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?

*he is mentally ill, rather than a criminal".

25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis (rate among general public around 4%). 26% of women and 16% of men said they had received treatment for a mental health problem
in the year before custody. 62% of male and 57% of female sentenced prisoners have a personality disorder. (Figures from Prison Reform Trust.)

I am all for destigmatising mental health problems. But before attacking the OP for simplistic, stereotyped views, let's check our own - in particular that if you're mentally ill, you're innocent of crime. Sometimes really bad people get MH problems. Sometimes people have MH problems but still choose to do bad things that cannot be pinned on their diagnosis. Often, it is the same hideous life experiences that can create MH problems in one person, and antisocial/violent behaviour in another. Most people with MH problems are not violent (a bigger problem is others' violence towards them) but if you encounter a violent person with MH problems - well, it's as sensible to want to keep out of their path (or them out of your playgroup) as it would be with any sane violent person.

Does that mean this particular man shouldn't be at this particular playgroup? I have no idea. But I don't think the OP has been remotely out of order to express her concerns.

What a load of politically correct bollocks on this thread

cant disagree with that. I have not castigated the OP, I just made a (very ill informed and not professional!) assessment that I think its very unlikely for this man to harm her child in this setting

but the shit kicking she got, vile

Unless he was foaming at the mouth. I think he's safe enough...

I would say that there is negligible risk here.

The man's illness is under control. He is with his wife. And because she, the group's organiser and Susieqt are aware of what happened in the past, they can (and will) all be vigilant. In general, if you know about a risk/danger, you can protect yourself and your loved ones from it a lot more effectively than if you have no idea that the risk/danger even exists.

Most people with mental health issues are either not a danger to anyone or are only a danger to themselves - people like me. I am not going to harm anyone except myself (and hopefully I won't even do that, as long as the antidepressants carry on working).

And as a nurse, and someone with a mental illness, I believe that, even when someone does have a mental illness that makes them a danger to others, they can be treated - and when their symptoms are under control, they are no longer a danger to others.

But SDT, aren't you making the assumption that whatever this man did was because of his MH, and therefore that if he is being treated, he is no longer a danger? Isn't it equally possible that he is a violent man who also has MH issues?

Anyway, as I say I have no idea whether he is a safe person to have at a playgroup or not. But I think OP would have had a far more sympathetic response if she had posted about a man who was just out of prison for battering his wife. The risk to OP's child would still be negligible, but I think people would completely get why she felt freaked by him turning up to playgroup.

I don't think your concerns are unreasonable, but maybe the tone of the original post.
It's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about a person with a recent violent incident being around you and your child, whatever the reason for the incident. Regardless of the reasons for the incident the outcome is the same. If the man was violent without mh issues the child was in danger, if the man was violent because of mh issues the child was in danger. The reasons are different but the outcome the same. The difference is that with the mh issues the man may not have been responsible for the incident as he was unwell and the illness caused him to behave that way, and the illness can be treated and managed to significantly reduce the risk that it happened again.
Unfortunately this is not always the case as the authorities involved do not always link up correctly or in time to manage the situation and it can be left to family members and friends with no training or experience to deal with the situation, so people don't get the help they need. Without knowing the ins and outs of the case it's hard to say if he would pose a danger to other children - as an example the delusion of the voices could only be centred on that particular child, and I've seen this happen when a person is perfectly rational except in the case of a specific person. That said no one here knows what the specifics are and there may be several reasons why he was with his family at the group.
Incidentally, I have been an inpatient in a mental health unit under a voluntary basis and was allowed out for a few afternoons before discharge, he may still be an inpatient but allowed out under the care of his wife for short periods of time? I don't know if this would apply to a section or not.

OP, I believe that the nursery should have a safeguarding officer to whom concerns are reported and who then liaises with social services.

I would speak to the organiser and ask if you can speak to the safeguarding officer and raise your concerns, giving them an opportunity to explain how they are "handling" the situation (although they may not be able to tell you certain details).

Dorcas - I take your point, but either way, because the OP knows there's been an issue in the past, she can be vigilant now - which reduces the risk in the situation, IMO.

She may encounter other people, when she is out and about, who are either violent people with mental health issues as well, or people who are violent because of untreated mental health issues (but are safe to be around when treated). They won't be wearing badges, and she won't know they could pose a risk (however small), so she might be less vigilant around them than she is around this chap.

What I am trying to say is that knowing makes things safer, in this instance.

To be fair, I am assuming that the OP would have said, if the chap was violent anyway, so that treatment of his MH issues wouldn't have reduced/removed the risk of him being violent towards his child or anyone else. My assumption is that she knows it is his MH issues that caused him to be violent in the first place.

OP, I believe that the nursery should have a safeguarding officer to whom concerns are reported and who then liaises with social services.

LOL this is a playgroup.

It is probably a community group run by a group of (most like women) volunteers.

There is no safeguarding officer, there is no SS liaison, and there is unlikely to be anyone big and strong enough to restrain a large, violent man should the voices tell him to assault a child at the group.

People are willing to take some really stupid risks.

They won't let their child walk up the stairs but will put them in a room with a man who was only prevented, through physical restraint, from killing his own child a week ago.

Apparently it is a bankable certainty worth risking the safety of manybsmsll children that his illness is fully under control and he definitely poses zero risk to anyone

wannabe is right. PC old cobblers all round.

