A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Social Services - overstepping their powers?

  • mrr1
  • mrr1's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
26 Aug 12 #352106 by mrr1
Topic started by mrr1
hi - this is my situation.
around 6 years ago my kids got hold of their mothers camera and took a sequence of pics, a couple of which could easily be deemed offensive. As this was my wifes camera the pictures ended up on her computer. Until eight weeks ago I had no knowledge whatsoever of these pictures.

My wife, for whatever reason, decided to print these pictures and take them to the police saying that I had taken them. I was duly arrested, detained, fingerprinted, etc,questioned and then bailed. The police entered my house and seized all computer equipment, phones, cameras, etc, etc.

After being unable to contact my children the social worker involved was replaced by a senior and I was allowed to have supervised time with my children.

After several weeks proceedings against me were dropped, all pc''s etc were returned, the police had identified who had taken the pictures (one of my children) and decided to drop the matter.

My wife refuses to believe that I am innocent - no doubt her three best friends (all on their own after being left by their partners) are helping her believe how "evil" I am. She is also saying some despicable things about me to my children (witnessed or admitted by my wife). When my mother went to collect the kids last week she saw my possessions on the hallway floor under a blanket; my wife stated (in front of the kids) "the kids know that his stuff needs to be taken out of this house".

However the social services have told me that despite the police dropping the case my time with my children must still be supervised. They told me "simply because the police do not have enough evidence to charge you DOES NOT mean that we will stop protecting your children"

I very seriously believe that my wife suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder. Her behavior is "bolshie" to say the least and she has become increasingly vindictive over the past ten years to the point where we have absolutely no social life whatsoever simply because she hates everyone she meets. For example in the small cul de sac where we live the our kids are not allowed to play with the other children because my wife feels their parents are mounting a conspiracy against her.
She also has a very unhealthy attitude to sex and feels that their is no need for it in our marriage as we now have children. We are both in our early forties. I stayed in the marriage in the belief that my children needed some form of balance in their lives. i had no idea she (my wife) was capable of pulling such a sick stunt as this.

I am very worried about the welfare of our children - I now believe that my wife is mentally unstable and capable of very cruel, twisted and vindictive behaviors fuelled by a genuinely sick but unfounded belief. Eg she has "flipped".


My questions;
Do the SS have the right to enforce supervised visits? I need to spend quality time with my kids on my own and "de brainwash" them. For example the little story that my wife told them about "daddy''s done something bad and hes got to go away for a while". Surely, surely the fact that the police have dropped all proceedings means something? The fact that my phones, computers, etc have been forensically examined by the police and handed back carries some weight?
Can I do anything to stop my wife trying to alienate me from my children?

Oh yeah - before anyone asks I am now divorcing her.

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
27 Aug 12 #352125 by dukey
Reply from dukey
In short yes if they insist on supervised visits you`ll have to live with it for now, they are seen as the experts here, courts listen to them as do the police, as far as the police are concerned they are right again, often the police don`t charge due to lack of evidence even when they are quite sure a crime has been committed, your unlucky in that the police may be sure now that you had nothing to do with the pictures.

We have all seen on the telly the police stop a car full of teenagers and find drugs, they all get arrested questioned no one admits who owns the drugs and they all get released, another common one they stop a car in the early hours with a couple of men well known with a long criminal record and they have lots of tools used to burgle, they get arrested for going equipped then released without charge.

  • mrr1
  • mrr1's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
27 Aug 12 #352127 by mrr1
Reply from mrr1
Thanks Dukey. I understand your point about cars full of teenagers and drugs etc but I still feel hacked off.

In my case the offence was pretty clear and "evidence" presented. However forensic examination proved that it was NOT myself who had taken the pictures and, lets be blunt here, if there was any evidence from the last ten years of my ownership of my memory cards / computers / phones that I was into CP I would now be sitting waiting for a court date. I do not doubt your comments are valid it just seems incredibly unfair.
In my case a simple denial and shrug of the shoulders would never work - the police are too cute for that. Hell, I wasn''t even questioned after the initial interview at the very start. The SS''s stance that "police get things wrong" is surely BS in my case -
1 - the pictures were taken on my wifes camera (proven)
2 - they were on my wifes pc (proven)
3 - other evidence shows who took the pictures (not sure of proof but strongly believed by the police I believe - although thank God they may not pursue that line)
4 - forensic examination of my electrical possessions shows no link to the pictures

How "cleared of the offence" do I need to be before I can be trusted with my own children?


My jobs very much at risk (maybe its the citalopram, maybe just the general stress of my situation) and I''m unlikely to be employed in a months time, I cannot see my kids (wifes now taken them off somewhere but I don''t know where) cannot get my possessions, lost my privacy (wife is opening and reading my mail before forwarding it - well - bank statements & phone bills, anyway) etc, etc. Yet its her my children need to be protected from. I''ve got a great solicitor on my case who is convinced that the best outcome here is that my wife gets the medical help she appears to need but that doesn''t help me feel better about what appears to be a total stitch up by a psychopath.

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
27 Aug 12 #352129 by dukey
Reply from dukey
I fully understand and hacked off is probably a very polite word, the fact is no one will ever know who actually took the pictures and that is the view SS will take, it happened to long ago.

I also agree if the police had found anything at all electronic with even approaching dodgy pictures you would be knee deep in the brown stuff.

You probably don`t know this but many men can only see their children supervised contact centers, often for little or dare i say no reason, are CAFCASS involved? they may be your best hope to clear this up once and for all.

Does your solicitor know where she is?, if so s/he should write and be clear she cannot open your mail, for now i would contact anyone who maybe sending you mail and make sure it actually goes to you.

There are others who know far more about these issues than i, maybe later some will respond, ive only given my 2p worth because it a bank holiday so the forum will be quiet.

  • mrr1
  • mrr1's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
27 Aug 12 #352130 by mrr1
Reply from mrr1
many thanks Dukey - I''ll look into the "CAFCASS" thing (not sure what it is but nows the time to learn)

Yes - "hacked off" is the polite version of how I feel.

The bottom line is that the SS are suspicious of me but if you look at the evidence it is my wife they should be looking at.

It appears that my wife is a woman and is therefore innocent but I am a man and am therefore guilty.

  • disneybunny
  • disneybunny's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
27 Aug 12 #352131 by disneybunny
Reply from disneybunny
I''m confused, why were the pictures kept for 6 years without being deleted.

  • mrr1
  • mrr1's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
27 Aug 12 #352132 by mrr1
Reply from mrr1
disneybunny wrote:

I''m confused, why were the pictures kept for 6 years without being deleted.


Don''t know, ask my wife. They were on HER computer.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11