Social Services Question

LondonDiva

dollydimp wrote: »

I am the person that rang the social services, I spoke to the actual social worker that is dealing with my neighbour, so not a call centre. At no point did she say my name was going to be revealed, I (stupidly) assumed that this would remain confidential, especially as I had expressed my concern over her violent temper. If I had of been told, I wouldn't have said a word as my neighbour is a complete lunatic. She did reveal my actual name to my neighbour, she admitted it when my furious husband rang her.

I am really surprised that it seems that I should have known how the system works?

One thing is for sure, I certainly won't be ringing them ever again.

I understand your concerns and would report her to the social services and also the police - end of. All she will have served is to make her life harder.

I am concerned that you as an adult with the ability to call the police, report her behaviour to the council and social services are now saying that you would knowingly leave a child in potential danger / risk and do nothing

All the repercusions about Baby P related to the actions of the social workers, but how many neighbours and family members saw or guessed what was happening and looked the other way?:mad:

You are an adult in this country and part of the social contract is that if you believe a child or adult is at risk, you man up and do something about it. If the parent goes off on one, you have recourse to the police and social workers - there's no excuse for shrugging your shoulders.

A friend was abused by her dad as a child and there were neighbours who refused to let their kids alone with him and turns out knew about it, but did nothing. IMO if a child is put at risk or suffers an extra hour of abuse more because of your inaction, you are essentially colluding with the abuse.

meritaten

puddy wrote: »

we are required to be a transparent and honest with clients as we can. how would you like it if i came to your house alleging this and that and then said, well i know who is saying all this but im not going to tell you, that doesnt get the relationship off to a great start and does not help the parent trust anyone. if someone wants to stay anonymous they can

YES - that is why you tell people WHO reported them! do you not think that these people are then going to abuse those who reported them? have you no sense?

being 'transparent and honest' - are you for real? these people who abuse kids are not 'transparent and honest' with you! you are naive beyond belief if you think that informing on their neighbours and being 'transparent and honest' about it will earn you their trust!
They laugh at you hun! they also then make thier neighbours lives a misery - you wouldnt know about that would you? you dont live among them. people like you make me sick - you dont understand that some people are evil and just plain bad.

and there you have it - unless you DONT give your name - Social Services WILL blab!

dollydimp_2

LondonDiva wrote: »

I understand your concerns and would report her to the social services and also the police - end of. All she will have served is to make her life harder.

I am concerned that you as an adult with the ability to call the police, report her behaviour to the council and social services are now saying that you would knowingly leave a child in potential danger / risk and do nothing

All the repercusions about Baby P related to the actions of the social workers, but how many neighbours and family members saw or guessed what was happening and looked the other way?:mad:

You are an adult in this country and part of the social contract is that if you believe a child or adult is at risk, you man up and do something about it. If the parent goes off on one, you have recourse to the police and social workers - there's no excuse for shrugging your shoulders.

A friend was abused by her dad as a child and there were neighbours who refused to let their kids alone with him and turns out knew about it, but did nothing. IMO if a child is put at risk or suffers an extra hour of abuse more because of your inaction, you are essentially colluding with the abuse.

Ermmm I did report her!! Now it's over to the 'experts'

paulofessex

You will no doubt be very surprised to know how many professionals i.e. Health Visitors, Teachers etc. who until the Common Assessment Framework came into effect would want to remain anonymous when making referrals to social services, and how annoyed they used to get when told that as professionals they could not remain anonymous. They were scared of the backlash they would get from a parent but happy for a social worker to get the abuse.

The Common Assessment in brief enables any professional to start the ball rolling as it were with any child in need concern and if l recall correctly to take the lead roll, however my concern was/is that those professionals who wanted to remain anon may turn a blind eye and not start the process.

milliebear00001

It is very easy to take the moral high ground and criticise somebody who says they wouldn't risk making a report if their identity was revealed. It is much harder to be on the end of an irate nieghbour threatening to 'torch' your house or 'take away' your own children.

