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

CH27

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

I totally disagree! My children are MY responsibility NOT societies, most of society don't even know my children so they have no role to play in my opinion!



Declined because there are other families in my area that need the services of health visitors much more than I do, and I don't give a damn if it's free it's OPTIONAL NOT A REQUIREMENT to have a health visitor, and just because I said I didn't need them to come anymore is my choice!



Exactly.



I think it's you who doesn't get it! If I choose not to have an OPTIONAL health visitor it's MY CHOICE...... And just because my eldest child isn't in nursery AGAIN MY CHOICE AND NOT COMPULSORY! shouldn't have triggered anything at all! It's not a good reason at all, you are talking absolute rubbish..

And for the record does it mean just because I made the decision not to send my child to nursery and not to have a health visitor mean I'm in the same category as a child abuser, I should bloody well hope not! As if that's the case it's absolutely pathetic!



There is nothing to investigate you fool! I don't want to send my child to nursery just yet and I don't need the help of a health visitor, so shoot me!! For gods sake it's my choice! Nothing needed investigating, it's pathetic.



I agree with the majority of your post BUT the bottom part, you can see why alarm bells might ring though? How so, just because my child isn't in nursery and I don't need a health visitor BOTH of which are optional...



What sort of an idiot are you? You are asking me why I'm trying to hide my children.. How the bloody hell am I doing that when they are seen by people almost every day! I have a massive family and a massive support network and do not need a bloody health visitor, MY choice END OF.

Some of you people are pathetic to even suggest some of the crap you come out with.



!!!!!! it's OPTIONAL to see a health visitor!! It doesn't say if you choose not to see her then you will open yourself up to investigation!

You or I do not need to agree to anything or feel forced to do what we have a choice in! It's that simple!



The social worker came out and the only concern raised was why is my child not in nursery! That's not a concrete concern in my book.



Then name them! It has no relevance to my situation whatsoever!



How wrong you are, that is precisely the one and only reason the social worker came out!



The social worker has been out and all she said was simply that it will now probably just be referred to the education welfare officer! Who when they get in contact will be told I will send my child to nursery when and if I choose to.



Read it properly, I said a 3 year old! Don't skim read, read the thread properly or don't comment..



No because she's 3 years old!! NOT 4.



There is nothing more to this story that has been disclosed! And there was NO health visitor involvement for my THREE year old! Until my son was born whose now 7 weeks old. Only then did the health visitor not raise concerns about the 7 week old who she came to see but about my 3 year old just because she's not in nursery! It's pathetic!



Firstly why would I complain about the health visitor NOT doing there job when I've made it quite clear they aren't needed anyway!

And yes I have a large family and it makes no difference what there profession is! You say health visitors are qualified, half of them don't even have kids of there own! Yet blather on about how they know this that and the other, how about they go away have a child of there own then try telling me what's best for mine!

And learn to spell it's FROM not FORM, and i'm not shutting my child off FROM the real world at all you fool, the real world is outside not some snotty nosed health visitor visiting me at my home, get a grip!



Oh i'm on that already don't worry, the letters in the post.



Because they aren't needed or wanted AND it's MY CHOICE!




No scene was made! I simply said I didn't need there services! END OF.



The note simply said to ring them to re-arrange a visit to discuss 'information' regarding my child, so yes they wanted to arrange a meeting with me.

And I will be writing to them saying exactly what you said about it being my legal right not to send my child to nursery.



Exactly insignificant, so why did the health visitor do it! I'll tell you why because I could tell over the phone she was p*ssed off at the fact she wasn't needed anymore!



The health visitor was not visiting our baby at 7 weeks old, she only visited after he was born, the fact is she obviously decided she wasn't happy the services were refused so decided to clearly be malicious about it!



How pathetic, I chose not to have the services of a health visitor which is my legal right! I don't need any outside agency having contact with my family, my support network is set in stone and if I need it it's there when or if I need it, more importantly IF I choose to have it!



You what? Not sending my child to nursery and opting out of health visitor visits is suspicious, no it is not, not in the slightest! Hence why BOTH of those things are OPTIONAL!



It's called personal choice! That's the reason why.. Just because it's offered automatically means it must be accepted? Course it doesn't.



Well bully for you! Bully being the operative word.



I need to correct your post, not NEEDING the baby to be seen any longer unless I choose to go to clinic, and the older child not attending any outside childcare which is MY CHOICE!



Not sure to be honest, the social worker said it would most likely be referred to the education welfare officer! And that would 'probably' be it, presumably I'll get a letter from the social services saying as such?



OPTIONAL services, if it's a cause for concern why make them OPTIONAL!



Attitude? At what being referred for not wanting OPTIONAL services!

Declining HV support OPTIONAL!

Child not being in nursery OPTIONAL!

Key word here is OPTIONAL!



Nobody said that! I didn't that's for sure!



