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

Mojisola

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

I've had a note put through my door from social services about information they were given from a health visitor about my child! She's 3 years old (will be 4 in March) and she's not in nursery as I chose not to send her to nursery, I also have a 7 week old baby.

Nicki wrote: »

I don't actually know any family without other issues in play who is still having regular home visits by a Health Visitor by the time their child is 4..

Surely the HV was calling because of the baby?

j.e.j.

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

Hi,

I've had a note put through my door from social services about information they were given from a health visitor about my child! She's 3 years old (will be 4 in March) and she's not in nursery as I chose not to send her to nursery, I also have a 7 week old baby.

Anyway a social worker has been out today and said that because myself and my partner told the health visitor we no longer needed her to come out the health visitor raised concerns with childrens services!! It's because myself and my partner told the health visitor there are other families who need there help much more than we do and we no longer required or needed them to come out to visit us as we already have a big support network! I've got 4 sisters, my brother has got 2 brothers, 7 aunties on his dads side, 3 uncles and 2 aunties on his mother side etc!

I'm quite rightly fuming about this and am in the process of complaining to the health visitors manager about the conduct of her health visitor just because said health visitor wasn't happy we didn't need her (or want her) anymore!

What do you suggest I say to social services as I know for sure nursery is not compulsory nor is any schooling until my child is aged 5 years old.

Thank you.

As far as I know (?) it is not compulsory to have a health visitor. It is far more important to have a network of people you can rely on for support, as you have. It's a very Big Brother world we're living in these days, and I'm afraid that with headline stories of Baby P and the like, all common sense has flown out of the window. I am sorry you are feeling a victim of this, - you are quite within your rights to not send your child to nursery, indeed many children are home-schooled.

I'm afraid I don't have any advice on how to tackle this Big Brother-like harassment you are on the receiving end of, but a letter to your MP to register a comment might not go amiss.

Own_My_Own

johnnyl wrote: »

what makes you think that I am not calm.

I have highlighted the words because they are key and being rather conveniently ignored.

At no point should excersizing your legal right result in you becoming subject to suspicion otherwise it wouldnt be a legal right. Its sheer common sense, these people have to put their evidence forward or mind their own business.

And we only have the Ops account of this visit. We do not know what the HV witnessed, what the house was like, how the 4 year old acted.

There may be loads of evidence. Obviously SOMETHING worried the HV. They don't just contact SS for nothing. I except the HV also spoke to her superior before making the call.

suki1964

johnnyl wrote: »

if they hadnt already explained their decision, to somebody who had been seeing their kid then I would agree. However this wasnt the case.

The person had already been seeing the kid and had a basis to make a judgement from. There either was or was not evidence at that point.

The decision to opt out of that service is not evidence of anything other than not wanting that service. It was explained why that choice was made.

In the absence of evidence then the person simply does no want that service, as per what they have already said.

I think though what you arent getting, or choosing not to get, is that so many times in the past, there have been many "plausable" parents telling HVs all is well and they are fine, when in fact they werent.

We as a nation has screamed out loud every time a baby p has made the headlines - "Why was nothing done"

Now things are in place to help insure things are done, we have people like you screaming " legal rights"

Now Im sure the op is a lovely mother and has plenty of support and she is very genuine

But I could be wrong couldnt I?

Nicki

Mojisola wrote: »

Surely the HV was calling because of the baby?

So why did OP say they couldn't continue to do regular home visits then?

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

because myself and my partner told the health visitor we no longer needed her to come out the health visitor raised concerns with childrens services!! It's because myself and my partner told the health visitor there are other families who need there help much more than we do and we no longer required or needed them to come out to visit us as we already have a big support network!

With a second child, you usually get one home visit from the HV to coincide with being signed off by the community midwife, and if OP has only had one visit from the HV recently, and not been having regular ones over the course of the last few years, why on earth did she make a scene about the one post birth visit?

notanewuser

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

we already have a big support network! I've got 4 sisters, my brother has got 2 brothers, 7 aunties on his dads side, 3 uncles and 2 aunties on his mother side etc!



.

We have a big support network too. My parents, DH's parents, my sister and her partner, DH's 3 brothers and their partners, my 2 aunties and grandmother, DH's 3 aunties and one set of grandparents, cousins aplenty etc. they all adore DD and are very supportive.

Apart from my parents they are all at least 200 miles away. So whilst they are there for support, in practical terms they're not that helpful.

The OP didn't actually say anything about her family members being local or good influences on her children.

lindsaygalaxy

I think it is good that the health visitor is still visiting when the baby is 7 weeks old! When I had my youngest (who is now 3) the health visitor only came once, I then had to go to clinic (typical around here when you already have an older child). People I recently know in the same town and ones in other parts of the country have had just 2 or 3 HV visits to their home and then had to go to clinics.

Is there more to this story? Surely if the other child is 4 then he/she should already be at school or due to go in September?

Working in a school I see children that have 'slipped through the net' and end up going to school late or having very poor social and academic skills.

I think its good that people are actually doing their jobs. We often have conversations at work how the lack of health visitors is a big problem and issues such as children coming in to school late, with no experience of playgroup/nursery (social skills), being out of nappies or using a knife and fork would be sorted if there were more of them! Problem is the people that need the support often dont want it.

Saying that the OP does seem to have family support.

POPPYOSCAR

OP

When you say you have a 'note' pushed through the door from social services concerned about your child not going to nursery what have they said exactly?

Do they want to arrange a meeting with you?

I would be annoyed as well but I would write back to them stating that it is your personal choice, as is your legal right, not to send your child to nursery and so do not understand why they have contacted you in this regard.

liney

It seems to me that the HV would have to record that the OP was withdrawing from the normal 'programme' and Social Services would naturally need to find out why. Once the 'why' visit has taken place, if the Social Worker has no concerns then that will be the end of it.

I believe that HV's also will monitor the health of the mother in the early months, as well as the well-being of the children. Could there be anything to indicate that she feels you need personal support maybe? My friend's HV was very good when she suffered with PND.

meer53

johnnyl - How do you know what evidence the HV has ? Were you there when they wrote their report to SS ?

No ? Thought not.

There has to be a reason why they did what they did, we don't know that reason, so why not take a step back and calm down ?