to think my DNiece is being neglected and my DBro should do something?

[CrocsNSocks]

My brother has a DD with a woman he had a brief fling with 8 years ago. He has always seen her but irregularly for much of that time as he was struggling with alcoholism and not in a good place himself. He has been sober for the last 2 years and is now engaged and settled with a steady job. I'm posting because he, while he agrees that the situation with his DD is in his words 'not ideal' he feels there's nothing to be gained by any action and I want to canvas opinions to see if I should continue to try and persuade him otherwise!

So onto the details. My DBro was quite young (19) when he met the mother (who was the same age). She lived in a caravan on a nearby new age traveller site at the time, though moved into a flat with DBro when she fell pregnant. Their DD was born after they'd only been together a year and they split when she was 18 mo though things were rocky for most of that time and they didn't live together from when she was 6 mo.

Since then the mother has returned to living on traveller sites. DBro used to travel to wherever she was staying to see DNiece but since he stopped drinking and cut association with his old friends on that scene, she has been coming to stay with him for a week a few times a year instead and so the rest of the family have finally been able to get to know her over the last two years.

DNiece lives with her mother, her mother's partner, her 2 younger siblings, and various dogs in a bus. They are living without proper running water, just a tap in the corner of a field, and with no proper toilets (hole in the ground ones [vom] ) and no shower/bath facilities. She is usually filthy when she arrives for visits as she goes weeks without a proper bath though her hair is looked after really well, strangely and I will say in her mother's favour that she never has nits.

She does not go to school. She can read and write and do basic sums but that's because she is a bright child, not because anyone has bothered to teach her. She is quite vocal in her opinion (I say her opinion, it'll be her mothers opinion but you know what I mean!) that school is a waste of time and her mother has apparently always said that no child of hers will go to school. Fair enough. But then she needs educating, not just running wild with a pack of children day in day out with the excuse that "she is learning what she needs to know"

She has no bedtime at home (the children apparently get told to come in when it gets dark), gets taken to weekend long parties frequently, her mother/mother's partner/their friends smoke weed in front of the children (according to DBro who used to see this when he visited). She really seems to love and relish the basic care she gets when visiting - bathing, hair drying, wrapping up in a towel, painting nails with my DD, choosing new socks and knickers, that sort of thing - and also the routine of 'normal life'.

DNiece is a lovely child, she has good manners and is very bright and articulate. I don't think she is being abused by any stretch, but I do think she is subject to persistent low level neglect and think my DBro should grow a backbone and talk to his ex about educating her properly, washing her, and at the very least finding somewhere to park the bus that has showers and toilets fgs. DBro thinks this would be out of order, he says he let her down and now has no right to tell her mother what to do, he also tells me that their lifestyle is different and that unless his DD is in danger he isn't going to wade in like that. I think he is being a spineless twit and it is never too late to stand up for his own child....

Ilike, as Sock hasn't replied I hope she and you won't mind if I do.

It is possible for a child not to be registered with any LA and therefore not education tracked at all. It's also perfectly legal. It's not entirely, 100% likely with this child though, given the circumstances.

If the child were registered with a school she would have to attend or otherwise the school would alert the LA and questions would be asked, visits made and court orders issued if appropriate. In order to HE a child who is on the school roll in England the parent is obliged in law to inform the school (not the LA) that they are withdrawing the child. The school then must take the child off roll immediately and must inform the LA of the matter.

*Was, not were!

As i said on the other page, we home educated and for a numbet of years had no contact with the la, i simply didnt register them for school. Hv and gps etc knew but nothing happened. So it can happen but as others have said ibsuspect the travelling community are more closely monitered than many others.

Thank you for replying FJL203.
I agree, it is probably not likely with the op's niece, that she is not registered.
I do think though, that it should be the law that all children are registered.

FJL203 wrote: It is possible for a child not to be registered with any LA and therefore not education tracked at all. It's also perfectly legal.

My DC were in that situation. We were registered with a doctor and a dentist and we saw HVs for a few months after each birth. I also childminded (so was registered with SS). I chose not to register either of them for school and was never questioned about HE (although we had plenty of contact with people). When they were 5 and 7, we moved to a different LA, where we registered with a doctor and dentist.

