I have never met or dealt with a social worker but I have to ask are they nasty in real life like the one from Eastenders is?

They're worse than cops.

Another thread exactly like this already on here: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1740649

Yes, dealing with many social workers has taught me that more often than not they can be a right pain in the backside and quite nasty... obviously not all of them are but many I have dealt with have been.

I agree with you both

No. More often than not they are simply people doing their job and trying to make a difference. Obviously that job isn't helped by stereotypical portrayals such as the one in EE; which enforces the stereotype that they are all wicked, nasty trouble-causers who get a kick out of taunting desperate parents and making their life hell.

I used to work with social workers - much like any other profession: a mixed bag. Some were lovely, some were hard-faced and some were just plain weird.

What constantly surprised me was their level of emotional detachment - necessary in such a job I imagine, but it always shocked me when they'd be talking about child abuse cases as though it was like ordering stationary. I suppose you need an inner toughness to do a job like that.

I'm adopting so have lots of dealings with social workers. Just like in any job, some are lovely and some aren't but they all stick to the rules and never step outside the social worker box. It would be lovely if they could use common sense (and i'm sure some of them would love the opportunity to do so) but it's more than their jobs are worth. However, I do think that that the EE storyline is portraying them and the process in a ridiculous light.

How have they been nasty. Every criticsm has been justified

We too went through the adoption process, and social workers are a nosey, interfering, judgmental pain in the @®$e!

Way to generalize there! :yawn:

To the OP's question...

No, Eastenders are doing a ridiculous job portraying the social worker but then again they always have. I think you have to remember that the social workers are always only ever in Easties to be a plot device to move a story forward so any portrayal will be catered to the storyline.

Whilst not all social workers are the same I do remember a friend of mine being treated pretty much the same way Lola is being treated not long after she had a baby. She always felt they had targeted her from day one because they thought she was an easy target as she had no family living close by etc and they thought she had no one to defend her corner. They soon backed off a bit when her mum turned up (her mum is a very strict, no nonsense teacher type). My friend also felt they just wanted her baby off her so they could put him up for adoption to meet their targets as whenever she was alone they tried to bully her into signing adoption papers by telling her that basically she would be a useless mother. They did manage to get her child removed for a few months but the courts ordered he was handed back, my friend still lives in fear of SS in case they turn up again ven though this all happened years ago. Like I said not all social workers are the same, but the storyline with Lola interests me because of what I saw my friend go through.

I'm sorry but I've never read anything more wrong in my life.

Well that's how she felt with the way they tried to convince her to sign the papers. Thankfully in her case it all turned out well. I know seeing what she endured has put me off ever having kids.

I really don't know where this myth of adoption 'targets' comes from - rubbish tabloids I guess. Do people seriously believe that a 'target' is set - say "right then, 100 babies must be adopted this year", and that Social Workers then frantically rush around in a race to meet that number? Because if they do then believe me that's utter tripe.

The only 'targets' around adoption are about the time the actual process takes, AFTER it has been identified - and agreed at court by a Judge, no-one else - that adoption is what the plan needs to be.

Well in my friends defence I guess when you are faced with a horrible situation like losing your child you will latch onto anything to try and explain it.

I guess so; just to be clear I wasn't intending to 'have a go' at you or your friend and am sorry if it might have come across that way ; it was just a rant about the way such things are propagated irresponsibly by the tabloids and, as per the thread, inaccurately portrayed in soaps and dramas.

Not at all. EE are portraying them in a terrible way and not like things would be. The mere fact that the social worker is there everyday and sometimes twice a day is complete fantasy and plot device. In reality a social won't have time to do all those visits to Lola. If anyone saw a programme that BBC showed earlier this year about social workers one of them said that she had 26 cases. Even if she was to visit them once a week, there simply won't be enough time to even do that.

EE portray social workers and police in a terrible way just to make their plots move along.

And the thing about adoption targets it's as Grabid Rannies says. There are no targets to adopt x number of children.
The only targets are with regards to how quickly adoption happens once the child goes and into care and the court order an adoption as care plan.

I wasn't intending to have a go either, I just couldn't believe that people think social workers have "targets" to take so many children away from their parents. Social workers do NOT want to take ANY children away from their parents and they only do so as a last resort.

