Advanced search

Been reported to Social Services

(94 Posts)
misstrunchball Thu 04-Oct-12 21:45:35

Hi - I hope this is in the right place.

My DD1 15 (16 in December) dances to the extent that she now takes part in a Burlesque class. This class is run by a friend of mine so I have seen the stuff they do and therefore was quite happy for her to join. She wants to be a dancer so, I feel, needs to experience all sorts of dance genres. She also takes another dance class and does disco, rock and roll, latin, tap, ballet and has also qualified for Grand Finals at Guildford in the next couple of weeks. She is also doing a dance GCSE at school (as you can see she has a passion for dancing).

Anyway, today I had a phone call from Social Care who had received an anonymous phone call to say my daughter is taking part in these Burlesque classes and it isn't appropriate for a child of 15 and that she is doing it behind her parents' back.

I told them that I was aware she was taking part as I had to sign a permission slip as she was under 16 and to my mind there was no risk to her by doing so. The social worker was concerned due to the risqué nature of the costumes so I assured her they were no more risqué than what she wears in her other dancing classes (leotard and tights) and shows (last year she was in a babydoll tap dancing to 'does your mama know'!!)

I feel, unfortunately, that it is not my daughter they are concerned about but have a vendetta against the lady who runs the classes (I did tell her this) but am worried that as it has been brought to the attention of Social Care that I will receive further phone calls in future.

Is there anybody out there who has knowledge of how these people work (stupid question I know!!) and should I be concerned for the future. I did tell her that she would be 16 in 3 months time and could quite easily have gone behind my back but didn't......

Whitecherry Thu 04-Oct-12 23:17:53

Well, I was discussing this with dd ( who is 18) and she thinks it's fine

But is shock that an old schoolfriend is appearing on this weekends new series of 'take me out' !!

tittytittyhanghang Thu 04-Oct-12 23:22:30

MrsC, will have to agree to disagree then. Personally i find it rather silly that at 16 she can legally have sex, but not go to a show where there is a sexual performance sts, or watch porn (if she chose to), or even watch an 18 rated video.

AnyFucker Thu 04-Oct-12 23:24:18

Should we all do things, or say it morally ok just because we can ?

There are lots of things my children could do. I don't let them.

needanswers Thu 04-Oct-12 23:24:47

given that SS dont have time for children who have been abused, they wont be bothered with this, they are a JOKE

AnyFucker Thu 04-Oct-12 23:29:16

SS are a "JOKE" ? nice.

needanswers Thu 04-Oct-12 23:31:03

AF, if you had been through what we have been through, then you would probably have the same opinion.

They have been useless, unwilling to help and have made things a million times harder than they should be, and thats speaking as the parent of a victim who is completely blameless and had never had any allegations made against them.

They are worse than useless - at least in this county and the neighbouring one.

AnyFucker Thu 04-Oct-12 23:33:31

I am sorry for your experiences, NA. I don't believe in tarring a whole institution with the same brush, however.

tittytittyhanghang Thu 04-Oct-12 23:35:58

Should we all do things, or say it morally ok just because we can?

Well if its within legal bounds and its what you want to do, then isn't this what happens?

As to allowing your children to do things, once there 16, if they really want to do it, they will, regardless of what you approve or not.

needanswers Thu 04-Oct-12 23:36:53

if it was one county I may agree, but 2??

I believe individual social workers can be dedicated individuals, but as a whole, they are over worked, have huge case loads they have no means of managing and the whole service is totally underfunded - the under funding was the case, 10 years ago when I worked for them and my understanding is it has got steadily worse.

Their main role (according to them), is to signpost to appropriate agencies, rather than provide assistance themselves. I know what they "used to do", and what they do now. It is the whole service that is failing, but thats not the fault of the majority of the staff.

AnyFucker Thu 04-Oct-12 23:43:50

The child isn't 16, titty. And like someone else said, it's still tacky (and smacks of being "cool mum, dahn with the kidz) even when she is 16.

I don't subscribe to letting children do exactly what they want when they are still a minor, under the umbrella of "they will do it anyway when they are 16". Overly-permissive parents don't do their kids any good at all.

AnyFucker Thu 04-Oct-12 23:46:20

NA, I agree with your later sentiments, but I fail to see how making knee jerk reactions like "SS are a JOKE" is going to help in the already desperate situation Children's Services are in. It smacks of scaremongering to me.

Felicitywascold Thu 04-Oct-12 23:52:55

I agree with AF.

Also, to answer this point, MrsC, will have to agree to disagree then. Personally i find it rather silly that at 16 she can legally have sex, but not go to a show where there is a sexual performance sts, or watch porn (if she chose to), or even watch an 18 rated video.

This law may seem strange at first glance but it is much more subtle than it seems. 16 is a compromise age- to avoid criminalising teenagers for doing what teenagers generally do - have a sexual fumble with each other. In an ideal world this sexual awakening happens between consenting people of a similar age/life experience. And is somewhat different than full exposure to porn/sex shows immediately.

And while we don't live in an ideal world I think it is a positive message to send young people that normal sex within a relationship is separate and different to porn/strip shows etc...

needanswers Thu 04-Oct-12 23:54:22

Its not knee jerk, AF, its a well considered, long held opinion, I laugh (literally and ironically), these days when I see cries of "call SS" on here, my child was abused, we at one stage were involved with 13 different agencies, but they saw no child in need in our house, as there were no CP issues, as abuser was banned from house (they only had my say so for that though as they never actually bothered to speak to the child concerned or spend any time with the other children) except for day of initial disclosure).

