NSPCC 'I promise' dvd. Anyone else seen it? (non accidental injury to children)

[PictureMeInThese]

I originally posted this in chat but got no response.
My sister has just a lovely new snuggly baby
I picked her, BIL and DN up from the hospital a few hours after she gave birth. We were waiting for her to be discharged when the mw came in and explained she'd like to show DS and BIL a DVD from the NSPCC for research (IIRC).
So we watched it. It was mostly interviews with parents of babies talking about coping mechanisms for coping with crying babies. It also showed (quite graphically) what happens to a baby when it is shaken.
Now, I think the NSPCC are great, but we were sat open mouthed after watching this.
Don't get me wrong it was a well done film done sensitively and I can see that it would be a useful resource for new parents, but DN was 4 hours old. Parents still on a high after giving birth and then being shown this. I thought the timing was completely inappropriate.
After they'd watched the dvd they had to sign a form with 'I promise' on the top. I think this was the consent for the research, but the way it was presented it felt very much like they were signing a form promising not to shake their baby.
I don't know, i just felt very uncomfortable about it. AIBU?

SunshineSue I think that I read some research from another country where the scheme was used and in that case it was targeted, but you know more about it here than I do so I don't doubt you're correct. I think that it was risk factors like age, worklessness, the man in the house not being the biological father.

I think the reason why they can't just show it in antenatal classes is because those who are the highest risk are probably the least likely to attend antenatal classes, and men don't always necessarily attend these classes with their partner. Plus in some cases the man who's there during the pregnancy might not be the man who's there when the mother goes home if relationships are shaky.

I think if it's done at the hospital they can be fairly certain that the people they are getting to watch it will be the people who will be at home with the baby in the first weeks of it's life.

I've never even had the offer to watch it and I had a baby last year and several before that

There is not and nor will there ever be a type that is more likely to harm a child.

The only thing that could ever be assessed would be a type who was more likely to get found out.

The volunteers that work for the ChildLine Schools Service are trained and work alongside staff. The object of the service is also not to try to find problems by asking questions about children's home lives, but to teach all children about the signs of abuse so that they can recognise it if it is happening to them or to someone they know, and so that they can then make their own decisions about what to do. It also obviously informs them about ChildLine, which is a service with that goal primarily in mind (children making their own decisions) and as such it has the highest confidentiality threshold of any service which works with children.

singingmum, I work and volunteer for ChildLine (part of the NSPCC) and I can assure you that I don't think all parents are evil. Nor does anyone I've ever worked alongside. I do think many parents are busy, a minority are ill-equipped to be parents and a very small minority should not ever have been parents. Sadly, I speak to the children of that latter group far more frequently than most people because they are the ones that call us a lot.

The problem is that often you have to impose restrictions on or irritate a big group of people in order to protect others from the actions of a minority. Take for example seatbelt laws - the vast majority of us would agree it's far safer for ourselves and others to wear them, but it's still a law because it gives the idiots who think they are somehow indestructible an incentive to wear them (the avoidance of punishment).

If watching a DVD or an advert annoys or upsets lots of people, but it actually gets through to those who may otherwise be in the position where they hurt their child and it therefore protects that vulnerable child, I honestly think it's an okay price to pay. An adult will feel a bit shit for a while, but they'll live. A shaken baby might not. If it's been proven to have some impact, then I'm all for it.

Straight after birth is completely the wrong time to show it.

Glitterandglue - nice to see you passing judgement on the people you apparently work with confidentially.

Gliiterandglue is quite correct, some people ARE ill equipped to be parents and some people shoukd never be parents. Sad but true. Hardly a 'judgement', more a fact.

The timing seems the worst part of it: 4 hours after dd was born I couldn't have kept my eyes open, let alone concentrated on a dvd. Unless it's one of those things that they stick under your pillow and it sends subliminal signals to your subconscious it would have been pretty much wasted on me. Besides, I don't think anything I had agreed to at that time would have been likely to have had much influence on me later: I would have agreed to anything just to get them to go away and leave me in peace.

Ante-natal classes seem the best place to me.

