To think Health Visitor home visits should be compulsory by law? Distressing content.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

If you miss one, cancel one, are not in etc, another one should be scheduled within 3 month period and if it is again missed without adequate explanation, then police should be granted access with a HV to check on the children's welfare. Health and well being home visits should be scheduled up to the age of 10 perhaps?

Rather extreme but could this have prevented Hamzah Khan's terrible life and needless, horrifying death?

Agencies were involved with the mother but she was 'obstructive' apparently. That poor boy must have been starved from birth to be so stunted in his growth. No medical reasons have been given and also no medical professionals were aware of it so it seems. No mention that Hamzah was ever seen by a HV. The mother did not seek medical attention either .

Those other 5 DC in the house were also subjected to living in absolute filth and from some of the houses I've sen it is probably the tip of the iceberg.

We are too bloody worried about upsetting parents and not enough focus is on helpless DC IMO. The gloves should be off. If you have DC which are part of society, then society should take a firmer hand into ensuring their well being as it seems all too apparent that some parents can't be trusted.

One life saved or changed would be well worth it IMO.

[ChippingInNeedsSleepAndCoffee]

I'm not sure if I have missed this somewhere in the thread, but a woman who worked for Social Services (it transpires) made an anonymous call to Social Sevices to report the state of this child.

Anyone suggesting compulsory HV visits as a solution to this problem really, really doesn't have a scooby.

[Jengnr]

I don't really know what a HV is for.

Ours is nice enough, comes when she says she will (unlike the midwives), had a brew, dropped off some leaflets, gave me useless info about feeding, weighed him and fucked off.

I have no idea what service she was supposed to provide but if that was it it's a huge waste of time!

[AintNobodyGotTimeFurThat]

I don't give a shit if people hate HV.

Suck it the fuck up.

At the end of the day I'd rather a parent hated the HV coming over but having it happen 2 times a year and just put up with the half an hour visit and to stop the 1% of people who would do harm to their children, than to not come at all and risk it.

I'm not jumping for joy when they come and visit but they are doing their job and making sure my daughter is safe. If you treat your kids well, you have nothing to worry about.

[Pagwatch]

Well that's the kind of well reasoned arguement that turns me right around on an issue.

My DD was risking nothing by the HV not attending.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

'If a parent is doing their job they won't mind the visits as they will have nothing to hide.'

I'm doing my job thanks and I mind very much.

[marriedinwhiteisbackz]

No issues with HVs visiting providing:

They develop basic courtesy
They turn up clean
They are on the ball enough to fill out a form properly
They understand the mantra they are dictating
They are able to make constructive comments
They have been imbued with common sense
They tell the truth about the purpose of their role
They develop a modicum of respect for the majority of parents (the tax payers who pay their salaries)
If they dictate thou shalt breastfeed they have the skills to provide effective clinical help.

As you were.

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The majority of HVs in my life made parenting HARDER not easier.

2 HVs were absolutely worth their weight in gold though

[AintNobodyGotTimeFurThat]

Yes, Star but you have nothing to hide.

You mind either because you think they are incompetent or it's taking up your time, not because you are a child abuser.

If it's the former well, you wouldn't be the first person to think that. But like police officers and doctors etc you'll have great HVs and crap ones.

If it's the latter, I think it's about sucking it up really. It's not like it takes up a large amount of your time.

I might have been harsh about swearing about this as not a keen swearer, but I seriously just can't bare the thought of something being missed. If there is even a possibility of this saving one child, I think it's worth it to be honest.

[FryOneFatManic]

A 'knee-jerk' solution isn't going to work in all cases.

I had one really good HV, who I had plenty of time for, and one useless one who didn't understand how centile charts work.

As others say there's a wide range in competence.

However, visits missed without adequate explanation should definitely have the case shunted higher up the priority list.

[friday16]

to stop the 1% of people who would do harm to their children,

It's nothing like 1%. Are you seriously saying that, at any time, one million children are being actively harmed by abuse or neglect that would be prevented by health visitors, but isn't prevented now?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

I dunno aint. One HV tried to convince me I had PND when I was merely upset at her incompetence wrt breastfeeding support. Another didn't seem to approve of the way I was cosleeping.

However, one lovely HV was able to investigate a Social Services allegation and tell me it wasn't child protection like they were telling me it was and gavebme some sound advice on how to deal with them, and our current one phones me every 3 months to ask if there is anything she can do and when I requested hearing tests the appointment letters arrived the very next day.

So I have mixed feelings.

[Pagwatch]

I don't give a toss about swearing. But Aintnobody, I don't believe or a moment it will save lives.
It will create a huge increase in workload, forcing HVs in front of women who have no need of their services.

It's just about trying to find a way to control the cruel or disinterested. You don't do that by making the entire population jump through burecratic hoops.
It's nonsense.

[serin]

See I think we need less HV's and more specially trained police officers/SW's who actually have the power to do something.

HV's are like middlemen and so often things don't get communicated thoroughly between professional agencies.

If we spent less on ineffective HV services we could spend more on Social Services aimed at vulnerable children who are known to be at risk.

