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

amyloofoo

Person_one wrote: »

Because it just doesn't, very very rarely anyway.

What would be the motivation? Health visitors and the like are well used to parents and patients being hostile or uncooperative or telling them to s0d off. A referral is also extra paperwork, and they certainly don't do that for the joy of it!

In my experience, this is very true. I can see that there may be malicious referrals from neighbours / family members, but I think it's very rare that this would happen with professionals. For a start, what's the motivation? Not to mention that if you were discovered to have done this maliciously you'd be sacked and possibly struck off.
In addition, I work with new mums and you wouldn't believe the extra paperwork, phonecalls, liaising and general hassle that a SS referral entails... it's not something you'd do just because you're a bit annoyed but not actually concerned about the child.

I've had women swear at me, call me names and make horrible accusations - but none of these instances have ever led me to make a SS referral - I've only ever done this when I have a genuine concern for the child, not my own pride or hurt feelings. I don't know of any other professionals I work with who would act differently.

There's good and bad practice in all professions, but I would be very surprised to discover that inappropriate referrals were being made for personal reasons - there's no reward, big risks and it's a lot of work, not to mention being completely unethical.

Nicki

In our area I am told the CAF form, which has to be used for ALL referrals to any professional including social services, is 66 pages long, and each section has to be filled in each time a concern is raised, even if the child and family is already "in the system". That would seem quite a big disincentive to refer just to get your own back. Nose being cut off to spite your face springs to mind

Dasa

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.

What..... and spoil all their fun!!!!!!!!!!

Dasa

Snoopinggoose I can see that you haven't been around here all that long.Stick around if this lot haven't scared you away having branded you a bad mother/suffering PND/ etc etc etc for having dared to stand up for what you want and for losing your rag. You will get used to all the holier than thou brigade and after a while it will be like water of a duck's back.;) Good luck.

jetplane

concerned43 wrote: »

I am not here as a cab representative and I know this sort of malicious treatment goes on. But it funny how given all we have read that it's the cab person to remain unbiased, factual etc but the same expectations are not extended to the hw or social services!

I would certainly extend that expectation to all professionals, although I am not naive enough to believe it.

FBaby

concerned43 wrote: »

It's not all bad though as the parents now have evidence of malicious referral in order to,take legal action if they wish.

What evidence do they have? Evidence implies a high level of certainty. How did they prove that the decision to refer was definitely malicious?

What I don't understand with OP is that she seems absolutely convinced that the referral was purely done as a result of the HV feeling offended that the OP didn't want her services any longer, and that there are definitely no other reasons than the issue with pre-school. How can she be so certain of this? How does she know that there are no other reasons that the HV might have picked up but not share with her? I don't understand this level of confidence when it relates to someone else feelings/intentions.

Why can't she accept that -maybe- the HV might have another reason(s) that she chose not to inform her of? Why isn't this in anyway possible?

Nicki

The fact that SS came out to see OP, and when they DID come out they didn't say, Oh OK there is obviously no issue there, is surely indicative that there is more to all this than one offended HV. Whether this is down to the language and aggression used by the OP, the fact that her partner was instrumental in saying the HV should not visit, the state of the house, the partner's ill health, the 3 year old's developmental level or whatever else has been put on the referral, or a combination of all these, who knows.

As OP has said, attendance at nursery is not compulsory, so if this was the only reason for the referral, and if the HV only made the referral out of spite, why on earth would SS be sending the EWO out and making a big deal out of things, if they genuinely could see absolutely no cause for concern?

fluffnutter

Nicki wrote: »

The fact that SS came out to see OP, and when they DID come out they didn't say, Oh OK there is obviously no issue there, is surely indicative that there is more to all this than one offended HV. Whether this is down to the language and aggression used by the OP, the fact that her partner was instrumental in saying the HV should not visit, the state of the house, the partner's ill health, the 3 year old's developmental level or whatever else has been put on the referral, or a combination of all these, who knows.

As OP has said, attendance at nursery is not compulsory, so if this was the only reason for the referral, and if the HV only made the referral out of spite, why on earth would SS be sending the EWO out and making a big deal out of things, if they genuinely could see absolutely no cause for concern?

Totally agree, Nicki. The stuff about over-zealous HVs I could understand. The stuff about referrals to SS that are something out of nothing, I can get. But I did struggle with why an educational welfare officer would ever be involved in a case to do with a child who's not even of school age yet. When you add everything up... this happened, then *this* happened, now **this** is happening.... it does suggest that there's genuinely cause for concern.

Now whether this has any real founding in terms of the needs of the children remains to be seen. In the worst-case scenario, it does and SS are right to be concerned about these children. In the best-case scenario, the kids are fine and it's the OP's attitude alone that prompts all this action from the 'authorities'. But best-case or worst-case, surely she realises it's of her own making. Surely, she's self-aware enough to know that she's causing this.

mrcow

I also don't understand why Educational Welfare would have been involved either? Is it not unusual? After all, hundred of children up and down the country don't attend nursery (for whatever reasons).

CH27

Nicki wrote: »

The fact that SS came out to see OP, and when they DID come out they didn't say, Oh OK there is obviously no issue there, is surely indicative that there is more to all this than one offended HV. Whether this is down to the language and aggression used by the OP, the fact that her partner was instrumental in saying the HV should not visit, the state of the house, the partner's ill health, the 3 year old's developmental level or whatever else has been put on the referral, or a combination of all these, who knows.

As OP has said, attendance at nursery is not compulsory, so if this was the only reason for the referral, and if the HV only made the referral out of spite, why on earth would SS be sending the EWO out and making a big deal out of things, if they genuinely could see absolutely no cause for concern?

As I said earlier there must be more to it than the OP says.