To think this mother needs to sort her issues out?

[FreckledLeopard]

There is a girl in DD's class (they're all in Year 8, so aged 12/13). The girl is in DD's group of friends. She is a sweet girl.

This girl (I will call her Sophie for sake of anonymity) recently turned 13. Aside from taking some cakes into school, she had no party or any kind of celebration as the mother said she couldn't afford to. I should probably add here that the school they all attend is private, so the mother must pay some school fees (though could, of course, have a substantial bursary. I don't know).

The girl lives with her mother and brother. The father (parents are divorced) lives abroad and doesn't seem to see much of his children at all. The brother is 21 and lives at home.

I've met the mother on a couple of occasions and she is odd. Very odd. Very fussy, very nervy, can't make normal chit chat. She is also seemingly obsessively grateful if her daughter is invited to anything (and given the amount that 13 year old girls socialise, it's a bit odd that she's so gushing and grateful anytime her daughter is invited anywhere).

Anyway, DD and her friends thought that as Sophie hadn't had any kind of celebration, they'd arrange a sleepover this half-term, invite Sophie, and make it a little surprise party with cakes and gifts. DD checked that Sophie was free, all the friends have been planning the party (fancy dress, food, attendees, music, presents etc).

Then, DD hears from Sophie (who is very upset) - her mother has said Sophie can't come as Sophie's older brother is out that night and the mother won't stay at her house on her own. She is too scared. Let me point out that they live in suburbia of a normal town (not known for gangs, violence or anything to be scared of). I called the mother (at DD's request) to explain that the girls had organised this surprise party which is why they really wanted Sophie to come. The mother told me she was sorry but was too scared to be at home on her own, so her daughter couldn't come to the party.

Sophie is of course massively upset (she didn't know about the party, but obviously wanted to see her friends). DD is upset. The friends are upset. There are no other dates that can be organised for half term.

Now, I understand people might have anxiety of some kind. But this woman is basically turning her children into her carers. God knows what happens if either the older brother of Sophie want to go to university, or, God forbid, leave home.

I've just had a text from the mother confirming that Sophie can't come. I'm sitting on my hands to stop myself from typing back that she needs to sort out her issues and not make her children suffer as a result.

AIBU in thinking this is massively unfair on the kids and will royally fuck up their lives? I obviously can't do much about it other than fume. But honestly - surely the mother should seek some help rather than making her kids suffer?

Children are carers often sole carers for physically and mentally disabled people every day all over the country. Often their lives are severely curtailed socially and scholastically. Social Services do pretty much nothing for those children. It is simply a fact of their life.

Ronald, I know that. I was the child carer from my grandmother in the last 6 months or so of her life. Being a carer to an old, sick, but very appreciative woman was no real hardship whatsoever to me. I look back on that period of my life with only positive memories. Did I need or want an intervention from s.s? Absolutely not. If anyone had doubts that the situation was adversely affecting me, do I think they should have called s.s? Yes, of course they should have. But the few people who had minor concerns, I am sure I managed to allay those when talking with them.

I think that people have an incredibly naive view of the work of SS or the width of the net provided by the Government.

I don’t. I know how ss work with things like this, as the advice I have given to the OP, to call s.s and explain her fears and worries, I have “been there, done that and worn the t-shirt” when I suspected a neighbour’s child MAY have been suffering. I do not regret that call for one second. It was far easier and more straightforward than I had imagined it would be. Joe Bloggs on the street make a call like that possibly once in their lifetime. The people taking those calls take them multiple times daily.

People need help and understanding.

Yes, they do. But not just mothers who need their 13yr old daughters to babysit them, kids need help and understanding too. And if we worry that a kid is possibly being abused. Then it’s out DUTY to call s.s.

I professionally understand the difficulties of those living with MH issues. I understand that some are incapable of parenting effectively due to their illnesses or disability. They need the help and support of the community and all the NHS and govt agencies available until they are well enough to cope again.

You won’t find me disagreeing with any of that. I just find your posts come across as having an obvious bias in favour of the parents with "issues", as opposed to their children.

Do I have a bias for children. Oh yes, most definitely. Children and animals. They can't look after themselves. They need society to be the eyes and ears for them when they are in shitty homes.

