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

Mojisola

fluffnutter wrote: »

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.

Can't argue with any of that. I don't like the way early education is going but for many people, formal childcare is essential so that bills can be paid and their children have to attend.

Unless the parents are going to home ed, the child will have to join in the crowd at some point. It's a lot easier for the child to get this experience in a couple of half days at a nursery than to suddenly find themselves at school for five full days.

POPPYOSCAR

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.

So can I, as I have seen this happen.

onlyroz

fluffnutter wrote: »

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.

More "aggressive" or more confident? I don't see how it can be a bad thing for 3-year-olds to have the opportunity to mix with other 3-year-olds for part of the week without mummy hovering nearby. If a child has had no interaction with other children, or has never been parted from mummy by the time they reach school then I can forsee a number of difficulties that they might have with fitting in.

concerned43

fluffnutter wrote: »

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.

That's my point, surely ss should visit the parents first to assess and then if still unhappy then seek reference from medical and education. If after meeting the parents and is convinced that there is no case to answer then they should not go to other third parties thus lessening the 'labelling' of innocent families. If we were subject to cp i certainly would not be on a forum talking about it nor would I be giving advice to others subject to cp and ss. But the fact that you questioned a complete strangers legitimacy proves my point of the damage done
by just mentioning ss involvement -everyone assumes the worst and suddenly that person is labelled as some sort of abuser and is diminished in the yes of others- when in fact they could be totally innocent. We would not accept this in other dealings we had with other establishments I.e. if I went to a garage and was ripped off, told people about it, I can guarantee that everyone would be on my side and the garages reputation would be in tatters - but if ss visit then its your reputation that's in tatters even when it's blatantly clear to all there is no case to answer.

Person_one

fluffnutter wrote: »

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.

Aggressive? Seriously?

The only aggressive children I've ever met learned that quality at home.

fluffnutter

onlyroz wrote: »

More "aggressive" or more confident? I don't see how it can be a bad thing for 3-year-olds to have the opportunity to mix with other 3-year-olds for part of the week without mummy hovering nearby. If a child has had no interaction with other children, or has never been parted from mummy by the time they reach school then I can forsee a number of difficulties that they might have with fitting in.

Person_one wrote: »

Aggressive? Seriously?

The only aggressive children I've ever met learned that quality at home.

So studies have shown. I'm only repeating what I've read. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just trying to say that it's up to each family whether or not they feel their children will thrive in nursery or not. Some won't.

Not going to nursery doesn't preclude having interaction with other children.

fluffnutter

concerned43 wrote: »

That's my point, surely ss should visit the parents first to assess and then if still unhappy then seek reference from medical and education. If after meeting the parents and is convinced that there is no case to answer then they should not go to other third parties thus lessening the 'labelling' of innocent families. If we were subject to cp i certainly would not be on a forum talking about it nor would I be giving advice to others subject to cp and ss. But the fact that you questioned a complete strangers legitimacy proves my point of the damage done
by just mentioning ss involvement -everyone assumes the worst and suddenly that person is labelled as some sort of abuser and is diminished in the yes of others- when in fact they could be totally innocent. We would not accept this in other dealings we had with other establishments I.e. if I went to a garage and was ripped off, told people about it, I can guarantee that everyone would be on my side and the garages reputation would be in tatters - but if ss visit then its your reputation that's in tatters even when it's blatantly clear to all there is no case to answer.

I wasn't questioning your legitimacy, merely pointing out that we have no way of objectively knowing your situation. But you're right - the temptation to be suspicious is probably stronger than if you had some banal consumer rights issue, so for my preconceived ideas, I apologise. You're right to call me on them.

Mojisola

fluffnutter wrote: »

Not going to nursery doesn't preclude having interaction with other children.

No, but if Mum (or another relative) is always around, it's a different experience for the child to being at nursery.

fluffnutter

Mojisola wrote: »

No, but if Mum (or another relative) is always around, it's a different experience for the child to being at nursery.

I guess so. But is that so bad? Some kids just want mummy around. They'll get there in their own time. Sometimes I think more harm than good is done by encouraging children to be independent before they're ready. All children are individuals.

Mojisola

fluffnutter wrote: »

I guess so. But is that so bad? Some kids just want mummy around. They'll get there in their own time. Sometimes I think more harm than good is done by encouraging children to be independent before they're ready. All children are individuals.

Again, I completely agree with you but, at some point, the child will probably be going to school. I think it's unkind not to introduce a child to that environment in staged phases to give him or her some experience of where they're going to be spending a lot of their week.