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 disagree but I'll leave it there as it is getting too personal for me.

It is a problem. Reasons aside, it's a PROBLEM.

Too much analysis. Ridiculous.

breadmakerfan

I agree mistakes must not be made again- but they are a mix of listening to the child, but also making sure that if the child is removed it is absolutely the right thing with all the bolts and braces on. This isn't just for the sake of the mother but the sake and safety of the child. There are parenting issues in neglect, but sometimes neglect can just be the surface of other problems.

Also a lot of comments are suggesting that we are assuming this neglect is down to poverty but it may not be, income in the household may exclude the child from certain free clubs and services.

Children don't vote-and sadly a lot of abused children don't go on to vote when they grow up- child abuse isn't an election winner. There are three recent politicians that tried to react to child abuse from the heart and they are Ed Balls (The Baby P sacking-which unfortunately for him turned into a shot in the foot incident) Michael Gove who brought in measures to try and improve the educational outcomes of children who had suffered abuse or neglect by providing more funding and flex in schools and Edward Timpson whose parents have fostered for 40 years and whose father's business uses workers with attachment and emotional problems.
None of these three men are particularly popular but they have stood up and tried to do something.

We all have a duty to look out for children in our community-- but Elderflower raises a good point they must be parented and well cared for and papering over the cracks I think exposes them to the worst of both worlds-their parents don't give them what they need but just because someone else will provide the essentials to life it doesn't mean it is enough for a secure childhood.

Of course you ring SS. All CP training says if you aren't happy with how a concern is being handled you contact SS yourself.

Calling them is the only course of action, you aren't satisfied with the schools response.

alovelytrain, yes, in many cases it would be better to avoid removal and it would be better to spend money on carers in the home, rather than 24 hr foster care. The carers in the home would be a genuine role (not an "allow to fail" role) who would establish a nice environment, a stable and good routine and teach the parents by demonstrations. So, yes to going in, putting together the bed, checking child is in bed by 7, for a number of weeks. Not just this, but also to give reasons why. Anyone who works with children might be amazed to know how little even highly educated people do not know much about child development - with many parents if you explain about attachment, about windows of opportunity re neural development, etc etc, they would respond - I do truly believe that. There should also be professionals who go in to provide guidance and teaching - eg child psychologist, speech therapist. Having people going into the home will also pick up on other things. My understanding is that child psychologist would be able to distinguish between a child who is being damaged by neglect/abused behind the scenes with a child who is affected by other things.

I am not sure if the above does happen? It didn't happen in the doc. The decision to "allow to fail" was made before the bed was provided. There were no clear and unambiguous conversations recorded with the parents about what they had to do - there were a few "its not very tidy, is it..".

I do not agree with those who are saying that if a parent can't do the job on their own and take responsibility they should lose the children. Because it is the child who loses out, not the parent. It is a double punishment for the child - rubbish parents and then loss of the rubbish parents who they love notwithstanding the rubbish-ness.

The reason why i think that is to do with the unfathomable unconditional love a child has for their parents, and take that to its logical conclusion, then yes there will be damage removing a child even if the immediate alternative is good. My understanding is the problems will manifest in the future - when they are teenager, adults - the grown child will have feelings of anxiety, disenfranchisement and lack of confidence. Is my understanding.

I am not talking about parents who are violent or who sexually abuse their children or are addicted to drugs - I am talking about the other families who fall in between.

Sorry - terrible grammatical errors! *how little even highly educated people know - not do not know...

The carers in the home would be a genuine role (not an "allow to fail" role) who would establish a nice environment, a stable and good routine and teach the parents by demonstrations

I just can't imagine how much this would cost. 18 hour a day support for hundreds of families indefinitely or until DPs shape up (how many years would you give them, or one might shape up the other not etc).

Ok I know it's saving money on the long run but imagine a council stopping all district nursing/ day centres/ meals on wheels etc to fund this ie support for possibly drug taking, benefit money wasting, irresponsible parents - that would go down really well!!

In the real world it's unlikely to happen.

I feel more could be done by the voluntary sector but with the child safety record-checks and long term commitment it limits who wants to do it.

You might be right, norah, about the voluntary thing.

Although foster carers cost an absolute fortune, too. And there are concerns there too - about the suitability of some.

I think there is a separate issue around communication with parents.

It seems to be a ongoing issue that parents are not made aware of the stage or consequences of any failure to comply. Not in every case and not blaming sw for parents failure to change. But it's something that does seem to keep cropping up.

I get that these are hard conversations to have, but there seems to be a gulf between suggestions often just given verbally, and then watching / waiting as parents carry on as before, no consequences or just more meetings and suggestions which some parents can just tune out or ignore. Then sudden decisive action, which makes it clear that SS have made a decision and are taking things forwards. It seems to be softy softy softy then wham! a big shift in gears that often is only clear to the professionals involved.

I wonder if by being much more directive, and clearer in expectations, consequences, processes and outcomes, that parents might have a better chance of complying, learning and understanding what's happening. If would also allow ss to be clear on their power, remit and motivation for being involved with a family. A lot of the confusion, blurring and ambiguity perhaps comes from positive motivations wanting not to come down hard or be seen as the evil bad guy etc, but uncertainty breeds both fear, and for some, a misinformed belief they can reject the system or add their own smoke screen of confusion to avoid changing.

I wonder if a move towards clarity and yes, towards a system that maybe feels harsher in the first instance, but is very clear in expectations and consequences... just as you would for a child actually! With boundaries, consequences, rewards and sanctions eg Signed contracts with consequences. Clear and quantified behavioural change expectations. And a timeline or a flow chart of the process and at what point certain decisions are made.

What happens to the poor kid at weekends? And during the Christmas/summer holidays? We only know the child isn't getting breakfast because she says so at school. What about all the poor kids who don't get breakfast (or any regular meals, for that matter) but are too small to verbalize it ? Or are too small to attend school where these things are likely to be picked up ?

i agree, miscellaneous.

alovelytrain - the concern is where the CPP is issued without sufficient clarity about the boundaries, consequences in circs where "allowing to fail" has been decided.

I think the family support worker is introduced before moving to CIN. I was advocating more intense work after CIN stage as an alternative to removal. Would that have helped the family in the documentary do you think?

I'm with bonkers. I wouldnt post any more details and call social care.
It's also your duty to report concerns too.

This makes me so sad .
A starving child should be fed not buried under paperwork and political correctness.

It isn't stated he is starving. Just that he does not have breakfast at home.