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

amyloofoo

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 perfectly legal to drink whilst pregnant, but it indicates that there may be issues that should be followed up with social care / specialist addictions teams. There are lots of behaviours or circumstances which may indicate potential risks or a need for more support, but are completely legal. Examples I've seen personally are a lack of suitable housing, failure to register the child with a GP, not accessing antenatal care or making any preparations for baby's arrival, mums with severe learning difficulties or mental health issues, concealed pregnancies, extended families with schedule 1 offenders and dependence on prescription medication. I'm not suggesting that any of these conditions would automatically make someone an unfit parent, but you can see why social care would want to do an assessment of the family's needs - even if no-one's breaking the law.

squirrelchops

I am a social worker within a referral and assessment team - ie I am the person who the health visitor in this case would contact to make a referral.

IMO if I had a health visitor on the phone saying 'Mrs J doesn't send little Toddler J to preschool/nursery and doesn't want a health visitor' then my response would be 'and your concern is?'

However if the health visitor said ' Mrs J doesn't send little Toddler J to nursery despite my attempts and there are concerns regarding Toddler's development' my response would be - 'try again to enagage with family, how about linking them in with a family support worker at the children's centre' and go from there.

If the health visitor said 'Mrs J won't send Toddler J to nursery. I am worried about their development because on the schedule of growing skills Toddler J is behind in multiple areas, baby J also has missed immunisations and the home conditions are awful' I would be more worried. Particularly if then there are other notifications such as a domestic violence report or a parent has a substance misuse issue or some mental health concerns that they are not receiving help for. This would trigger an Initial Assessment by social services.

So, for a social worker to be visiting a family based on what the OP's first post stated does not make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't be visiting a family if they chose not to send a child to nursery - that is their choice. Hence why I feel there is more behind the story than we have initially been told.

coolcait

johnnyl wrote: »

but there is nothing to investigate. You investigate if the child rolls up somewhere with injuries so you'd prefer action to be taken at the point only after a child has actually been harmed. I see that as being too late or makes certain claims so you'd prefer action to be taken at the point only after a child has actually been abused. I see that as being too late

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.

Your second paragraph is hyperbole.

We are not talking about an 'investigation' in a criminal sense. If we were, then your comments about legality might have some sense.

If the word 'investigation' causes you such distress, then let's call it a 'follow-up'. Or a 'safeguarding exercise'.

It was perfectly legal for Khyra Gordon's mother, Angela, to withdraw her from school. It was Angela Gordon's right to complain about a visit made by a social worker to her home.

It was wrong of the various agencies to allow themselves to be scared off.

The case of Declan Hainey is another one where various agencies allowed themselves to be fobbed off by - perfectly legal - excuses from his mother. No one - not even family members - saw him for months.

He was last seen alive when he was 15 months old. His mummified body was found in his cot eight months later.

I don't personally care if tens of parents, or hundreds of parents, or thousands of parents, are outraged at the fact that social workers should carry out a 'follow up' in cases where a family chooses to opt out of services such as HV, nursery or school.

If it helps save another Khyra, or Declan, then all of those visits are 'necessary', in my view.

CH27

There has to be more to this than we have been told.

Wellyboots6

If you have developed the attitude that health visitors and social services are the bad guys then I can well see why the OP is annoyed at the situation.

They are however only doing their job and it isn't a personal 'insult'. There will be many many families going through the exact same thing.

Yes, it is well within your rights to decline services, but then don't get angry when they do a check to make sure that you are going to be OK without them. They will be checking the parents are OK too, not just the children.

Chances are there is nothing amiss at all in this situation, but if there were then I'm sure OP would feel a lot worse if noone stepped in to help them or their child.

There are enough complaints about the fact that noone seems to try and help now if they see someone in trouble, that too many people walk by.

jayII

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.

Do you know that for a fact? Have you seen the child in question?

I'm with those who say there has to be more to this. In my experience, almost every parent whose child is being neglected, or worse, states that there is nothing wrong in their home.

People who don't understand their child's basic physical and emotional needs do not usually understand why other people are concerned when said child is cold/dirty/distressed or otherwise being neglected. They may be in denial, they may genuinely not understand what a child needs, but the child is still being neglected and the parents still say they are good parents.

I'm not for one second saying this is the case with the OP, but SS and HV have a duty to respond to certain trigger points and check that all is well in the home. In most cases things are fine and they happily close the case, but they still have a duty to do that simple, no-fuss, welfare visit.

Want-To-Fit-In

johnnyl wrote: »

why

you wouldnt put up with the police harassing you even if you hadnt done anything wrong. There has to be a legitimate reason to stop you.

One visit is hardly harrasing them.

Childrens Services can't win. If a report of concern had been passed onto them and they didnt follow it up, and something bad happened Childrens Servies are slated and are wrong. They recieve a report, make a follow up visit, they are wrong again.

They have a duty of care for them children just like the parents/teachers/doctors
etc.

dizziblonde

jayII wrote: »

that simple, no-fuss, welfare visit.

Aaah so little fuss, so painless... So that's why I still wake up having nightmares about my child having any innocent childhood bumps or bruises and the previous involvement meaning we get flagged up earlier and they take her away - and I have those nightmares night after night after night. It's why I ended up on medication to try to make this tolerable and make sure that my daughter doesn't lose out because them doing this to her mother wrecked her mum's mental health.

I've got no issues with investigations, processes and whatever flow charts professionals need to cling to - I have issues with having a PERMANENT strike against my name which will carry through my children's entire childhoods hanging over my head like a sword of Damocles, and the total ignorance of the absolutely devastating toll this investigation took on my mental health and my confidence in myself as a parent. No doubt the toll it TOOK on my mental health will be counted against me if I ever come to SS attention again as a mark of "bad" parenting as well - you just can't win.

Like I said earlier - I smile sweetly, play along with all the demands - but I shouldn't HAVE to be forced to parent in a backside covering manner, I shouldn't HAVE to think that I go to baby groups at least partly to lay an audit trail of good parenting just in case in the future one of my kids trips while learning to walk and ends up with a bumped head and of course the "known to SS" label comes back to haunt us. There's no right of appeal, no way we can get that removed ever - it's like a toothache - it's always there niggling away in the background... if anything totally innocent happened and we got looked at again - how could we ever trust it would be done fairly in the light of a prior malicious referral - we can't.

People need to get out of this mindset that these referrals have no impact upon people, or that only the "guilty" need worry - they can have an absolutely devastating impact upon GOOD parents.

notanewuser

pinkshoes wrote: »

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

.

.

Only in England.

In Wales it's 10 hours at age 3, and within my local authority that's only if they don't have a suitable full time place within a school nursery (they are eligible to go full time at 3 here).

johnnyl

Want-To-Fit-In wrote: »

One visit is hardly harrasing them.

Childrens Services can't win. If a report of concern had been passed onto them and they didnt follow it up, and something bad happened Childrens Servies are slated and are wrong. They recieve a report, make a follow up visit, they are wrong again.

They have a duty of care for them children just like the parents/teachers/doctors
etc.

this has already been addressed, they have only ever been slated when they have continued to ignore actual evidence of physical abuse.