Can I ask you one question? I asked it earlier, but no one replied.

What harm exactly would it do to call ss? If this is a one-off isolated event, then fine, it gets filed away never to see the light of day again. If more people with similar doubts make similar calls to s.s. then abuse is stopped in its tracks.

Why are you people so pertinently opposed to ss being informed of something that could be abuse, or could be nothing untoward at all? really, why?

I don't think any person should have to explain their situation to anyone. Just because one has a disability doesn't mean they have to be an open book to everyone who wants to know why things aren't as someone else thinks they should be. Even explaining everything doesn't mean people aren't going to make up concerns.

The idea that talking to SS if nothing is wrong will end up in nothing is naive - particularly for many groups who multiple studies have shown are more likely to be more aggressively checked on than others as unconscious and confirmation bias are difficult to combat. As someone who went to SS myself to get my kids assessed as young carers, and even after they failed to reach the current threshold (they are not relied on and the acts they are asked to do are age appropriate and do not involve any physical care of parents or medication), I ended up spending several months with weekly visits that made me very ill - it completely destroyed that time in our lives, disrupted my family and the very thing we asked for help for (the kids were bullied because of our disabilities, we wanted social help) was ignored after making my sobbing daughter was was badly affected the bullying a lot of false promises that she is still upset about almost a year on. She literally laughed at my partner when he tried to talk about how his disabilities affected him, wouldn't let the kids talk about it all, and mocked and challenged our family traditions in front of the children and then tried to say it as because the donors would be upset about not being able to give all the kids on their books presents (we don't celebrate Christmas). It literally made everything worse and did not help anything in our lives. I would never recommend it to anyone. I know my kin abroad are even more afraid (see what the Lakota Law who are fighting illegal practices in the US that takes their kids have been up against). I likely could use useful help, but I'm not sure why I was surprised it was so bad when as a child my school had a group for kids suffering abuse because our local SS pretty much didn't think abuse could happen in our posh post code. Adults who care in the community can do just much if not more than a system tied up as it is.

My partner and I both have physical disabilities and are neuroatypical. Diagnosis for this has not been easy. My partner sought help for both and has been told that he's a liar, that he's just fat, that he's just lazy, and that "it would be better and safer if [he] didn't have a diagnosis". His physiotherapists were appalled because DP has so much mechanical damage in his spine and legs from an assault that much longer without their care, he could have been left unable to walk at all. Sometimes I imagine if such as assessment could be done on the mind. For mine, I've been told I just need to eat more, I'll magically get better when I gain weight (hasn't happened), I need vitamins, I need more salt (because it apparently cures lightheadedness), that my ethnicity means I will be able to cope with it better so I don't need anything else as long as I don't drink alcohol (because everyone needs a drunk Native insult when they go to the doctor) - hell I had a paediatrician say that my son's difficulty in understanding questions was caused by my having a foreign accent (even when the issue ran in his father's family). Being diagnosed and treated isn't always an option, it is a very draining process for a lots of people who know that something is wrong, have been told by those who they go to for support that they won't help and trying the best we can. Many give up because the energy from doing that takes away from what energy is had to put our kids first. We've already been told that our disabilities and backgrounds make us bad parents so many times to the point I'm pretty immune, but calling every disabled parent that isn't diagnosed and being treated bad is throwing a lot of people under the bus for systems that failing and pretty much made to be broken for those at the bottom.

"Also abuse is relative"

No. It's. Not

There are very specific criteria to be met to be classed as abuse

BabyCat, Thank you for explaining that so succinctly!

I know it's not relative. It's not like saying "one man's meat is another man's poison" or "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". We can't say "one kid's abusive home is a home another kid would thrive in". I just didn't know how to word it. I might find being told to fuck off abusive. You might find it merely annoying. The next person might welcome it as a normal greeting. Something like that is relative. But abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, that is not relative AT ALL - if enough boxes get ticked, it's abuse, it's not open to the personal interpretation of any one individual.

If I thought something was off about a home I'd call SS every single time. Every. Single. Time

And me too. I have only done it once. If anything, next time I'll do it quicker with none of the "putting myself through the wringer" that I did then.

