To be outraged by children's centre

[quertas]

I've just received a letter from my local children's centre congratulating me in the birth of my baby (well he was born 3 months ago so thanks but the moment for congrats has rather passed) and stating that 'an appointment has been made' for next tues (letter arrived today) for someone to come and visit me at home to tell me about the services at the children's centre. Aibu to see this as a bloody liberty and to wonder where the actual fuck this person gets off inviting herself into my home?

YANBU, it is rude to make people appointments when they haven't asked for them and put them to the trouble of cancelling. Just because it's gvernment funded doesn't make it ok - in fact it might make you agree to a visit you don't want in case they thought badly of you. There is surely a data protection issue too? Sending a leaflet and following up with a phone call would have the same effect and waste less resources (although legally how are they getting mailing lists I wonder?)

I think outraged is a bit strong. I'd be mildly peeved

SB - the three hospitals in our area that send us their new birth notifications have a column for live birth or stillborn. It's looked at by our central admin person who highlights it. The list is then looked at again by each local outreach worker, so two chances to spot it. We also get a child death notification list which includes babies who may have died shortly after birth, and not technically stillborn, but the health visitors are normally spot on with telling us about them, or the outreach workers spot something unusual and query it.

It's possible that your sister's hospital don't include that information or that someone overlooked that information - no excuse for that at all. Sorry for your loss.

The one closest to me was on a very deprived estate where a huge proportion of people didn't have English as a first language. The CC was used almost exclusively by the middle class mums from the surrounding areas, and the staff were desperate to reach the one's who would have needed it most.
I don't actually know what method they used, but booking the appointment for the mums they were trying to reach (assuming they could cancel easily if they liked) sounds a workable solution.

I can't believe the number of people moaning about this. I bet they are the same bloody people that moan when they don't receive information about local groups.

The biggest complaint I hear from new parents is not knowing what groups are available.

LaFata. What the hell are you waffling on about. Sure start do a fantastic job of providing sessions for parents. Why are you spouting such rubbish.

No one HAS to let them in. They are providing a valuable service free of charge.

And for those saying that you should just let them show up and tell them to go you are obviously rude at best. There are limited resources for groups like sure start and to cost them money when you have no intention of using them is abhorrent.

I agree with the OP and would find it intrusive. However, I understand for some people it may be beneficial.
I'd just contact and say no thanks, make sure I was out on the day, or not answer the door. You don't have to see them.

More than. It's hardly intrusive if you can actually cancel.

The simple point is that you can call and say that you are aware of them and are not interested.

Some people must be professionals at being outraged .......

I'm outraged by rapists, murderers and violent criminals.
Someone writing to tell me they would like to visit me and tell me about free services that might benefit my children, not so much.

Ilovemyself

I would find somebody coming into my house uninvited or having invited themself as intrusive, and would cancel as stated above. Other people may not feel this and are entitled to agree or disagree as they see fit.

Morethan. I fail to see how it can be intrusive if there is no obligation. They let you know in advance when they can come and they are offering a service to help patents and children.

Now if you were forced by law that would be a different thing all together.

I really can't see how an organisation that is there to help new families is creating such horror in some.

Perhaps those that are offended think they are better than needing help or advice.

Thank you Peppermint, it looks like her local area is a lot less vigilant than yours as it happened to someone else in her area.

I would rather that people like you were 'outraged' than another child died in a stinking hellhole of a home and not be discovered for 2 years.
YABU

Insancerre. I can see your point. But Sure Start in my experience are more aimed at providing support than doing the job of a HV or SS. Of course they would raise an issue if they see one but I don't see that as their primary function

MrsDevere. If speculatively making appointments means that more people attend a clinic than would normally bother and therefore more lives are saved surely it's a good thing.

Children's Centre workers (both family support workers and early years workers in nursery) see vulnerable children and their families much more often than HV or social workers do, and normally have a much more indepth understanding of the children's/families needs ime.

exactly hettienne
it's about reaching the hard to reach families and ensuring that families and chldren don't fall through the cracks
I would consider my job as a nursery worker (even though i don't wotk in a children's centre)as being on the frontline when it comes to child protection
We see children every day and are in a much better position to spot anything untoward as we deal with children intimately
unlike hvs and sws who only see what the parent wants them to see
and the vulnerable families are not always the obviously vulnerable ones, either

I'm not denying that most CCs do an absolutly brilliant job. I think they are a great resource.

I just don't think that that this one first made contact with the OP in the best way. I think making an appointment rather than offering one is intimidating and can put struggling/vulnreable people off accessing vital services.

I also wish that the government would make up their mind on what they want the role of sure start/childrens centres to be. Atm it varies so widely between local authorities. They seem to go back and forth between wanting to be a universal service and focusing on targeted/outreach work.

Thanks for some of the points I was unaware of.

In this area the first bit of help or information weans many of our friends got was from the CC. And they didn't contact us - we found out by chance.

For the love of fuck. All of those badly abused (and murdered) children were known to social services, having someone from the local CC turn up to tell you about their services is not going to make one blind bit of difference to that. Not one and people saying 'wet' things like 'I'd rather have this than one dead child' are spectacularly missing the point.

It is intrusive because they are not telling you when they could come, they are telling you when they will come. I would put up with that though, if they could genuinely prove that works to get people there who need, but would otherwise miss out on, their service - but I'm not convinced it does and it probably alienates more people than it helps.

Target hitting does not equal problem solving.

... and Peppermint if I thought the local health service was sending my information out to the likes of the Childrens Centre I would be livid. It is personal and not for a bunch of non medics to paw over deciding if they should visit or not.

but chipping, every serious case review picks up the point that services do not communicate and share information
professional agencies should be sharing your information, otherwise how do they know what information is relevant or not or what they can and can't share?

Chipping Sorry but you are also missing the point. It's no good just being known to social services, there needs to be evidence. Community support does make a difference.

All the OP has to do is cancel the appointment. Outraged is a HUGE over-reaction, I can see her being annoyed but outraged?

I work in a CC and have worked with social workers, and even with families "known" to them, they really don't actually know very much about that family at all or have much contact with them compared to say a family support worker who visits them every week, or the early years workers who see the children daily and chatting to the parent.

That said, we don't do this assumed appointment thing and it does seem pushy to me. But we also work with a lot of families who for many reasons wouldn't be able to approach the CC themselves so I can see that this approach would get people in touch with services a lot earlier (eg. before the situation is at a point where a social worker is referring them).

insancerre - Most children: Doctors, Social Services, Schools - all fine. Childrens Centre - not fine.

A child who is suspected of being abused, with clear grounds for that suspicion: Anyone who might have information - fine.

A woman who has had a still birth does not need her private details sent to CC just so they don't call her to see if she wants to attend a session of baby massage.

Candy how in gods name is someone from the Childrens Centre 'popping in' to tell you about baby massage & messy play going to add 'evidence' to a case where a child is being abused. These children already had trained social workers involved!

I think the OP would agree that 'outraged' was a little strong :) I think 'AIBU to be fucking annoyed and busy enough without having to cancel something I didn't bloody ask for in the first place' was a bit long for a thread title though!