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

POPPYOSCAR

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.

So do I.

Also we hear all the time how hard pressed social workers are so IMO this would be a hugh waste of resources. Much better to use the time more effectively surely.

FBaby

I find that very hard to believe..

We also don't know the circumstances on how it was communicated. There is a difference between saying something like 'just to let you know that I am feeling quite confident with my role as a mum and therefore if it can help, I am quite happy for visits to be not as frequent if it can help, if I know that I can contact you at anytime if I have any concerns' to something like 'ok, you've been here 3 times so far, those visits are a waste of my time, my children are both fine and we don't need you to come and check on us every time you feel like it'.

coolcait

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

I agree. It's the combination of the two factors.

Potentially, the OP's partner getting involved in telling the HV to stay away might also be a factor. Supportive of the OP's decision? Or controlling her?

There may also be other factors which the OP hasn't mentioned.

johnnyl

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

So?

The child doesnt have to go to school and the HV doesnt have to be involved with the parent. What is suspicious, there is nothing at all suspicious about it.

If it was sucpicious and it wasnt allowed and it was a sign of abuse then it would be the law for the child to be at nursery and it would be law for the parent to accept the help from the HV.

Tupperware_Queen

From the Working Together to Safeguard Children document (my emphasis).

NB, I am not in any way insinuating any issues with the OP, just that this is why the HV has taken the action she has.

Health visitors
2.88 The specialist skills of the health visitor are crucially important in protecting children. Health visitors contribute to all stages of the child protection process, including Serious Case Reviews. They support the work of the LSCB through the delivery of multi-agency training programmes and membership of working and task sub-groups.

2.89 Health visitors are trained to recognise risk factors, triggers of concern and signs of abuse and neglect. Through their preventative work, they are frequently the first to recognise children who are being or are likely to be abused or neglected and therefore when safeguarding procedures need to be initiated. Knowledge of the family and their circumstances, as well as the child, probably gathered during home
visits, enables the health visitor to recognise signs and symptoms of a worsening environment, lack of progress to improve the child’s circumstances, or actual harm being suffered by the child.

2.90 Health visitors must have time to maintain effective contact with the child and family, to establish and develop a successful working relationship so they can consider the situation objectively. Where formal safeguarding procedures are in place, health visitors need ongoing contact with families so that they continue to receive preventative health interventions both during the crisis, and in the future.

2.91 Health visitors should liaise with other professionals and agencies so that a full picture of risk factors and progress is obtained. A recurring theme in Serious Case Reviews has been inadequate sharing of information about vulnerable children.
Health visitors should use professional judgement about what, and when,
information is shared with others such as children’s social care services, police and children’s centres.

POPPYOSCAR

The OP has also not really said what the outcome was from the visit.

Is it the end of the matter?

johnnyl

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

From the Working Together to Safeguard Children document (my emphasis).

NB, I am not in any way insinuating any issues with the OP, just that this is why the HV has taken the action she has.

Health visitors
2.88 The specialist skills of the health visitor are crucially important in protecting children. Health visitors contribute to all stages of the child protection process, including Serious Case Reviews. They support the work of the LSCB through the delivery of multi-agency training programmes and membership of working and task sub-groups.

2.89 Health visitors are trained to recognise risk factors, triggers of concern and signs of abuse and neglect. Through their preventative work, they are frequently the first to recognise children who are being or are likely to be abused or neglected and therefore when safeguarding procedures need to be initiated. Knowledge of the family and their circumstances, as well as the child, probably gathered during home
visits, enables the health visitor to recognise signs and symptoms of a worsening environment, lack of progress to improve the child’s circumstances, or actual harm being suffered by the child.

2.90 Health visitors must have time to maintain effective contact with the child and family, to establish and develop a successful working relationship so they can consider the situation objectively. Where formal safeguarding procedures are in place, health visitors need ongoing contact with families so that they continue to receive preventative health interventions both during the crisis, and in the future.

2.91 Health visitors should liaise with other professionals and agencies so that a full picture of risk factors and progress is obtained. A recurring theme in Serious Case Reviews has been inadequate sharing of information about vulnerable children.
Health visitors should use professional judgement about what, and when,
information is shared with others such as children’s social care services, police and children’s centres.

right, so nowhere does that say that it is a duty of the HV to report every instance of opting out to the social services. It is a judgement rather than what you was presenting it as (standard procedure)

Mojisola

johnnyl wrote: »

The child doesnt have to go to school and the HV doesnt have to be involved with the parent. What is suspicious, there is nothing at all suspicious about it.

If it was sucpicious and it wasnt allowed and it was a sign of abuse then it would be the law for the child to be at nursery and it would be law for the parent to accept the help from the HV.

I don't follow the reasoning in the second paragraph.

There are recognised patterns of behaviour which raise suspicions. People who have responsibility for children's welfare have to react to these. No-one is accusing the OP - they just want to check up on the situation.

coolcait

johnnyl wrote: »

So?

The child doesnt have to go to school and the HV doesnt have to be involved with the parent. What is suspicious, there is nothing at all suspicious about it.

If it was sucpicious and it wasnt allowed and it was a sign of abuse then it would be the law for the child to be at nursery and it would be law for the parent to accept the help from the HV.

It's interesting that you cry 'hyperbole' so often, yet make fairly hyperbolic statements yourself.

There may be nothing suspicious about a parent choosing not to have HV involvement with an infant, and choosing not to send an older child to nursery.

Then again, there may be something suspicious about it.

Impossible to say without carrying out a bit of investigation.

If you investigate, you will get reactions like some we have seen on this thread - 'Big Brother', 'nanny state', unnecessary etc

If you don't investigate, there might never be any problems with any of the families involved.

But, sometimes, if you don't investigate, you will end up with one of those cases where we are left wondering 'how could this happen?!'

That's the risk.

Tupperware_Queen

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.

Yes, it is in every health visitors role to report to her supervisor any family withdrawing from scheduled statutory services. If there are any concerns whatsoever, the supervisor will take this further. The older child not attending nursery or pre-school will add to the concern.

Whether or not this results in a referral to Child Services depends on the policies and procedures of the NHS Trust & LSCB in which the OP resides.

Johnnyl, I can understand your concerns about a 'nanny state' however this is not about controlling people, it is about ensuring that those members of our society who are unable to look out for their own welfare are protected. You are constantly undermining the sensible and accurate advice and information from other forum users. In the circumstances this is not helpful, and is not going to help the OP understand what has happened, and why.

OP, I hope that you can see that your Health Visitor was acting to ensure the safety of the children to whom she has a professional responsibility. I appreciate that to be contacted by Children's Services is extremely distressing, however it not intended to be, and if you engage with them, and explain why you have opted out, this will be perfectly acceptable.