To think that an 8 year old is far too young to be responsible for two 4 year olds and an 8 year old in an unsecured park.

[Aeroflotgirl]

I went to the park with my ds 4, to the park at about 7 pm, there I spotted a man with a bunch of kids, and thought some were with him. After a while he left the park with his ds, it transpired from the kids telling me voluntarily that the oldest child who was 8 was in charge of a bunch of very young children, which I feel is totally wrong, and irresponsible of the parents of these kids. I left at 7.30 and the kids were still playing. The 4 year old described where he lived, it was not near.

Surely this is not safe and fair on this 8 year old.

Oh right Paul and how would they know I wonder..........I don't feel bashed at all - as I said I know how the police and social services operate. I act as a consultant to newly qualified social workers, so I am far from out of date.

I do be your pardon everyone I only read the OP - I didn't realise she'd added more information.

Does anyone think there could be an adult/older sib/GP waiting in a car or on the park playing tennis..............no I thought not.

I quite like the mice and rabbit pictures

Blimmincheek sorry should have said three younger children, its in a later post by the OP.

Or rather, NanaNina , sorry, lack of sleep!!

I act as a consultant to newly qualified social workers

Yup, terrifying Rhonda.

I'm afraid there are too many damaged individuals who are the product of so-called "good enough" parenting. I see them every single day, trying to fix to make perfect in an imperfect world. Look at the threads on here; MN has numerous daily posts from adults who were damaged beyond repair by sub-optimal parenting. Honestly, it's very sad to see people who weren't outright abused but very damaged nonetheless. The system fails these people later in life too as they try to access help as adults and find it's not there either. Why does society accept this? We could put some funds and resources into giving families better lives; lift them out of poverty and give them the tools to create their own happiness. Fuck that though. It's easier to look the other way when we see small things like the OP describe and then shake our heads at the "useless" social workers when a child is murdered. We can't stop children being abused and killed. We can put preventative strategies into place before it gets to that and maybe a child or two can be saved. How many SCRs identity missed opportunities from various services?

I wouldn't leave my two year old to be supervised by another child in my back garden never mind at the park.
Accidents happen. Kids aren't responsible. Parents are

"Purplerain you might be interested to know that Judges in care proceedings very often return the child to the care of the parents on the basis that the parenting is "good enough"

And a few recent cases have come to light where a child has been removed from parents, then returned, only to be murdered by that parent!

"NanaNina As if SWers aren't vilified enough by the media, you're making an embarrassment of yourself"

^This. I think your attitude shows why social services are failing so much, and why so many children are dying needlesly.

Warning this is very grim reading:
www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/case-reviews/2014/

"It's very sad but it is not the fault of social workers"

Was there not talk after the Rotheram abuse scandal, that social workers could be held accountable for missed opportunities/not doing more sooner?

NinaNana, I think you should do some soul searching. Maybe you've been in the job too long, and don't see neglected children as small, vulnerable, hungry, lonely, scared little people. Have you stopped using your empathy and putting yourself in the childs position?

I think you should contact the on call SW - just to let them know. The info could be on the system.

Odd occasions like this can get missed. However, when you get multiple records against the family ie. children left unsupervised - when there are other reports of ie. domestic violence, missed school, reports of substance misuse etc.

This family may already be known to Ss. Any concerns about any child SHOULD be recorded .

It's true, belly.

Often it's that one piece of the jigsaw that makes the overall picture.

Hi belly, I have no details of the families, and when I went back, they had gone. I am shocked about some of the responses here, in Noway is it right for a yiu g chikd to be responsible for 3 chikdren, especially under 5. No parents were there, the girl said they were with her, when I asked, so I assume no other adults about. She is only 8, and not keeping her eye, quite obviously on them at all times, you would not expect her to, she's only 8. At one point one of the 4 year olds wandered off to find his ball, she had not noticed, and came back. It's hard enough for a responsible adult to keep tabs on boisterous preschoolers, let alone a young child. Yes if I encountered that again, I will be calling the Police, it is neglect!

