Social services onto me about not having child in nursery! Advice needed

johnnyl

Nicki wrote: »

I probably count as someone in the know, being a lawyer myself :rotfl:

Of course the police can stop you in the street and ask you a few questions, or call on you at home and do the same. What they CAN'T do is arrest you there and then if you refuse to answer those questions. However, if you do refuse to answer legitimate questions for no obvious reasons, then the police can perfectly lawfully look into you a bit further, and if by doing so they find something which gives them a reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence, then they CAN arrest you and your failure to answer questions at that point will be used as evidence if you are then charged with a crime.

I think if you look back at what I actually put it is consistent with what you have wrotet. They can not stop you for nothing. Using your own information above on the proviso that you have done nothing wrong, there is no requirement for you to answer anything at all.

You have changed this by bringing in an arrest for an offence, where my example was clearly talking about people who havent done anything wrong.

pinkshoes

Children aged 3 and over are entitled to 15 hours of childcare per week FREE during term time.

This scheme was set up by the government because at the age of 22 months, the attainment gap between children from deprived and wealthly areas is already quite big, so by offering free nursery places to EVERYONE, it will hopefully help close this attainment gap.

Personally I don't understand why anyone wouldn't take advantage of this scheme, as it can offer your child a LOT, both educationally and socially.

It's not about how big your support network is. It's about offering your child something that might be of benefit to them.

clearingout

HV is doing her job.

My ex walking out on me happened to co-incide with my HV doing a home visit to assess my then 2 year old for speech difficulties. This was following a visit to a normal clinic where she had agreed he was problematic and wanted to see him again in his own home before referring him for speech therapy. She saw the state I was in - house was a mess, I was emotional, I was also pregnant and my dad was dying as well. She visited me again, once a month for the next 3 months. She never said why but it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that she was simply keeping her eye on things for the sake of the children and making sure that I had someone to talk to (and bless her, she listened to me during those visits and gave me some very helpful advice). After three months, she was clearly satisified that I was coping as well as I might and left me alone until the baby was born. At that point, I actually asked her to monitor me for PND because I was scared I would go down that route but a couple of visits later, she said she had no concerns and that if I was worried about anything, I should phone her. My ex tried to involve Social Services by telling them I was suffering from PND and had refused to be medicated (how he could tell all that from 2 mintues on the doorstep twice a week is beyond me, but there you go!) who, after speaking to my HV (which I suggested they should - although I assume they would have done anyway), closed the case before it was even opened and didn't even come out and see me.

I would suggest that the OP has given cause for concern and the professionals are simply following through, as they did with me. Not because there is reason to believe that the children are at risk, but because red flags have arisen, just as they did with me, and these need to be looked at. At no point did I feel threatened because no one was accusing me of anything or looking to catch me out or take the children from me. They were just doing their jobs and did it with professionalism and huge amounts of respect towards me. But then I wasn't hiding anything.

POPPYOSCAR

pinkshoes wrote: »

Children aged 3 and over are entitled to 15 hours of childcare per week FREE during term time.

This scheme was set up by the government because at the age of 22 months, the attainment gap between children from deprived and wealthly areas is already quite big, so by offering free nursery places to EVERYONE, it will hopefully help close this attainment gap.

Personally I don't understand why anyone wouldn't take advantage of this scheme, as it can offer your child a LOT, both educationally and socially.

It's not about how big your support network is. It's about offering your child something that might be of benefit to them.

Entitled to, but it is not a legal requirement.

I agree it is a good thing but each parent is also entitled to make that decision for themselves and it should not in my opinion start ringing 'alarm bells' or require being questioned by Social Services

If there are genuine reasons for being concerned about the health and well being of the child that is another matter altogether.

Tupperware_Queen

johnnyl wrote: »

Are you sure?

Legal duty to report someone opting out, or legal duty to report something that IN THEIR OPINION was suspicious.

There is a vast difference between the two.

Yes I am sure, I am a professional health care worker with a masters level qualification in Safeguarding.

whitewing

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

If there are genuine reasons for being concerned about the health and well being of the child that is another matter altogether.

And how will anyone ever know if no one sees the child, except in passing.

johnnyl

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

Yes I am sure, I am a professional health care worker with a masters level qualification in Safeguarding.

Lets be clear about what we are saying here.

You are stating that there is a requirement for every HV to report to social services if a parent opts out of the HV's visit?

Therefore everybody who opts out is highlighted to and followed up on by social services.

I find that very hard to believe.

FBaby

I too was indirectly involved with social services and didn't feel one bit harrassed or singled out. All people involved did what they were supposed to and rightly so.

My son has a birth mark under one of his shoulder blade in his back that totally looks like a bruise. Because of the position and colour, it looks like it would if he'd been picked up roughtly under the arm (and one arm at that since it is only once side). Because he had it from birth, I am used to it and don't think about it at all, but one day, his nursery noticed and contact social services.

They came to have a look, but realised that it didn't hurt him at all when pressing and when they questioned gently his sister (4 yo at the time), she said it was a birth mark. They agreed, and that was the end of it. I wasn't even notified at the time, only later by the nursery.

They did the right thing and because in this case it amounted to nothing it was no big deal, but if it indeed it had been a bruise and could have stopped a child being beaten up, then that would have been the right move.

Johnny, what do you think of Ms A who is married to a man who is overly controlling but charming to the outside. He has been verbally abusive towards her and started to hit her, but never touched the kids...until he once grabbed his 4 yo by the hair one day and started hitting her. He told Ms A that he didn't mean to, that he had a problem which he recognised and was going to sort it out because he loves her and the kids. Ms A is blindly in love with him and believes him, but think it might take a bit of time before his totally sorts out his anger issues, so wants to be sure that no agencies gets involved as they could take the kids away and she is certain that given a few weeks, the whole matter will be resolved and they will be a lovely family.

HV comes, the 4 yo is once again not there, Ms A says she is with her grand-mother. Strangely, she is never there when she visits. Baby seems ok although not putting on a lot of weight but nothing worrying to report. Ms A says 4 yo doesn't need to go to nursery as her mums provides childcare, and she doesn't need to come back because they are all well and nothing to worry about....

Can't you see that this is a case where no evidence would be found, yet concerns would be well-founded.

Mojisola

johnnyl wrote: »

Lets be clear about what we are saying here.

You are stating that there is a requirement for every HV to report to social services if a parent opts out of the HV's visit?

Therefore everybody who opts out is highlighted to and followed up on by social services.

I find that very hard to believe.

I think it's the two things - not wanting the baby to be seen any longer and the older child not attending any outside childcare.

FBaby

Just to add that I am 'only' a NHS manager, working in an office with no direct contact with children, and yet as part of employment, I had to sign a safeguarding statement that I would report ANYTHING that I deemed suspicious (with some exemple provided but not limited).