OP YANBU at all. This man, from the information you have provided, nearly killed his own child, deliberately. He should not be there, or even at home with the children. Mental health or not, he is a danger to children, his own especially. For the woman to stay with him, well, what can you say to that apart from she is deluded.

I don't actually believe that anyone on this thread who claims they wouldn't be uneasy about this actually means it. Words are easy when made from behind a keyboard with a username attached.

As for the poster who said that his symptoms are obviously under control, how on earth could anyone possibly know that? From what the OP says it was only a week ago when he almost killed his child, and yet people genuinely believe that his symptoms are under control and he poses no risk based purely on the naive assumption that we have perfect MH provision in this country where diagnosis/treatment/symptom control can all be brought under control within a matter of days to the point that everyone can be assured that there is no risk. What rock some people have been living under for the past few years I have no idea, but it's fairly common knowledge that MH services in this country are severely lacking.

I'd imagine TBH that the group leader has no power to prevent this man from coming to the group, and given she's a volunteer and he has a history of violence she may be afraid to go down that route anyway and neither should she have to. Social services really are the only port of call here. If the baby was seriously injured it may already be in care anyway or under a child protection plan. And SS may already have placed stipulations on this man, doesn't mean he's following them though or that they're aware that he isn't.

I don't actually believe that anyone on this thread who claims they wouldn't be uneasy about this actually means it. Words are easy when made from behind a keyboard with a username attached

Well I live with my adult son who is on depot anti-psychotics amongst other daily medications. He has multiple dx. He self harms severely and is danger to himself, then to others, when he is upset and restraint is necessary. . He requires 2-1 round the clock care. We recently went through a 6 month period where we did not have any family get togethers because the risk was too great and I did not want my young grand children to see certain things.

My concerns arent about the man being at the playgroup. They are solely in relation to the inconsistencies in the OP's posts.

Even though it's a playgroup, I would have thought they need to have a Designated Senior Manager and Child Protection Lead (could be the same person) who has to keep or obtain a written record of any concerns and consult the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). Possibly, like other settings, they have to tell OFSTED at the same time as the LADO.

Anyway, there is no harm in the OP discussing her concerns with the person who runs the playgroup and seeing what that person has to say about the situation...

It's a toddler group, no regulation, no ofsted, it will just be a parent or parents running it. There won't be a safeguarding lead or anything along those lines. As parents stay with their DC they are responsible for them.

Yes sorry didn't see it was baby. So where was baby whilst they were playing happy family at toddler group together? something doesnt add up to me about the whole thing. Not saying op isn't telling the truth btw, just that something about what she's been told doesn't quite fit really.

It is a group run by volunteers, however it's supported by a larger organization. I messaged the leader and she said that the family are getting support from SS (and never contradicted my description of what happened so can only assume what the mother said was correct) but she said she can't really discuss it any further. She did however say wasn't expecting him to be there but she will contact the relevant people to ensure he is allowed and it's safe for him to attend.
And to answer a pp, I don't believe he is a violent person in himself, I don't know him well at all but have been to a few things in the past he has attended and he comes across as a gentle giant type. I think I'll wait to hear back from the organizer to confirm he has been cleared to attend, but thank you to all those who understood my position, the negative responses had me questioning a lot of my opinions (not necessarily a bad thing) but owing to the short space of time and the nature of what he did, I just found it hard to understand he would be allowed to attend that kind of group so soon. I don't know, all I can do is go with my instinct and do what I feel is right.

I used to go to a group run by a well-known organisation. There was one mum who was receiving support from various agencies. She regularly came with a social worker, spent time with the resident HV, etc.

After about a year her dd was removed (she told me when I bumped into her in the park) So it was a very involved and long process.

In this instance it wasn't about MH, but it is very naive to assume that children's' welfare is immediately safeguarded, because it just isn't that straightforward.

It's good that SS are already involved.

I don't personally think you need to be concerned about his mental health status, only your children. Well done for what you've done and for taking all the flack you have had on here

YABU

If a child (and its siblings) welfare isn't immediately safeguarded when theyve almost been murdered by a parent then theres something very wrong with the country isn't there. Mh issues or not.

Hope the leader gets back to you soon OP

"Discobabe I agree, but you only have to look at the news over the past year and all the cases where parents have murdered their children after months and sometimes years of neglect which have been flagged up by numerous individuals to realise that while in an ideal society a call to SS would result in immediate action I.e. Immediate visits and removal of children straight away when things are that desperate the reality is a million miles away from that.

As I said upthread, my DP was placed in foster care when he was seven, but the abuse he suffered before that could easily have seen him in the headlines. And SS, while the family were on their radar, failed to do anything, in fact the family went on to have several more children, it was only the youngest who was removed for adoption as the others were placed in care around the same time.

Moreover, once the mother left the dad, because she claimed he was the only protagonist and she was a victim, went on to have more children who SS weren't involved with at all, not least because she'd moved areas by then. Victim of him she may have been, but I know what she did to her kids, and victim or not the bitch better never cross my path.

Now while this was many years ago, it seems that not much has changed over time. The likes of baby P's mother for instance was considered to be under control of her partner, yet she stood by and let him murder her child seemingly with the knowledge of the medical and care profession. And he's not unique.

So while I would report concerns to SS without hesitation, I would never assume that someone with a history of violence for whatever reason was safe or even that he was on the radar of the right people just because he appeared somewhere and those close to him said it was all ok.