Whether the OP should or shouldnt be sending her DD to Burlesque classes, she has nothing to fear from a call from SS.

Plus I dont think the constant calls of "call SS" over the most trivial matters are helping them either, they dont have the power or the resources that many people think they have.

AnyFucker Thu 04-Oct-12 23:55:35

Hear, hear, Felicity.

The subtleties of why we have the laws we do appear to be lost on some people.

tittytittyhanghang Thu 04-Oct-12 23:56:16

She is 3 months away from 16, and the op felt this was old enough to make her decision, which i agree with.

And whether its tacky or not is subjective. Personally i don't find it tacky at all. And im sure there are many who do not neither.

and smacks of being "cool mum, dahn with the kidz Uugh, i fucking hate this trotted out line, its such a crock of shit. And i don't see where the op is being overly permissive anywhere.

AnyFucker Fri 05-Oct-12 00:02:01

Like I said, NA, I am sorry for your experiences. If you posted about it on here, I remember your thread. I am very happy to believe however, in most cases, in common with the NHS, teachers, GP's, the police force etc, social services get it right the majority of the time.

I have no idea if SS will be interested in this OP's scenario. I don't really care, tbh, as I agree they have much bigger fish to fry. It doesn't make what she is colluding with her under-age daughter to allow her to do though, any where near right or good for the girl.

achillea Fri 05-Oct-12 00:02:42

Regarding social services, they are very very smart, they have to be because that are there to PROTECT CHILDREN FROM ABUSE which you are clearly not concerned about.

Perhaps try to imagine a 50 year old man watching her dance and think again before you sign the next permission slip.

AnyFucker Fri 05-Oct-12 00:04:55

Titty, do you believe the girl who was a few months off 16 was old enough to make her own decision to run away to France with her maths teacher ?

You are using the same arguments, even if the outcomes are not the same.

Being a "few months off 16" is arbitrary. It means nothing, morally. A "few months off 16" could be 14, 13 years old.

flow4 Fri 05-Oct-12 00:08:19

I don't like burlesque myself, but you have nothing to worry about from social services. They are required to assess any complaint/report, and very often that will involve a phone call and a conversation with the main parent/carer. But allowing your 15 year old to go to a burlesque dance class is not a safeguarding issue - not by any stretch: however much some people may dislike it, it is not physical, sexual or emotional abuse, or neglect. You will be a long, long, long way below their threshold for taking any further action.
Here's an overview of safeguarding.
And here's some info for parents.

needanswers Fri 05-Oct-12 00:14:23

AF it would probably help if the "senior SW* they had sent to my house, had come from a CP background, as opposed to the one they did send, who had to have a number of basic things explained to her as she didnt have a clue (and I only knew because the OIC had explained as it took SW a month to get around to coming to visit - and then it was only so she could "close the file" her words on the phone).

I am assume she was an agency worker, with a background in something other than CP.

I am eagerly awaiting their next visit, which I am sure is fairly imminent, as I am aware the abuser has been busy spreading rumours around that indeed, I am a child abuser, and that he was in court as a witness in a trial against me, apparently, the press simply got his name wrong (and age, gender etc, but why let the truth get in the way of a good cover story).

That will make for an interesting visit, and I have absolutely no intention of speaking to them, ever again.

needanswers Fri 05-Oct-12 00:16:57

sorry OP - got a bit carried away on your thread!

margerykemp Fri 05-Oct-12 00:23:51

So she turns 16 in a couple of months?

What are you buying her? A boob job?

DameKewcumber Fri 05-Oct-12 00:35:58

"how concerned should I be that Social Care have got my DD1 and I involved just cos someone has a vendetta towards the dance teacher" - social care haven't got your DD1 and you involved in anything! You allowed your DD to perform in a dance more suitable for sexually active adults when she is underage and someone reported that. There is enough in those bare facts for SS to be concerned about regardless of whether the report was made to get the teacher into trouble (and what was she thinking, allowing an underage child perform burlesque knowing there has been a vendetta against her for years - her judgement doesn't sound good).

Most likely SS will investigate tell you its probably not the best idea and leave it at that and if its reported again will say its been investigated and ignore it.

I do think you sound very naive if your DD has convinced you she needs Burlesque lessons so she can experience all kinds of dance. I doubt many professional dancers boasted a burlesque section on their cv at 15!

Ahem. Waves hand.

My DD was 15, IN FOSTER CARE and allowed to go to these shows as a visitor with her friend, a boy from her school.
His father ran the shows and asked DD if she would be interested in dancing, and gave her a few outfits to try on.

No one from SS raised so much as an eyebrow

So yes, they are PANTS as a whole organisation because NA can not possibly be in the same area as me and she has suffered the same, not only would i tar them with the same brush i would also feather the arseholes..

OP you have nowt to worry about.

tittytittyhanghang Fri 05-Oct-12 07:30:38

AF, the op's daughter and megan are uncomaprable. One assumes that Megan has been subject to a long period of grooming, whereas i assume that this is not the case with the Op's daughter.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now