residential children's home to open in our street

[steppemum]

Got home last night and there is a letter through our door from a neighbour.
Apparently there is a planning application in to change the use of a house to a residential childrens' home. The letter was asking for people to put in ojections to the planning application.

I walked past the house today.
We are a quiet road, dead end, the house in question is large with big garden and another house built at the end of the garden (they built it and sold it off) It is close to neighbours but detached. Has its own large drive for parking. The application is for both the main house and the house in the garden to together become a childrens home.

I can't see what the problem is! I am tempted to put in a comment to the planners to say this is a nice quiet, safe road for a kids home.
I am glad that there will be more facilities as our council has a great deal of trouble finding enough foster homes.
We are detached but very close to neighbours, and we never hear a thing.

Am I being naive?
Is there any reason why this house might cause problems?
Honestly I just think this is NIMBY ism. But is that me being naive?

I am empathic and compassionate. ( Of course I can be a total dick just for context ). But some element of questioning what comes with this is only natural. You just can't discern the demographic of the kids and all their needs in advance. And you can't discern how great staff will be and their resources.

The truth is so many kids are just going to be more likely to bring issues and that's for many reasons. The only thing I'd hope is that there's a high ratio of supporting staff because kids need direction, boundaries and so on. If it is not in their ability or nature to be able to be compliant and trouble comes, there needs to be the best people there for them.

My issue is that in this climate, you aren't getting the best. You'll get the absolute basics.

I don't believe troubled kids go around breaking into houses. Some do. That to me is not a given in any way. Trouble at it's worst might never even spill outside the residential home and you have it contained with the worst being seeing Police cars or maybe ambulances turn up.

If you have a large group of teenage boys then there's a risk of hanging out on street corners - but teenagers don't tend to do that anymore if they have media to access.

I don't think the fear and stereotyping and even complete dramatics are proportional. Is it possible all the above is going to happen. Well yes because you don't know the demographic of the kids. It's going to be higher risk of problems that's a fact. But the reality it will turn into a crime ridden ghetto I am certain is completely out of proportion.

Would I be ok with it? Absolutely I would. Would it bother me if house prices suddenly dropped because of it. Well yes. Does that happen? I don't know.

Grown men in a block of about 10 next door? No way on earth; and it doesn't matter where they come from btw! That's my line.

Work as in feeding and caring for the animals. Lessons if they were interested in skills to gain a profession.

Believe it or not, that's a typical day for a child who owns a pony. They're out in the morning early before school in their uniform and boots turning out the ponies. Repeat after school.
Go to Independent school on the train 25 miles away. Is that lifestyle not good enough for kids in state care?

Not ideal but they are highly managed 24/7. Yes there will be more disruption than you're used to and glad you're compassionate and can accept this may happen. Whatever age, they've not had the best start in life and, like you, I would also understand. Xxx

I don't know how I'd feel and it won't happen anyway.

This being anonymous, people can post as virtuous neighbours. Others can glibly say NIMBY, but in life both turn out to be opposite.

@PiggyPigalle

Believe it or not, not that many children own ponies or go to independent schools.
I'm sure those that do, do it because it's their pony and that's there interest.
I can't say I would have been too chuffed at the idea of mucking out ponies, I cam just about deal with the cats litter tray.
I'm sure some children would do well with a more rural lifestyle, but most wouldn't.
Out of interest do you know how many children are in the care system? I'm pretty sure that nice quiet rural communities would be in uproar at the thought of 1000s of young people coming out of cities and being dumped on their doorstep

I like you, OP. You sound brilliant.

Believe it or not, that's a typical day for a child who owns a pony. They're out in the morning early before school in their uniform and boots turning out the ponies. Repeat after school.
Go to Independent school on the train 25 miles away. Is that lifestyle not good enough for kids in state care?

