advice for a friend (child protection issues)

ViolaLass

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 ...

"He who disagrees..." - as you stated earlier, you don't know all the facts (and neither do we) so this isn't really a situation you (or we) can judge. If Social Services feel that children need to be removed from the home, it doesn't seem unreasonable that you might want to ask them whether your daughter should keep going there. If they felt she shouldn't, would your desire for her classes to continue really take precedence?

I understand that you're concerned that your friend is not getting good advice and support, and you have been given several suggestions that you could pass on. Beyond that, you can stick to "I'm not judging, I don't know the facts" which saves you from taking sides.

itsanne

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 ...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I think you're missing the point here.

Bearing in mind that you have not had experience of this type of situation, Morglin gave a very helpful outline of how things work:


Social workers will be contemplating removing the child because there is evidence of a problem. There will be current concerns, not just old ones.

There will already have been child protection and planning meetings. (The mother and her solicitor will have been invited.)

The case will have been before the family court. (Again, the mother and solicitor will have been invited.)

If social workers are concerned about the safety of your friend's child, they may become concerned about any other children at the house. That could include your child.

You should ask if it is safe to leave your child there.


Remember that you do not know what is behind the situation. Whatever you end up doing, in my opinion the point in bold is crucially important.

Savvy_Sue

It's not quite the same situation, but DS3's private music teacher was required to tell us that their partner was considered a risk to children, and the police phoned us to check that this had happened.

Given that we were confident DS3 would never be out of the teacher's site, we decided on balance we were happy for him to continue with his lessons.

System

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.

It is your place to ask as she has asked for some sort of reference... the woman has obviously allowed the man to be around when he shouldn't be. Its got nothing to do with her mental health or parenting skills she is allowing what the courts have ruled against for the protection of the child.

To be honest, theres no way I'd let my child anywhere near the house if I knew the courts orders weren't being followed.

justme111

Not sure what you mean by "evidence" of a problem .
You suggesting I trust definition of "evidence" by the system that fires teaches if any person in their household had drunk driving conviction ?
Morglin , I have no doubt that there are many meetings surrounding the process. Many meetings does not equal to right outcome though.

ViolaLass

justme111 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "evidence" of a problem .
You suggesting I trust definition of "evidence" by the system that fires teaches if any person in their household had drunk driving conviction ?
Morglin , I have no doubt that there are many meetings surrounding the process. Many meetings does not equal to right outcome though.

But you're not in a position to judge, by your own admission, since you don't know the facts. Nor are you being asked to the judge the situation. All that has been suggested is that you ASK whether it's OK for your child to keep going to that house.

At the moment, you seem to be putting principle above protecting your child and I think it is that that posters are struggling to understand.

(And I'm not aware of any teachers who have been dismissed because their partners had a drink-driving conviction. Got any evidence?)

Morglin

I think you are missing the point.

According to your posts, there has been evidence of 'voyeurism', which, frankly is not a slightly quirky little hobby that just "dares to be different!"

It involves watching, filming or taking pictures of unconsenting people, at vulnerable times to be able to view their private parts.

Unless it is "dogging" where consent is implied, most people would be distressed, angry and humiliated at this.

It is a vile practice. :mad:

You don't seem to know what has started the latest actions, by SS, to remove the child. It is notoriously difficult to place older children into care accommodations, and SS would not do this lightly.

You also don't seem clear as to whether your friend is allowing this man, whatever the current allegations are, to be in the home.

She has mental health issues, which could be affecting her judgement.

She may well need support and professional guidance, and you have been given ideas as to how she could get this.

I have never been neurotic about child safety, and I don't see a !!!!!phile on every corner, but where my children and grandchildren are concerned, I would put their safety above a mate, her husband and classes, particularly as there are current care proceedings going on, and there must be major concerns/evidence about something.

At the very least, I would be phoning SS and asking whether it is considered safe for my young daughter to be going there, without my supervision. It's just common sense, I would have thought.

I also wouldn't give any sort of reference, simply because you don't know the current situation.

Yes, SS do make mistakes, but it's usually the reverse way, where they are too slow to take action, and the child suffers.

Newspaper horror stories about children being snatched willy-nilly are very often only telling one side, and other things may well have been going on, that isn't made known, because of SS confidentiality rules.

I would certainly err on the side of caution.

Lin

Errata

I think the OP may be missing the point(s) because they are the same nationality as their friend and struggling to understand UK systems on child protection,.

justme111

Errata wrote: »

I think the OP may be missing the point(s) because they are the same nationality as their friend and struggling to understand UK systems on child protection,.

Exactly. I would put it in other words though -different set of eyes seeing shortcomings of the system you lot got used to and don't question. Re "dares to be different " - if you read attentively the context it may become clear I used those words to describe not the offender but people who don't immediately condemn offender .
Re reference - i said what i known about the person who i known for years , not sure why you saying i should not done that.
Re teachers and offenders in household - i will google it for you now , yes my boyfriend who works in teaching knows someone who been suspended due to son who lives with them having something on their record

Errata

Question away - providing you fully understand the system you're questioning.