There are some very nasty people around. I can completely understand why many people would not be brave enough to report a concern if this is the type of thing they thought they might encounter as a result.

Protecting the identity of reporters and callers, while not perfect, should be a priority if SS are serious about wanting people to report - especially since much of their 'intelligence' about what really goes on behind closed doors, is likely to come from concerned neighbours. The result of not doing this, is simply more children remaining in danger.

paulofessex

milliebear00001 wrote: »

It is very easy to take the moral high ground and criticise somebody who says they wouldn't risk making a report if their identity was revealed. It is much harder to be on the end of an irate nieghbour threatening to 'torch' your house or 'take away' your own children.

There are some very nasty people around. I can completely understand why many people would not be brave enough to report a concern if this is the type of thing they thought they might encounter as a result.

Protecting the identity of reporters and callers, while not perfect, should be a priority if SS are serious about wanting people to report - especially since much of their 'intelligence' about what really goes on behind closed doors, is likely to come from concerned neighbours. The result of not doing this, is simply more children remaining in danger.

Although l can understand what you are saying, the issue is however that it is the information given that may identify the caller. The parent has a right to be told of what they are being accused of and if the information was that 'you were seen to kick your child in your garden on Tuesday morning' and if the garden can only be overlooked by the neighbours, then it narrows down the source.

As others have mentioned, the safety and welfare of the child is paramount not so much the referrer, and that is the social workers priority. The police and other agencies are there to protect the referrer if any problems.

milliebear00001

paulofessex wrote: »

Although l can understand what you are saying, the issue is however that it is the information given that may identify the caller. The parent has a right to be told of what they are being accused of and if the information was that 'you were seen to kick your child in your garden on Tuesday morning' and if the garden can only be overlooked by the neighbours, then it narrows down the source.

As others have mentioned, the safety and welfare of the child is paramount not so much the referrer, and that is the social workers priority. The police and other agencies are there to protect the referrer if any problems.

I understand what you're saying, but if SS are not extremely careful about how they reveal information, they endanger the very source of that information. The 'safety and welfare' of the abused child who is not identified because the next door neighbour dare not report, is protected how by your policy?

It is not so much the situation you present that concerns me. It is the rather cavalier assertion that referrers are 'bottom of the list' when offering support to all involved, as if somehow, protecting the identity of referrers as far as possible is not something that matters or has any impact.

I would suggest the repercussions of simply telling prospective abusers exactly who has made a report about them, in the name of being 'open and honest' and 'building trust' is massively impactful on the outcomes for all children who desperately need somebody to be brave enough to 'step up' and make that call.

paulofessex

[/QUOTE]I would suggest the repercussions of simply telling prospective abusers exactly who has made a report about them, in the name of being 'open and honest' and 'building trust' is massively impactful on the outcomes for all children who desperately need somebody to be brave enough to 'step up' and make that call.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with you there.

Snuggles

I can understand why people are concerned that SS would reveal who had reported a concern, but you have to consider the other side of the coin. If SS knocked at your door saying that an allegation had been made, you would expect to have the right to defend yourself and give your explanation. Without knowing who has made the allegation, this could be very difficult.

This actually happened to my sister a few years ago. Someone reported her to social services making various allegations about how she was supposedly neglecting and mistreating her children. It turned out that the person who made the allegations was a jealous ex partner of my sister's new boyfriend. This person had been harrassing my sister in other ways, and because SS told her where the allegations came from, it was fairly straightforward for my sister to explain the situation, and satisfy SS that the allegations were malicious.

fluffnutter

I can see both sides of the argument - the need to protect the 'dobber' and the need for transparency.

There's a simple solution surely? This issue seems to have arisen because the neighbour assumed confidentiality and so didn't think to mention this.

Why don't SS just ask as part of the standard set of questions in this sort of scenario 'Do you wish to remain anonymous?'. That way everyone knows what to expect and no assumptions need to be made.