You are here

Questionable Judgement-Results of Social Study

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture
Forums: 

DH has been patiently waiting for the Recommendations from the social study to come in. Well, the results are in today.

The Social Worker is recommending "that things stay the same, or a switch to a 2-2-5-5 arrangement".

First, what's the point of the social study if you're going to say "keep it how it is or change it"
Second, does anyone here do a 2-2-5-5 and actually have it work? It sounds so friggin complicated.

The Social Worker also stated, "DH withholding a lunch time snack as a form of punishment shows questionable judgement because of SS6 young age and time between lunch and dinner" :jawdrop: The Social Worker "recommends DH give SS6 extra homework instead".

First, where in the Family Code does it require children to have snacks with their lunch?
Second, who is this social worker to suggest we are required to send SS to school with a snack?
Third, since SS needs a snack with his lunch, is it okay that BM will send skids to school with "airheads" or "ringpops" as their snack? At least we try to send something with substance instead of pure sugar.
Fourth, how is this questionable judgement?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The Social Worker claims to not have been able to reach BM therapist. We looked her up online, her areas include:
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Issues
Anxiety and Panic Disorders
Abuse, Assault and Trauma (PTSD)
Eating Disorders
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD)
Bipolar Disorders/Manic Depressive Illness

No one seems to care that neither of these are general counseling areas. I mean we searched for a children and family counselor that specialized in divorce, custody, behavioral and coping for SS6, so I wonder what BM went in for?

The Social Worker acknowledges SS6 is currently in counseling, but filed a report despite not having ever spoken with the counselor.

BM used her mother, father and boyfriend as personal references. The same people who gave false testimony under oath in the initial court proceedings.
DH used a supervisor, a long time friend unrelated to the custody issue and a coworker.

I've been against the social worker since the beginning as she seemed not to "care" (i.e. she treated DH as if he were just the next name on her list). This report shows she just did some interviews, read some references and wrote a generally neutral report, except for a few areas where I think DH pissed her off by dismissing the social worker and saying he thought BM claims were ridiculous. In those areas, the social worker came down against BM.

This whole thing has been a crock and a waste of time.
I guess I just needed to vent.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

That does make sense. But if that is her concern, I feel she should have stated that.

Social Worker brought up BM concern before about the missing snack at lunch and she even asked us then what the kids eat for dinner. We told her that we take family dinner very seriously and the kids usually are in the kitchen right alongside DH and I preparing the meal or setting the table. Not only that, but we sit down with the kids every Sunday and ask them what they want to eat for the week.

When Social Worker mentioned this during our interview, DH basically told Social Worker that DH felt this was a petty claim. DH told Social Worker, if BM felt like DH was not feeding the children, why not mention to DH before or call CPS? not that we want CPS involved, but if you're concerned about your kids not eating, why sit on that kind of information until you feel it can benefit you?

Plus, at 3 snacks & 3 meals per day, I'd venture a guess that missing a snack every now and then might actually benefit the kid to some extent.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

And now that I think about it, BM doesn't pay CS like she's supposed to. When she has responsibility to get kids to school, she hardly buys snacks, when she does its candy, when she doesn't the kids use their lunch accounts to buy snacks.

If we went to court and said the kids stopped having snacks because we couldn't afford to give snack money and pay for lunch, do you think the court/social worker would give BM grief about not paying CS?

I doubt it.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

I totally agree it is all because of evil motives. But it seems as if the Social Worker bought into it.

I was just sitting here thinking about it and I realized the Social Worker gave recommendations for DH to talk with counselor about alternative methods other than withholding a snack, suggested DH take a coparenting class, etc, etc, but gave 0 (zero; not even one) recommendations or suggestions for BM.

How is it that DH who has been primary caregiver even long before the court was involved (because BM left when SS6 was only 3) has so much that he needs to work on, but BM who was only partially involved for the last 7 months, does everything right?

I know DH is not perfect by any means, but this makes me even more convinced this Social Worker is biased.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

I appreciate that piece of hope. I'll admit, I feel like there is little to cling to.

DH has been reading the report over and over again for several hours now and it just still seems one-sided. The social worker talks about the kids interaction with DH, their attachment to DH, and their description of life with DH. Never does mention any of these things with BM. I suspect because as SS6 has told his therapist, skids feel like BM is awkward and time spent with her is awkward, they aren't really attached to BM because she was a weekend mom for 2 yrs of their life (she saw them for 24-36 hours each weekend).

The social worker didn't consult with the therapist, but if she made comments about DH and skids, does it not make sense to also say "I observed BM with skids and noticed blah blah blah"?

I've lost faith in this process. But I'll try to practice patience and see how this plays out.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

We have a list of the people (therapists, doctors, references, etc) that Social Worker considered in her report. SS6 therapist is on the list of people the social worker "did not receive records from".

SS6 started seeing the counselor about one month ago. DH contacted Social Worker on the day of SS6 first appointment to inquire about procedure for allowing social worker access. 2 weeks went by, social worker says nothing, therapist says she hasn't received the request. DH called Social Worker last week to ask if she had been able to make contact with therapist, social worker says "I am so glad that you called me, I was just about to work on writing my report" IN SPITE OF the fact that she had NOT even tried to reach the therapist. DH told social worker that therapist had concerns, Social Worker told DH "I need to speak with therapist if she has concerns". less than one week later, this report comes out, and the therapist still has not been contacted.

