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

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Thanks for the clarification.

Now we all know that Health Visitors believe not seeing them is evidence of child abuse.

shirlgirl2004

bagpuss38 wrote: »

oh and its socially, maybe if your "loving parents" had sent you to school you could spell!

I think most people can recognise when someone has transposed letters when typing but I realise not all have that ability so I forgive you.

Nicki

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Excuse me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So anyone who sends their child to nursery doesnt give a damn, ooooh theres alot of us about then :mad:

I didn't say all children that go to nursery have "don't give a damn parents" what I did say is that they are great places for those childre. Meaning those are the children that will gain most from it because they won't be getting that input at home.

ETA the quote feature doesn't seem to worked very well on this occasion![/QUOTE]

No that is neither what you said nor what you meant.

You SAID that a child with loving parents was better off at home than in nursery. There is no other way to interpret the last sentence of your post.

bagpuss38

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

Excuse me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So anyone who sends their child to nursery doesnt give a damn, ooooh theres alot of us about then :mad:

I didn't say all children that go to nursery have "don't give a damn parents" what I did say is that they are great places for those childre. Meaning those are the children that will gain most from it because they won't be getting that input at home.

ETA the quote feature doesn't seem to worked very well on this occasion![/QUOTE]


Seems the quote feature is working perfectly now!

So they are great places for what children?

johnnyl

Nicki wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Judgmental much!

My three year old DS goes to nursery from 9 to 11.30 every morning and has a fantastic time interacting with a wide range of other kids his own age and having access to about 50 times more toys than we have at home, plus specialist music and sports tuition, visiting actors, musicians etc.

That still leaves us with NINE hours every day together, where he is loved, cosseted and educated by me.

Rather than "not giving a damn" about him, I am secure enough in my own parenting skills to believe that some exposure to outside influences, and others opinions are beneficial to him, and that if he is taught correctly at home and a good example set to him that he will still absorb all the values I would wish him to have.

Other parents are so damn rude sometimes :mad:

oh the irony.

its ok when the judgement's are the other way though.

Tupperware_Queen

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

........Anyway a social worker has been out today and said that because myself and my partner told the health visitor we no longer needed her to come out the health visitor raised concerns with childrens services!! ....

I'm quite rightly fuming about this and am in the process of complaining to the health visitors manager about the conduct of her health visitor just because said health visitor wasn't happy we didn't need her (or want her) anymore!

What do you suggest I say to social services as I know for sure nursery is not compulsory nor is any schooling until my child is aged 5 years old.

Thank you.

OP,

I think the question you should be asking the Health Visitor's supervisor is why she did not feel able to explain to you that your action in withdrawing from services would result in contact with Children's Services. I have, in my professional life made a number of referrals, and I have always explained to the family concerned why, and what will happen next. Yes, some of them have reacted negatively, but I felt it important to do this. I do however, know of a colleague who was physically assaulted when she discussed referring a family whilst she was in their house, and as a result she is now very reluctant to discuss this while in a home, she feels too vulnerable.

shirlgirl2004

Nicki wrote: »

I didn't say all children that go to nursery have "don't give a damn parents" what I did say is that they are great places for those childre. Meaning those are the children that will gain most from it because they won't be getting that input at home.

ETA the quote feature doesn't seem to worked very well on this occasion!

No that is neither what you said nor what you meant.

You SAID that a child with loving parents was better off at home than in nursery. There is no other way to interpret the last sentence of your post.[/QUOTE]
Yes I do believe a child with loving parents will gain more by being at home than in nursery. I didn't however say that by sending a child to nursery makes a parent a "don't give a damn parent". It is really is quite a simple statement.

Really confused why when I'm hitting quote it isn't working properly anymore.

Wellyboots6

johnnyl wrote: »

Just because the so called proffesional experts have been unproffesional enough to avoid dealing with kids who have been beaten black and blue and ignored signs like a kid having 20+ cigarrette burns on them does not justify them hounding someone for excersizing a legal right to choose.

How is a professional supposed to know if a kid has 20+ cigarrette burns unless they actually see the child?

I work in a healthcare setting and I have to say that anyone withdrawing from a service that is there to support them and doesn't cost them a penny would be out of the ordinary. There may not actually any follow-up to make but it would certainly be seen as unusual.

That in itself may not cause an investigation, but if there were a few 'unusual' instances then it would catch somebodys notice.

From OP's post there are three 'unusual' instances (OPs attitude for a start, declining HV support, child not in nursery).

How many unusual instances do you need before you start to think it may be best to check the situation to put your mind at rest?

Having such a defensive attitude is not going to help the situation.

I also don't agree that having had any contact with SS puts a black mark against your name. There are a huge number of families who have had SS contact at some point and never have any other contact. There are also families who have dealings with them on and off, but it doesn't mean they are bad families.

Social Services are there to support families, not sneak in through the window in the middle of the night to steal your children!!

Nicki

Don't see the irony myself Johnny.

No skin off my nose if a parent doesn't want their child to go to nursery for any number of reasons.

However when a parent says they don't send them to nursery because they are too good a parent to expose their child to the outside influences of others, then it isn't specially judgmental IMO to point out that a child with a sound footing at home should not be so easily influenced by spending 15 out of the 168 hours available in a week in another setting.

FBaby

johnnyl wrote: »

but there is nothing to investigate. You investigate if the child rolls up somewhere with injuries or makes certain claims.

There literally is nothing to see. How can you investigate someone for doing a perfectly legal thing. If it was such a concern then it would be illegal to do.

It's only been 8 pages..... there is something to see, a family whose choices are for their children not to be in contact with the authorities. Phrase it the other way round if it it easier for you: there are something that would be expected to be seen which in this case won't be seen any longer if going by the parent's choice.

It's not illegal to send your child in shorts and t-shirt when it is 0 degree outside either, but it would seriously raise safeguarding issues if it happened.....