I'm sorry parents get stressed about SS investigating. But it's not something that "tears a family apart", and parents that are the "victims" of these visits need to get the fuck over themselves. As I've said before I'd rather stress a good parent out, than leave a child in an abusive situation by saying nothing.

I haven't been investigated by s.s. But I have had the RSPCA turn up at my door because I had been reported by a neighbour for possible animal cruelty. I was looking after a very worse for wear (emaciated, mangy) and abandoned dog who was not well enough to stay in the pound until he got a bit of one on one tlc in a home. One of my neighbours must have seen the dog and alerted the RSPCA. It was absolutely what they should have done. The inspectors were wonderful, checked with the pound that I was fostering, gave the dog and house and other pets a quick once over, and went on their way to report back to the worried neighbour that all was well. Am I pissed off at that neighbour? Not for a second. I wish I knew who it was so I could shake their hand. I wish more people called the RSPCA when they see emaciated mangy dogs.

Even when it's just the RSPCA at the door, investigating a complaint of possible neglect or abuse, often the animal owner feels completely (wrongly in my book) victimised. I agree they too need to get the fuck over themselves.

I'll bow out.

I've noticed that the OP has left the convo and this has become a circular talking shop that is unhelpful and in my opinion harmful.

When singular personal experience takes over, reason and objectivity seems to leave.

BTW princess what one person considers to be abusive another might consider to be just fine. Abuse can be very subjective. What one might remember as abusive might objectively not be considered to be so. It doesn't make it less abusive to the person remembering it.

BTW princess what one person considers to be abusive another might consider to be just fine. Abuse can be very subjective. What one might remember as abusive might objectively not be considered to be so. It doesn't make it less abusive to the person remembering it.

Child abuse is NOT subjective. It's not what you think, or I think, or what Princess thinks constitutes abuse. It's what the law states IS abuse, IS abuse.

Do you understand that?

You don't get to look into a home and say "hmmmm, yes this is abusive for the children" or "hmmmmmm, no, this is fine, kids can stay here safely". It for social services and the courts to decide what constitutes child abuse.

We're not talking of some man who stonewalls his wife because he can't communicate effectively, or some woman who spends on the credit card behind her husbands back. Yes, financial and emotional abuse are bad, but if any adult wants to live with them in their life, you want see me flag waving for them.

We're talking child abuse here -in the legal sense of the words. It is NOT subjective! It is not open to personal interpretation.

If someone feels they were abused as a child, but what they suffered isn't technically classed as abuse and no law was broken, as much as I feel sorry for that person, what does that have to do with THIS discussion?

melted

Your last post shows exactly how little you understand about what the system considers to be abuse.
This is the system that you want to alert.

I understand that you have strong personal feelings but your actual understanding lags sorrowfully behind your feelings.

This makes it hard to have a conversation with you.

What you feel should be right isn't actually the case.
I know that that can be hard to accept especially when you feel you may have been abused and would like things to have changed for others. Some work on 'fairness' might help for you in the future, I mean that respectfully and professionally.

Abuse unfortunately is about a mixture of legal remits, perception, significance, capacity, balance of needs, assessment; of deliberate, wilful or neglectful failures. There are questions asked around impairment of health and development or ill treatment that then lead to other questions. To meet a criteria it ignores the affect, sometimes long term, that it can have on a child. Almost meeting criteria does not mean that you are not horribly abused in your experience and opinion. There is little that is absolute in assessment.

You unfortunately are not aware of this. This is not a failure on your part but I am unsure that you should be speaking about it in terms of absolutes when you have literally no idea.

Therefore a great deal of abuse isn't absolute. It never can be. Emotional abuse for instance is horribly difficult to pin down and is often ignored because it is difficult and multi layered. Societal abuse ditto.

My point is that for those who feel abused it is a good thing that it isn't absolute. What is too much for one person isn't for another but to then tell them that it doesn't quite constitute abuse or doesn't quite meet the criteria of what constitutes abuse would be dreadful.
There are statutory terms for some forms of abuse but other than that it truly is subjective as it is based upon assessment on many different moving parts undertaken sometimes by many different teams and decided during multidisciplinary meetings.

