advice for a friend (child protection issues)

missbiggles1

justme111 wrote: »

Anglea , father of the child had issues on sex offences front. From what I know from local press is the issues did not involve any body contact or violence - something of voiristic nature against random people , not family members . I do not know what is incriminated to mother. As it has been a few years since original story happened my guess it would be him being around the house while he was not supposed to and not making right noises to social services. As I said , I do not know the details and it is not my place to ask and no point anyway as I am not going to believe what I am said anyway.

Tbagpuss , I am not going to go with her anywhere or doing research for her -not because I am afraid of mud but because it would take the amount of effort and responsibility I am not prepared to dedicate to the cause , it would be wrong on so many parameters.

Thank you for your concern re sticking mud , I understand where you coming from. I am not going to discuss the topic in debt with the woman concerned as without knowing the facts I am going to be seen as approving of her actions. I am not going to distance myself though and will be honoured in giving her opportunity for normal communication she is deprived now due to fear and judgemental attitude of others . Itssane , your signature illustrates the situation perfectly. .
Thank you for your replies , I forwarded link for advocacy services.

And, knowing that, you let your daughter visit?:eek:

Carl31

Nobody wants to, or should, lose their children, but would you want to be party to a situation where a child is in danger, and you (unknowingly) try to keep that child in that danger?

As said, no smoke without fire, especially where social services are concerned. Dont do anything you may live to regret later, especially when you dont know all the facts

justme111

missbiggles1 wrote: »

And, knowing that, you let your daughter visit?:eek:

Desire to see other people's private parts without their consent is not contagious and I am not aware of any other allegations so yes , I do .
She is of an age where she would be able to tell me /voice her opinion on whatever happens. She does not stay there over prolonged periods. The guy is never in the house let alone study room where my daughter stays.

I find it sad that many people not only don't have sense of proportionality and ability to question and critically analyse information that powers offer us but are belligerent in their stance belittling and attacking those who dare to be different.

ViolaLass

Carl31 wrote: »

Nobody wants to, or should, lose their children, but would you want to be party to a situation where a child is in danger, and you (unknowingly) try to keep that child in that danger?

She's trying to get the mother adequate support. That's not the same as trying to keep the child there (or trying to get it removed).

As said, no smoke without fire, especially where social services are concerned. Dont do anything you may live to regret later, especially when you dont know all the facts

..........

missbiggles1

justme111 wrote: »

Desire to see other people's private parts without their consent is not contagious and I am not aware of any other allegations so yes , I do .
She is of an age where she would be able to tell me /voice her opinion on whatever happens. She does not stay there over prolonged periods. The guy is never in the house let alone study room where my daughter stays.

I find it sad that many people not only don't have sense of proportionality and ability to question and critically analyse information that powers offer us but are belligerent in their stance belittling and attacking those who dare to be different.

I don't really see any need to be tolerant to people who are voyeuristic and considered to be a hazard to children!

I'm not the sort of person who sees child molesters round every corner (quite the opposite) but you've said that this man's activities have been been reported in the local press some time ago before you allowed your daughter to stay .

You've also said that you assume that the reason for Social Service involvement is because of his being "around the house while he was not supposed to" which contradicts your statement above that "The guy is never in the house".

I really think that you need to tread very carefully on this issue rather than becoming more deeply involved, for many reasons.

Andypandyboy

justme111 wrote: »

Desire to see other people's private parts without their consent is not contagious and I am not aware of any other allegations so yes , I do .
She is of an age where she would be able to tell me /voice her opinion on whatever happens. She does not stay there over prolonged periods. The guy is never in the house let alone study room where my daughter stays.

I find it sad that many people not only don't have sense of proportionality and ability to question and critically analyse information that powers offer us but are belligerent in their stance belittling and attacking those who dare to be different.

My opinion is that on a personal level you can dare to be different, challenge authority and be as critically analytical as you want. It is your own decision as an adult, and so long as you are prepared to stand by those choices and take the consequences that is fine.

However, as a parent you cannot/should not take those same chances. Your daughter is a child, children are more easily manipulated and cowed. To allow a child to be in a house where that kind of allegation has been made, where the child of the family is about to be taken away, where, for all you know, the offences could have escalated (hence the current position) is unconscionable in my opinion.

You can support your friend if you believe she is not involved, but in my opinion putting your daughter on the front line should not be part of that.

itsanne

justme111 wrote: »

Thank you for your concern re sticking mud , I understand where you coming from. I am not going to discuss the topic in debt with the woman concerned as without knowing the facts I am going to be seen as approving of her actions. I am not going to distance myself though and will be honoured in giving her opportunity for normal communication she is deprived now due to fear and judgemental attitude of others . Itssane , your signature illustrates the situation perfectly. .

Mud shouldn't stick, but especially in sexual or child abuse situations it often does.

While I feel strongly that people should speak out when they see things which are 'wrong' (hence my signature), it's also important to recognise and evaluate the risks. In this instance, the risk is not only to you but to your child.

Social services do get things wrong, but something is not quite right in the situation you describe. The father's behaviour, as reported in the press, was some time ago. If the child was being taken into care because of it (unlikely, as other action would be taken instead), that would have happened then, not now. There must be something more if the child might be removed at this stage.

Please be very careful about your involvement in the situation, both about the extent to which you allow your child in the house and about how much input you have. If there are concerns about the other child, your child could become embroiled in that simply by being there, all the more so if you 'officially' support your friend. As you don't know the full situation anyway, I would strongly advise that your support is kept at directing her to 'proper' channels.

It's not an easy situation to have found yourself in.

Morglin

Having worked in a Child Pritection Unit for a number of years, I would say that a character reference from a friend would have no impact on the decision as to removal of any children in that house.

As you are leaving your child there, it might also happen that social workers become concerned about her safety.

Before removal, which has to be justified to the Family Court, social workers will have gathered reams of information from any professionals involved with the family (health, education etc.,).

There are also, generally, child protection meetings and planning meetings which will have happened, before this decision was taken.

The mother would have been invited to attend, along with her solicitor.

It is highly unlikely that an old case of Dad being a "Peeping Tom" would be the sole reason for removal - it may be that other things have happened, that you are unaware of.

Quite honestly, in your position, I would advise your friend use her solicitor or an advocate for advice, and that you try to speak to the social work team involved, to see if you should be leaving your child at the home.

They will not (rightly) divulge any confidential information to you, but they should certainly be able to advise you if it's appropriate and safe for you to be leaving your daughter there.


Lin

justme111

Sure , that would been very logical nightmarish continuation - SS telling me to stop my daughter's classes. Otherwise I would become "unsafe" parent and she would have to be removed from my house. That what your euphemism "become concerned" would mean. He who disagrees is a bad apple himself , eh ...

missbiggles1

justme111 wrote: »

Sure , that would been very logical nightmarish continuation - SS telling me to stop my daughter's classes. Otherwise I would become "unsafe" parent and she would have to be removed from my house. That what your euphemism "become concerned" would mean. He who disagrees is a bad apple himself , eh ...

What?.....