to think the health visitor had no right to tell the school I had missed/cancelled appointments in the past?(58 Posts)
School contacted them about DS soiling (It's ok, I had it in hand my end ) and they said I had missed appointments in the past with them. Apart from the fact it's irrelevent (they would turn up when I was out, out of the blue to weigh one of the DSs ) , surely they cannot do this? What appointments I do and do not keep are my business, surely?
I wouldn't have a probem with that - it's about safeuarding vulnerable children. However if you 'canceled' because you never knew about them,then i'd object
Did the school tell you they were going to contact the HV? Do you have much dealing with them?
Sounds like you're feeling worried that you're being judged or criticised, which isn't helpful.
It was probably just one of those comments they make when skimming records, with no great significance attached, but unnecessary nevertheless.
But it's not between departments - like the HV telling the GP. These are appointments years ago. I feel divulging this information was nothing more than "oh yes, I know that mother - she used to miss appointments". The school was contacting them about something not relevant to that information Everyone is in bloody cahoots, the report I am reading (about the soiling) is so damn baised it's riddled with outrageous lies - even the Board of Governers say I took DS out of school to "revisit toilet training" - yeah, really likely when we had established months previously he is incontinent! Sorry SO, anyway, surely the HV can't just say this?
In defence of the HV: My Mum was a HV and used to show up to weigh babies and people had no idea she was coming despite letters being sent out. She was based in Gloucester and they all got a massive bollocking when it emerged that better information sharing between agencies could have stopped Fred and Rose West earlier. Your HV probably won't remember you but will have checked her notes. I know it's insulting (and I dont know what else is written in your report - the whole thing sounds quite stressful tbh) but she is only doing her job, and missed appointments for whatever reason are a big red flag for child protection.
The only thing I can suggest is that you put your objections to misleading suggestions in this report in writing.
YABU - hugely so - it is incredibly important for agencies to share information - and regardless of whether you think it is unimportant - what was said this time - it might not be to a professional.
OK, I do see your point, but it was something totally not relevant - at all. I won't take it further, too much needing doing with the school to be bothered about that.
Op- any professional that comes into contact with children and families has to share any concerns or information. It is part of inter-professional working and 'working together to safeguard children'. It stops children from 'falling through the net' which has happened in the past. People avoid MW and HV's for a variety of reasons. Children also soil for medical and emotional reasons that can be caused by abuse so they had every right to discuss you and your DS as a team.
By the sound of it they haven't made it a full safeguarding situation, this may help move appointments along (if you are waiting for any). All departments will share information, there is no such thing as 'different departments' any longer.
Op- you may not see it as relevent but small bits of information when put together can sometimes reveal the truth (in abuse/neglect cases). This has changed because in the past if we (SS) had of added everything known to different departments together children would not have suffered.
Sharing info is vital amongst agencies/professionals.
You know something - I have no idea whether you are a good, caring parent doing their best or a drug-abusing wastrel who abuses and neglects their children
and neither do the professionals involved in your child's care but it is their duty to have a team around the child and that is what has happened here
Also you had the right to refuse HV appointments or not make them so making them and not turning up will be logged
exactly what activate said (in first post)
you might say you are the best mother in the world
so did Baby Ps mum
Must be very frustrating that the school's report is inaccurate. Did the HV's report point out that missing appointments was years ago? I can see why they have to share information but it should be only what is relevant and only in context - if they've given the impression you are regularly missing appointments now that is misleading.
I never saw a health visitor with my second and only for three months with my first after telling me he was deaf, he was no such thing.
Seeing a health visitor is not a prerequisite it is voluntary.
Fabby- the whole system has changed in light of the Baby P case. Children are expected to now come into contact regulary with professionals until starting school (although the HV system is flawed and doesn't work as it should).
I'ld put something in writing to school and GP that the missed appointments were years ago (assuming that if they were for weighing) and the reason for them. the soiling etc is draining and troublesome can quite imagine it would be last straw to feel people are talking behind your back, however professional the motives might be.
It isn't compulsary but if the OP made the appointments and didn't keep them, it would be noted. Also if someone is keeping a child off school yet says it is for medical reasons but isn't contacting their HV, questions should be asked (although IME HV's now very little about SN's but should at least be refering the child on). If an incontinant issue is bad enough for a child to miss school it should be refered to the appropriate clinic. The HV may be covering her back as to why this hasn't happened via her department.
It means they are doing their job. The point of safeguarding is that information is shared not only between departments but also between agencies. It ensures that all professionals involved with a child has a clearer picture of a child's life.
e.g. a school might notice that the child comes into school late regularly; the HV might be aware that there are missed appointments; another agency might be aware that there is DV/drugs/alcohol/MH issues etc. Each agency might think that problem is isolated, but when the agencies speak with each other they begin to build a clearer picture.
I can see how frustrating it is, the best thing you can do is to be seen as being co-operative, open, honest and approachable.
Unfortunately, when it comes to your children it isn't up to you what appointments you keep/don't keep. But they won't be judging you, just making sure they don't miss a vulnerable child/family that could do with a bit of extra support.
Oh by the way, not suggesting that there are any "ishoos" with you, just explaining why they do it. Just in case....
YABU - it is perfectly acceptable for the HV to share this with a school and for this to be made a note of. You are within your rights to refuse HV visits but this will be recorded. Some parents avoid the HV because they call at stupid times and offer iffy advice or because after 4 children the mother doesn't need any help but other parents avoid them for more dubious reasons and how are they supposed to tell the difference unless anyone keeps tabs?
Until a child is 5 (I think), the child is her responsibility in terms of outside agencies for example if you make repeated trips to A&E, the hospital will inform her and she has to decide how to follow it up. Its the same at school if a child says something to a teacher it can be reported to social services directly. It is every professionals responsibility to share any concerns even minor ones as they might contribute to a bigger picture. It is done for the welfare of children not snooping.
I had a similar situation but my HV had reported total lies to school/EP etc. I have just been accessing all my medical records!
For example HV said I insisted on breastfeeding all my children despite advice not to and their failing to gain weight. Whilst they are all very short they are all on higher centiles for weight than height and not at all skinny and I had never been given such advice. She also stated I never had them weighed at clinic either despite my having red books with records for all 3, albeit many of the weighings at a more local clinic than my GP surgery.
This report was written when all 3 children were older than 18 months ie well after the event with no evidence!
This was all totally irrelevant anyway as my son was at school and not under the HV and being referred for soiling which was eventually found to have a medical diagnosis. Absolutely scarey that they can write such things.
I'm very glad to hear everything has changed, tbh. About 16 years ago a 11yo close relative of mine was living with a sole parent who was suffering from delusions. None of the agencies would listen to us when we tried to tell them there was a child at risk. A child who was seeing/hearing things that they shouldn't, who was being hit, and who was being neglected.
The agencies only saw their patient/client, not her child. And wouldn't talk to the child's father because he was divorced from the mother so it was 'confidential' and 'they couldn't discuss it with him'. None of them gave a toss about the poor child.
Other relatives and I were desperate to help and offering a lot of support to the child, but we couldn't remove her from her mother (and wouldn't have wanted to steam in anyway as that would have caused a distressing scene. The mother would have assumed we were in league with the Mafia as her primary delusion was that she was being pursued by Italian gangsters).
In the end the 11yo forced the issue by running away to one of us close relatives. Thank Christ. She ended up living with her father, which meant her mother had the space to recover. Thankfully her mother got better, eventually going back to work and living as full a life as anyone else.
YABU. By law those agencies working with children must share concerns/information. It's part of Every Child Matters, introduced after the Victoria Climbie case.
Join the discussion
Please login first.