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

Amanda65

I started reading this thread yesterday and have just caught up again today. In the original post the OP asked for help with what she should say to SS regarding the referral by the HV. Lots of people have commented with differing opinions (as happens on a public internet foum ) but OP seems to have decided to be very dismissive of anything or anyone that is questioning her stance.

At risk of being flamed, I would say that whilst I appreciate completely the feeling that you do not need your HV's support OP, she is only doing her job. A toddler, an ill OH (albeit not infirm) and a 7 week old baby would be challenging for anyone and the HV needs to ensure that all is well with your baby. At 7 weeks most babies are still being weighed at least fortnightly so that any potential problems with weight gain etc. can be picked up. Are you willing to / do you take baby to the clinic? If so I think this will be perfectly acceptable to SS. If not your HV will have raised a concern.

It seems to me from reading your posts (and this is only my perception but it is how it comes across) that you are trying really hard to keep all the balls in the air and are terrifed of accepting help in case you are made to feel you are not coping. As a Mum of 3 (all now grown up) who were all under 5 at one point, I can remember feeling as though I HAD to cope and would be judged if I didn't and a lot of the time I was exhausted. We got through it but support from HV and various times was invaluable - particulary when I picked up my middle one at 3 had hearing problems (docs said she was fine). It was my HV who took me seriously and pushed for a referral to ENT, who in turn picked up a serious hearing loss. All sorted with grommets but could have caused problems if not dealt with that early.

I think what I am trying to say is don't treat your HV like the enemy. If you have nothing to hide (and not knowing you I have no reason to assume you have) why not just pay lip service and move on. Surely a 5 minute appointment wasn't worth all this hassle?

shegirl

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

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?

No,we've heard the OP deciding the reason is not sending her child to nursery and the HV having her nose put out of joint.

fluffnutter

Amanda65 wrote: »

Surely a 5 minute appointment wasn't worth all this hassle?

That, in a nutshell, sums up (for me) the differences between people. I agree with you, as would many. But for a certain type of personality, this type of flexibility just doesn't come into it. It's all about the principle, and knowing your rights, and exercising those rights, and sticking to your guns, and all that kind of combative behaviour.

Most people shrug and appreciate that a certain amount of intervention from 'the state', be that schools, health visitors, doctors etc. is an inevitable part of life when you have children - because children are rightly the responsibility of society as well as of their parents.

But there are many who don't. TBH, I'd find living life like that exhausting. Like you say, is it really worth the hassle? But, for some, like the couple I used to know... they love it. Honestly, they do. They love the sense of outraged indignation it gives them. Even better if they can then come and spout off about it on the internet and start a thread that runs to over 10 pages

Sambucus_Nigra

shegirl wrote: »

No,we've heard the OP deciding the reason is not sending her child to nursery and the HV having her nose put out of joint.

Yes - that's because it's the OP doing the typing.

There's an awful lot of people here that could do better using their awesome mind reading powers to make a swift fortune or save a few lives. Surely you all have far better things to be doing than posting on MSE: a fire just about to start in a high rise building somewhere or something...

concerned43

Just read this interesting post and not surprised by some of the comments, people who are implying all sorts of horrible things about the poster and her circumstances. For what it's worth, I have experience both privately and in my role within cab, many families being targeted by ss for matters that do no merit their time and energy, I understand the posters indignation and upset, not just on the ss visit but also on the condemnation by some posters on here.
It is not unknown for 'professionals'' who are challenged to raise an issue with ss, this is know in cab as covering ones back!
I myself complained about two so called professionals and found myself at the end of a child protection investigation, ss said from the start that they did not believe there were any issues and apologised and left closing the case as 'no case to answer'! So I believe that this is. case of a hw being scared that being asked to discharge her services would not go down well with her bosses who may ask her some awkward question about the service she was providing and so instead she invents a smoke screen to detract from her and put the spot light on the parents. Seen this loads of time but thankfully the ss have seen through this and make a brief visit and then close the case.
It's not all bad though as the parents now have evidence of malicious referral in order to,take legal action if they wish.
So, I believe you and I believe you know why this has came about and I know you will get through it and enjoy your lovely family and not let this so called professional to ruin your life.
Wishing you well in whatever you decide is best for your children x

Mojisola

fluffnutter wrote: »

That, in a nutshell, sums up (for me) the differences between people. I agree with you, as would many. But for a certain type of personality, this type of flexibility just doesn't come into it. It's all about the principle, and knowing your rights, and exercising those rights, and sticking to your guns, and all that kind of combative behaviour.

Most people shrug and appreciate that a certain amount of intervention from 'the state', be that schools, health visitors, doctors etc. is an inevitable part of life when you have children - because children are rightly the responsibility of society as well as of their parents.

But there are many who don't. TBH, I'd find living life like that exhausting. Like you say, is it really worth the hassle?

I feel the same as this.

Snoopinggoose's children could be having a brilliant upbringing - being part of a big extended family as she described is the natural way that was the norm until recent generations. Children usually benefit enormously from mixing with a range of ages and knowing they are cared for by a lot of adults.

I had visits from the Educational Welfare Officers when my son was off school a lot with illness. They were doing their job and I found the best way to deal with it was to welcome them in - here we are, this is what we're like, you can see he's ill, this is what the doctors are saying, etc. The visits were quick in-and-out jobs with no further attention from anyone.

I have no doubt that if I had come over as resentful or obstructive that my attitude would have triggered further visits. I might have felt justified because I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong but I'm sure an unhelpful stance would have made the EWO more concerned about my son.

whitewing

I may be making big assumptions here, but on another thread on the same log on (but the father, rather than the mother posting), it seems to indicate that the baby was due at Christmas. So that leads me to think that perhaps the baby was premature. Which potentially is extra pressure on the family, which again a good hv will take into account.

concerned43

Have you see this

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol16No3/HealthVisitors.htm

lessonlearned

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

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.

It is likely that non attendance of nursery alone would not have been the reason for the referral but rather the combination of factors that are in play here.

No nursery attendance for eldest child, plus the request for no further HV visit for baby, plus no clinic attendance equals no outside interaction. This may raise an eyebrow or two but in itself of course this not a red flag.

Throw in a poorly partner into the mix with all the attendant strain and you have reason enough for health professionals to look a little more closely so that they can point the family towards any help that may (or may not) be required.

The SS, SW and HV teams are there to help - they are neither the enemy nor the secret police. I found them very helpful when I suspected my then toddler of having delayed speech.

However, add an obstructive and agressive parent to the mix and you do have a red flag. Any HV who ignored signs of agression or emotional instability would be in gross dereliction of duty.

They are absolutely bound to report their findings and concerns.

As several posters have remarked "they are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't".

Whether you like it or not, the OP has displayed obvious agressive and irrational behaviour. It could just be the result of tiredness, stress or incipient and as yet undiagnosed post natal depression.

The bottom line is young children are vulnerable and sometimes need the wider society to safeguard their interests.

Person_one

Person_one wrote: »

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?

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

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?

That's a no then.

Child protection referrals aren't necessarily done based on ticking boxes, because if they were then some at risk children would be missed because they didn't tick the exact boxes.

Its not rigid, there aren't strict rules. Every job I've had as an adult has had an element of child protection/safeguarding and in all those years what's always been stressed is that its better to be safe than sorry. If you feel at all that there's a possibility of the child being at risk then you refer and let the experts investigate further.

It doesn't do any harm for a few good parents to have visits from social services, but it can do a terrible amount of harm to ignore your instincts and your worries because you don't want to upset the parents or don't think you've got enough 'hard evidence'.