I hope that this helps for those worried about SS and the abuse calls on this thread. The thresholds mostly aren't tick boxes. What will be accepted by SS for one parent and one child won't for another. SS often aren't applying objective criteria. Eventually we see that abuse can only be defined by the view and experience of the person being abused.
That is why abuse

By the way melted trying to tell me what abuse is in - the legal sense of the word - is will take you about 70 pages.

If only it were that simple

Eventually we see that abuse can only be defined by the view and experience of the person being abused.

Is this for real?

What is the person being a used is a baby, or an adult with dementia, or someone with severe mental health problems?

Excuse types, I was in shock.

Abuse can be very very clear, black and white, but in the middle there is an awful lot of grey, and that's where I agree that abuse is indeed subjective. These two ideas can exist together you know!

Many acts of abuse can be 'explained away' or if seen in isolation can be minimised. This is one of the difficult things that we have to grapple with as a society that wants to protect people from abuse.

It's not up to the victim to define it though. As most abuse happens to vulnerable people without a voice (or the abuse silences the victim), it's perilously close to leaving it up to the victim to ask for help, and obviously that's wrong.

I'm not quite sure how we got here from a cancelled party and potentially a young carer though. There's not enough information to be clear about anything.

RonaldMcDonald I'm sorry, but no.

Just because someone came from a toxic home with shitty parents doesn't mean they get to cry abuse. There's legal criteria that need to be met. A person can "feel" abused as much as they want. Look at toxic parents that feel slighted by their children and play martyr, are we going to say they're victims of parental abuse because they "feel" abused?

The fact of the matter is, no matter how "abused" I feel if someone lightly tapped me on the arm, it's not physical abuse. A kid can "feel" abused over a typical spanking to the butt, still not abuse.

A victim of sexual abuse may not feel abused because they "consented", guess what, it's abuse regardless of how they feel.

Is mental abuse hard to prove? Yes. But there is still criteria that needs to be met in order for it to be mental abuse. Look at any website, it has bullet points to go off of.

There is legal criteria that needs to be met. Otherwise, every shitty parent would be abusive. Every teen that didn't get their way would be "emotionally abused" if we go by your definition.

Basically what you're basically saying is, if I stub my toe and I feel like it's broken then it's broken. When that's not the case. Yeah, it sucks, and it really hurts to stub your toe. But if the x-ray doesn't come back broken, it's not broken. We don't need to tell people that their toes are broken to justify their feelings. If it hurt, it hurt. It doesn't have to be broken to really hurt, and it's ok that it did. Just because it's not broken doesn't mean they're less deserving of sympathy, a hug, and a little compassion.

But let's not water down the word abuse.

rhonda that perception of abuse ie self reported from the victim was meant to be taken in association with clear cut statutory definitions of abuse

are you trying to insist that very many of the people on MN that imo/e perceive or feel that they have been abused have not simply because a statutory requirement has not been tripped?

most people on this website with self reported issues have been very badly treated by parents who were never examined by SS or who were and it was considered to be within the bounds of acceptable
imo/e this is abuse as abuse is personalised and impossible to completely accurately assess.

For example a child with hard drinking, irresponsible parents would probably slip through all the nets of SS involvement
The child could be horribly affected and real. That abuse is self reported are you suggesting we ignore it?

okay princess give me the absolute criteria. Where are you getting this information from?

I'm genuinely interested to know and as it will help me with my daily work. Given my blardy job you's think someone would have let me know.

Please go ahead.....other than when it meets stat criteria abuse is in levels, degrees, taken in conjunction with etc as I have explained and is decided by any number of different professionals, on any number of days given funding, workload, burnout, perception... Jesus any world of assessment issues...and then decided among other professionals

The role of these meetings is almost always to try to make a way to make a family work as we simply don't have the facilities to do otherwise even when we might wish to do so. Abuse is clear cut in come areas as I an others have stated... in statutory matters otherwise it is far from obvious and miles from absolute

agree miscellaneous

I think there have been some rude responses on here. The girl's friends wanting to throw her a birthday party is a lovely gesture, I wish I had friends like that when I was that age! It is unhealthy for the friend to have to stay home and miss her own party because her mother doesn't want to be alone. I can understand the OP's concern but she has been portrayed as a busybody. At the end of the day, ignoring the issue will only make the child feel more isolated. She shouldn't have to deal with this alone, she is only 13.