My DSis recently reported a child whom she thinks is being hugely neglected. She was told by the duty social worker that they couldn't accept the referral as DSis didn't know the child's name. No one knows the child's name. He is never allowed out.

[MurderOfBanshees]

Aint Do try reading the thread. I know I've already said that my HV was such a nightmare that she actually made things worse and pushed me towards a nervous breakdown and was putting my DS more at risk. It's not just about not liking the HV or sucking it up.

[curlew]

I agree with you.

I remember that the HV had concerned about my ds's weight gain when he was 8 weeks old. I didn't - he was bf and doing "catch-down" growing. So I never took him to be weighed again, and only showed up at the clinic for vaccinations. I remember at the time thinking how easy it was to opt out of the system, and how wrong that was.

[AintNobodyGotTimeFurThat]

I am saying that around 1% are probably harmed by someone in their family Friday but not necessarily deliberate, that would be a lot lower. 100? 200? I'm not too sure.

I'm just trying to state that if it could help one child, then I see no problem with doing this and like a previous poster has said if a meeting is skipped more than once, it should be looked into.

I know not everyone likes HVs and it's understandable as some are rubbish but so are some policemen, doctors etc doesn't mean these professionals should all be tarnished with the same brush.

Sorry about your situation, Starlight it seems you had some real mixed experiences with HVs. I have only had one child, so have only had experience of 2 HVs so far who I'd say are middle of the range as far as competency is concerned.

I think it's very wrong though to try and convince someone they have PND. To mention it could be a possibility and if you felt low you should go to your doctor is fair enough though but HVs aren't trained Psychologists, so I can't see how they'd know for sure you'd have had PND, even if you were to have had it.

But the problem is then Pag what do you do? How do you stop the cruel and vindictive, or those who are unwell even from harming their children, if you don't have regular intervention to check? Would once a year really be a bad thing for each family with children say, under 5 years old?

I'm not saying that it's the case for everyone, Murder I was saying some people merely don't like them because they take up there time. I was saying if that is the case, they should suck it up. If someone had a really stupid and incompetent HV they obviously should put complaints in and not have that HV ever again, that goes without saying.

I'm not saying people don't have bad experiences with HV I have said they do. I'm talking here in general, no specific people mentioned.

[friday16]

I'm just trying to state that if it could help one child, then I see no problem with doing this

So you have a limitless budget and a limitless number of skilled staff, and there's nothing else they could do that would be better? What if helping that one child meant that elsewhere in the social care system, two children who would have been helped now aren't?

Blanket interventions are incredibly expensive, and rarely effective. That's not about not wanting to spend money, it's a realisation that there's not a limitless pool of skilled people.

The risk factors for child neglect are reasonably well known. Why not target the interventions on those first? Yet again: children who come to harm are rarely unknown to social services. The problem isn't identifying them, it's making effective interventions. Spending money and resources on looking at children who are not currently known to social services to see if they should be (there's no evidence that such children exist in any volume) just distracts from providing care and support to those that are known.

Would once a year really be a bad thing for each family with children say, under 5 years old?

Show us the SCR involving a child being killed or seriously harmed who had not had detailed previous contact with social services, including a case conference. Then you might have an argument that children exist who are (a) at risk and (b) unknown. The problem is not identifying children as being at risk; the problem is helping them. The failings are once children are in the system, not the process by which they get there.

[AintNobodyGotTimeFurThat]

I agree re: intervention with risk factors is very important, but who would be doing these interventions?

I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not going to put it into legislation. I'd have to look at it closer to make any decisions if I were a politician.

[filee777]

I absolutely think HCP's should have power of entry! They are there to see the child, not the parents.

[filee777]

Williams and his siblings were signed off

There was another case of a child left to starve and mummify, www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/mum-who-murdered-and-mummified-toddler-gets-life-26810566.html

A child dies every week at the hands of awful parents. We have to change something!

[ChippingInNeedsSleepAndCoffee]

Everything Friday16 has said. Everything. But especially this - which is what I have been saying on several threads, but not as well...

Show us the SCR involving a child being killed or seriously harmed who had not had detailed previous contact with social services, including a case conference. Then you might have an argument that children exist who are (a) at risk and (b) unknown. The problem is not identifying children as being at risk; the problem is helping them. The failings are once children are in the system, not the process by which they get there

Yes filee what we really need is to have HV's with 'Power of Entry'. Most of them don't know which end to change and which end to feed let alone anything else. I feel HUGE sympathy for the good HV's because the vast majority of their colleagues are worse than useless (the few good ones are the ones on MN I'm sure!) and it must make life very difficult. There's absolutely no way on earth they should have PofE.

[ChippingInNeedsSleepAndCoffee]

Yes, Fillee we do. But giving HV's PofE is not the way forward. Making HV visits compulsory is not the solution either. These poor babies had had 'case conferences' about them, they were ALL known to Social Services - why that service failed them is what needs investigating (yet again) and that's where the focus and money needs to be.

[filee777]

All HCP's should.

[filee777]

What do you think HV's are going to do with PoE? I know some of them are a bit crap but they are hardly dangerous are they?

We are talking about purely for health checks