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

fluffnutter

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

The OP has not denied access she has declined to accept HV visits and to send her child to nursery AS IS HER LEGAL RIGHT.

And I think we can safely conclude that she's very much the type to KNOW HER RIGHTS

POPPYOSCAR

fluffnutter wrote: »

And I think we can safely conclude that she's very much the type to KNOW HER RIGHTS

Good for her.

SS should concentrate their efforts on those families on the register that do deny access, if they had, perhaps some of those children might still be around now.

Sambucus_Nigra

fluffnutter wrote: »

And I think we can safely conclude that she's very much the type to KNOW HER RIGHTS

And I suppose that's illegal?

lessonlearned

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

Sorry? Arguing? You mean getting my point across! There is NOTHING remotely irrational or obsessive <-- ??? How do you get that? So everyone else whose commented numerous times does that make them obsessive as well? And aggressive? Oh you mean because I won't bow down and agree to what 'the majority' are trying to TELL me to do..

Re-read this, note the language and shouty capitals. You are coming over as angry and agressive. As other posters have pointed out - if this is how you sound when speaking to HV's and the like, it will raise alarm bells. You do not sound in control.

As for you completely understand why social services want to look closer at my situation, sorry but I don't think you understand jack, until you do more research and actually read this entire thread, it would be wise for you to keep quiet.

And no I have 1 child and 1 baby, not 2 babies, and yes I have a poorly partner, but not poorly in the sense he is incapacitated! You clearly haven't read all of this thread nor understand my situation!

And regarding your comment 'Even with a loving and supportive extended family it is still a lot for you to cope with.' how more patronizing can you get? You don't have a clue about it allegedly being a lot to cope with, so let me put you in the picture, I have 1 child and 1 baby, a partner who is ill but NOT incapacitated, one who other than being diagnosed with a progressive illness does feel healthy and can do everything a 'normal' healthy person can do!

A "Progressive Illness" is exactly that. The rate of progression will of course vary, but the medical profession will be well aware of the devasting physical and emotional effects of such illness, not only on the patient but also on the family.

Social services will just want to see that you are coping and that your children are thriving. They are there to help you.

And it's not a lot for me to cope with at all! It would be a sad day if it was! I'm a strong character and a strong person and if 2 adults can't cope with 1 child and 1 baby there is something seriously wrong with them! And even if I had to cope with 1 child, 1 baby and if my partner was incapacitated my support network is so great I would have no problems whatsoever.


[I]Don't under-estimate how tough it's going to be and don't over-estimate your own strength. A progressive/degenerative illness takes it's toll on everyone but especially on the carer. My OH has been ill for 7 years - it's a long and tiring journey. [/I]

So now your in the picture, go ahead and think about what you posted before you post such patronizing rubbish again!

I am sorry if you think I'm patronizing. Neither me nor indeed any of the other posters have patronized you. That is just your perception.

Many of us speak from our hearts and from our own experiences. We've had children and dealt with HVs. Some of us have also coped with poorly partners.

We speak from knowledge and experience.

lessonlearned

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

The OP has not denied access she has declined to accept HV visits and to send her child to nursery AS IS HER LEGAL RIGHT.

You are splitting hairs, in practice it amounts to the same thing.

fluffnutter

It's not about SS though is it? Or health visitors. She'll have the same battles with the school when her children finally go. I expect she has the same issues whenever she takes her child to the doctors.

It's about that particular type of personality that loves to get outraged when they feel they're under threat in some way; that the world's organised deliberately to create maximum irritation to them, that everyone who doesn't agree is a 'jobsworth', or the 'internet police' or 'holier than thou'.

You see loads of them posting on internet forums. How do you think the Daily Mail manages to shift so many copies? Getting bogged down in the detail is an irrelevancy - the OP just loves a good old chunter!

CH27

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Good for her.

SS should concentrate their efforts on those families on the register that do deny access, if they had, perhaps some of those children might still be around now.

But she is denying future access.

POPPYOSCAR

CH27 wrote: »

But she is denying future access.

No she is not.

The OP has told the HV that she no longer needs her services. The HV has not expressed concerns about the baby.

The HV has not said to the best of our knowledge that she needs to see the baby again.

POPPYOSCAR

lessonlearned wrote: »

You are splitting hairs, in practice it amounts to the same thing.

No it does not.

Had the HV said she had concerns and wanted to see the baby again then she would be denying access.

jetplane

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Good for her. SS should concentrate their efforts on those families on the register that do deny access, if they had, perhaps some of those children might still be around now.

Wow so SS are damned if they do and damned if they don't? Do you have an axe to grind with SS or do you know the OP personally? Otherwise how do you know which camp their family fall into?