Currently being held prisoner in hospital...

Soldato
Joined
18 Aug 2007
Posts
9,689
Location
Liverpool
a few awkward questions and 25 needless xrays all because they dared to question somebody else informally.

No wonder the nhs has no money.

I'm not saying it's the case here but my wife says from her unfortunate experience more likely someone senior at the nursery had an 'Oh ****' moment, and 'beat' the OP to reporting it. Kind of 'We have a child in our care who comes to nursery with bruises', before the OP could ring and say 'My child went to a nursery and came home with some unexplained bruises'. If you know what I mean. You know how they say HR is there to protect the company, not the employee, and they're not your friend? A bit like that. As I said that doesn't mean it's the case here but my wife is highly experienced (and highly qualified) and saw this type of behaviour much more than anyone would like to admit.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jan 2006
Posts
10,997
Location
All along the watchtower
I'm not saying it's the case here but my wife says from her unfortunate experience more likely someone senior at the nursery had an 'Oh ****' moment, and 'beat' the OP to reporting it. Kind of 'We have a child in our care who comes to nursery with bruises', before the OP could ring and say 'My child went to a nursery and came home with some unexplained bruises'. If you know what I mean. You know how they say HR is there to protect the company, not the employee, and they're not your friend? A bit like that. As I said that doesn't mean it's the case here but my wife is highly experienced (and highly qualified) and saw this type of behaviour much more than anyone would like to admit.
tend to agree with this,
 
Permabanned
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Posts
11,904
Location
London, McLaren or Radical
They won't be looking for obvious current breaks. They're looking for old untreated breaks that suggest a pattern of ongoing physical abuse... :(



That was a concern that crossed my mind, also. The thing is, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you have any objections then 'What are you trying to hide?'. It's a terrible situation. Stay as calm as you can OP, gently but firmly keep it remembered that it was you - the parents - who raised this concern (lest any overly enthusiastic social worker forget) and, as someone above said, it shan't do you any harm to talk to someone in the legal profession about your rights and what might happen next. All the best of luck with getting to the bottom of things, and I hope your daughter is OK.

Can't tell the OP what to do, but if I was in his shoes, I would be fighting against the 25 X-Rays thing... most people don't even have that many in their lives, let alone in a day & so the sample size for reliable data on what effect that will have, especially on such a young child will be very very low, so no reliable recommendation can be made on the true risks involved.

If you go through the official patient dose figures and add up the different x-rays... it's quite a sizeable dose...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...tient-doses/patient-dose-information-guidance

My avenue would be to negotiate down to relevant X-Rays... focusing on the regions showing bruising. Then you come across as both reasonable to comply with their demands & concerned for the safety of the little one.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,793
Location
Stoke on Trent
risks.jpg
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
There's a few really uninformed opinions in here.

The CT scan is far more radiation than the skeletal survey, as the above post shows. There will be a tiny but real increase in lifetime cancer risk, particularly from the CT head. This isn't my opinion this is well documented.

There will also be a second skeletal survey 2 weeks later aswell if national guidelines are followed, as acute fractures are not always immediately visible.

As a parent you don't have to have either, this will have been discussed and consent given. If parents don't give consent then Social Care can seek permission from the court, normally as part of the Section 47 child abuse investigation. They don't always get it.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
a few awkward questions and 25 needless xrays all because they dared to question somebody else informally.

No wonder the nhs has no money.

Nothing to do with money. If there is a risk that a child has been abused the NHS/Police and social care are obliged to investigate as part of each agencies duty of care.

You'd be amazed at what gets picked up as part of these investigations for unexplained injuries.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
21 Feb 2006
Posts
29,300
As said, I would suggest some legal advice is appropriate here. Be clear on each discussion, what is said and to whom and don't get angry if you can help it. There is a process, you just need to ensure it gets to the root cause of any problems, correctly.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
As said, I would suggest some legal advice is appropriate here. Be clear on each discussion, what is said and to whom and don't get angry if you can help it. There is a process, you just need to ensure it gets to the root cause of any problems, correctly.

Your paediatric consultant and social worker will be able to give you all the information needed. The whole process should have been explained in detail.

Lawyering up would be of limited benefit at this stage, but if you do you would need a lawyer with experience in these cases if you choose to go that way.

There's a very detailed guide here:

http://pcouk.org/companion

You might need a subscription though. I've got a copy somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
Imobile child with unexplained injuries and parents removing the child from a medical setting when the doctors have explained they need to do tests to look for /rule out any other, older, similar injuries....


= Social services call the police and there's a fair chance they will consider using their emergency powers to take the child into police protection .....

If you think a few questions and a stay at hospital is inconvenient you definetly won't like be being the subject of a 'section 47' (children's act 1989) investigation with the possibility of child protection proceedings to follow.

Injured young children are a difficult case if there isn't a clear explanation for any injury(ies)

They can't speak for themselves and social services and the police can't rely on what the parents tell them as some parents can be quite convincing at lieing through their teeth to cover up child abuse.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
11 Aug 2016
Posts
5,538
Location
Cheshire
Imobile child with unexplained injuries and parents removing the child from a medical setting when the doctors have explained they need to do tests to look for /rule out for any other, older similar injuries....