Mitchdafish I completely agree with you. The difficulty is is that Health professionals often do not have the training and time to approach difficult issues with the sensitivity needed. Perhaps as well there needs to be some real acknowledgement that many parents of a new baby will be feeling anxious about how they are going to cope already. Having their worst anxieties and fears presented to them in a frightening way at an inappropriate time by insensitive practitioners can be massively undermining.

The comments by the person posting about their role as a Childline worker are a bit worrying and incredibly judgmental. Everyone has a right to family life and people who have children do not want to fail. They want to they want to succeed. Saying people should not be parents is hugely insulting and discriminatory to children who are/have been in care, have grown up with neglect and abuse etc.

pleiadianpony

Saying people should not be parents is hugely insulting and discriminatory to children who are/have been in care, have grown up with neglect and abuse etc.

No it isn't. Bleating on about how our abusive parents "have the right to a family life" (translation: you can do anything you like to your children, they're your property) is insulting and discriminatory. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough to see through such pseudo-liberal justification (doubtless motivated by over-identification with fellow parents and fear that if we condemn abusive parents, you might get into trouble for shouting once- get a sense of scale woman).

If I wasn't intelligent enough to see through it, I might have ended up believing it, and then treating my children the way I was. Some adult victims do fall for this shit though, especially if they had an abusive mother, because there's so little support for children of abusive mothers.

I hope you feel proud of yourself.

plinkyplonks Glitterandglue - nice to see you passing judgement on the people you apparently work with confidentially.

She didn't violate confidentially. And the people she works with, as she said explicitly are the children. Recognising that a child's parents were utterly shit, is really judging the child, now is it? It's generally supportive. Certainly far, far more supportive than what abused children encounter in society when they're trying to get help/support. "Oh, I'm sure s/he didn't mean to do that", "you need to be more understanding", "S/he's busy at the moment", "you should always make allowances for your parents because they give you life", "she gave birth to you".

My personal favourite was "when you cry, you're giving in to Satan" from an evangelical vicar, who was at my class, after seeing me have a total breakdown. I'd just checked my phone, you see, and heard a load of answerphone-messages from my mother, and I knew what I was going to go home to.

I feel like being incredibly judgmental now.

Everyone has a right to family life. You disgust me.

I think would have been a bit upsetting to watch this fresh after giving birth but I think it sounds necessary. I found the first 4-6 weeks extremely tough- I was miserable, quite frankly, because breastfeeding was very painful and my poor daughter was wickedly colicky. Looking up advice and coping techniques online kept me sane, but there were a couple of occasions where I was on the verge of snapping- the rage I felt at my helpless, maddeningly shrieking baby was so, so scary, it felt like I had a werewolf inside me. Luckily I learnt online that it was ok to put her down somewhere safe and calm myself down, or give her to my husband, because I was definitely capable of harming her on a couple of occasions.

The NSPCC have got to advertise somehow or they'd never get enough money coming in. That's what it's about. They have wages to pay. I don't doubt that there are decent people working there, but the ones running it day to day will be no different to say the directors of Nestle or BP.

I do not give money to the NSPCC as they behave as if you are their property from the second you have a child.

Sorry to offend you TheBigJessie

Everyone has the right to a family life...UNLESS they harm or abuse.

Yup, some people are not equipped but sweeping judgments like some people shouldn't be parents (coming from a person in a professional type of role) sounds really judgmental to me!

i wholeheartedly believe that abuse should be named and kids should be supported to name it for what it is and that it is not o.k. Loads of kids in who have been abused don't explicitly get that message, it is blurred and that is really wrong and damaging in the long term. Social Care fails loads and loads of children.

Its great that you have been able to stand with a clear view.

Load of people can't. Those kids that have returned home after leaving care to live with shit families who exploit and abuse them or kids who desperately want contact with their abuser, because whatever has happened, they still identify the relationship as probably the only significant one they have got.