OP, in the first instance encourage your daughter to continue to be there for her friend and understand if her friend can't always attend events. This doesn't seem like it will be difficult for your DD as she sounds like a lovely girl. You could also direct her friend towards support groups and online resources for young carers. If it seems to be an ongoing problem, maybe mention it to the school so they are aware of the issue and can offer support.

Ronald, nice to see your retreat was temporary, I assumed it would be. All this muddying of waters has little, if anything, to do with the topic of this thread.

But OK, if it floats your boat, yes…”beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, although we all know that Eric Pickles isn’t going to grace the cover of Vogue any time soon. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” yes, I know that too, and although I would be hard pushed to argue the case for any terrorist, I do accept there are some people in the world who viewed Osama bin L as their strider for their freedom, and that is their right to view him as such. And yes, the woman with the stone walling PA husband, who is also a terribly financially abusive man to boot, is an abused wife, and my heart goes out to her, but he is not about to go to court anytime soon, and he is not committing any crime (above that of being an arsehole). But agreed, she does get to view herself as abused.

But what in the name of all that’s holy does any of these totally irrelevant tangents have to do with THIS discussion?

Instead of trying to steer it away on a whole other direction, why not just answer the (relevant to THIS discussion) question I asked earlier. Asked twice earlier.

What harm exactly would it do to call ss (over a situation like Sophie’s)? If this is a one-off isolated event, then fine, it gets filed away never to see the light of day again. If more people (in Sophie’s life) with similar doubts make similar calls to s.s. then abuse is stopped in its tracks.

Why are you people so pertinently opposed to ss being informed of something that could be abuse, or could be nothing untoward at all?

Really, WHY ?

What exactly do people think will happen if social services DO investigate?

Letting your children go out all night to homes where the adults are not blood relatives or long standing friends at aged only 13 is not poor parenting. Certainly not worthy of this level of intrusion and discussion into your personal circumstances.

OP you have no way of knowing that the other mother hasn't picked up some nasty gossip about YOU or any of the other adults involved in this farce that has led to the mother to change her mind about the wisdom of allowing her child on this sleep over. I know I don't share malicious gossip, but I have on occasion taken appropriate steps to protect my child just in case it IS true iyswim. Given the sneery, sneery judgeyness I've read to date my gossip goes both ways theory has more merit than you may be willing to give due credence to.

I wouldn't let a bunch of gossipy Mums & snooty girls dictate to me where and when my child socialised either, nor would my parents have done when I was that age. My Dad would have been horrified if I'd wanted to stay as late as 9pm in the home of someone not related to us for a "party" and would refused permission as a matter of course. No abuse, neglect or any other SS type issue at all - just a caring parent. Of course I'd have moaned about it - but thems the breaks when you are the hormonal tween and the parent is confident enough in themselves to make choices based on what they feel is right rather than peer pressure.

IF the girl is a child carer - what exactly do you expect the overstretched social care system to do for her ffs? She's able to go to school, and access daytime leisure activities, which is more than many of her carer peers can. Therefore no additional support or services will be offered to the family. Child carers are a very common phenomenon nowadays, and just like their adult peers, or looked after children, society is content to give them an exceedingly raw deal.

I can almost guarantee that nothing would come of it bar an increased sense of social isolation for the whole family that they'll never recover from. Any upset the intrusive questions cause will be totally ignored and there are no child advocate services or counselling services available to her to help her recover from the experience either.

That child's sense of security in her home and family will be gone forever and she'll be made to feel (if she doesn't already) that her family and background is inferior to that of all her peers. So much emotional damage caused out of sheer spite - have you ever read any of the old witch trial histories? I suggest you do.

IF the girl is a child carer then what she needs to feel supported and included. This party idea is a really bad one, and I'm a bit cross that the adults of the teens haven't veto'd it by now in favour of an afternoon at the cinema or bowling or any of the thousand and one activities that ARE both available to and totally suitable for a group of 12/13 year old girls to do. Makes me wonder what the kids are really planning to get up to, and wonder why the adults are so darn stooopid.

