I think it is not as black and white.

Obviously, people who want to adopt, or people who have red flags raised about their parenting abilities (for whatever reason) should get visits from a social worker and social workers need to be critical and carefull that they do not miss any signs of abuse and such. Because if a child is indeed living with incapable or even cruel parents, or is going to live with people he hardly knows at first, there is no one else to look out for them, adn, if they are very young, be their voice.
If the social worker is too careless, it may endanger the child.

But: there are many ways to raise a child, we all have an opinion on which way is best, but to be fair, there are plenty of things parents can disagree on, like certain moral values and the importancy of various things the child does or doesn't do. And I can assure you that many people who are now adults and live a healthy life with good childhood memories have been raised in a way that you would not agree with, or at least not with all of it. That is a matter of opinion.

Sure, a child should be healthy, well fed, dressed and from a certain age on, attending school. The house must not be rat-infested and the parents should love their child, not treat it like an inconvienience (excuse my spelling). These are things we all agree on.

But does it really matter how these things are done? Is someone who is a vegetarian better or worse than someone who sticks to using all food groups? Is it really imporant that the house is squeaky clean (as long as it is not a health-risk, that is)? Does it matter if you take your kid to eat at McDonalds once a week, or never give it candy at all (assuming the kid does not have special needs concerning it's diet)? Does it matter if they have to do chores for their pocket money or not? Does it matter if they are dressed in haute couture or in second hand clothing?

Does the child suffer if a parent would become unemployed, gets benefits, then gets another job? Does it matter if the parent keeps record of all they do? Does it matter how many hours a day the kid is at home, as long as it spends time both in and out of the house? Is it a disaster if the kid has a cough, or diaper rash? Does it affect someone's adult life if there are no diapers or baby food, or whatever and the second the parents notice (that would be when they are about to go and get it for the baby) one of them rushes to the store, while the other is with the kid? Getting fed or changed 10 minutes later than planned is no big deal. Missing one mummy and baby class is not going to cause major faults in the upbringing, it's just one of those things.

In my opinion, social workers should keep in mind (and I am pretty sure most do, but am also pretty sure some do a lousy job at it) that a perfect parents does not exist, and that's allright. The main goal is to make sure that the kid is living in a loving home and is looked after. If this is not the case, the goal must be to get to a situation where it is. Of course people are going to fear you are going to take the kid away, because you are there for a reason: someone, be it a person or organization, has come to the conclusion that the parents may be unfit. That is enough to upset anyone. To add to the unbalanced relationship between parents and social worker, is that the social worker gets to criticise the parents, but the parents have very little opportunity to complain if they feel the social worker is doing something wrong, like, in Lola's case, nitpicking and searching for faults, using a microscope if she has to. If complaining would be too easy, most parents would be on the phone to who ever they could talk to all day, as soon as the social worker has been critical. We don't need that. But there must be a way to get a complaint in, where it is taken seriously, as judge or no judge, very little people are going to say the report is wrong, when they do not know the parents or child that well. It makes the parents feel powerless and they are bound to be suspicious of you and your motives.

In an ideal world, there would be some level of trust and respect goign on. Because that way the parents would feel more free to talk about how things are really going, or what things they are struggling with, if they struggle with anything, and generally to be more honnest. This helps the social worker to get a better idea of the situation and get the right help, if it is needed. In the end, this beneifts the child.

But even though the media can help a little with this, I think it is going to be a given fact that every social worker and every set of parents will need to work on that trust thing, and work on realizing that everyone involved wants the best for the child. If the social worker is overly critical of things that are really not that important, or treating the people involved like a number or statistic, this trust is never going to happen, and it will make it less likely to achieve this in the future, as social services is seen as an organization, not indivicual people. Much like how "the police" can do things, rather than people looking at various police officers who either do a good or a bad job at policing.

Essentialy, the trust and respect can only be a two-way street, and because of the circumstances in whicht social workers and families meet, this is goign to take time and work from both sides.