Yes something can quite easily happen when you have 3 preschoolers in the care of an 8 year old who is not really keeping an eye on them.

That's a brilliant idea Belly - you wouldn't get through to an "on call" social worker, but a Customer Service Advisor who takes details and decides if it's something to pass on to a social worker, and then the social worker has to run it past her manager to make a decision about the referral.

SO - you get CSA "I am concerned about some children in the park"
CSA: What is the nature of your concerns
You: They were on their own - there were 4 of them - 1 aged 8 and 1 aged 2.
CSA: Do you have the name of this family?
You: Er, no.
CSA: Address?
You: No
CSA Were the children distressed?
You No (we have to assume they weren't as Op hasn't mentioned this)
CSA Were they dirty, unkempt?
You: No
CSA: Do you know if there was an adult with them in another part of the park?
You: I don't know
CSA: Could there have been someone in a car waiting for them
You: I don't know.

CSA ends call, and the referral would go in the bin! Social workers can't log details when there are no names, addresses etc.

I know so many of you think you know how social services and the police operate but you don't (well most of you don't) and yet you spout all this tosh as though you know. You are way off the mark. Even if the caller had the names and addresses of these children, the SW may phone the school to see if there were concerns or ask the HV. There is something called a threshold for intervention and at the extreme end it would be a call from children's A & E about a 6 week baby with skull fractures and a mother giving an account that didn't match the injury. Obviously that would be picked up and dealt with asap.
People ring in with all sorts of things (some a genuine cause for concern) others way off the mark (like the children in the park)

Oh and whoever posted that info from NSPCC - are you sure that is not confidential information - in an event I don't think it's appropriate data to be included on this public forum.

nina they little girl told me no adult was with them, yes I am certain they were on their own. There are no car parks near, it's in the middle of green land. No they do not looked distressed but that not the point. Our SW said that without details they coukd not do anything.

Tbh I would rather do something, than nothing at all.

Well of course they couldn't do anything without details - that was the point I was trying to make.

FGS - how can details be logged when there aren't any details??? Is the SW to look in her crystal ball. And the OP doesn't know if there was an adult in another part of the park, in a car in a car park etc.

You've totally misunderstood me about the fractured skull - I was trying to demonstrate the threshold for intervention. There has to be a threshold as social work time is not infinite - in fact it's very scarce as it happens - with 25% vacancy rates. If a case doesn't meet the threshold for immediate intervention, but there is still cause for concern, then other measures are taken as I tried to explain above, getting in touch with the school/HV/school nurse etc. Visits are often made to check things out with varying results. Some referrals are malicious but they're pretty easy to spot.

If someone knew the names and addresses and ages of these children, it would not meet the threshold for immediate intervention. Calls would be made to the schools to see if there were any concerns, HV given there was a 2 year old. If concerns were being expressed then a visit would be made to check things out and parents warned not to let children out unsupervised. BUT the fractured skull case would take precedence. Got it now?

Got it now?

So, just remind me again, nananina, you are a consultant working with newly qualified social workers? Is this how you'd speak to them?

Your attitude towards people with genuine concerns, discouraging them from sharing their concerns even if children's services can't take it any further, saying the record of their genuine concerns would be thrown in the bin, frankly stinks.

Ok I've had enough of this thread. Interestingly quite a few posters early on said they thought the OP should mind her own business and it was only when I said I was a retired SW (though now work part time as a consultant) that people started being nasty (some more than others) so good byeeeeeeee

Actually in my town if I called the police saying there were unattended 2 and 4 year olds in a park with no adult visible, they would send a car over immediately to take a look and make sure they were ok. Joys of local community policing. our police force is well funded and not overstretched though.

I do hope no-one is deterred by nananina from reporting concerns about children's welfare.

She may present herself as the expert on children's social work and imply that no one on here knows anything about it but she's wrong.

The rude and dismissive manner she claims is a typical response to a member of the public phoning in for advice simply isn't typical of any social worker I've worked with in ten years.