"Voluntary Agreement" with Social Services

[Ploppy]

During the investigation into my FA concerning a child, Social Services got involved. They had me sign a "voluntary" agreement about no unsupervised access to my daughter. I say "voluntary" but it was clear that if I didn't agree it would count against me so it wasn't really voluntary at all.

But here's the thing ... they had no method for monitoring my compliance. When I asked what the monitoring would be they said that they "hoped" I would comply.

So I don't understand what this was for. They made a big song & dance about it, making sure that my daughter knew the restrictions (which upset her greatly coz we're very close), yet they're not monitoring compliance? I can only guess that it's designed to drive a wedge between father and daughter so that daughter might feel more confident to disclose abuse to the authorities. Of course, when there is no abuse then all it does is cause hurt and anxiety to the child.

Does anyone have any knowledge / experience of these arrangements?

[Rights Fighter]

I think it is possibly a back covering exercise. Strange way of doing it though as usually they insist on a SW or failing that a family member or friend as "supervisor"

[Ploppy]

You may be right, in which case it's a crappy thing to do. I should have mentioned that my wife signed the "Agreement" too, so I guess she was being the "supervisor".

I'm guessing, but I think all the agencies had made their minds up before they even spoke to me. Accuser (aged 6) claims she saw me abuse my daughter and that I tried to abuse her. Daughter (14) is interviewed and says it never happened, plus she has an exemplary school report so no other indications of problems at home.

Given that, I think the Police knew then it was never going to get a conviction and the Social Services were on a hiding to nothing because the child they wanted to protect denied any offence had taken place.

I was never arrested, so no bail conditions attached and the Police told me not to worry (although I was way too stressed to take any notice of that). They interviewed me under caution, took another week to mull it over, had a multi-agency case conference and then NFA the whole thing.

Less than ten days, start to finish, and three weeks later I still cry at the drop of a hat.

[Rights Fighter]

Do you have any reason why the 6 year old would lie? I ask as that would be the question SS would be asking themselves. Has she been indoctrinated by a 3rd party or involved with a person who has been through this already?

[Ploppy]

I'm not sure she lied. She has no father figure in her life, and I think she's got the idea that any contact from a man is a prelude to a sexual attempt. It's telling that she said I tried several times to touch her, but never succeeded. The obvious question would be to ask why I failed so many times (whatever "several" means - more than "a few", less than "a lot"). My answer would be that it's because I never tried at all and she's misunderstood innocent contact. That could also explain why she thought I was abusing my own daughter.

The duty solicitor when I was questioned told me that he's seen quite a few cases where it's been established that young children have watched too much post-watershed TV and have been exposed to adult themes that they were not equipped to assimilate. He said there's increased exposure of young kids to sexuality too early. Maybe that's applicable here - I don't know.

An alternative thought is that she's learned that lesson from previous experience, which is not an idea I care for at all. I hope SS do look further into it, but I can't let myself dwell on that because I've got enough **** of my own to deal with.

[Mr B]

When I was researching child motivation (I now know it was the wife, just using the child as a vehicle) I spoke to a number of retired Teachers. Over 40 years a piece in the profession. They communicated their experience being an older child (sibling or school mate) feeding the information to the younger ones to execute.

Mr B

[Rights Fighter]

She has no father figure in her life, and I think she's got the idea that any contact from a man is a prelude to a sexual attempt.

I can't see how that explanation would help. Many children grow up without a father figure in their lives but would no more make an allegation of sexual abuse than ride on a tiger. Somebody put the thought into her head if she did not experience what she alleges. That was my point.

I agree with Mr B that in many teachers' experiences, it is an older child who happens to discuss something related to abuse and it is fed down to younger children, who either may be impressed with the idea of a club of "victims" or sadly, who may have experience of it themselves.

[Ploppy]

I'm guessing - I claim no expertise in the subject.

It's a distressing train of thought and one I'm not really inclined to continue with, unless you think it has a bearing on my original question.

[Rights Fighter]

I can believe it is very distressing. Trouble is, SS would ask "why would she make this up?" There needs to be a believable answer for them to accept it. This is what I am trying to help you with

[Ploppy]

SS concluded their investigation around the same time the police did so they do appear to have satisfied themselves to that question - thankfully.

I take the point about being told stuff by older children and, although she has no siblings, it could have come from someone at school.

My point about the lack of a father figure is that she doesn't have a male point of reference to use to measure any false impressions she's given. She can't say "well, my dad doesn't do that so that can't be right". So she has no grounds to disbelieve the mischief-maker at school and no way to correct any impression gained from any post-watershed TV she may have watched (which is what my duty solicitor suggested)

Saddest of all, she may have had previous direct experience of abuse and thought the same of me because she's not accustomed to the idea of a man just being nice.

From what I know of the child, I really don't believe she simply made it up.

[Mr B]

Let me suggest the word "Projection"

Disney - Shrek 2. Puss in Boots is performing "personal admin" of an intimate nature as cats do on the back of Donkey. He is quizzed "Are you Puss in Boots?".
He stops performing his physical grooming & turns to face the questioner
"For you...I might be...."

Sounds trite/ Innocent. But it was the logic I had to suggest why certain allegations were made. Disney thinks this is a joke & in a healthy context it IS funny. However on the world of psychopathology "normal" does not exist.

So you allegation source, allegation zero, exists somewhere in plain sight. Literally it does. You have to find it. I can suggest it is something the accuser sees every day.

Think as they think in their shoes. In time you WILL see it.

Kindest regards
Mr B