They might feel differently to you hearing some people shouldn't be parents about their own parents. (where do i fit in the world then? i haven't found a (safe) place yet?) How is that kind of statement productive to them or to a child stuck in an abusive family environment? It's not really. I've hear people say it who are in a professional position to do something about it and NOT effect any change. It just one of those rhetorical things people say....

Sense of scale covers a broad spectrum.

I DO Not believe "you need to be more understanding", "S/he's busy at the moment", "you should always make allowances for your parents because they give you life", "she gave birth to you" any of that crap!!

I am so so sorry that you had to tolerate that from a vicar. The church's collusion (whether right or wrongly) with abuse (evangelical churches) absolutely disgusts me. I have no sense of scale in that sense. Evangelical Christianity disgusts me and should be not be allowed.

I am very sorry that I offended you TheBigJessie. If more people could separate themselves from abusive situations more children could be removed from abusive situations rather than the cycle which sometimes perpetuates itself.

Thanks for making me look at things from a different view.

I have just become a Step Nan and as many know, am a CP SW.

The amount of people who do not know the dangers of throwing a baby around, astounds me.

I see people throwing young children, from a couple of months old, up in the air and catch them, yes, it makes them laugh, but, it could also cause brain damage.

My relatives', other Nan and Aunt, both recommended, throwing the baby over her shoulder and letting him "bounce" back down onto her knee, to wind him . Neither had heard of shaken baby syndrome, or similar injuries.

I had bought them lots of books on baby care and development, thanks to many telling her that she didn't need all these, or any classes, she only learn't want she read.

Older people forget that we are no longer surrounded by babys, as we once were, we do not pick up baby care, by example, any more.

She went to baby massage on my recommendation, although, again,people were putting her off. It helped her gain confidence by having a MW on hand to ask questions to, in regards to handling.

I always, say, but anyone working in Children's services, will agree, that the public do not hear about the amount of children that are disabled by their care givers, many, through ignorance.

We cannot force people to read the books that they are given, or go to the classes, so really, i don't know what the answer is.

You wouldn't get in a car, to drive without knowing the basics,i don't understand why everyone seems so against knowing the basics about baby care. Some of it doesn't come from instincts, especially when the care is given by wider family and you have a Mum whi isn't confident and doesn't like confrontation, as is often said across this board.

"some people shouldn't be parents"

I can safely say that i have met many people, both in my work and every day life that, that statement applies to.

In some cases, people will always be considered "a risk" and the judge in his summing up at the end of a case, will say that "this person should never have residency of a child".

No one is obligated to have residency of a child (i would never use the glib "abort" statement), every child has the right to grow up in a nurturing environment.

That is why "Parental Rights" was changed to "Responsibility".

"Everyone has the right to a family life...UNLESS they harm or abuse."

Thank you. Never forget that proviso. Every time it's forgotten, how culture takes a step back.

They might feel differently to you hearing some people shouldn't be parents about their own parents. (where do i fit in the world then? i haven't found a (safe) place yet?) How is that kind of statement productive to them or to a child stuck in an abusive family environment? It's not really. I've hear people say it who are in a professional position to do something about it and NOT effect any change. It just one of those rhetorical things people say....

You have the right to that opinion, but it is my experience that people tiptoe around the issue so much that victims never get their abuse recognised. It is always "well, she's your mum" (even from professional staff- I got a phone-call a few days later from the domestic violence unit after she'd turned up extremely drunk and violent and refused to leave my home. "I understand you've been having problems with your mum". If it had been an abusive father, do you think they'd have said "dad"? I don't.). People have their actual reality denied to them. It is assumed you must work on the relationship at all costs, and it is your duty to yourself and them.

One of the most wonderful things for anyone who has been abused, whether parent, spouse or any other human being is to be believed and for other people to confirm to you that it was actually the abuser's fault things were like that. Some people are banned for life from pet ownership. Because they should not own pets. Children are not worth less than non-human animals. Some people should not be parents.

I have no time for the NSPCC. They seem to function as a lobby group and seem to spend the vast part of their budget undertaking expensive marketing campaigns.

They are way down my list for charitable giving.