= Social services call the police and there's a fair chance they will consider using their emergency powers to take the child into police protection .....

If you think a few questions and a stay at hospital is inconvenient you definetly won't like be being the subject of a 'section 47' (children's act 1989) investigation with the possibility of child protection proceedings to follow.

Injured young children are a difficult case in there isn't a clear explanation for any injury(ies)

They can't speak for themselves and social services and the police can't rely on what the parents tell them as some parents can be quite convincing at lieing through their teeth to cover up child abuse.


Exactly see post 52
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Sep 2008
Posts
14,123
Location
Britain
All because somebody else has caused harm to our baby girl :(
You say you're not accusing anyone, but immediately raise a fairly harsh accusation.

There are perfectly reasonable explanations for bruises on young children, from play, to a knock on furniture, to even medical conditions, which is the one I was about to share.

There was a case a few years back where a girl was removed from parents and placed into care because of unexplained bruising. It was medically discovered that she had a condition (Von Willebrands II) but that discovery came too late as the child had been adopted, which meant, even though innocent, the parents couldn't have her back. It's still in court of appeal afaik.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2008
Posts
7,367
It's no fun, but it's good that SS take potential abuse seriously. We've all seen the cases where they fail to act, or tread too lightly.

My 5.5 year old has broken her arm twice, so i kind of expected some SS contact, but nothing came up.

I would suspect parents that have done nothing do as they are told, worry a lot, allow ss to gather evidence (that's wrong) and get their kids taken away... Parents that abuse their kids don't worry don't care don't cooperate ss cannot get any real evidence and it goes on for years
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
So SS and the hospital are treating the daughter - 1st priority. Any direction on what action will be taken wrt the nursery?

At the end of the hospital stay the Doctor provides a report of the examination and investigation findings. Then you have a multi agency strategy meeting to decide what action is taken. Usually involves health/police/social care and sometimes health visitor/nursery.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Posts
9,273
I have first hand experience of this

We had a phone call from SS asking if we could come and collect our niece from nursery as there had been an issue. When my OH got there she was met by her sister and SS. We were told there was some unexplained bruising on the child and could we have our niece overnight.

Over night turned into 9 months. That was SS plan all along. They drip fed us then put us under pressure to become emergency foster parents to our niece. They sent us on courses to become foster parents for other children too.

So the good news for the OP is if he has close family who haven't been in unsupervised contact with the child around the time of the injuries then SS will try to place the child with them. (I say good news. What I mean is in a bad case scenario then they will try to place the child with family which is less bad than a stranger) the issue is you may have to have supervised contact.

The Dr's will take pictures that will show bruising that you can't see with the naked eye to try and get a timeline etc However Dr's can be wrong. Whilst we had our niece she got a scratch on her head. We took her to the GP to get it recorded and he said it was at least 2 days old. Muppet. She was examined at hospital that morning by a specialist due to the case and no head injuries where recorded.

To cut a long story short and to highlight massive flaws in the system.

I have to word this bit carefully

Our niece had recieved injuries (grab brusises around her Jawline and on her arms and scratches to her face) from someone unknown. The injuries happened when she was in the care of her mother and her mothers new boyfriend
The Boyfriend wrote a letter that was read out in court that said the Mother didn't cause the injuries as they happened at a time when the mother wasn't there. The boyfriend admitted getting frustrated with the child as the child 18 months old child had rearragned his startrek videos... He also admitted the she had fallen off the couch into a bucket of Lego.

He wouldn't explain the thumb and 4 finger bruise on the childs jawline nor the finger bruises on her arms.

IF SS had proven that the mother had caused those injuries then the chikd would have been perm removed and the mother would have been prosecuted.
However the mother and boyfriend had then split up and mother was back with babys father, and because of the "admission" was in family court it was inadmissible in criminal court the boyfriend got off scott free.

The ONLY good thing to come out of this is we have a really good close relationship with our Niece. She knows she lived with us for a while but doesn't know why


Hopefully the OP will have a much easier ride.

Sorry If i scare you with our story
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
There was a case a few years back where a girl was removed from parents and placed into care because of unexplained bruising. It was medically discovered that she had a condition (Von Willebrands II) but that discovery came too late as the child had been adopted, which meant, even though innocent, the parents couldn't have her back. It's still in court of appeal afaik.

If it is the case I just googled (there has been a recent judgement) it is far less black and white than that - some injuries are inconclusive as to how they happened and there is general signs of neglect - which has lead to harm or the child experiencing unnecessary suffering - even if there wasn't intentional harm caused. Does look to me like there is far too many inconclusive factors in the case, on both sides, and it should be re-examined at a higher level.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,494
Location
Gloucestershire
Am I misunderstanding something? Why would you be ‘suspects’ if you went to the nursery to talk about it? :confused:

ts get real, why would someone who has hurt their child even make an enquiry about it?

Do you really think they would try a double bluff and draw attention to themselves?

You don't remember that bloke who was on breakfast TV and in the papers begging for help because SS had taken his daughter away unjustifiably? You know, the one who murdered her after he got her back...
 
Back
Top Bottom