to fear that opting out of the child health surveillance system will lead to me being referred back to social services?

[WinstonDuncanSmith]

I posted yesterday about how my (as yet still unborn, but due in 3 weeks) DC2 already has on his/her records details of allegations made against me with regard to DC1 - in the section asking for siblings on the child protection register - even though DC1 was never on the CP register and even though the allegations relating to DC1 were proven as unfounded.

Having spoken to the health visitor and the PCT in question, it seems as though hell will freeze over before they agree either to amend the records to reflect the facts of what took place, or to reorganise the records to clarify that DC1 has never been on the CP register. My only recourse is the Information Commissioner, and that's not going to get me anywhere before DC2 is born.

So it feels as though my only option is simply to opt out of the entire system and refuse to see the HV, simply to let DC2's records gather dust in a forgotten archive. I know that I'm entitled to do so, but I've also heard anecdotally that many women who try end up being referred to SS and investigated as potential child abusers.

Realistically, how likely would this be to happen?

All experiences welcome.

Has HV role changed a lot since my youngest was born 6 yrs ago. You only turned up at the clinic if you wanted them weighed or to ask for advice.
There was certainly no child protection angle to it at all, in fact HVs only seemed to exist to take soem of the pressure off GPs

I can see how this situation has escalated for you and your family if you are so touchy about your (not actually real) name being misspelled!

ok, having worked for SS, trust me, they dont have time or staff to follow families around who are no longer on their caseloads.
Your HV sound nuts and think you need to have as little to do with her as possible. Do they checks they ask you but anything else go via GP.

I personally wouldnt opt out of the system but you dont have to let them in your house and I havent seen mine in years!

fairydoll no, the role of the HV hasn't changed. If yours had concerns about the welfare of your DC you'd have seen this side of it too.

It all seems very sinister, people wanting to take your children away, but in reality, all they want to do is make sure that children are safe. And not all of them are. There are far fewer looked after children than there are on the CP reg and it's not a continuum; having CP involvement does not automatically lead to discussion of removing children. But when you're involved in it and have none of the power, that's not how it feels.

As I said before though, the CP process is subject to error and sometimes mistakes happen.

I think a lot depends on your personal situation and the individual health care personnel. We opted out of the HV visits, after a particularly frustrating bout of harassment from our HV, who kept scheduling appointments for our DS3 (at very inopportune times with very little warning) for a 9 month check. I had already told her that he had just seen the GP a few weeks previously for something else, and we had discussed developmental progress at that time, which was fine. The HV insisted that the GP "knew nothing about developmental issues," and said she would be scheduling an appointment anyway, even though I told her it was not necessary. She then showed up unannounced (without an appointment or any warning) at our house and insisted she wanted to do the check right then and there. My DH calmly asked her to leave and pointed out to her that I had already informed her that I was no longer comfortable with her visiting our home, and that I would bring DS3 into the surgery for any further checks. She tried one more time by making an appointment and sending it to me (again at an inconvenient time with very little warning), so I left a message for her on her answering machine at her office stating that I wanted no further contact from her or I would be making a complaint for harassment.

I then waited for the wrath of social services to beat to my door. Nothing. At all. Although, to be fair, my DS3 (and DS2 for that matter) were regularly seen by the GP for other things during that whole time (DS3 for his eczema and DS2 for various bugs and an ear infection), so it's not like they couldn't see they were fine. I'm not quite sure what in the world that HV's problem was. It's odd, as the other HV in our area is actually quite nice and professional. I've made a request at the surgery that only the sane one be allowed to contact me.

But I digress. There are some HVs that are quite gung ho and will report things much more quickly. And I would say if there is any history, they may just be covering themselves as much as anything, which I suppose you can't blame. We had absolutely no history whatsoever, so again not sure what the issue was in our circumstance. Have you tried speaking to the midwife or HV to tell them that this whole situation is stressing you out greatly? Perhaps they can reassure you somewhat.

fairydoll It all comes down to the individual HV's so there is a LOT of variation.

