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

geri1965_2

We didn't have "pre-school" when I was a child - I stayed at home with my mum until I went to infant school. Didn't stop me growing up to be a fully fledged useful member of society.

Sounds to me like the OP's child has enough company and stimulation from the people around her not to be disadvantaged when she goes to school.

I can see why alarm bells might ring though as some abusive parents do withdraw their children from services and they just need to check that isn't the case here.

johnnyl

FBaby wrote: »

Again, you don't make sense. How are they suppose to gather evidence without investigating?

It makes perfect sense.

To desire an investigation in the first place you need a reason to do so. Some fact based information (some would call it evidence) to justify your decision to take this further. Yoiu can not just go around investigating people for nothing with no justification.

So what is their evidence? The so called evidence is that hey have asked not to be provided with this service. This evidence is null and void the second that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Professional people are paid a proffesional wage to make sensible decisions based on facts and reason.

johnnyl

FBaby wrote: »

You don't get it. OP is being investigated because they stating they didn't want visits from the HV and her oldest child not attending pre-school has triggered a button. That's the reason and it is a good one. It's not a personal one. It's not OP that triggered the button, it's the choice she is making. These choices are ALSO those made by child abusers, hence the investigation.

its not a good reason at all because the OP is perfectly allowed to choose not to send their child to nursery at that age, and has explained why they wanted to not use the service on offer. There was reasonable logic there that negates this suspicion. Had they given no reason then I would agree, howeever they have given a reason and they are excersising their legal right to choose and being hounded for it by people who have no evidence against them.

amyloofoo

johnnyl wrote: »

its not a good reason at all because the OP is perfectly allowed to choose not to send their child to nursery at that age, and has explained why they wanted to not use the service on offer. There was reasonable logic there that negates this suspicion. Had they given no reason then I would agree, howeever they have given a reason and they are excersising their legal right to choose and being hounded for it by people who have no evidence against them.

They may have given their reasons to the HV, but they haven't given their reasons to social services, which is who are obliged to investigate. As I've already pointed out, the HV doesn't know all the circumstances and is therefore obliged to tell SS. No-one's being hounded, just asked for an explanation which, as you've said, they're fully prepared to give. Please stop scaremongering.

Own_My_Own

johnnyl wrote: »

the typical nosey nanny state. Make a formal complaint and dont let it lie, there are too many of these thieves walking around making a living out of patronising others and making indirect accusations that they can not back up. Invite her to put her accusations in writing, along with any evidence of wrong doing and then invite her to discuss it in court.

That is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard.

I bet you would be one of the first to shout from the rooftops if 2 children were allowed to be abused, as nobody now about, because the parents where allowed to hide them from all services (nursery, health visitors etc).

The HV is doing her JOB. She doesn't need proof. She doesn't need to accuse anyone, to make a referral.


OP. I am not saying for one minute you are harming your children, but you have to try and see how this looks from the outside. You are trying to hide your children. Why ?

Tupperware_Queen

Pre-school, health visitor visits etc are what is known as 'protective factors' within safeguarding. This means that there are professionals, outside of the family, who can observe the child and in the event of any concerns, act to safeguard that child. If there are no protective factors, and indeed, the parent is actively withdrawing from services, this is in and of itself, a concern, and requires professionals to highlight this to the relevant authorities.

Sadly, some families do not care for their children appropriately, and because of the few which do not, those which do have to 'endure' a check up to make sure all is well.

OP, the Health Visitor was indeed doing her job, and if you had agreed to the minimal usual monitoring, this course of events would not have ensued.

Sambucus_Nigra

Who knows? You need to get to the bottom of why the referral was made and what actual concerns the HV had. Surely she needs to have made some concrete concerns?

johnnyl

Own_My_Own wrote: »

That is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard.

I bet you would be one of the first to shout from the rooftops if 2 children were allowed to be abused, as nobody now about, because the parents where allowed to hide them from all services (nursery, health visitors etc).

The HV is doing her JOB. She doesn't need proof. She doesn't need to accuse anyone, to make a referral.


OP. I am not saying for one minute you are harming your children, but you have to try and see how this looks from the outside. You are trying to hide your children. Why ?

nobody is trying to hide anyone, they simply dont want that service and have excersized a (and I will highlight this since it has gone unoticed) "LEGAL RIGHT"

to choose not to use that service.

Not only have they excersized a right, they have given a perfectly valid reason for this. 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.

paddy's_mum

OP - I can name half a dozen children off the top of my head who would still be alive today if their Health Visitor had been as diligent and skilled as yours is!

johnnyl

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Who knows? You need to get to the bottom of why the referral was made and what actual concerns the HV had. Surely she needs to have made some concrete concerns?

And that is precisely my point. These people should be challenged on their decisions otherwise they can go around harassing law abiding citizens. Hold them to account, demand to know what reason (fact based) they have to harass you. If it is the opting out of a service then take it further, harass and hound them for their poor performance