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

raq

if it wasn,t for my health visitor 4 years ago we would never have got the help we got now for our ds who is mildly autistic

amyloofoo

For further clarification - the last available statistics on referrals to social care in England are available here, and although it doesn't measure 'malicious' referrals, it does give the figures for those who go on to require no further action: http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d001025/osr18-2011.pdf
This also gives some indication of how many referrals result in an assessment and the proportions of these who go on to have further input. There's also information broken down by region if you're interested to see how your LA measures up.

Ms_Chocaholic

concerned43 wrote: »

Where I live EVERY referral is investigated - that's the law

I agree, every referral in respect of concern for a child is investigated, however Children's Social Care do receive a huge number of referrals that are not appropriate for Social Care and referrers are signposted to the correct service. In a significant number of referrals there is nothing to investigate.

If I can think of an example I'll come back and post but I can't think of one off the top of my head at the mo.

dorisday

betsie wrote: »

Hi
just wondered why you don't want your little one to go to pre-school?

I work at a small village pre-school and all of the little one love mixing with each other and having a few hours to explore and do lots of messy things they probably don't get to do indoors. I also think it gives parents a few hours to catch up on all the chores so when your child comes home you have more time to devote to them.
You do not have to send them every morning either.

I know it is a personal choice and you do not have to send them to school until the term before their 5th birthday, but I really think pre-school helps prepare them as it is a big change going from being home with mum 7 days a week to suddenly being at school for 5 full days.

Well cant say that I or my children or many of my friends and their children missed out on pre-school it just wasnt around when we first went to school at the age of 5 and it sure didnt make any difference to all of us. I personally would have hated to have been sent to pre-school at the age of 3/4 and missed out on spending valuable time with my family.

Mojisola

dorisday wrote: »

Well cant say that I or my children or many of my friends and their children missed out on pre-school it just wasnt around when we first went to school at the age of 5 and it sure didnt make any difference to all of us. I personally would have hated to have been sent to pre-school at the age of 3/4 and missed out on spending valuable time with my family.

It didn't make a difference because none of you went to nursery.

Reception class teachers see a big difference between the (very few, these days) children who haven't been to playgroup or nursery and the ones who have.

It doesn't have to be full-time but it does help children settle quickly at school if they have had some experience of spending time among other children in a more structured environment.

squirrelchops

Ms_Chocaholic wrote: »

I agree, every referral in respect of concern for a child is investigated, however Children's Social Care do receive a huge number of referrals that are not appropriate for Social Care and referrers are signposted to the correct service. In a significant number of referrals there is nothing to investigate.

If I can think of an example I'll come back and post but I can't think of one off the top of my head at the mo.

Every referral will be 'investigated'and social care must make a decision regarding the referral within 24 hours. However a decision could be:
1) no further action
2) signpost to other agencies - for example to refer to CAF (common assessment framework) if it is identified there are some needs but these can be met via community services
3) Inital Assessment to be undertaken (ie social worker assesses)
4) S47 procedures are instigated - ie a duty to investigate - think child protection

The reason I have put investigate in '' is because some referrals it may just merit a letter being sent to the family. Other referrals are passed back to the referrer for more information. Some referrals aren't referrals - they are requests for information such as from CAFCASS. Sometimes a phone call to family to clarify the situation will lead to either no further action or indeed the concerns are raised after this. Remember at levels below that of S47 we are at a voluntary stage and parents are asked if it is ok to gather more info e.g ringing children's school or speaking to health visitor for example to help us make a decision.

So you see the day in the life of a referral team social worker is very varied and each referral could go a number of different ways.

Zziggi

squirrelchops wrote: »

Remember at levels below that of S47 we are at a voluntary stage and parents are asked if it is ok to gather more info e.g ringing children's school or speaking to health visitor for example to help us make a decision.

So you see the day in the life of a referral team social worker is very varied and each referral could go a number of different ways.

Unfortunately squirrelchops, from what I have seen of SWs is that even when they are clearly working below s47 they do not ask if it is ok to consult school/health visitor/a n other, they just do it anyway. They discuss confidential information with parties that are not subject to any rules around confidentiality and then wait to see if the parent finds out/complains. The problem is - you can't take back confidential (and irrelevent to the purpose of child protection) information once it has been shared with those who have no business knowing it and information that has no bearing on child welfare. SWs are generally a law unto themselves. Sadly I could well imagine the OPs situation to be as stated, one disgrunteled HV starting the ball rolling and then it just gets bigger and bigger for no real reason and not because there actually are any concerns.

fluffnutter

Mojisola wrote: »

It didn't make a difference because none of you went to nursery.

Reception class teachers see a big difference between the (very few, these days) children who haven't been to playgroup or nursery and the ones who have.

It doesn't have to be full-time but it does help children settle quickly at school if they have had some experience of spending time among other children in a more structured environment.

Yes, it probably does. It also makes children more aggressive. There are pros and cons to early socialisation in children. One might argue that aggressiveness is just part of 'the law of the jungle' and a necessary part of learning to be around other people, but others might try to avoid it, at least for as long as possible.

The fact remains that nursery isn't mandatory; it's a valid and reasonable thing to keep your child at home (or with their childminder) until they're of school age. Each child is different and what suits many might not suit one.

concerned43

Zziggi wrote: »

Unfortunately squirrelchops, from what I have seen of SWs is that even when they are clearly working below s47 they do not ask if it is ok to consult school/health visitor/a n other, they just do it anyway. They discuss confidential information with parties that are not subject to any rules around confidentiality and then wait to see if the parent finds out/complains. The problem is - you can't take back confidential (and irrelevent to the purpose of child protection) information once it has been shared with those who have no business knowing it and information that has no bearing on child welfare. SWs are generally a law unto themselves. Sadly I could well imagine the OPs situation to be as stated, one disgrunteled HV starting the ball rolling and then it just gets bigger and bigger for no real reason and not because there actually are any concerns.

Totally agree with this, we had been referred maliciously and my ds now has a child protection 'issue' on his medical files and school files when there was no protection issue I.e even if the referral was true (which is wasn't) it would still not come under child protection. This false labelling has had a huge impact on how we are treated in these establishments -always under suspicion.

fluffnutter

concerned43 wrote: »

Totally agree with this, we had been referred maliciously and my ds now has a child protection 'issue' on his medical files and school files when there was no protection issue I.e even if the referral was true (which is wasn't) it would still not come under child protection. This false labelling has had a huge impact on how we are treated in these establishments -always under suspicion.

How worrying and upsetting for you. However, you've got to appreciate that we've no idea whether this referral was 'malicious'. We've no idea whether or not your child is subject to a genuine protection issue. We don't know if this labelling's false. You're hardly going to come on an internet forum and admit that you're the legitimate concern of SS.