The role of the HV hasn't changed, but the context has. All of the professionals who have been sympathetic or apologetic to what happened with DC1 have cited Victoria Climbie, Baby P, Khyra Ishaq or two similar local cases which never made national headlines. Given that, of all such tragic and high-profile cases only Baby P was white, I also get the impression that HVs are more attuned to the potential for child abuse hidden in ethnic or cultural practices of which they are unaware. I don't want to claim that what happened to me happened because I'm black or foreign, but I think it did make certain professionals read more into certain aspects of my parenting than they might otherwise have done.

triggles Thanks for sharing your experience. It sounds as though you scared the HV off quite effectively.

Yes. Both have very much done their best to be reassuring, and both have documented and signed their complete absence of concerns for either DC1 or DC2. But as you say, HVs vary so greatly that they can only speak for themselves and their absence of concerns does not mean that future MWs or HVs won't act on the basis of what hapened before.

Where exactly on your unborn DCs records is the note made about the SS involvement with your DC1? Is it possible for you to make up a printed sticker/label with a short response to the note ie/ 'Allegations made to SS regarding DS1 were proven to be malicious and no further involvement has taken place since' for example and ask for this to be put just below the note on the red book/HV file etc when you see the HV after DC2 is born?
That way whoever sees the original note wil also see the full story all at the same time iyswim

It's in the section asking for details of siblings on the child protection register - even though DC1 has never been on the child protection register. The HV has agreed to write a note clarifying that DC1 was never on the child protection register and that the allegations upon which the referral was made were proven false - but DC1's name still appears on that page, and anyone not taking the time to read the additional notes would assume that he is on the CP register.

If the HV has agreed to write a note clarifying it, that should be fine. Most would take the time to read the additional notes, as they would need to see the particulars to know what concerns to watch for. So then they would see the clarification. If you have your current midwife and HV in your corner, you should be fine. No point worrying about future ones - after all, future ones may be just as positive and sensible as your current ones. And then you'll have had all that worry for nothing! It does sound like they are only putting it there because it is required and nothing more.

I hate the way these threads tend to go. Always somebody (usually someone who hasnt had the wrath of pen pushers at their door, or hasnt got a whole family of SW like me) saying there must be more to it, no smoke without fire.

Well let me tell you, if you dont tick their boxes, they can drag it on and on, and there isnt always more to it.

Winston I feel for you, I really do. Unfortunatly HV are just SW with a different name. The government cant afford or cant get away with sending SW to every home with a new baby, so they send HV's instead. They are checking you out, scrutinating you and seeing if you tick the boxes. If you already failed the tick box system (as in your case, previous referal) Then a silly little thing that might have been let go with another family will be reported.
Sadly, you saying no to them is the same as saying no to SS.
If I was you, let her in for basic baby checks after birth. Be nice, dont mention SS at all and for god sake dont tell her anything negative. Then dont see her anymore. This "see child untill 5 yrs old" Is quite frankly bollocks. They have checks at GP's and schools.
My views on this are often not popular, but I know enough social workers and what goes on behind closed doors, and ive seen enough families brought to their knees by arse covering. Good luck.

NulliusInVerba Well Said.

"I'm a GP. If you try and "opt out" of the system this will be noticed and acted upon. You will end up looking guilty, your own records will be flagged, you will draw massive attention to yourself."

Odd.... because I didn't with either of my children. Admittedly neither had I been subject of a SS investigation but I didn't have any issues with refusing all offers of contact with the HV after the first meeting wih one when I concluded that she was an idiot. This is bearing in mind that I have never had an antenatal class in my life, opted to see my GP rather than my midwife throughout my pregnancies and refused all vaccinations for my children.

The most I got was being told that I "had" to vaccinate my children and "had" to see the HV... from a GP's receptionist (to which I replied of course that I had to do no such thing).

What YOU choose to do is entirely up to you and of course I urge you to consider all you are told here carefully. This is just MY particular experience and may, for all I know, be an uncommon one.

