advice for a friend (child protection issues)

justme111

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30897127
That's what happens when overzealous functionaries apply rules in a blame culture.
Now in the above link they talk about devastating effect on people whose work and reputation ruined. Imagine how it is if family and children estrangement added to it .
Politician who said " nothing is more important than safety of children "quoted in the above interview are a disgrace , they spout politcorrect sounding rubbish without thinking what they say.
Thank you for opinions , hope this discussion will prompt thinking . I have thought about calling SS and asking for advice. I am not going to though. Why ? Because I wish I could trust their judgement in determining danger but I can bet desire to cover up their a..es will be main motive in their advice but I effectively will not be able to disregard their advice without fearing for my daughter to be sent in foster care and me rendering unemployable.
Morglin , indeed SS probably often act too late , as I said before when people know the system and say all the right things while doing opposite it would be difficult to spot those I guess.
I will retire from a thread now as I am on holiday and find myself staring at the screen of my mobile instead of palm trees .

justme111

Errata wrote: »

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

Full transparency in action

missbiggles1

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.

Are you the same nationality as your friend - is that part of the problem?

ETA
I see I wasn't the first to notice this.

Having been a teacher for many years, I can assure you that nobody would be suspended for having a family member with a drink driving conviction. If you know someone who was suspended over someone else's wrongdoing it'll be something way different - possibly along the lines of what's being discussed here at present.

missbiggles1

justme111 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30897127
That's what happens when overzealous functionaries apply rules in a blame culture.
Now in the above link they talk about devastating effect on people whose work and reputation ruined. Imagine how it is if family and children estrangement added to it .
Politician who said " nothing is more important than safety of children "quoted in the above interview are a disgrace , they spout politcorrect sounding rubbish without thinking what they say.
Thank you for opinions , hope this discussion will prompt thinking . I have thought about calling SS and asking for advice. I am not going to though. Why ? Because I wish I could trust their judgement in determining danger but I can bet desire to cover up their a..es will be main motive in their advice but I effectively will not be able to disregard their advice without fearing for my daughter to be sent in foster care and me rendering unemployable.
Morglin , indeed SS probably often act too late , as I said before when people know the system and say all the right things while doing opposite it would be difficult to spot those I guess.
I will retire from a thread now as I am on holiday and find myself staring at the screen of my mobile instead of palm trees .

That rather proves the point of what I was saying suspended because of possible child abuse, not drink driving.

Personally, I'd rather trust Social Services' judgement than yours but I sincerely hope that you don't have reason to regret your misguided loyalties later. I especially hope that your daughter doesn't either.

ViolaLass

justme111 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30897127

I see no evidence in your link of people being fired because of partner's convictions. Quite reasonably, the issue is in the open and will hopefully be sorted in time.

"indeed SS probably often act too late" You haven't put forward any evidence to show that Social Services "often" act too late. The fact that they may get it wrong occasionally (all systems get it wrong occasionally) isn't really an excuse to disregard them altogether in this case.

Andypandyboy

justme111 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30897127
That's what happens when overzealous functionaries apply rules in a blame culture.
Now in the above link they talk about devastating effect on people whose work and reputation ruined. Imagine how it is if family and children estrangement added to it .
Politician who said " nothing is more important than safety of children "quoted in the above interview are a disgrace , they spout politcorrect sounding rubbish without thinking what they say.
Thank you for opinions , hope this discussion will prompt thinking . I have thought about calling SS and asking for advice. I am not going to though. Why ? Because I wish I could trust their judgement in determining danger but I can bet desire to cover up their a..es will be main motive in their advice but I effectively will not be able to disregard their advice without fearing for my daughter to be sent in foster care and me rendering unemployable.
Morglin , indeed SS probably often act too late , as I said before when people know the system and say all the right things while doing opposite it would be difficult to spot those I guess.
I will retire from a thread now as I am on holiday and find myself staring at the screen of my mobile instead of palm trees .

Obviously, mistakes are made, but you are placing your daughter on the front line here, she is the one who may be at risk. You seem to make light of the nature of the orignal allegations, voyeurism is nasty, vile and leads to victims losing self esteem. It is not a minor issue. Now, things have clearly escalated and yet you defend your position not to keep your daughter away.

I simply cannot see why you would do that. You say she would tell you if anything happened.....and that is acceptable?

I would far rather risk the issues being wrongly raised, than I would them being right and see my child suffer for that.

You are placing your attitude to the system and your loyalty to your friend over the safety of your child. I hope your daughter does not live to regret that choice.

itsanne

justme111 wrote: »

A friend of mine ( I known her for years but never were particularly close )

I am concerned there may be miscarriage of justice in the making. I never had a hint of suspicion about her , my daughter spends 2 hours weekly with her and never mentioned anything untoward either. I know I have very little knowledge and indeed there may be something detrimental to her daughter

justme111 wrote: »

Anglea , father of the child had issues on sex offences front. From what I know from local press Not the most reliable source of informationis 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 This makes it less likely that the current concerns are only to do with that my guess You need to know, not guess it would be him being around the house while he was not supposed to That would be important, but it's just a guess. and not making right noises to social services. ?? As I said , I do not know the details That's why you need to ask if it's safe for your daughter to be thereand it is not my place to ask It is your place to ask. In fact, if you are leaving your daughter there, it is your duty to ask. and no point anyway as I am not going to believe what I am said ? anyway.

justme111 wrote: »

Sure , that would been very logical nightmarish continuation - SS telling me to stop my daughter's classes. Maybe you would be given that advice. Have you considered the possibility that it might be the correct advice? 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 You have said you don't know what the problem is - so you don't know whether there's any basis for it. I don't see how you can disagree without knowing...

"Become concerned" is not a euphemism, and no one has made any suggestion that your daughter would be removed from your house.

justme111 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "evidence" of a problem . Something specific is giving cause for concern.
You suggesting I trust definition of "evidence" by the system that fires teaches if any person in their household had drunk driving conviction ? Others have dealt with this elsewhere, but even if that were the case it would be irrelevant when you don't know what the concern is.
Morglin , I have no doubt that there are many meetings surrounding the process. Many meetings does not equal to right outcome though. That's very true, but not really the point unless you are suggesting that you know there is no cause for concern.

justme111 wrote: »

Re reference - i said what i known about the person who i known for years but not as a close friend, which begs the question of how well you know her,

justme111 wrote: »

I have thought about calling SS and asking for advice. I am not going to though. Why ? Because I wish I could trust their judgement in determining danger but I can bet desire to cover up their a..es will be main motive in their advice It might be, but they are concerned about something and it might be because of something potentially very serious indeed. The problem comes back to you don't know. but I effectively will not be able to disregard their advice without fearing for my daughter to be sent in foster care and me rendering unemployable.

Justme, I've brought some of your posts together because it seems to me that you are digging a bit of a hole for yourself, probably without realising it. Your attitude appears to have become more entrenched along the lines of there being no problem with your friend, the system is at fault, your daughter will continue her visits and you don't intend to ask any questions. That's pretty strong stuff when, by your own acknowledgement, you do not know what is at the bottom of the current situation.

When we are involved in a situation it can sometimes be difficult to see the whole picture. I applaud your desire to support your friend, but you are not the one most at risk if things go wrong here. For your daughter's sake, I would really like to ask you to stand back a bit and think about why the rest of us are expressing concern.