You're right. A passerby called me a jerk on the street the other day. I feel abused, therefore he was verbally abusive. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Sexual abuse is hard to prove because it's based on a persons memory and there's rarely physical evidence. There are varying degrees. A kid that is raped might be a more severe case than a kid that was molested. There might not be the resources to do a full scale investigation, that doesn't mean that there isn't a set criteria that defines it.

Yes, as it is your job you should know what abuse is. I'm concerned you don't.

But here you go as a starter since you so clearly need my help:

Types of Emotional Abuse

1] Rejecting -- Parents who lack the ability to bond will often display rejecting behavior toward a child. They tell a child in a variety of ways that he or she is unwanted. They may also tell the child to leave, call him or her names and tell the child he or she is worthless. They may not talk to or hold the young child as he or she grows. The child may become the family scapegoat, being blamed for all the family's problems.

2] Ignoring -- Adults who have had few of their emotional needs met are often unable to respond to the needs of their children. They may not show attachment to the child or provide nurturance. They may show no interest in the child, express affection or even recognize the child's presence. Many times the parent is physically there but emotionally unavailable.

3] Terrorizing -- Parents may single out one child to criticize and punish. They may ridicule him or her for displaying normal emotions and have expectations far beyond his or her normal abilities. The child may be threatened with death, mutilation or abandonment.

4] Isolating -- A parent who abuses a child through isolation may not allow the child to engage in appropriate activities with his or her peers; may keep a baby in his or her room, not exposed to stimulation; or may prevent teenagers from participating in extracurricular activities. Parents may require the child to stay in his or her room from the time school lets out until the next morning, or restrict eating to isolation or seclusion.

5] Corrupting -- Parents permit children to use drugs or alcohol; to watch cruel behavior toward animals; to watch pornographic materials and adult sex acts; or to witness or participate in criminal activities such as stealing, assault, prostitution, gambling, etc.

--

You guys may be having meetings because there isn't proof of this happening or a child's word may be shaky. But there is still a solid criteria.

But you can't say a kid that "feels" isolated and abused because his parents sent him to his room without desert or grounded him because he stole the car is abused. Unless he is because you know, abuse is subjective.

But let's not water down the word abuse

That is exactly what I think Ronald is doing. And I think it’s quite despicable too.

My mother, the abuser of 4 children, feels a victim, she has done her whole life. She feels victimised and abused by many things and various people, and organisations, and even by churches, and by me being no contact with her. She feels it is abusive of me to deny her access to me and my family. I can’t tell her she isn’t allowed to use the word abuse. That’s her prerogative. But really, come on, I refuse to visit her, answer her calls or letters, or send her a birthday or Christmas card, and she should be validated for feeling abused? She should be told, “yes, if you feel abused by your daughter ignoring you, then yes that’s abuse. Because, in your own words Ronald “abuse can only be defined by the view and experience of the person being abused”.

Is that grip still lying around here somewhere, because I am starting to feel the need to pass it to you for a while Ronald. I think you could use it.

melted

i have no issue with people calling SS, none at all actually

i have an issue with people conflating issues and/or projecting their issues onto a situation
I have an issue with how little the Services, Boards and Trusts can do
I deal with people every day in circumstances I'd rather not see them in.
I want people to get off their hectoring high horse and to reach out to other people
That is where real change can happen

I find on MN we all holler 'call SS' at the least little thing that wouldn't meet any reasonable criteria and yet I see that so many people are damaged in situations that we deem to be 'normal' and would be given a pass by SS

When threads are judgy and flippant, naive and hard nosed about people suffering from mental health issues and/or deteriorating physical health it sends the message to those who are suffering that they better keep their issues secret from others and not ask for any of the help that is still available to them.
This hides the abuse that might be being suffered and perpetuates cycles of suffering

Thoughtful, helpful, useful commentary makes people feel that there are kind generous people out there that might listen before judging and help

No one I've met wants to hide child abuse or protect abusers but provision is finite and it should be used wisely

What harm exactly would it do to call ss (over a situation like Sophie’s)?