And bad apples are everywhere, nut jobs are everywhere, it's only human to single them out and be suspicious of everyone who shares a trait with them, as opposed to looking at fine examples, and expecting to see those in everyone like these people. Human nature, survival instinct, call it whatever, but it is goign to be there untill we go extinct!

Sorry to bore you... I am not generalising there, I am stating a fact and I have met a dozen social workers. Perhaps they are not like 'general' social workers? Perhaps I was unlucky.


Of course I understand that they need to be vigilant! What an absurd thing to say! But I know 10 couples who wanted to adopt, and 8/10 of the couples gave up because of the process, the social workers and their attitudes. I certainly wouldn't prefer it 'if we just gave children out to all and sundry' (really?), but haven't you seen in the news about the lack of adoptive parents? These 8 couples were all dedicated, lovely people (a children's nurse and a teacher among them) and would have made great parents. Adoption agencies had approved them, but because of social workers' attitudes – after three years of trying to adopt they gave up.

Yes, these children are vulnerable, we all know that! That is why the process takes so long and why prospective adopters put themselves through so much – if only birth parents could go through half the training!

The original question was 'Are social workers like this in real life?' and my answer was 'Yes'.

With all due respect; that's their problem for giving up. They would have gotten a child eventually so they should have stuck to their convictions and been secure enough in their own suitability to realise that they would succeed eventually.

I would rather have ten prospective adoptive parents give up because of a social worker's stringent screening process than let a completely unsuitable parent slip through the net and be given access to a child they have no place looking after because the social workers decided to relax their standards.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that they HAD already been approved, but after two or three years of waiting to be matched to a child, they couldn't put themselves through the heartache. Some (at least two of the couples) had been matched, only to be told at the 11th hour that a legal loophole meant the child couldn't be placed. One couple were told that they didn't look suitable to parent two small children because in their photograph they didn't look as though they'd enjoy bouncing on a trampoline!
These were just people in my local area, it must go on all around the country so we're not talking about just ten couples!
But, I bow to your expert knowledge – you obviously know so much more than me about this.

from what I've read on here, Phil Mitchell may end up taking Lolas baby, claiming he is the paternal grandfather. Clearly whoever wrote Eastenders thinks social workers wonder in, take a baby from a struggling young mum who has messed up a couple of times and will then place the baby with a thug who has countless criminal convictions, whose brother is on the run for robbery, sister is on the run for murder, cousin went down for abduction and son is doing life for murder.
In reality the last thing a social worker wants to do is remove a baby from its mother as the baby will end up in the system being passed around whilst custody or adoption proceedings take years. In Lola's case, real social workers would refer her to parenting classes, counselors and support groups, make daily visits and ultimately only remove the baby if there is an immediate danger, or on the say so of a judge.

Social Services didn't get the nick-name Social Snoopers for nothing.

I trained as a social worker and was so appalled at the methods and heartless jobsworths (the majority) in the profession I never took it up and refused to do it.

I did read your post. You said that "because of social workers' attitudes – after three years of trying to adopt they gave up." Please explain to me how my assertion that; had they not given up, they would have got a child eventually; contradicts anything you have said?


Sorry, I was under the impression that I was having a respectful and rational discussion about an issue with somebody. Since you have clearly chosen to go on the defensive and be condescending for no apparent reason, it is evident I was wrong.

Almost every profession is Eastenders is a caricature of the real thing. Wouldn't let it get to you.

i had a social worker when i had my first baby it was horrible they are so nosey wanted to make sure i was doing everything right which i new i was they even forced me to go to a mums and toddlers group with a new born baby :\ it was rather pathetic to be honest they saw me every week and i wasnt on any high risk or anything it was simply because my ex partners mother was an alcoholic :\ yea thats right i was made to suffer because of her....

so yes they can be horrible but with whats happening with Lola it does seem was too OTT if you ask me visits every day? sometimes twice im suprised this story line hasnt had a lot of complaints