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

POPPYOSCAR

poet123 wrote: »

I agree, but we are really not privy to other issues which the HV may see as pertinent to that.
Perhaps the illness in the household is such that the HV feels that the child would benefit from outside interaction.

There was a post further up the thread from someone working in SS who stated that the reason given would not, on its own, be sufficient for a referral.

So even though it is not compulsory to send your child to nursery a HV can decide that they must go because they feel it to be necessary
because of family circumstances?

I do not agree at all with this.

FBaby

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

It should not be a concern for education welfare that a child of three is not in nursery.

But as it's been said many times, we do not know what was the actual reason for the health visitor to refer her concerns. The OP states that it is the fact that her 3yo is not in nursery, but maybe it was a totally different reason, or an accumulation of reasons.

johnnyl

FBaby wrote: »

And I found myself in the radar because my child has a birthmark that looks like a bruise, but instead of feeling personally attacked and defensive, I was pleased to see that SS are acting on concerns raised by healthcare/education workers.

thats great for you, however some of us dont wish to be on a radar quite simply because our lives are sod all to do with anyone else. If your happy with a system that molly coddles you and essentially spies on you then great. I dont agree with it nor do I buy into the myth that the system knows best. It is a system set up by and carried out by people who have a vested interest in the system itself.

poet123

Racheldevon wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not a HV or any other professional working with children has their own children, the guidance, advice and professional support they provide is based on the training they are given. A HV is a qualified paediatric nurse, with additional specialist training to become a HV. Their advice has to be evidence based, not based on their own experiences of parenting or being parented.

The threshold for even an initial assessment by Social Care is very high.

I think we all know that and to a greater or lesser degree accept it, but many of us also know that training is more holistic when augmented with personal experience. Doing something yourself adds another dimension which you cannot get from a book.

We also know that "advice" changes regularly....you only have to look at how advice on cot death has changed over the years to see that.

johnnyl

FBaby wrote: »

But as it's been said many times, we do not know what was the actual reason for the health visitor to refer her concerns. The OP states that it is the fact that her 3yo is not in nursery, but maybe it was a totally different reason, or an accumulation of reasons.

this is a complete distortion of the facts of what has been said on this thread. Many many people have expressed the view that the child not going to nursery combined with opting out of the HV was in itself worth a referral and suspicious. This view has been completely shown up for what it is by someone who works in SS, therefore those people who argued that were wrong.

There are others who have suggested that there must be other circumstances, and perhaps this is the case. However those that have argued that the two factors alone are enough are plain and simple wrong.

Sambucus_Nigra

FBaby wrote: »

But as it's been said many times, we do not know what was the actual reason for the health visitor to refer her concerns. The OP states that it is the fact that her 3yo is not in nursery, but maybe it was a totally different reason, or an accumulation of reasons.

In which case it would be followed up surely?

I'm basing my responses on the nonsense that is a social worker's visit due to not going to nursery after being hacked off by the OP not wanting them to visit any more.

Which is ridiculous as neither are compulsory.

POPPYOSCAR

FBaby wrote: »

But as it's been said many times, we do not know what was the actual reason for the health visitor to refer her concerns. The OP states that it is the fact that her 3yo is not in nursery, but maybe it was a totally different reason, or an accumulation of reasons.

The OP has stated that the only concern SS have given them is that the 3 year old is not in nursery - we can only go by the information given us - not assume there are other factors.

Based on this information, to say that the matter is being referred to education welfare purely for this reason is outrageous.

I wish they would spend their time dealing with the children who are in real danger.

How many times have we heard about how SS have been fobbed off from visits by families who are already on the register.

poet123

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

So even though it is not compulsory to send your child to nursery a HV can decide that they must go because they feel it to be necessary
because of family circumstances?

I do not agree at all with this.

So, imagine a situation (hypothetical of course) where an HV visits a home with a new baby, a 3 year old and a new mum coping with a seriously ill partner. She sees the level of care required by the baby and the ill spouse, she sees the 3 year old being sidelined by necessity, she sees a lonely child. Would you not expect her to try to encourage the parent to consider nursery?

Obviously they cannot be forced to do it, nor should they be, but I can see why it would be suggested.

POPPYOSCAR

poet123 wrote: »

So, imagine a situation (hypothetical of course) where an HV visits a home with a new baby, a 3 year old and a new mum coping with a seriously ill partner. She sees the level of care required by the baby and the ill spouse, she sees the 3 year old being sidelined by necessity, she sees a lonely child. Would you not expect her to try to encourage the parent to consider nursery?

Obviously they cannot be forced to do it, nor should they be, but I can see why it would be suggested.

Yes, the HV could have done that at her visit.

To refer the matter to SS and then for SS to refer it to the education welfare is wrong IMO.

It is not for the state to decide that something should be compulsory for an individual family because SS have deemed it so.

squirrelchops

This thread is very much a good example of day to day life working as a social worker!

Until the true facts are established, a decision on what children's services response should be will differ.

Now, although the referrer (i.e. the health visitor in this case) should inform the parents why they are making the referral, we do not know if this was accurately done. By this I mean, the health visitor could have told the parent one thing but children's services another.

This really hacks off children's services departments everywhere by the way - how can social workers be expected to make a decision on a referral when the family have had no chance to explain their situation and it also means we start from one step behind. It is horrid having to go out to families who think you are there for one reason but are there for something else as the referrer hasn't been honest with them.

As I have said, a child not going to nursery in itself would not get anyone in my department even on the phone to that parent, let alone a visit - for which I assume an Initial Assessment took place. The OP doesn't say this was undertaken but we never go out on just a 'visit' - there is always a clear purpose.