To think this is a serious safe guarding issue

[Susieqt]

I went to my regular toddler group this morning and I'm aware one of the mums has a partner who was recently committed to a mental health hospital because he was hearing voices and seriously harmed their child. Well this morning HE was at the group with her. I overheard her telling the lady that ran the group he was doing really well (so the organizer is well aware of the issue) but quite frankly I don't give a shit, I don't want him anywhere near my child and I don't think he should be in a place full of children when he has harmed his own! Aibu to think he should have been asked to leave? I honestly can't see that I am BU, am I?

[Cubtrouble]

Everyone's an expert these days are they. OP I totally understand your issue, YOU want to safeguard YOUR child. You are certainly not an arsehole. People seriously need to get a grip of themselves on here. Rude!

However the dad cannot help his mental health issues. Unless he harms the child or anyone else at the group. Like some others have said maybe a lot of what you have been told is exaggerated.

[Susieqt]

Just to clarify, it wasn't a shove or smack of a child, and had a family member not restrained the man the child would be dead (not an overstatement either btw). He said that voices told him to do it.
Sadly the mother isn't the most stable person either imo. But the point about it being a good environment for them both makes sense and to answer a pp it's a large space where the kids run about and play, so although supervised I do normally chat to other mums without a constant eye on my own child as she's old enough to go off with her friends.

[SooWrites]

Would a child who had been 'seriously harmed' even be at a toddler group a week later?

Serious harm to me would involve a hospital stay and a period of rest, would it not?

If he'd been that ill a week ago that he cause serious harm to a child, he would still be in hospital, surely?

[Susieqt]

Just to clarify good environment to aid recovery.

[Susieqt]

The child involved is a baby. They were there with the older one.

[WannaBe]

My DP has a disability because of harm caused by his parents as a baby. No MH but ss put it on file as an accident. They continued to abuse him and his siblings for another seven years before they were removed.

Almost monthly we read about cases where children are murdered by their family members after SS ignored calls, red flags, actual abuse for months and sometimes years, and people weep for those children and ask how it could happen.

And people really think that all the authorities here are that on the ball that they would be safeguarding the child and if they're not then the incident obviously didn't happen?

For all we know there may well be safeguards in place. The mother may well have been told that she can no longer live with him but he may have convinced her that he's better now. Just because they appear at a toddler group doesn't mean everyone is ok with that.

Seriously I would call social services and express my concerns for the safety of the baby as a priority. This may be what SS need to remove the child and safeguard her.

This has nothing to do with mental illness or people's ignorance thereof. This has to do with a man who has harmed his child and is capable of extreme violence. When the lives of young children are at steak the reasons why are irrelevant. It's for the professionals to deal with treatment etc if needed, but for others to safeguard the lives of children who didn't ask to be caught up in such a violent situation.

[WaitroseCoffeeCostaCup]

YAB so ridiculously U I can't even cope. Awful.

[APlaceOnTheCouch]

ime a relative who had a similar episode (ie violence, threats, police and MH professionals involved) was released very quickly with an agreement he would attend follow-up appointments on an out-patient basis. I was shocked that there wasn't more support.

[BusterGonad]

I'm with WannaBe on this one. All I'd care about is my child's safety.

[Natsku]

If he's been released so quickly after such a serious incident then that does sound like a failing of the mental health system and SS if he's been allowed back home.

[frikadela01]

Call social services and report your concerns. I'm an RMN and agree everyone needs more education mental illness and especially the importance of reintegration for those who've had a period of being unwell/hospitalisation. However if it's as bad as you say then no way would he be allowed access to his children in public after only a week (in my trust at least). So either

1. Mum has lied to you about how bad it was
   
2. Mum/dad have lied to mental health services about the incident.
   
3. Mental health services and social services are aware of the incident and haven't actioned it.
   

I suspect 1 or 2 however 3 isn't unheard of.

Seriously call ss and tell them what you know.