I can answer that question for you, and in fact did very early on in this thread. Being 'looked at' by SS in this way is not a 'no harm no foul' event. It's a terrifying and traumatising event and can therefore make the situation, whatever that may be, so much worse.

For example: I have AS and someone decided this meant I wasn't capable of caring for DS properly and reported me to SS. SS investigated, decided I was doing a brilliant job by any standards let alone given what was stacked against me and closed the file. The one area I felt my AS did affect DS was around social contact but I did my best to try for his sake by going to baby groups and such like. I hated them with a passion and they terrified me but I did it for him. I've been having treatment for PTSD since the referral it affected me so badly. The knock on effect is that I can no longer cope with the stress of baby groups and I am distrustful of everyone now. As a result DS's opportunities for social contact has disappeared and his life is worse as a result.

I've actually found writing that down really upsetting as it breaks my heart that our new happy little family unit has been damaged like this. Before this I also believed that if there was no problem there was no harm done. I was very naive and now I've learnt a very hard lesson.

I think that you are missing the actuality of the point
I know how you might want things to be but that isn't how they actually are. This is difficult to get.

I am not diluting abuse. How would that be possible? By simply including emotional abuse that had a huge impact or abuse that wasn't assessed or didn't meet subjective criteria but had a huge impact how is that diluting what is considered to be statutory abuse?
Is that like saying that acknowledging the many rapes that go on without prosecution is diluting the real rapes..ie those that end in prosecution
I'm trying to get you to understand but admittedly am failing as I feel you are miles away from reality and are quite entrenched within what you don't know

If I said to all the women on MN that if their parents had not been convicted of abuse then they had no right to feel abused how would that sit with them?
If I said that under whatever cut and paste definition that Princess has found on wikipedia was not met then it wasn't abuse then where would it leave them?

If I told you melted that I thought you have nothing to whine on about unless your parents were prosecuted then where would it leave you?

Abuse is difficult to assess and sometimes is assessed as not meeting criteria when it does. We take seriously and treat self reported abuse and feelings of abuse as actually who are we to say....er well under this assessment what you feel is bollocks

melted
i have no issue with people calling SS, none at all actually
i have an issue with people conflating issues and/or projecting their issues onto a situation

Well luckily when I involved s.s when my gut feeling wasn’t right, I obviously wasn’t just projecting my own issues on to a totally innocent situation. As they did act, and the child in question is the better off for their intervention and continued supervision. (my call wasn’t the only report of possible issues in the home they had received, and I do suspect that the issues that the child's school put forward to s.s weighed far heavier in their decision than my report, but I was told my reporting was very helpful).

I want people to get off their hectoring high horse and to reach out to other people

Me too, which is why I found the hectoring he OP got on the first 6 or 7 pages of this thread totally appalling. Getting on high horses and hectoring people like her because she doesn’t have any evidence of abuse may just put people off of reporting child abuse, worried they might get the same verbal bashing she did.

That's why I wish people would THINK about what outcomes are likely before calling social services, who in any case aren't always the most appropriate agency to call.

For instance if I witness physical violence towards a child out and about - I'm calling the police, not social services as a criminal act is being committed. Same if I'm worried about domestic violence in progress in my neighbour's home.

If I witness verbal bullying on the bus of a level that I find intolerable by teens towards one of their peers - I'm clocking their uniforms and calling their respective schools in the morning with detailed descriptions of all involved.

If I think another playground Mum needs support I'll have a chat with school or nursery in the first instance. You have to bear in mind too, that confidentiality rules mean schools aren't allowed to tell you the names and inside leg measurements of all previous intimate encounters.

In this case if I were as concerned as the OP professes to be, then I'd have a word with the school who are likely to have access to info about whether the mother does in fact have a medical condition, is a child carer or the family has suffered serious trauma in the past. The Mum is under NO obligation to share info like that with you. After this episode the poor girl is going to need school support anyway for a while.

Showing a wee bit of discretion rather than just phoning SS about every little thing you witness that is outside of your own narrow lifestyle norms frees up social workers to deal with those cases where their professional input and TIME is so badly needed. Very serious cases get missed time and time again, simply because their in trays are overflowing with trivial nonsense gossip cases and spiteful neighbors scoring points off each other that take up their TIME.