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

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Why isn't it stated anywhere official 'you do not have to see a Health Visitor, but if you refuse their services, you will be investigated by Sicial Services'?

Probably because it wouldn't be legal to threaten mums like that.




If the HV was following new protocols or referral criteria, then a complaint will be shrugged off like water off a duck's back. But if she is acting without official approval and there have been a number of cases that appear to have been referred inappropriately, then she will be reminded of the criteria for referral, if nothing else because Social Services have important work to do without their workload being added to unnecessarily.

notanewuser

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

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.

The OP's daughter will be 4 in March. So no, not expected to be in education yet.

365days

babyjane76 wrote: »

I manage a pre-school and am the designated person responsible for child protection and feel the HV would just be following procedure as she has to do.

In all safeguarding training we are taught that it is not our job to make a judgement but if we have any cause for concern (and someone withdrawing their child could be seen as such) we should report it to social care. It is then their job to decide whether or not the matter needs investigating and what to do.

Sometimes your concern can just be a small piece of a puzzle, social care may have had other concerns reported that you weren't aware of. (not saying that is the case here OP)

I have reported lots of concerns to social care some have been investigated some not, in some cases social care have supported the families sometimes the case has been closed.

What I would say though is I would rather report 100 incidents where there was no cause for concern found than miss 1 and a child be put at serious risk. The HV was just doing their job

Great Point. This is what failed in the babyP case. Lots of people had little bits of information which never got put together.

You don't want to send your child to nursery. In itself thats fine, however as said before is also a piece of a puzzle for an abuser.

You want the HV to disengage, again fine in itself, but is a potential piece in a puzzle.

You may have other pieces that you aren't aware of. Casualty admission of the older child, Police involvement for a domestic, criminal cautions or records, history of depression, history of being in care or amily members being in care, alcohol and/or drug abuse, call from a vindictive (or not) neighbour, did not attend a follow up appointment at doctors etc etc etc

All these on their own do not create a whole picture together they would be a HUGE concern. If individuals don't report their own tiny pieces of a POTENTIAL issue cases the big picture never gets seen.

Good on your Health Visitor.

Mojisola

Snoopinggoose wrote: »

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'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!

Rather than fume or complain - which might set off even more warning bells - I would reiterate the reason you gave the HV.

If they haven't got any other worries about you apart from not sending the four year old to nursery, you won't be bothered again.

dizziblonde

It IS an accusation, it IS a label and it's one that you'll never get away from. I had a totally malicious referral made against me - investigation concluded "no case to answer" (nice wording there last seen on CSI et al) whatsoever but we will (SS words) "always remain a family KNOWN to social services" - we will never ever ever shake that tag and it's always there niggling in the background hanging over our heads. That's the reality of it, and that's why, even though one of the staff at our local baby clinic is, to put it bluntly, a rude woman with no clue about anything other than handing out leaflets on how to "do" weaning (she's admitted it's the only thing she's confident on herself) - I trot along dutifully, try to time going down for the weeks she's not there and smile sweetly (since the one time I let my mind wander in the waiting room to mentally compose my Tesco shopping list she concluded, against the GP's own diagnosis, that I must have PND) and play their silly games.... which is what they want all along - to bully you into line.

And yes, you've legally got the right to opt out of health visiting service (because not all of them are this hit squad of highly trained professionals but a heck of a lot are pushing out of date advice, personal agendas or just plain loopy) - but in reality you're now seeing what happens when you try to exercise this "right" - it's pure lip-service.

Thankfully my named health visitor is one of the slightly better ones, it's one of the second-tier staff who help with baby weighing that I have issues with so she's avoidable.

There's probably not much you can do to fight it though - just smile, go along with letting the referral run through (if it's anything like mine it'll be talking to your HV, midwife and possibly GP and getting a badly-written letter - mine got my name wrong halfway through - in the post)... then how you proceed after that is something for you to decide when the dust's settled a bit.

whitewing

Another point is that is would presumably be useful for the HV to see young children without issues. That would build her experience to notice where there are problems in other children.

PoorCharleyBear

I can understand why the HV would be concerned enough to follow up.

My daughter hurt her leg at soft play and was limping- we took her to A&E. The dr wanted to know if we had a regular HV (no, because we had not long returned from overseas), did our daughter attend regular nursery. They followed up to check we were registered with a GP and she really did attend nursery. I guess by doing this they can reassure themselves our (not completely verbal) child was not the subject of concerns/regular accidents.
I was quite impressed at the degree of concern...lots of admin but they are protecting vulnerable children.

johnnyl

suki1964 wrote: »

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"
?

the usual hyperbole to justify intrusion.

Baby P happened not because someone asked to not to have a HV visit but because these so called professionals were there and ignored injury after injury. It is just a poor analogy because the authorities were involved and did nothing. Just because they lacked the ability and proffesionalism does not mean that others should be hounded. It is for them to act on the evidence (injuries) not speculate wildly that there may be a problem even though no evidence exists

johnnyl

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

The OP does indeed have a right not to send their child to nursery, or to refuse access to those they do not want to visit their home.

HOWEVER the Health Visitor has a legal duty to report these circumstances.

.

Are you sure?

Legal duty to report someone opting out, or legal duty to report something that IN THEIR OPINION was suspicious.

There is a vast difference between the two.

365days

johnnyl wrote: »

the usual hyperbole to justify intrusion.

Baby P happened not because someone asked to not to have a HV visit but because these so called professionals were there and ignored injury after injury. It is just a poor analogy because the authorities were involved and did nothing. Just because they lacked the ability and proffesionalism does not mean that others should be hounded. It is for them to act on the evidence (injuries) not speculate wildly that there may be a problem even though no evidence exists

No it happened because professionals failed to report incidents which on their own were seemingly insignificant.

Such as incidents like not wanting a HV and not wanting to send a 4 year old to nursery (with a newborn) . As i said on their own insignificant.