perhaps for fostering, requires a court order from a Crown Court, which means barristers, which means a LOT of learned arguing by both sides.
There is no right to search, that I'm aware of.
The Children Act (1988?) makes it quite clear that the parents rights are entirely secondary to the safety of the child - and the social services operate on this principle. They have to, it's the law. But being understaffed, underbudgeted and overworked as they are (where's the profit margin?), mistakes are made, oversights occur. And children die - but they're the ones who slipped through the net, which I want to have somewhat smaller holes.
-- Peter Shill For Hire
|
Post #1,473
7/11/01 1:43:32 PM
|
I don't believe I said that.
Rule Number One Of Being A Social Worker : You Can't Win.
Nope.
But you can lose. Big time.
And you think they (the social services) do this for fun?
I have an almost certain degree of probability that I didn't say that, or imply it
Addison
|