To think that someone should feed this child

[Bardette]

I work in a number of different schools, visiting once a week to work with selected children.
One particular boy troubles me. His family has heavy social services involvement. His mum is being encouraged to 'step up' and take responsibility for her children. There is a plan in place with certain criteria she has agreed to follow.
One of these criteria is to give the children breakfast before they go to school, and because of this he is not allowed to go to breakfast club any more.
So he gets no breakfast.
Mum is, for whatever reason, not giving him breakfast, and school will not because of the agreement.
AIBU to think that this is wrong? I assume that the school are feeding back to social services and they will take it up with mum, but in the mean time this poor little lad has to go to school hungry. He is 6.

I think it is safe to assume the father doesn't live with them.

I doubt a child not having breakfast is in itself a CP issue

Alovelytrain, I don't agree. Most people accept that violence and intended cruelty is totally unacceptable. Beyond that there are a myriad of views out there about what constitutes good and bad parenting, and priorities. And as I said you also need to think about the alternatives and what we know about abuse while children are in care/etc and also the very serious consequences of trauma related to being removed from people you love.

The practice someone has referred to of "allowing to fail" sounds dangerous. The procedures would have been put in place presumably not to make life hard or difficult for SS to remove a child in danger, but to ensure that things are done with due process and consideration. As soon as there is a situation where a family is "allowed to fail" it becomes arbitrary - you are then basically relying on the opinions of a few individuals who have already decided what the outcome should be - what if they are wrong? It goes against natural justice quite apart from being risky.

Are psychologists part of the team who considers whether a child should be removed, advising on the psychological affect of removal?

Interesting and considered post momie and for what it's worth I agree.

I am rather shocked, actually, that's child could be removed on the basis of not eating some food before he goes to school.

I'm disturbed by the delete the thread ethos going on in this thread.

The non reporting of child abuse in the media has gone on for decades and look where that's got us.

If it is entirely true that SS and schools are deliberately colluding in keeping neglected children in a hungry state for their own ends proving neglect, then that's an expose right there that needs to happen.

Thank goodness there are people on here working in education putting two fingers up to this crap and stepping in with common sense. Bravo.

It doesn't make much sense to me, surely the school can feed the child and then record it for proof of neglect.

Not related but my child will probably be one of those kids that don't have breakfast before school as it takes her hours after waking to want food and I can't force her.
if she eats breakfast she doesn't eat lunch and vice versa.

I will pack snacks but there's not much else I can do.

Same for mine Always.

I don't think even the OP implies this child will be removed because he isn't fed- the mother has a list of criteria one of which is to feed her child- given that there is a list there will be other things on it.
It wont be just a lack of breakfast- but being ravaged by hunger damages a child, not just physically when you look at the conditions it can cause and aggravate but the lifelong emotional impact. The fear that it gives children that there will never be enough- the drive to eat and eat and eat in case there isn't enough next time- the stress of the day being focused on meal times.
When the lack of food is down to neglect then in cases like that abuse becomes pervasive- boundaries get blurred and there is a risk of other harm from other types of abuse
There will be the risk of harm with neglect as to whether the child is receiving medical attention when required- are they being kept safe from dangers in and around the home-are they being given suitable physical care, are hair teeth etc being cared for- are they being supervised or looked after, is the carer out a lot-who is the primary carer in reality and are they coping?
Are the children dressed for the weather is there a risk of heat stroke or hypothermia
is the child being exposed to toxic relationships.
Is the child being physically emotionally or psychologically harmed by their treatment
How does the caregiver feel about the child if they are neglecting them-

So no-sending your child to school hungry on it's own does not necessarily trigger concerns- but if it is a sign of neglect and there are other signs then yes people will look into it-and if it has gone so far as a plan of agreed steps that the mother must take there will be more to it than she is in too much of a rush in the morning

I cross posted with lovely

If you have a safeguarding issue it is now the law that someone follows it up, acts on it and gives you a satisfactory answer. If you are not satisfied, you are then supposed to go to the next person up the ladder. In this case it will be the headteacher. This is a recent(ish) change due to people making complaints but a teacher/school sticking their head in the sand. I was taught in my last safeguarding session that it is actually my duty to follow up a safeguarding issue and if I was not satisfied with the answer I got to then go to the next person in the chain, each and every time.

If the child told you he hadn't had breakfast and you know this is part of an ongoing issue then you must report it properly.

Assumptions are bloody dangerous when it comes to CP so please do not assume the class teacher will pass on your report because they may assume you've reported it to the CP officer or HT. So ring on Monday, tell them what he told you and ASK if you need to report it to SS or will they contact them. Follow it up with a papertrail by emailing your boss to let them know that you have reported your concerns about X to Y. Then when you are next in the school double check that you reported things in the right way.