I am learning the system is trying to work in favor of BM, even though she walked away from DH and skids more than 3 years ago. DH has been primary everything since that time.

I'm so frustrated with this process.

Rags's picture

And this is exactly why I generally have no use for idiots who get some bullshit pseudo-science degree then suck their pay out of the taxpayer while claiming to be an expert in an area that is completely subjective and is nothing more thn an amalgamation of opinions generated by people who could not get a real degree.

Time to tear the social worker's opinion apart bit by bit with facts, point out that she did nothing but what she always does and did not even get information from BM's therapist.

And don't forget to have fun while you ruin this idiot's career.

As for withholding a snack at lunch? Really, this moron social worker does not understand the basic concept of a meal Vs. a snack? Lunch is a meal. A snack is what you eat between meals.

So, by her very lack of understanding of what a meal is Vs. a snack she has proven herself to be an idiot.

My DW had a visit from a social worker before she and I married. SpermGrandMa was "concerned" that her grandson (my SS now 20) was not being cared for so she made a call to the state where my DW was living to file her concern. That was a total PITA and a waste of time. Fortunately my DW basically shut the social worker down with a while lot of "that is none of your business or concern and most definately is not SpermGrandMa's business or concern." type comments, she showed the social worker her apartment, let her take a look at the kid (then 1yo) and told the social worker to call any time she had any other questions.

Fortunately the social worker that showed up had at least half of a brain and reported that all was well and that the complaint had no merrit. When we ultimately ended up in court after SpermGrandMa filed for custody on her idiot son's behalf we used the report to shred her idiot vitriolic ass in front of the judge. At the same hearing the SpermClan brought forward a social worker on their side who we proceeded to disassemble as an idiot in front of the judge.

So, if the social worker has half a brain and reports with a level of professionalism then use them to your advantage, if they are an idiot as most in my experience are, bare their asses in court.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

"Time to tear the social worker's opinion apart bit by bit with facts"

This is exactly what we plan to do.

The social worker started the report listing all of the great things about DH "many parenting strengths", "very structured", "clear limits", "focuses on chores and academics", "very engaged", "fun and appropriate", [kids report DH] "authoritative, but also fun and silly", "strong attachment".
She goes on to say "some of his discipline appears excessive", and the one example she gives is withholding a snack.

Social Worker did not do this for BM.

I was always told if you are going to compare and contrast, the only way to do that is to talk about the same or similar things for each side. Right? So why leave this part out about BM?

In the section about BM, the social worker says "ability to provide stability for children is unknown".

So, you can't tell if BM is stable enough to care for children, yet you would even let the thought of a 50/50 split cross your mind?!?!?!?!?

WHAT THE HECK IS YOUR PURPOSE? If she didn't have enough to make a decision on stability, which is one of DH major concerns, why submit the report?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :?

SanAntonioSoccerMom's picture

Why is there so much emphasis on food from everyone in this situation? I personally disagree with either punishing or rewarding kids with food. It just creates food issues/drama/friction with kids and turns them into food monsters. I have a co-worker that gave her kids one piece of candy on Easter and they roll around on the ground and act like rabid pit bulls at the sight of sugar because they are deprived of it. If they get in trouble at school, they get no dinner.

Instead of the 2-2-5-5 schedule I would just suggest one week on and one week off. That is a lot less confusing.

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

I'm not sure if I made it seem like we are obsessed with food, but DH and I are not. The kids eat several extra snacks of their choosing throughout the day, the kids know if they have poor behavior today, they lose their lunch time snack tomorrow. Other than that, we have never made an issue of food.

DH implemented a "buck" system a while back where skids earn fake bucks that they cash in for such things as extra tv/computer time, dinner alone with dad (kids choice), kids choice at toy store, etc.

When Social Worker came to visit, she reported BM concern that DH "doesn't let the kids eat dinner if they don't have enough bucks to buy dinner". Which has never been the case. This was the first time we even heard about an issue with food. Now Social Worker reports DH "decision to withhold food, even a snack, shows questionable judgement".

So even though we showed social worker a refrigerator, freezer and pantry full of food & when asked, skids can rattle off a long list of meals we have eaten together. Social Worker jumps on BM "concern" and DH comes out looking like he doesn't know how to provide and care for his children.

I'm pretty sure DH is going to go for keeping things the way they currently are. BM lived in a motel as recent as 7 months ago. It was not until DH attorney ordered a social study that BM found a house with her boyfriend. DH plans to show that despite BM present appearance, BM has a long history of instability (i.e. 3-5 jobs in one year; living in a motel; drug usage; several relocations in a short time span; BM left saying she "wasn't ready for a family").

Thursdaysarethebestdays's picture

Thankfully, BM didn't allege drug usage, but I suspect it was only because the judge told BM if she requested a drug test on DH, BM would have to take one herself.
I do agree the social worker pointed out some really great things but it wasn't enough to please her.
BM went on a 2 year hiatus and the court could basically reward her for it.