to think the health visitor had no right to tell the school I had missed/cancelled appointments in the past?

[asecretlemonadedrinker]

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?

To be honest she was correct to do so you have the right to refuse to see the uv but their are very strong links between parents who avoid professionals and child abuse / neglect

To be honest be thankful they are doing their job also I am sure the school are wanting to find out if you are actively trying to sort this out avoiding hb won't give that impression

Can I hijack? I'm intrigued by what Birds said:
"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)."

How does it work now and how recently has it changed? Round here seeing a hv is entirely voluntary, you don't make an appointment, you just drop in to the clinic on a Tuesday pm at the doctors. There is a home visit when you're discharged by the community midwife team, a 6-week check and I believe a pre-school check.

At about 12 months you get a letter identifying a number of milestones your child ought to achieve in the next few months and suggesting that if s/he doesn't that you go back to the doctor. Or at least that's what happened in 2009/10 when DD was born.

So what should I be expecting to happen?

As a non-parent (am ttc at the moment) I am a bit puzzled by the whole HV thing. What do they actually do?

I have to say I hate the thought of someone coming into my home and meddling in my family life. And I have a couple of friends who have had poor experiences with HVs (e.g. poor advice and rudeness). AFAIK, they didn't exist when I was a kid. So who are they and what are they supposed to do?

I've had 4 babies. First one in 2000, last one in 2010. I saw a HV weekly at the baby clinic with the first-not to speak to, she was just there when I took baby to get weighed. I was a teenage Mum and wanted to prove I was doing a good job I suppose. With the other 3, we had one visit after discharge from the Midwife and that's it. I haven't bothered with weighing at the clinic so haven't seen anyone other than GP for postnatal's and nurses for vacc's. I wouldn't know how to contact our HV. Any concern's we have, we go to our GP.

I wasn't just talking about HV's but when visiting the baby clinic. Also that was partly the reason for Surestart in disadvantaged areas, there was contact with a safeguarding professional, as well as supposedly evening out the difference being in a nursery made, but it was never funded as it should have been and wasn't orchesrated as originally planned. The HV's are supposed to be available and if a parent turns up at the GP's and the GP has any left over concerns, the HV should visit. Disabled children were supposed to have their needs addressed etc, it never happened.

The OP made appointments and didn't keep them, that comes across as someone who is possibly struggling. I can understand why you would deal with things alone, my MW and HV were useless with my DD SN, but clinics don't admit their failings so they have suspicions as to why a parent doesn't want a HV in their lives because they go on the 'ideal' senario, that 'the system' works, which i know it doesn't, for everyone.

Ooohjar your post is appallingly mawkish and it is outrageous of you to draw that parallel between "baby p"'s mother and the op based on NOTHING. back to the daily mail comment boards where you belong

In some ways it isn't 'mawkish' as 'working together to safeguard children' which is what this partly comes under as well as other leglislation was updated after Baby P's death, on paper, it has to be 'flagged up' as the professional reading it doesn't instinctively know who is genuine and who isn't so missed appointments (which Baby P's mum did, to test the system) have to be noted, especially when removal from school follows. These guidelines aren't in place for fun, they are their to protect the vunerable.

Birds, not disputing the sharing info=good thing, just the ridiculous assertion that ooh jar made.

The point I am making is it was totally irrelevant. There was no issues about my children, apart from me reporting the school was neglecting and abusing me son, the head was doing something totally isolated and this was slipped in there. I understand about data sharing - great, rather that than anything go unnoticed, but this was so far from anything relevant, it was completely just sticking the boot in. I've noticed 3 incidents of this in the report now - clutching at straws deoesn't even come close to what the school are doing.

In my earlier post i said that departments don't admit their failings and if your DS has a soiling issue then more should have been done to support you, so they are covering their backs by saying that you have missed appointments, therefore it is your fault that referals wasn't made.

Op did you post under a different name, your situation sounds familar.

I had issues with this about my DC apart from they complained i hadnt been to any out of school clubs(took me a long time to get out of them which exact appointments i had missed) with my DC they are gathering all they can about you, i would suggest you attend everything you can so they have no excuse to target you.

birdsgottafly - think it was me who had posted previously not op where my situation had escalated into something much more serious but starting with these type of concerns.

It appears when there are toileting problems without medical reason there will be concerns and lots of back covering. Most of the things recorded will be totally irrelevant but help to take the focus of themselves and lack of support offered and justify their actions.

My HV had documented that I insisted on breastfeeding all my children despite being told not to as they were not growing and that I refused to take them for weighing. Despite the fact I have 3 red books full of weight records and all 3 children are on higher centiles for weight than height and no one had ever told me not to breastfeed!! In fact the HV who reported this only became my HV when my 2nd child was 3. If anyone knows the correct procedure for reporting these lies it would be appreciated.

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).

Regularly? How regularly? Just as DD2 is 28 months and hasn't been weighed since she was about 3 months old, though she had her MMR etc after 12 months.

