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

johnnyl

365days wrote: »

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.

no it did not.

The authorities were involved but did not act, it is completely different.

Want-To-Fit-In

I wouldn't get so worked up about it, if you have nothing to hide Children's Services will visit, everything will be fine and that's that?

I have 3 children and haven't seen my HV since y eldest was about 6 weeks old, nor has he gone to nursery (he starts full time school September) I have only just put him in nursery now to get him use to being left in September. Children's Services haven't been in touch with me but if they had I wouldn't have been concerned if they do at the end of the day its their job.

shirlgirl2004

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

As a parent you have a choice to send yoru child to nursery/playschool if you want to. BUT as a primary school teacher I REALLY recommend you send them somewhere as it helps to develop their social skills as well as their academic knowledge. You can more often than not tell the children who have been to somewhere before they come to school to those that haven't.

And you can often tell tell the children who have been to school and the ones that haven't and I know which I prefer! We teach our children from the day they're born we don't need to hand our children over at the age of 3 for someone else to tale over the role. The OP has never said she intends to send her child to school. Why should she? She doesn't have to. The law requires education not school for children.

Having said all of that I query why the HV was visiting at 7 weeks unless there's a problem.

arbroath_lass

johnnyl wrote: »

And that is precisely my point. These people should be challenged on their decisions otherwise they can go around harassing law abiding citizens.

Surely it wasn't actually the HV's decision though? People in these jobs have to follow procedure to ensure everyone is treated fairly.

So asking the HV not to return and not sending the older child to nursery were likely the triggers.

There is no room for "opinion" in these instances. What happens if a child is being abused but the parent gave perfectly valid reasons for refusing the HV? Parent seemed like a nice person so it wasn't referred? HV would be strung up by the press if that came to light. AND have to live with what they'd done.

No-one is saying the OP has to send her child to nursery OR have the HV round but the OP does have to realise this looks like they are hiding their children from the authorities. Once SS have been round and reassured themselves I'm sure the matter will be dropped.

365days

johnnyl wrote: »

no it did not.

The authorities were involved but did not act, it is completely different.

Fair enough, I have just been looking at the Lamming enquiry which was a result oif Victoria Climbie and may have my cases mixed up.

Irrelevant really. You say the authorities knew but did not act.

This is exactly the point. This HV knows of two potential red flags for a child. If she failed to act she would be exactly the type of person you would be getting your knickers in a twist about.

Baby found tortured and dead. HV had been told 3 weeks before that her services were no longer wanted and mum didn't want older sibling to attend nursery. (Thereby no outside agency having any contact with family) HV didn't want to report those facts to anyone in case she upset the mother, or heaven forbid, she was accused of over reacting.

I know what I would choose.

arbroath_lass

johnnyl wrote: »

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.

Is there? As has been pointed out on this thread numerous times, opting out to such an extent IS suspicious.

johnnyl

Want-To-Fit-In wrote: »

I wouldn't get so worked up about it, if you have nothing to hide Children's Services will visit, everything will be fine and that's that?

I have 3 children and haven't seen my HV since y eldest was about 6 weeks old, nor has he gone to nursery (he starts full time school September) I have only just put him in nursery now to get him use to being left in September. Children's Services haven't been in touch with me but if they had I wouldn't have been concerned if they do at the end of the day its their job.

why

you wouldnt put up with the police harassing you even if you hadnt done anything wrong. There has to be a legitimate reason to stop you.

johnnyl

arbroath_lass wrote: »

Is there? As has been pointed out on this thread numerous times, opting out to such an extent IS suspicious.

no it is not if it is backed up with a valid reason. The OP had already had interaction with the HV and chose not to have anymore for perfectly valid reasons. At that point the suspicion ends because there is a logical reason not to continue with the HV and no evidence of anything bad.

365days

Every domestic violence call out and every visit to casualty (under age 5 I believe) is reported to HV. Domestic's involving police are also automatically reported to Social services if children were present.

Whether they act on that information is up to their professional judgement.

We don't know if HV is privy to further information.

365days

johnnyl wrote: »

why

you wouldnt put up with the police harassing you even if you hadnt done anything wrong. There has to be a legitimate reason to stop you.

Who said they are harrassing? It's a visit. If i get stopped by the police I guess they have good reason even if it's not known to me.Same with SS, they feel the need to come visit me, so be it, if I have nothing to hide, they can go on their way.