Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Should we accept greater state monitoring of families in order to safeguard children?

136 replies

AllYearsAround · 17/12/2024 18:46

This point has been raised on a few threads in reference to Sara Sharif - that the state should do more monitoring of home educated children if there's a possibility of uncovering abuse and saving a life.

But looking into it, most children killed by a parent or step parent are actually under 1
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/statistics-briefings/child-deaths-abuse-neglect

There have been a few awful cases recently of babies and toddlers being murdered, particularly by mums' boyfriends.

Would it not be more sensible then to put the time and money into monitoring families with young babies? We already have the system in place with health visitors.

Maybe health visitors should be a mandatory service, with regular (weekly? Monthly?) home visits and babies stripped and weighed/examined.

This would surely save many more lives than any additional monitoring of home education.

Statistics about child deaths due to abuse or neglect | NSPCC Learning

This briefing looks at what data and statistics are available about child deaths due to abuse and neglect, to help professionals make evidence-based decisions about keeping children safe.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/statistics-briefings/child-deaths-abuse-neglect

OP posts:
Wellingtonspie · 17/12/2024 18:56

Needs to be a huge focus on children living with unrelated adults full stop. That’s the biggest factor.

Original poster
AllYearsAround · 17/12/2024 18:55

ARichtGoodDram · 17/12/2024 18:54

If we know that children are living with violent abusive parents - as was the case for Sara before she was even born - shouldn’t we ve focussing on them?

Show quote history

Of course, but lots of under 1s will be unknown.

OP posts:
Miloarmadillo2 · 17/12/2024 18:54

I can’t think of a case where a child was killed by parents or partners that there had not been prior concerns from multiple sources - but there is no multiagency information sharing and not enough action. I’m not sure spreading scarce resources even thinner by monitoring every family when 99% of them raise no concerns is sensible.

ARichtGoodDram · 17/12/2024 18:54

AllYearsAround · 17/12/2024 18:50

If we know that children under 1 are most in danger, shouldn't we be focussing on them?

Show quote history

If we know that children are living with violent abusive parents - as was the case for Sara before she was even born - shouldn’t we ve focussing on them?

Original poster
AllYearsAround · 17/12/2024 18:54

SaffronsMadAboutMe · 17/12/2024 18:52

YABU because it's not just about being actually killed.

There will be plenty of home educated 'off radar' children whose abuse is going undetected.

Sure but only a tiny number of home educated children compared to children under 1.
The greatest benefit would surely come from mandatory health visitor contact and monitoring of the most vulnerable members of society.

OP posts:
Nc546888 · 17/12/2024 18:53

ARichtGoodDram · 17/12/2024 18:49

Sara was on social services radar before she was born. She was in care twice before she started school and one of her siblings was permanently removed from the family.

Additional monitoring of children living with known violent abusive parents should absolutely be a thing.

Sara was a child who should have been having very regular contact with her social worker. It would be sensible to put the time and money into protecting the children we know are in danger. Zero point in picking up their risks if they are then repeatedly ignored afterwards.

That’s staggering to read

JetskiSkyJumper · 17/12/2024 18:53

I asked a similar question on a large thread the other day but no one who was anti home ed, all home ed children must be closely monitored wanted to justify why the same shouldn't apply to those with babies/toddlers/young children not yet in school. Presumably because it would then apply to them and they wouldn't like the implication they must be incapable or abusive and have that oversight in THEIR life 🤷‍♀️

SaffronsMadAboutMe · 17/12/2024 18:52

YABU because it's not just about being actually killed.

There will be plenty of home educated 'off radar' children whose abuse is going undetected.

Original poster
AllYearsAround · 17/12/2024 18:50

ARichtGoodDram · 17/12/2024 18:49

Sara was on social services radar before she was born. She was in care twice before she started school and one of her siblings was permanently removed from the family.

Additional monitoring of children living with known violent abusive parents should absolutely be a thing.

Sara was a child who should have been having very regular contact with her social worker. It would be sensible to put the time and money into protecting the children we know are in danger. Zero point in picking up their risks if they are then repeatedly ignored afterwards.

If we know that children under 1 are most in danger, shouldn't we be focussing on them?

OP posts:
ARichtGoodDram · 17/12/2024 18:50

The failures in Sara’s case weren’t HE or a lack of HV’s or a lack of spotting issues - it was the complete failure in dealing with the issues properly after they were known. Repeatedly.

ARichtGoodDram · 17/12/2024 18:49

Sara was on social services radar before she was born. She was in care twice before she started school and one of her siblings was permanently removed from the family.

Additional monitoring of children living with known violent abusive parents should absolutely be a thing.

Sara was a child who should have been having very regular contact with her social worker. It would be sensible to put the time and money into protecting the children we know are in danger. Zero point in picking up their risks if they are then repeatedly ignored afterwards.

Swipe left for the next trending thread