To be concerned about this girl

[JKsHair]

Apologies if this post is a bit convoluted.

My DC go to a primary school which is attached to a secondary. One of the families at the school have DC at the primary and secondary. The oldest girl left the secondary six months ago to have a baby, she was year 11 when she left. She has a younger sister in Year 9 and then some siblings in the primary school.

Since she had the baby I think i've seen her twice with the child. She came to pick up her siblings with the baby a few times just after she had the child and came to the primary sports day with the rest of her family. The mum/dad/grandparents also came.

Since then the baby is always with the younger girl (the girl in year 9). She takes the younger DC to school in the morning and always has the baby with her. Sometimes she has her uniform on but doesn't seem to be going to school as I see her pushing the pram the opposite way on the way home. She also picks the DC up from the primary before the secondary kicks out. Yesterday I picked DS from football and she had the baby again and was picking one of her siblings up from the club.

I've seen her quite a few times in the local area pushing the pram around (again she sometimes has her uniform on but doesn't seem to be near the school). She picks the youngest DC up most days. My friend has a DS in her year and I asked him last week if he knew her and he said I think she only comes in half days nobody really knows her.

Anyway cut to this morning and I was walking behind her after drop off and her older sister (the babies mum) came the other way. Younger girl shouts at her 'where the fuck have you been you need to take x' the older girl shouts back 'I'm not fucking taking her i've got to go to y's house fucking take her home' Ignoring the swearing AIBU to think someone should be asking why this girl seems to be taking care of this baby and siblings all day and not in school?

I was speaking to DP about it and he said its none of my business and she probably doesn't look after her all day. He also said the school probably know whats going on and don't need me gossiping.

Brioche, I'm sorry, but it is you that is ignorant of the law and are not reading the thread. The Olympic athlete you refer to it will undoubtedly be required to have tuition arrangements in place to ensure he or she receives full time education. I set out above the fact that the exception to the rule about full time education is, very obviously, children who cannot cope with it for medical reasons. That is the only exception in law - and even then home tuition should be arranged for those who are physically able to cope with it. Do you seriously think that a child wearing school uniform who is out and about and in charge of her siblings and a young child is too ill to be in school full time?

And even if that were a realistic possibility, what harm does it do for OP to draw it to the authorities' attention? You say that you would have been pissed off if your child had been reported - but if your child had been well enough to collect younger children from school and look after a baby, then I would suggest a report would be entirely in order. If you had been reported, there would have been no need whatsoever for the school to give information about your personal circumstances to the person concerned, all they would need to do would be to say they were fully aware of the situation.

OP, do you think SS are aware that the younger child with behaviour issues is looking after the younger children and the baby? I would suggest you draw that to their attention.

Needs, it is a common misconception that reduced timetables are lawful: they aren't. Far too many schools are getting away with unlawful exclusions because parents accept unlawful practice like this. The same applies to reintegration in school plans if they do not provide for full time education.

Home education certainly does not have to follow school timetables. Nevertheless, people who home educate should have their arrangements scrutinised by an LA inspector who will expect to see evidence that the child is receiving the equivalent to full time education.

And of course we come back to the fact that, no matter how many possibilities exist as to the lawfulness of this arrangement, it would have been wrong for OP to assume that to be the case and ignore the situation.

I'd still report it or at least contact the NSPCC. Whatever else is going on I really don't think it's appropriate for an eleven year old to be in charge of the baby.

And people do miss abuse because everyone thinks that someone else must have reported it or they don't want to get involved.

I will give you my usual professional advice OP:

Phone NSPCC

If you're worried about a child, even if you're unsure, you can contact professional counsellors 24/7 for help, advice and support.

Call us on FREEPHONE: 0808 800 5000

or email [email protected].

Even if the new baby is not at risk, a childhood should not be taken away from another child when they become a carer, 24/7 play-friend, minder etc. Sometimes the worry is about expecting an older child to step out of their childhood zone by being expected to do too much.

You can also speak to the school (Headteacher usually, but a trusted teacher will do).

I'd report it to SS and NSPCC. You don't know that it is being dealt with and frankly too many children that are neglected are ignored because people think it's "none of their business" or "SS probably already know".

I don't work in this area so I don't have a professional opinion on this but I understand that in all cases evidence is collected about each child under SS watch so any info you give them will help.

Poor kids. It sounds awful :(

agree with the others - report it.

OP SS may not be aware that the 13 year old is having to do the childcare.

I would report if I were you. You can't help her by doing nothing.

I would just drop an email to the school or call in and have a word.

I feel for this girl. it sounds like she's had a rough start and also attends a PRU due to behaviour (likely a reaction to it).