I am a foster carer and from my experience of social workers they will still remember the previous allegations and keep an eye on things regardless of wether your child is on the child protection register or not. it is their job to protect children and they probably aren't to worried about what your rights as a mother are. The liberal attitudes previously seen in social work are changing and they are, in my experience, being much more cautious. the best thing you can do is continue to prove you are a good mum and good mums take their children to see the health visitor. I actually like taking my daughter as it is nice to know that everything is going ok. They aren't all villains.

valhalla- perhaps the doctors just thought you were a bit mad a lost cause as opposed to a threat to your children??

I think you would do best to get the inaccurate records corrected. I know it may be expensive and you are feeling stressed , but I think that you won't rest easy until your child's record reflects the truth about what happened. If this was me, I'd make it a priority to get wrong information removed.

"But I've also been told by one HV that all my DCs will be subject to 'enhanced developmental checks' throughout life because all their half-siblings and first cousins have always been on the 2nd centile or below."

This seems like a smoke screen. Both mine were below the 2nd centile, to the point I was quite worried about my eldest at one point, and do you think I could take anyone to take any notice? They just kept saying it was probably genetic.

I know how tempting it is to opt out of the system. I got utterly annoyed with HV, particularly when DD1 broke her collarbone at school through their utter negligence and no one cared one jot, but when DD2 squished her finger in a door hinge and we got it checked at A and E, I had a great long interview. Not to mention falling out with them over developmental checks (another story!).

However, unfortunately I don't think you can opt out of the system. Even if you were to home ed, it's very rare nowadays that LAs let home educators slip through the net of checks. We home ed and when the LA come out to your house it's far more intrusive than sending them to school, believe me. I suspect it will go far more that way in the next few years, too. Home edding seems to put you under immediate suspicion until proven otherwise, unfortunately.

I know it's a hassle, but I'd do everything in your power to get the records corrected. I think it's the only way you can go. Either that or suffer the extra checks and make sure there is absolutely nothing they can pin on you.

Having said that, I am careful what I tell people in authority. I have friends who have been badly bitten because they said they were depressed/ struggling with their children etc, and it has then been used against them. If you need any kind of mental/ behavioural support, I might go private.

Ha ha claire Im sure they did not think Valhala was mad, nor is she. She stood up for herself and the pen pushers probably clicked she wasnt going to take their shit!

I also, was told that I had to see a HV and vaccinate. Infact, I was told that "not vaccinating your child is a social services issue".

I told them that is utter rubbish, it is not the law that I do either.

Winston, I really feel for you, especially having all this stress at this point in your pregnancy. Usually it wouldn't be a problem to delined to see the hv but if allegations have been made in the past, albeit you have been vindicated, tbh I wouldn't suggest that you remove yourself from the HV service as it will most likely be flagged up.

Remember, the HV can also confirm that you are a good mother and care for your children well if this is ever queried, they aren't just there to find fault with your parenting. If I were you I would cooperate with their visits and the developmental checks for this reason because it shows that you are committed to the wellbeing of your children.

I got the impression frm your post that you have met with your new hv, if you haven't it might be worth getting in touch with her to explain things before the baby is born.

Lots more really helpful experiences. Thanks.

It's true that I am not sure of the exact paper trail of who said what to whom or what got recorded where. Last year I made several data protection and freedom of information requests to try and find out. All of them were either lost in the internal post system or produced everything other than the information I had specifically requested . It felt as though there was a very deliberate effort targeted to thwart my efforts to find anything out. Whether or not that was true or simply a bit of paranoia, I only found out as much as I did because one manager rang me in hushed tones from a personal mobile. But in any case, getting a clear picture of what happened would certainly take colicitors, legal threats and court action. And as I've already said, I just want to concentrate on spending with DC2 the time I missed through the panic over what was going to happen with DC1. But maybe another year?

Nullis I was being Tongue in cheek. I also do wonder though why non medics think they know better than medical experts. But each to their own.

I also don't think doctors felt threatened by Valhalla, again I don't believe they are suggesting all babies should be innoculised for fun. And if this was the case, why have my two friends who are both consultants and incredibly self assured and intelligent people, given the various injections to their own children?