I'd be interested to know if hvs are supposed to see children regularly now - we moved to this area when ds was 14 months old, and he has only been seen by hv at his 2 year check, and nothing else, and no contact. Not like we go to Surestart or anything either, and now he's 5.

My HV kept sending me letters demanding to know which pre-school DS went to but he didn't go to pre-school until recently so I never bothered to reply. I wonder if that will be flagged up when he starts school.

It is the law that agencies have to share information about children so YABU.

It may not be at all relevant, but sometimes if a child is being severely neglected or abused, you don't realise information is relevant until it all comes together. The information is to try and stop children dying and identify abuse or severe neglect asap.

When it comes to making sure children are safe, nothing is only your business. And no agencies don't need evidence before alleging something.

Sometimes families can be very abusive and a HV may have overheard a parent saying something or doing something abusive to a child - but the HV would have no evidence of this. Of course the HV should be able to report this to professionals.

Yeni - It doesn't matter if the records flag up that you ignored the HV letters. If your child is well looked after, it is irrelevant.

Sometimes parents can be worried about SS recording info from others. But honestly, you have to be seriously abusive or neglectful for SS to be involved on an ongoing basis.

CMO - If there are no issues, HV would have noted this and no one would have been concerned about whether a HV saw you or not after his check. HV's are supposed to concentrate on families where there are real issues.

Very sorry but I can assure you that you dont need to do anything abusive or neglectful at all. Complaining about medical misdiagnosis is enough. I have never done anything even slightly abusive or neglectful and my children live a very happy and extremely comfortable lifestyle. I would never have believed it myself but is is true they are certainly not concentrating just on families with real issues. We have no issues other than my sons medical condition but the most important thing now appears to be for professionals to cover themselves rather than focus on helping those in need.

I am sure the system doesn't work perfectly and mistakes are madew. Like anywhere there will be in SS people who are good and bad at their job.

From your name it sounds as if munchausens is being alleged? If that is the case I know it is very difficult to defend those accusations - as without a proper medical diagnosis, there is no logical way you can defend yourself.

But if a medical professional has alleged this, i understand why others would be wanting to cover their backs even if they suspect the medical professional is wrong. Very tough on you.

TBH though I work with families with challenging circumstances, and IMO it is still more likely in my area that those who are neglectful and abusive don't have enough SS involvement, than the other way round.

In most areas SS are far too busy to look at families where there isn't obvious abuse or neglect.

Where you the OP who felt that they had to remove their DS from school because they were neglecting his personal hygiene? If so do you remember that I urged you at the time to keep him in school and force them to do an IEP (care plan) for his additional needs (soiling issue). It wasn't being delt with properly by the school and it sounds that the health system failed, also.

I felt ealier that there was a covering of mistakes, as i said in my post, so i do believe you.

Having said that it may be refered as soiling does have to be investigated, it can be a sign of abuse (i know this isn't the case, just looking at it as the SW that gets handed the file).

Co-operate honestly with a SW, if they do call, they are only investigating and this will be sorted out. A referal can be started just by a child having additional needs, ideally all DC's with any would be checked on to see if the family needed anything, but the support is a postcode lottery.

Keep your evidence of the weighing books. Make a complaint about the incorect record keeping (via PALS or you can start of via your GP, there is the direct route via the N&M council or PCT) it depends on how far you want this to go, i would start with pals.

Sorry, not read all the posts- just responding to last post. Yes, it was me who had the DS soiling and they wouldn't change him. I did put him back into the school, they had an IEP eventually but it wasn't nearly enough (they would do one change per day, whereas he was on a laxative and it was as many as 6 times some days) and he went back 2 days, both days he came home caked in poo so enough was enough and I removed him - initially until the IEP was improved, but they refused. He is now so so so happy at a new school where they check him and change him and he has gained alot of independence. I have done alot my end, seeking out the GP very early on, I informed the education welfare before I removed him and they agreed with me, school nurse, social services, continence nurse etc. The school were ringing HV to inquire about soiling in schools, I had ensured my DS had the most care I could possibly find for him , it was them who needed a kick up the backside advice and help to safeguard a child. In the reports they even question whether there is "psychological problems" because I took this actually quite seriously. Formal hearing next week, great.

I doubt a SW will call, I begged them (SS) to help me ensure DS wasn't neglected in his school and they said it's a matter for the B O Gov.

But they seem to be covering their backs because of a lack of care so it wouldn't suprise me if they didn't go down the 'psychological route' and see you as a neurotic mother (not saying they will but i totally believe you). There may be a educational SW present or a safeguarding officer, do not be freaked out, this will get sorted out.

Going right back to the OP, the interesting thing is that unless the OP was given notice of these missed "appointments", they weren't missed at all if as OP posts they turned up out of the blue (at her house by the sounds of it)when she was out.

Thankyou. I'm very nervous, not sure why because facts are facts, whether they think I'm more than a few sandwiches short of a picnic, they cannot argue with facts.