If it’s the child’s choice to have a pony, with the level of privilege that typically accompanies that lifestyle. Not for kids who have no choice - no choice where they live, who they live with. There may be kids for whom that lifestyle is heaven on earth but for kids in care that’s likely to be a huge shift from their lives at home, would involve them moving out of their local area, away from their school and clubs and friends and everything familiar to them. But its ok cos they’ll get to muck out the horses as a consolation prize.

I don’t know what planet people live on, but it bears no relation to the life’s of kids in care.

@PiggyPigalle said it as an example. We all know fresh air is good for us.

She didn't say they'd own ponnies or go to independent schools.

There was a Princes Trust BBC programme showing city kids going on days out to do "rural" stuff and they loved it.
Doesn't mean moving out completely or being forced to live where they don't want to.

Dulwich, Wimbledon and Richmond park have horses where young people can help out. There are allotments too which can be a source of pleasure for some kids.

Again, a suggestion not to say need/should to do it.

They'll be limitations, hoops to jump through etc and most can't because of that anyway.

@KeebabSpider

There are children in care being accommodated in travel lodge and other B & bs because there is a severe lack of suitable placements.

Are you sure this is children in care and not homeless families? It's certainly common for families who have been made homeless but I've not heard of a child under the age of 16 being placed in a hotel alone. There is hostel accommodation for teenagers unable to live with their families (16/17 year olds) but there will be a support worker based with them.

There is a huge preference to place children not able to live with their birth parents with other family members, usually grandparents, sometimes aunt/uncle, occasionally older siblings. Better for the child and as someone has mentioned, there isn't the cost to the LA.

A child is only placed into foster care if there is no family available and a children's home a last resort. Again in terms of what is best for the child but also a cost element.

I'm talking here of children removed from their parents care rather than those needing care / respite due to disabilities or children needing secure accommodation.

We have a relatively new children’s home two doors down in our terrace block. The carers take up so many limited parking spaces, and blast their music out their cars and whatever time they change shifts.

One sunny afternoon the teenager in care threw rocks, a laptop, weights, furniture, paint pots - basically anything she had - through her glass window, smashing glass all over the street then throwing objects out for hours. The carers did nothing, just hid inside until we called the police. Members of the public were unknowingly waking by whilst she threw rocks and chairs out, even families in their way to the park etc. The paint went on the neighbours cars and has stained the road as no one cleared it up.

not ideal! But I know there has to be somewhere for troubled teens to live. I guess selfishly I wish it wasn’t next door though :-s

unfortunately it does happen, we've had young people leave our care 14/15 and placed in hotels, b&bs and even caravans on holiday parks until something can be secure for them as tbey can't stay with us once their court order as ran out!

You are missing the point slightly. The language used on this thread to describe some of our most vulnerable and let down children in this country has been othering and callous at times. Feeling ‘unwanted’ is just the tiny tip of the iceberg.

I think first and foremost we need to remember that these are children in need of safety, security and stability. We can talk about concern about the impact on us of any challenging behaviour born from trauma, without some of the language used.

Additionally anyone could buy a house on anyone’s street. You never know what those neighbours are going to be like. I grew up on a ‘naice’ road in a ‘naive’ but then drug dealers bought the house next door but one…

I also lived in a ‘naice’’ house in a ‘naice’ area as an adult, next door neighbours moved in and were horrendous. Police all the time, shouting at all hours, all sorts of criminals coming and going.

What court order are you talking about, care orders end at 18

Young people are sometimes placed in hotels with staff, they're looked after and are staying there because theres no where else and no placement has made an offer to accept them.

Its fairly rare but it happens in emergencies, or there may be arrangements for them to stay with family members for a short space of time. None of it ideal but foster placements and residential placements often give immediate or very short notice periods and leave no where for the child to go to at the end of that.

My partner works in residential childcare, he works at a home you would have no clue about. People need to accept these kids have a right to a safe home. I didn’t RTFT but thanks OP for that original post.

unfortunately it does happen, we've had young people leave our care 14/15 and placed in hotels, b&bs and even caravans on holiday parks until something can be secure for them as tbey can't stay with us once their court order as ran out!