It is because of the awful potrayal of Social Workers in the press and in the media that people believe this. This terrible representation of a social worker in EastEnders is one of the worst I've ever seen.

Some social workers are horrible, some are nice...none are as obsessive as Trish Barnes on EE.

So they bloody should be, that's what they're there for. Or would you prefer it if we just gave children out to all and sundry without bothering to make sure they're absolutely suitable to be given a child?

I agree. Although it may feel frustrating for prospective carers, there is a reason why there are so many checks and procedures foster carers and adopters have to go through.

Children have been abused and died in the care of adoptive parents who weren’t checked out properly. One case was that of a four year old boy who died on Christmas Eve 1999 while being cared for by a couple who wanted to adopt him. He died six months after he went to live with them and the post mortem revealed 54 external injuries on him.
The couple had been claiming the boy was a self-harmer who threw himself down stairs and headbutted the radiator.
On 23 December the little boy was taken to hospital in a coma and died the next day from a massive blow to the head.

These are very vulnerable children, most of the time with very high level of needs. Social services have to make sure they are given to the right people who will keep them safe and work hard to meet their needs.

Precisely. I can't stand this vendetta people have against social workers and I don't think many people realise how much harm they can actually do by harbouring such stereotypical assumptions.

Yes, social workers can seem nosey and nit-picky and demanding; but that's their POINT. They have to be. They're dealing with vulnerable children and they have to do absolutely everything they can to make sure they come to the correct conclusion regarding the child's wellbeing. When you're deciding whether a potential adoption candidate is suitable to have a child handed over to them, I would expect nothing less than for you to make absolutely certain they are suitable. You're giving them a CHILD, not a bloody hamster. They can't win. When news like the Baby P case breaks, everybody is up in arms about how it shouldn't have been allowed to happen and how it's all down to the shortcomings of the Social. And then when the Social try to get their jobs done properly; everybody hates them for it.

This silly myth that all Social Workers are just out to get you because they're an arsehole and they get some weird kick out of making a desperate parents life hell is propagated by uninformed people and stupid portrayals such as the one in EE. They're just getting their job done, and the job they do is extremely important; so they should do it thoroughly. Yes, they might seem 'nosy and interfering', but that's because their job concerns the safety and welfare of a CHILD, so they have to be. They're not just doing it for the sake of it or because they get some thrill out it.

Exactly. And if anyone saw that programme that BBC showed earlier this year, “Social Workers, damned if they do and damned if they don’t”, will know what the reality of social work is. In that documentary it was shown clearly what tough choices they face. Sometimes the parents don’t see the risk but that doesn’t mean it is not there. Social workers in that programme had to deal with some extremely difficult situations, being threatened at times, and in each case the child was removed as a last resort.

They tried to help the parents to make things work. Provided them with lots of services including equipment and furniture, advice on services they can access, etc and only removed the children when everything failed or when the risk was so high that anything could happen to that child at any minute. They showed the social workers in tears to see parents being separated from their children but there was no other way. One went off sick from the stress of having to make such decision.

EE is doing such a terrible job with this and only feeding into misconceptions about social services and social workers. I understand dramatical license but really these are such delicate matters EE should do their research properly. It is a disgrace. I am sure they could have come with a way for Lola to lose Lexi temporarily without degrading social workers in such way.

Absolutely. They are obviously over doing it in EastEnders to mark out that our sympathies should be with Lola after het being quite difficult and hard to care for through the pregnancy (apparently allowed to get away with theft, vandalism and the like just because she has a baby on the way) but look at it from SS point of view for a moment. All the circumstantial and family history evidence points to there maybe being issues (each generation has been in care, no father around, Lola's already got convictions by 16, rented accomodation and very recent and sporadic income). What if they kept giving her the benefit of the doubt and something happened to Lexi - then newspapers would feel they have the right to print the Social Workers names, photos allongside 'the knew and did nothing' headlines. It's not just their jobs but public persecution they fear, plus the idea that a vulnerable child was harmed or worse on their conscience.

Social Services are expected to do an incredibly hard job by Society with little or no thanks when it;s done well and vilification when mistakes happen. If they are over careful and take kids into care too quickly, I think it is because of the reaction to cases like Baby P.