[Butlerbabyno2]

I read it as OP isn't saying she doesn't want him there because he has MH issues, but because of the violence as a result of this. I have friends with MH so not for one minute am I judgemental about me or my child been around people with these issues, however MH or not I would not be comfortable with my child been in the presence of someone who has recently committed a violent act, especially towards a child and I think if you looked at yourself honestly at lot of posters would have to agree.

[RavioliOnToast]

I think yabu. He wouldn't have been discharged if he was a danger to the public. Mind your own, OP

[Discobabe]

Agree with soowrites. He's seriously harmed his child but said child is at toddler group a wk later? Serious harm would require treatment and questions would be asked.

If he seriously injured his child I'm suprised he's been allowed back to the family so quickly. I doubt they could even aasess the situation adequately within a wk, presumably there would be police, ss and hcp involvement and many hoops to jump through first?

I think mum has either over exaggerated, or they've not told the health professionals what actually happened in which case the safeguarding issue lies at the mums door.

[DorcasthePuffin]

This thread has got ridiculous. Posters are claiming that the violent incident didn't happen (they presumably know better than the OP, who was told by the mother - whatever happened to 'I believe you'?). They are saying that the incident can't have been that serious (they know that how?). They are saying that the guy must be safe or he wouldn't be out and about. They are saying that the authorities must have agreed that his attendance at a playgroup would be a good thing. There is no evidence for any of these assertions.

I have worked in mental health. I have suffered MH problems myself, and have family and friends who ditto. I think it is the most natural thing in the world to be concerned if you are in the company of someone who was recently violent, especially if you have a small child with you. That would be true whether or not the violent person has MH problems. Having MH problems may explain WHY someone has been violent (though not necessarily), but it doesn't make them less threatening and it doesn't mean you're bigoted to have concerns about your safety.

[madein1995]

YANBU - if he has seriously hurt his chilf and not long ago. In that case id be a bit wary. If we throw out the harming child bit thougg, i think its sad mental illness dictates where he can go. Obvioysly if hes a risk to others something needs to be in place

[WannaBe]

The OP said it was the baby he harmed and it was the older child they brought to the group.

[WannaBe]

And no-one has said that mental illness should dictate where someone can go, but violence should.

If he is not getting the right levels of support then that is a failing of the system and one can only sympathise. But in the meantime if he is a danger to anyone on account of previous actions then this needs to be taken into account.

It's not bigoted not to want someone with a history of serious violence near your child, it's common sense.

[DorcasthePuffin]

To turn this on its head, would people think the OP was being unreasonable if the man did NOT have MH problems?

Because my guess is, if she had come on and said there is a man coming to playgroup, he has a history of violence against his wife and kids, nobody would be slamming her. But because she has said he has MH problems (as have a high proportion of people in prison for violent crimes) everyone has decided she's a bigot.

And before I get trashed, let me be clear: most people with MH problems are not a threat to others. But a lot of people who commit violent crimes do have MH problems, which is why I'm curious about where we put the demarcation line between those who get our sympathy and those who get condemnation.

[HalfShellHero]

I think as we dont know what he did maybe the op is slightly justified in her worries? Maybe the issue is more why is the mother still with him.

[stopfuckingshoutingatme]

The thing is in every situation you will be around people that are

violent
wife abusers
child abusers
self harming
serial killers (maybe the odds are lower)

the only difference is that in this instance, you happen to know that this man once harmed his child.

But in all fairness, what he did was scary and I don't think its unreasonable to feel a degree of fear.

But I think you need to trust the powers that be, and from a risk assessment POV the likelihood of him doing anything is very low - he is mentally ill, rather than a criminal

[MorrisZapp]

I am on lifelong medication for mental health issues. I totally agree with wannabe.

[Mynestisfullofempty]

Discobabe "He's seriously harmed his child but said child is at toddler group a wk later?"

No. The OP has said that the child he seriously harmed is a baby and it's the older child who is at the toddler group.