Surely if an order ran out for a 14/15 year old and they couldn’t be reunited with their family social work would apply for a new order, it’s not like an order ending is a surprise to anyone.

Orders end at 18 for care orders.

I agree the so called care provision is beyond woeful and we need a dramatic over haul and approach to it
However it says something doesn't it that the main objector is in child protection and the police

@soupyspoon I’m in Scotland so the system is different but yes, I thought that was the case in England.

Morning, queries for those with experience working in a res. children’s home please…by definition it’s hard to find out where these places are (unless you are a paedo🤬):
What/where would be my first port of call if I wanted to volunteer in one? The district Council? And does anyone know which are the privately owned but well regulated ones? (I’m in sussex.)
Is this even a sought-after role? I have a lot of DBS/safeguarding training due to my job but realise I would have to do more👍🏽
Thanks for any info x

I'm talking about children put with us in our secure unit under safety reasons I.e a danger to themselves or others, county lines and so on. not a care order through the local authorities

edited to say they are then put back to the local authorities in their area but we've had a lot with no immediate placements to go to

Yes when a secure order ends they must leave the secure estate, if the court feels they wont renew it or the secure unit says that they either give notice (many young people Ive had in secure the units have given notice on) or the unit says its time for them to go, but even with attempts at planning, very few providers want to offer placements to children who have been in secure, so the step down provisions just arent there

I’m in Scotland where yes, the vast majority of looked after and accommodated young people are in small settings in the community. A small number are homed in residential schools and a tiny number in secure placement but most are in foster care or small scale residential homes.

My question wasn't whether the majority was going into residential settings. You had described residential settings as being good for children because it provided a normal setting and my question was whether you thought that what you described in these lovely residential situations was actually happening for most children. I am not sure about Scotland, but in the rest of the UK, no it isn't.

The companies running the houses are making huge profits but the staff are minimum wage, no experience needed, anyone taken. This is why some (not all) of the homes are hellscapes - hellscapes for the children and hellscapes for the neighbours. There is no excuse for it and no excuse for telling normal people that they should gladly live next to one of the appallingly run homes, watching the unnecessary trauma unfold daily. If the situation were being properly managed, no one would have to live next to one of these homes.

Living next to well run residential care - good. Living next to residential care where all the money goes to profits - not good.

Social care is unfortunately often worse than the home the child was removed from.

You have said that it is very difficult for the police, the vulnerable children being abused by traffickers or grooming gangs will not readily talk to the police, etc. In fact the situations have become unmanageable because of appalling management. There are no excuses for the situation with the grooming gangs gong on for decades. No excuses for what is happening now.

No excuse for minimum wage personnel at these homes when we have as record the abuse which went on in these sorts of homes in the 70s, 80s arising out of the fact that staff were abusing situations - because they were the wrong people to become staff.

The way social care operates now for children should not be defended or excused. You give the impression that it is working as well as possible. It is not.

The billions being given to private companies should be ploughed into a multitude of ways of directly helping families and individual children. When homes are necessary, there should be well paid, suitably qualified, care staff. This currently is not happening because of incompentent governance in a multitude of areas.

More suitable accommodation might not be available. A foster parent might just decide not to do it anymore. I have heard of children being put in Airbnb looked after by carers.

The billions being given to private companies should be ploughed into a multitude of ways of directly helping families and individual children. When homes are necessary, there should be well paid, suitably qualified, care staff. This currently is not happening because of incompentent governance in a multitude of areas.
I agree but the billions being spent on current arrangements can't suddenly be withdrawn while new homes are set up and staffed. There would be an overlap which, for a while, would be more expensive. Maybe the money could be found but there isn't the will among the people at the top balancing budgets or tax payers willing to pay for it.

Well done on being a lot more understanding than a lot of people on here, which may be down to your job, may be an inherent compassionate attitude, or both.

Yes, where are these kids to go otherwise - how we treat the most vulnerable in our society reflects the values of our society - if you want to shut people away out of sight, that a damming indictment of people's attitude to society.