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

Sambucus_Nigra

fluffnutter wrote: »

Perhaps you missed my earlier posts whereby I made the point that the detail of what the OP was moaning about was irrelevant - rather that she was the type of personality to have a rant about stuff. My post was an example of similar personalities and the kind of stuff they like to rant on about to illustrate just how much the detail changes, but the underlying issue remains the same - some people are just born to chunter.

I'm trying to see the wider picture - to encourage people not to get bogged down in whether or not SS can do X, or whether they're right to do Y, or whether you should send your child to nursery, or whether it's legal or not to do anything, because that's not the point.

Do you understand now?

To be fair, any of us could pick people we know that do strange things; so I can't see how talking about someone getting annoyed about something completely unrelated adds to the argument that getting a social services visit due to not attending nursery and having the audacity to be annoyed about it is not a valid response. It is a valid response if that's the only reason for the referral.

You don't know the OP well enough to be able to dissect their personality - so can we cut with the amateur psychology! It's completely irrelevant.

fluffnutter

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

To be fair, any of us could pick people we know that do strange things; so I can't see how talking about someone getting annoyed about something completely unrelated adds to the argument that getting a social services visit due to not attending nursery and having the audacity to be annoyed about it is not a valid response. It is a valid response if that's the only reason for the referral.

You don't know the OP well enough to be able to dissect their personality - so can we cut with the amateur psychology! It's completely irrelevant.

I feel her know her intimately. Certainly none of her posts has surprised me so far

Do you honestly think that people's personalities are irrelevant when you're replying to threads? Two people can have virtually the same experience and yet respond in entirely different ways. I'd say it's critical to try to understand the bigger picture.

Dunroamin

What the OP (and a couple of others) don't seem to bear in mind is that her actions and reactions are pretty similar to those of a family who indulge in child abuse. Even the jolly afternoons with the extended family could involve the children being shared around; I believe that Fred and Rosemary West had large extended families where exactly this happened.

Now, I apologise for being so explicit and I'm certainly not accusing the OP of this sort of thing but perhaps she could stop shouting for a minute and consider how anyone could tell the difference between her situation and something far more troubling, if only viewed from the outside.

Sambucus_Nigra

fluffnutter wrote: »

I feel her know her intimately. Certainly none of her posts has surprised me so far

Do you honestly think that people's personalities are irrelevant when you're replying to threads? Two people can have virtually the same experience and yet respond in entirely different ways. I'd say it's critical to try to understand the bigger picture.

If I think someone is an ar.se on one thread, I'll happily help them on another; unless they have been personal towards me previously.

I try to look at the issue as presented; if there is an underlying issue not picked up before I'll ask the question but in this case, I'm replying purely about the 2 facts that the OP has expressed and continues to express. If there was another angle that I could wedge out I'd have done it; but I can categorically say that with the facts presented, I can't see any reason for SS to investigate. The OP has said nothing else to change my mind.

Sure she's a little angry, who wouldn't be? Oh, of course, all the people who would welcome being on SS's register because the HV was just doing their job.

Sambucus_Nigra

Dunroamin wrote: »

What the OP (and a couple of others) don't seem to bear in mind is that her actions and reactions are pretty similar to those of a family who indulge in child abuse. Even the jolly afternoons with the extended family could involve the children being shared around; I believe that Fred and Rosemary West had large extended families where exactly this happened.

Now, I apologise for being so explicit and I'm certainly not accusing the OP of this sort of thing but perhaps she could stop shouting for a minute and consider how anyone could tell the difference between her situation and something far more troubling, if only viewed from the outside.

And a social worker would know this from one visit how?

Perhaps we should video everyone 24/7 with kids. That should sort it!

bestpud

Dunroamin wrote: »

What the OP (and a couple of others) don't seem to bear in mind is that her actions and reactions are pretty similar to those of a family who indulge in child abuse. Even the jolly afternoons with the extended family could involve the children being shared around; I believe that Fred and Rosemary West had large extended families where exactly this happened.

Now, I apologise for being so explicit and I'm certainly not accusing the OP of this sort of thing but perhaps she could stop shouting for a minute and consider how anyone could tell the difference between her situation and something far more troubling, if only viewed from the outside.

How would a social services visit pick that up though?

I am completely against families being referred for exercising their right to avoid HVs or nursery, but I can see how it happens if the HV feels something isn't right.

I can't see how it would prevent abuse on that scale though. At most it would create a paper trail that could inform any future reports.

Person_one

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

And a social worker would know this from one visit how?

Perhaps we should video everyone 24/7 with kids. That should sort it!

Protecting children is not about waiting until they've definitely been harmed and there can be absolutely no doubt. That would be failing them.

Its about recognising signs that might possibly perhaps be an indicator that there's something fishy going on. People have been abusing their children for long enough that we know what those signs are a lot of the time. Withdrawing from services so that your children never have any contact with the sort of people who know how to raise child protection concerns is one of those signs. It doesn't mean everybody who does that is an abuser, but that a lot of abusers do that, do you understand at all?

Better to investigate and be reassured that everything's fine than to ignore the red flags surely?

I fail to see what's so terrible about having outsiders care about the wellbeing and safety of your children.

Dunroamin

bestpud wrote: »

How would a social services visit pick that up though?

I am completely against families being referred for exercising their right to avoid HVs or nursery, but I can see how it happens if the HV feels something isn't right.

I can't see how it would prevent abuse on that scale though. At most it would create a paper trail that could inform any future reports.

I would hope and expect social workers to be skilled and experienced enough to pick up the signals of inappropriate behaviour but they can only do this if the children are visible.

With no HV involvement and no nursery attendance, these children will be invisible to all except the extended family for nearly two years.

notanewuser

Dunroamin wrote: »

I would hope and expect social workers to be skilled and experienced enough to pick up the signals of inappropriate behaviour but they can only do this if the children are visible.

With no HV involvement and no nursery attendance, these children will be invisible to all except the extended family for nearly two years.

That's assuming they send their LO to school at all.

Sambucus_Nigra

Person_one wrote: »

Protecting children is not about waiting until they've definitely been harmed and there can be absolutely no doubt. That would be failing them.

Better to investigate and be reassured that everything's fine than to ignore the red flags surely?

I fail to see what's so terrible about having outsiders care about the wellbeing and safety of your children.

Not sending your kid to nursery is a red flag?

We've already heard it isn't.

And if it is, and the social worker has concerns then they would have been following up, yes?

As we have heard, the only reason that the referral was made was due to not attending nursery.

Surely if they were passing the kids around for sex the parents would be doing all they could to appear as normal as possible on the outside?