Yep, Abuse should not be tiptoed around. I completely agree. It is a poor situation that professional people that are trained to intervene are still tiptoeing around it. Children need the message that what their parent has done is wrong. That they have harmed them and they need protecting. Not some woolly intervention that is confusing.

But our society still fails to offer a solution. So all those kids that exist in that grey unclear boundary are lost. Ones who have been through the care system and had no resolution and not been able to find their place in the world I honestly believe they are as oppressed as any other minority.

Labelling them 'Care Leavers' disgusts me. (but that is another rant)

I talk about this alot with DH. We have said wouldn't it be great if people who have been abused could stand up and name it publically without shame, much more often. It would give power to children and adults and take alot of power away from abusers. Abuse is still hidden in so many peoples families, prushed under the carpet, not spoken about. Why should children feel ashamed? they only feel ashamed because no one has given a clear message that it is not o.k, they have been harmed.

*"Everyone has the right to a family life...UNLESS they harm or abuse."

Thank you. Never forget that proviso. Every time it's forgotten, how culture takes a step back*

We are STILL in a position in our culture though where we haven't really taken enough of a step forward. The uprising of the angry lynchmob culture (see daily mail) isn't a step forward. It's something else. I am not advocating liberalism, i just think there needs to be a clear and balanced view. Thanks for the discussion.

I don't agree Pony.

People are ashamed because it isn't nice to think that your parent couldn't parent and there are still ignorant people that judge you on your background and not the person that you have managed to be, despite your abuse/neglect.

Care Leavers have to be labeled, to be included in the law, as do "relevent young people", no diffrent to any label we need to direct funding.

The key is supposed to be early intervention, that isn't happening enough. Girls and women who have attachment issues to everyone in their lives, need extensive therapies. They don't just need a stable environment, in the form of Mum and Baby units/Foster placements ,as often thought. We shouldn't wait untilthey have problems parenting their own children until those therapies are offered.

I think that you are looking at it to simplisically, there are lots of complex situations happening in unison in neglect/abuse cases.

Miaow.

How did you express your distress? And did they tell you that's why they referred?

Birdsgottafly i agree of course people are ashamed because 'it isn't nice to think that your parent couldn't parent' there is a massive stigma for a child/young person/adult.

They are also ashamed because abuse in itself is shaming. Shame 'holds' people in the grip of abusive relationships and situations. Abusers use shame to victimise.

Breaking free of shame can enable people to break free of abuse. Not just the immediate situation, but a lifetime of abuse and exploitation that can follow if the cycle isn't broken.

Naming what has happened, being believed and and being shown that the perpetrator was wrong can begin to free a person of shame. It can enable them to go on and believe they can build healthy relationships and that being treated with respect and dignity is not only possible but an absolute entitlement.

What I am saying is that if more people were confident enough to say ..you know what i was abused and it was wrong. And could stand up shame free, it would help pave a pathway for others and reduce judgement.

We need role models for people who are stepping out of abusive situations.

Yes, we need labels for legislative reasons but is it really appropriate for to be wheeling out literature with titles like 'are you a Care Leaver' Young people leaving care have few established systems with which offer foundation for identity. referring to them as Care Leavers' is labeling and de personalizing. How we use language really impacts on people and how vulnerable people identify.

I completely agree with what you say about Mother and Baby Units/Attachment etc. Young women may thrive in those environments then the systems in place are unable to counter the damage already done. Early intervention is really important BUT again. How do you reach those people without labelling them as potential abusers and balancing that with their human rights?

It is complex as you say. A bottom up system is always going to be better than top down reactionary services and interventions.

The DVD that is shown, is important information and again, should be in the public domain BUT there are ways to approach it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about unison abuse / neglect cases? I am guessing you are referring to Social Workers under investigation following serious case reviews?

While abuse is horrible actually only a minority of parents are abusive.

Like becoming a crack or heroin addict, only a few people do that. What next? A form from your GP which you have to sign to say "I promise not to take crack".

A note from the police saying "I promise not to commit murder."

Where does it end? Stupid. Just give the advice. Offer a DVD if people want it, explaining the content could be upsetting.

Sledgehammer...nut.