As I've stated already there is nothing more to this than what I've told you, this has also been verified to me by the social worker involved!



See above!



There is NOTHING I haven't told you.



I suspect I couldn't care less what you think the problem is, if you don't have constructive comments then don't post!



The issue was the health visitor was totally stuck up the minute she was told her services weren't needed, that was the issue!



Absolute rubbish! It's not about making sure the children aren't 'seen' it's about the health visitor feeling pushed out because she isn't needed! As for 'trained' professionals giving out advice on children when they don't have any! It's a joke!



I have now.



Read my entire set of replies to all involved, there is no bigger picture whatsoever, and what do you lot expect me to do, take my child to the authorities and parade them around just so they know they're looked after and seen by them! Get a grip for goodness sake!



No my partner is not the OP (me obviously) but yes he does have a serious illness. But that shouldn't have contributed to anything and it wasn't even mentioned by the social worker.



So I made a slight mistake in my first post, see my point about everyone assuming wrong things! My partner isn't the OP on this occasion, it's me who has chosen to come on here and type all this, so don't make your own mind up about what you think you know about me, instead of putting my partner has 2 brothers I accidentally typed my brother has 2 brothers! So shoot me! I don't even have a brother..

It's me who has 4 sisters, my partner has 2 brothers, therefore I have 4 siblings and he has 2! His dad has 7 sisters and on his mothers side he has 3 unclues and two aunties! I also have several aunties, uncles etc, do I need to name them all to satisfy your curiosity!?

Oh my!
I see why the HV involved Social Services.

paddy's_mum

Isn't the 'punchline' of the latest NSPCC ad something along the lines of "don't wait until you're certain"?

OP - you are very quick to display your contempt of HV's. Your doctor has probably never had a baby but you take his advice and treatment during your own pregnancies, don't you? Training counts!

Can you not see that the authorities are acting for the benefit of all children, not just attacking you and yours for no reason whatsoever?

johnnyl

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Isn't the 'punchline' of the latest NSPCC ad something along the lines of "don't wait until you're certain"?
?

On that count lets lock everybody up before one of them comits a murder.

Sambucus_Nigra

FBaby wrote: »

The first post was already defensive. OP, you keep referring to yout legal rights and choice... no different to the midwife's choice to report you and her legal rights to do so... It goes both ways, hence why most here have said that you should just accept the situation, get on with it and move on...

Of course it was defensive! Once you are on the radar you are on and if it's just because your child doesn't go to nursery it's one hell of an affront.

If there were other concerns surely the social worker would be following up after the first visit?

poet123

CH27 wrote: »

Oh my!
I see why the HV involved Social Services.

Is that all one post from the OP? If so, it has been deleted.

Tbh I doubt that attitude is confined to the forum, and any HV being on the receiving end of such a rant ( and obvious contempt) would, imo have cause for referral. There are ways and means of getting your point across.

CH27

poet123 wrote: »

Is that all one post from the OP? If so, it has been deleted.

Tbh I doubt that attitude is confined to the forum, and any HV being on the receiving end of such a rant ( and obvious contempt) would, imo have cause for referral. There are ways and means of getting your point across.

Yes it was one big post were the OP addressed lots of different posters.

POPPYOSCAR

poet123 wrote: »

Is that all one post from the OP? If so, it has been deleted.

Tbh I doubt that attitude is confined to the forum, and any HV being on the receiving end of such a rant ( and obvious contempt) would, imo have cause for referral. There are ways and means of getting your point across.

My OH would probably react in the same way - we are not all the same.

I now know that with SS you have to say yes sir no sir three bags full sir to keep them happy and play their game.

Molly41

Why has my post been removed ?
Sambucus has quoted it but the original is not there?
Neither is the OP response?

I said nothing in that post that deserved removal.

poet123

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

My OH would probably react in the same way - we are not all the same.

I now know that with SS you have to say yes sir no sir three bags full sir to keep them happy and play their game.

I understand and sympathise with the fact that it can be tempting to react that way when questioned about decisions you believe to be personal, but I find it is counterproductive to do this with those who perceive themselves to be in "authority".

Far better to come across as having made a considered decision and as being quite prepared to defend that decision rather than unbending and bolshy. I have had my share of doing that over the vaccine question.;)

Padstow

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

I understand your need to protect them but surely you can't shelter then all their lives?

Plus i'm a little offended that you said someone was mentally ill for swearing, it somewhat belittles mental health problems (and as someone who's mentally ill for the record i don't go around swearing loudly in the street )

Far more insulting to mistake someone with health problems as a drunk, which I did.

When standing in a shop queue, a guy kept randomly swearing.
Mentioned it to my ten year old daughter when we'd left the shop and she informed me that he had Tourettes, said a boy in her school had it.
Quite humbling that one so young should be so accepting, and her mother an ignoramus!