DD decided to try school for a term at 9 and so the first "educational" visit we had was after I deregistered her. After that unannounced and unsolicited (and thus disrespectful) visit, I wrote two letters to the LA about DD until she reached school-leaving age. I was never asked about DS - because he was never on a school roll (the LA thought they had no responsibility towards him - WRONG).

My DC were educated informally until they chose to take formal courses from age 14ish. Neither took GCSEs. DS will have one A-level and one AS by the end of next month. I expect to attend DD's graduation in law from an RG uni in July. DS is expecting to start at a different RG uni in October, as long as he gets an A in his A-level.

Ilikethebreeze: I do think though, that it should be the law that all children are registered.

Registered with whom for what? FLJ203 was talking about school registration. I'm sure the child's birth was registered - it is a criminal offence not to do so.

Mumsyblouse wrote (at 13:05:49): there have been a few high profile neglect cases connected with purported HE (the one where the little girl stole scraps of bread from the garden).

Khyra Ishaq was not an HE child - she was removed from school along with three siblings in order to cover neglect. Two other siblings were still in school. The family was reported to SS only 10 days before she died. She was failed by SWs who were too overworked, under-supported and under-resourced to realise that they had a responsibility to her regardless of her place of education.

gordyslovesheep wrote (at 12:51:50): actually LEA's are required by central government to track and engage ALL EHE children

They are required to track and engage children missing education (CME). The primary responsibility for educating a child is that of the parent. If the parent chooses not to delegate that responsibility, the LA cannot insist on involvement. It can only get involved if there is a reason to believe that the child is not being educated. (Exactly analogous to the responsibility a parent has for a child's welfare - SS can only get involved if there is a reason to suspect abuse or neglect.)

I was talking, like FLJ203 about school registration. Or LA registration. I dont know how the system works.

SDeuchars. What made your children choose to take formal courses.
And are they happy with your decision not to have formal education before then?

Ilikethebreeze, it is not possible to register a child with school if the child is not going to attend. There is no process of registration with an LA and I don't understand what advantage you would see in it - after all, you do not register with the police or SS.

My DC wanted to take formal courses both because the courses looked interesting and because they wanted to go to university and (we hope) get professional jobs. They certainly did not want to rule that out by reaching 18 with no qualifications.

At the time DD started, she wanted to become a barrister or lawyer but she has since changed her mind about that. However, she will still have an LLB when she looks for jobs.

SDeuchars with reference to the Khyra Ishaq case, that's why I said 'purported' HE, in other words, not genuinely for that purpose, but her mother certainly did remove some of the children from school and write and say she was home educating them, and was inspected and found fit to do so. Of course you are right, this was a case for SS and therein the sadness lies (due to lack of funding).

And- I also have several family members who were either HE for periods or attended schools in which they didn't have to take formal qualifications, and some of them (not all) have gone on to seek them later in life, and all are well employed!

I didn't intend to suggest you were unaware, Mumsyblouse. However, other people may not have remembered much about the Khyra Ishaq case.

Ilikethebreeze, is the only type of education that you consider valid that of the state sector where schools follow a national curriculum and pupils are enrolled in national exams?

I'm a secondary school teacher who teaches in the state sector, and I really do think that there are many models of learning that are valid. I'm not even certain I want to educate my own son via the traditional route, as I see at first hand the pros and cons.

FJL,

I didnt mind at all I was doing some work.

My 14 year old nephew is HE he currently has 9 gcse's all grade a some other qualifications that I am unaware of and last year started doing a degree in geology via the OU he has also published a book.He is not a gifted child but he is a child who has benefitted significantly from having a informal 1:1 education and has never set foot in a normal classroom

Sorry, Ilikethebreeze, I didn't answer the second half of your question at 14:17: And are they happy with your decision not to have formal education before then?

It wasn't a case of me deciding not to have formal education before then. How to "do" education was a regular subject of discussion among us. As I said, DD decided to try school for a term at 9yo. Both DC knew that school was an option and we frequently discussed their activities (before 13 they had various other sorts of lessons - music, sports, languages, etc.).