Even if SS are aware I'd report again. Make sure that they know the difficulties this poor girl is facing are obvious and her needs are obvious.

I don't agree with its none of your business. I'd rather be concerned and wrong than not bother and something worse happens.

Actually reading the last few posts I would still seek advice or report it.

For the baby's sake too

the need not to offend you should be put above any duty to mention possible neglect of other children

that doesn't even make sense.I was talking about reporting my child offending me. Why would anybody reporting anybody else's children offend me.
I think you are building a straw man there Lurked

Brioche to be fair you wrote:

'I don't think you need to intervene in this particular scenario'.

Of course it's your business. It's everybody's business. I despair at anyone who says it isn't. Turning a blind eye or assuming it's someone else's responsibility is exactly how children slip through the net.

They may well be on the SS radar, however by reporting it you're either making SS aware or you're flagging up a continuing problem that needs further input.

Yes, report.

I think you should report what you have seen to the school. Write an anonymous letter if you want. They may already know, yes, but equally, they may not.

This business of not wanting to get involved or speak to other people about concerns is one of the reasons both Daniel Pelka and Hamza Khan were not identified as being at the serious risk that they were. In both cases professionals often had concerns running in parallel to each other but never seemed able to join them up together which, according to the hindsight of a Serious Case Review, would have flagged up serious issues.

Even if we're not worried about the year 9 girl, surely we should perhaps be a little concerned about the baby in all this?

I say report. It's a better option than not reporting and you are doing it out of kindness, not malice.

Needs, it is a common misconception that reduced timetables are lawful: they aren't. Far too many schools are getting away with unlawful exclusions because parents accept unlawful practice like this. The same applies to reintegration in school plans if they do not provide for full time education
I know this, I was on a thread only a few days ago arguing against reduced timetables. But that does not change the fact that a huge huge number of children and young people are actually on them. I've had a child of my own on one and in his case it was in his best interests it was for a good reason and it was at my request.

Home education certainly does not have to follow school timetables. Nevertheless, people who home educate should have their arrangements scrutinised by an LA inspector who will expect to see evidence that the child is receiving the equivalent to full time education

That is a misconception, the law does not bestow a proactive assesment duty on the LA it is a reactive duty that can only be used "if it appears that a suitable education" is not taking place. The LA have no powers to assess work or demand any evidence of any description,a parent does not even have the obligation to have meetings with the LA nor allow the child to meet with them. The only time evidence can be demanded (and that would usually be in the form of a parental appointed HE specialist report) would be if a notice to satisfy under 437(1) is issued.

An interesting observation with He is the word 'suitable' is not even defined. And time wise the only actual definition availible is for post 16's and that is 12 hours of supervised study a week.

And of course we come back to the fact that, no matter how many possibilities exist as to the lawfulness of this arrangement, it would have been wrong for OP to assume that to be the case and ignore the situation

I was not commenting on the validity of a referral just the assertion that a child not in school full time always constitutes neglect that was made by a PP

Ring your SS team anonymously. Tell them what you told us and I can assure you they will be very interested. They will almost certainly pay a visit to the family.

Threads like this worry me. Please do it.

Tell SS. They can take it from there if necessary.

Nothing wrong with a 13 year old helping out with younger ones, far from it, but she seems to be in loco parentis, which isn't really ok.

No brioche just going off your posts. You are of the opinion possible neglect shouldn't be reported incase it's got a plausible explanation and may inadvertently piss you or someone like you right off. I'm expressing the opposite opinion, that it's better to report something that turns out to be nothing.
Basically that the duty to the child, trumps perhaps pissing the parent off.

Need I didn't say always and a actually followed the statment with 'if there are reasons, the school will be aware'

You read one sentence. And formed an opinion, not reading the rest of the post.

Fair point well presented. But no opinion was formed I was just saying that not being in school is not always neglect. I did not intend to cast aspersions on your post.

I don't know how many more serious case reviews there have to be before people accept that passing on a legitimate concern about a child to the appropriate authority is the correct and responsible thing to do.

I know families who have had a child with health issues going to school part time. But none of them have farmed out the care of a little niece or nephew to the child who is missing some or all of their school days.

Yes, word on the street seems to be 'this family is a mess, social services know all about them'. However, it's possible that social services don't know everything about them. Messed up families can be very cunning at making sure the various different agencies don't know all the details.

Ring someone at NSPCC OP, if only to know that should the shit hit the fan in the future, you did your best.

But the girl is turning up at the attached primary school in the uniform of teh attached secondary school, during secondary school hours.She must be seen by several teachers on each occasion.Yet you imagine that not one of them will have followed their legal duty to report this?

Weigh up the worse harm that can be done by reporting (hurt feelings ?) vs the worst harm that can befall the 13-yr-old and the baby.