I'm hoping the lack of details about reporting it is about an element anonymity because it really reads as if you've had a wee chat with the teacher and TA about this rather than actually properly reporting it.

He told you that he hadn't had breakfast - it is your responsibility to make sure the people that need to know this know this. The school and SS may 'know' he hasn't been given breakfast, but they need proof of this and telling you is part of that picture.

Everyone needs to step up for children like this. Everyone.

A school should always feed a hungry kid; when they know SS are involved, the school should inform them that this has happened.

It should NOT be a defense in court for a parent to say they don't bother to feed their kids, just because they know the school won't let them starve to death.
In fact such clear abdication of responsibility should be grounds for instant removal.

The rights of children to at least a minimum quality of life should be prioritised. They are small human beings, not property like toy dolls.
Even convicted criminals have to be housed and fed adequately everyday.
The RSPCA seem to require a lower standard of proof when removing neglected animals.

Do we need a legal requirement that a child should have at least the rights of a convicted criminal or a pet dog ?

Surely providing breakfast is a basic need for a child if these needs are consistently not met the mother is negligent but whist agencies are arguing about what should be done the child should be fed if not St home than by the school ,my son goes to a special school he has ASD and sometimes refuses breakfast its always provided however , fortunately at his school they also provide tuck at about 10 am toast etc( we give £1 a week for this) I always write the n his home\ school diary whether he has eaten breakfast or not .

So who has stated at the CIN meeting that this aspect of the care plan is really inappropriate on behalf of the SW ordering it?

Are other parents being told they should not use a breakfast club because doing so is a matter for intervention or that they are not meeting the childs needs by facilitating attendance at a breakfast club?

Who agreed that this was acceptable to include in the plan.

Is is grossly inappropriate and bordering on institutional neglect to say a child (any child) can not use a service that he/she would be otherwise entitled to use based on his families circumstances because they wish to test his mother.

It is also inappropriate to allude to or imply or actually say that a child using a service is an indicator of the family not meeting his needs.

Unless the breakfast club is not a real breakfast club and it's just a ad hoc teachers feeding kids when they say they are hungry.

When I was a SW working for an LA I would have been rinsed and accused of intentionally setting families up to fail and quite possibly told I was not cut out for the job if I sugested this

ALovelyTrain - if a child is not being fed and it needs to be a case of let him go hungry for a set amount of times before he is taken from his neglectful mother than I am ashamed of a country that allows that to happen.

This is easily sorted out, if the OP uses the correct procedure.

You would probably discover that the child wasn't getting in early enough for breakfast club.

"Heavy SS involvement", what does that mean, CIN, or CP plan, implemented and controlled by whom? What timescales are agreed upon? Etc.

The OP should know who to be speaking to, the School should be better at communication but it is her responsibility to be finding this out and she could do this by searching and emailing internally.

Posting on the Internet should of entered her head as an Education Professional.

Shouldn't of entered her head.

Fired for posting on an anonymous web site but not fired for standing by and watching a little boy go hungry?

I echo what sock says

Feed the child and record everything

No child should go hungry because of something written on a bit of paper

I used to give children my lunch if I had to , non brainer

But it isn't the breakfast. It's unlikely the child is turning up to school weak and wasted with hunger (yes, I know about Daniel Pelka, poor boy - but even then giving him food would not have helped.) I agree with trains posts.

Please be assured that I have followed the CP procedures of my organisation. There was a TA with me while I was chatting to the child. I then mentioned to the CT that he hadn't had any breakfast and she told me about the arrangement.
I don't know who made/agreed it, how long it is for (it may just have been the one day), or what the next step is. I have made a written record and also mentioned it to my boss. But in this instance phoning SS would not be an appropriate course of action - what would I say? This kid hasn't had breakfast? Along with hundreds of others in the area. It is part of a much bigger problem.
I posted because the situation seemed so ludicrous and I am helpless. The TA and CT are similarly upset by the situation but there is nothing we can do.
Incidently, I am actually talking about a 7 year old girl.

this child needs somebody looking out for them,its probably not just this child im sure the child has siblings that are also going through the same thing

Or where people can take drugs all through pg, show no signs of quitting or wanting to and still get sent home from hospital with their baby?

Here, if a child is born addicted to drugs, they're automatically taken into custody. Is that not the case in the UK?

steff that seems to be the case as I shared a ward with an addict and her new born was suffering meth withdrawals and was fostered for first 9 months then handed back. Horrible.

I agree it is a grey area you can't take children if you expect neglect before they have even been born as people have yet to prove themselves capable parents.
it's horrible for existing children suffering but what's worse being ripped away from the only family you know without a chance being given.