They are both happy with the education they received during "compulsory school age" and intend to HE any children they may have in the future.

SDeuchars.
The problem that I can think of, is if a child is not registered with any school, and therefore not any form of educational establishment, is that there is then no necessity at all for a parent or guardian to educate a child at all.
And that, imo, is grossly unfair on that child.
And yes, neglectful.
Because that child has no say. And wont be able to know enough to have a say for several years.

You sound like you have been educated yourself, and have been in a situation to educate your children. And have taken on board what your children wanted re education when they were older.

What is a LLB please.

Why do parents and guardians feed and clothe their children? It's not because someone is checking on them. By the same token, people educate their children because it is good for the child.

Also, I don't know anyone who wants their adult children unable to provide for themselves. Home-educating parents (like most parents, however they educate their children) want their children to grow up to be happy, fulfilled adults who are useful members of society (whichever part of society they choose to join, to allude to the topic of the thread). The way they choose to get there may be different and may not look anything like "normal" but is that a problem unless they are raising criminals or "benefit scroungers"?

An LLB is a Bachelor of Law (so, like a BA or BSc but in law).

What evidence is there from the OP that the child is coming to any harm?

I mean significant harm in child protection terms.

I would allow my children to play with this child and her friends unless I had reason to believe they would come to harm and that applies just as much to children who live in five bedroomed detached houses, shower twice a day and wear designer clothes. Nothing the OP has said would make me thing that my child would come to harm playing with her DNeice.

The nits thing is a puzzle. The child is educationally deprived, dirty, parents on drugs and all the rest of the sorry tale.

But at least she has never had nits ... What, so having nits is the acme of incompetent parenting?

Your dn is living a life that I would love for my kids and I am far from new age minus the dope smoking. She is loved, cared for, has a strong relationship with her primary care givers. These are things that many children growing up in UK who live in homes with running water, go to school and are not muddy do not have.

According to the education act every child is to receive an education that enables him/her to integrate into the community that he/she belongs to and 7/8 year old children in school will not be doing more than basic maths, and according to government statistics quite a large percentage (can't remember) cannot read fluently, so your neice is doing well. It sounds as though her mother follows the unschooling philosophy, where children lead their own education and the parents facilitate this learning, but do not initiate any formal learning. Children do not actually need 9-3 school hours in order to learn.

Whilst obviously OP this lifestyle doesn't suit you, it is clearly working for your niece. She probably enjoys the change of her routine (having bath/hair wash/picking underwear in the same way a child who this is normal for would really enjoy staying on a bus/not washing in a bathroom etc.

Aside from the weed smoking I would be happy for her. I would much rather my kids out playing in the mud than staying inside and sitting infront of the tv/xbox all day.

I am at the ignorance displayed about elective home education on this thread, and the narrowminded of some posters who seem to think it's only possible to get an education sitting in a classroom all day.

As it says here, education is compulsory, school is not. The 1996 Education Act specifies this:

Section 7: Duty of parents to secure education of children of compulsory school age

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable?

a: to his age, ability and aptitude, and

b: to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

Glad to see some Home Edders on here dispelling some of the myths.

Also, the child is 8 years old FGS! In Scandinavian countries they don't even begin formal education until the age of 7. She can read, write and do sums, what on earth is the relevance of exams at this stage in her childhood??

When I took my daughter out of school aged 8, her maths was appalling. It's taken 2 years (and still ongoing!) to get her near competent and confident. Children learn things like maths far more effectively with one-on-one tuition than in a class of 30 kids where the brightest are underchallenged and the slowest or most inattentive get left behind.

That should have been narrowmindedness in my first post, obviously.

child is educationally deprived Can you honestly say that an unconventional education is not as valid ? Someone has instilled basic skills and ethics in this child, she is polite and sociable. Maybe for now that is enough and longer term she may want more. As long as the choice is hers is it really a problem.

As far as I know, there are no standards of home education. No benchmarks.
So it can range from good enough to awful.[I know one that is probably good enough?, 1 where the child took it upon herself at about 17 or 18 to sort it out herself by going to college, and 1 where the outcome is bad].