Anonymous report to SS

[toolaidbackperhaps]

Nc for this so not outed.

I received a phone call from the social services department on Friday, following an anonymous report that dd had a black eye.

Dd did in fact have a black eye, which she got my running into her sister playing tag. The man on the phone was lovely, I answered a few questions and he was happy with everything I said, he claimed it matched up with everything the school had said too when he called them and there would be no follow up.

I am not bothered about this at all. I feel in a weird way it's good someone was looking out for my dd, and as it was a genuine accident I know I have nothing to worry about. I'd rather they checked 100 innocent reasons than miss 1 genuine abuse case.

My friend was with me when I got the call and she is really worked up! Said I should be looking in to who reported me, go down and speak to the school to ask them, she thinks it's disgusting that someone thinks I've deliberately hurt my dd. I've told her that's not the case at all and they have to follow up any reports. She couldn't believe I was being so calm about it all and said I was too laid back.

AIBU for not getting more worked up about this? I'm more worried now because of my friends reaction than I ever was about the call itself. How would you feel/react?

All child protection guidance recommends talking to the parents before involving SS unless there is a likelihood of talking to them putting the child in danger.

That means immediate danger of harm. SS won't take referrals from schools unless the parents have been informed first (with the above exception).

The basics of CP is to work with the parents wherever possible. That isn't always possible obviously. But in the case of a well child, no concerns, an injury that has a reasonable explanation, the school wouldn't be following guidelines if they just handed it over to SS.

Do people really consider the check made on the OP's child adequate? There are lots of posts saying its great that someone checked up, they wouldn't mind it happening to them, thank goodness for this sort of thing etc...

But what exactly has happened? Someone has called the OP and asked her a question. No one has spoken to the child, the child has not been examined. Its purely on the OP's word. Pretty much 'are you abusing your child' 'no' 'ok then, thanks for your time'

Its not safeguarding is it? Its box ticking and would have zero impact on the life of a child who was being abused.

It's interesting that someone would report a child for having a black eye. It's so visible that I would assume the child has run into something or has been bashed by accident. My DC had a shiner of a black eye only a couple of weeks ago and I was fretting about it to my childminder as it looked like he'd gone 12 rounds and my childminder said she'd always be more concerned about bruises on a child's torso and her training has always directed her to look for that.

Excellent post MrsDV, completely agree

You should link your friend to some articles about Baby P, or Daniel Pelka, or Victoria Climbe. Absolutely heartbreaking, rage-inducing stories of abused children who never had anyone look at them and think "I wonder if they're okay".

As a PP says, this isn't true. All three were known to social services and being monitored. Peter Connelly in particular was being closely monitored when he died and his death was arguably more a failing of the medical services and the police than social services.

OP I think YANBU. Someone was concerned and took action, SS did their duty, end of story. It's an example of the system working.

"I'm going to go against the grain here and say it isn't lovely that someone reported. Why wouldn't you speak to the family first? Unless you are clearly the sort of person who would punch someone else for asking, surely nosey parker should have spoken to you first?"

Because all the advice given by Social Services is that you shouldn't approach a family directly if you have concerns. You could be putting a child at grave risk.

We get to hear in the press about the sensational cases of extreme abuse where it really should have been obvious to everyone that something was badly wrong. But there are plenty more cases that never reach the press. In some of those situations, a parent can seem absolutely loving and 'normal' in public, but can be very abusive at home. If you alert the parent to your concerns, they could hurt the child further as punishment.

(I should clarify that I mean 'concerns of severe harm')

I would be like you. I'd rather someone report falsely and answer any questions than have someone feel they can't step in because "they don't look like the type" there is no type and a report of a concern could save a child's life.

Completely agree mrsdv

Thinking back a bit one of the general things we spoke about on the phone was if dd had any absences recently. She had been off school for a week (valid and authorised absence) and it was after that dd returned with the black eye.

I'm wondering if someone noticed the absence and then the black eye and though the two together were cause for concern? After speaking to the me, ss would have realised the reasons were valid and my story matched what the school had told them.

That sounds more reasonable for reporting to ss than just the black eye alone, but agree if they had just asked dd she would have told them exactly what happened (and taken pleasure in blaming her sisters hard head).

If the week off was directly followed by a black eye this would make more sense to be concerned and I would accept that looked suspicious and wouldn't be as bothered about the call.

Well I would rather doubt someone I knew and made a report, rather than ignoring it and a child continued to be abused.
It's not as if it was made up. Your daughter had a black eye. It's been followed up, stories matched and No harm done.

You are being very sensible about it. Good on you.

helena but hasn't that happened here?

The OP has answered the phone nicely, articulately and she and her family are not known to SS. She doesn't 'sound the type' to punch her child in the eye and has therefore been discharged without further investigation.

(I am not hinting at anything too, I believe you).

Sorry to bang on but crap safeguarding is worse than none. It gives a false sense of security, a feeling of 'job done'. Someone with concerns can check up and see that another professional has assessed the family as NFA and will be reassured.

THAT is how the Victoria Climbes, Baby Peters and Daniel Pelkas happen.

I am sure everyone who says they wouldn't mind a quick phone call means it. But that isn't the same as a phone call, unannounced visit when you are having a bad day, being questioned, your child being questioned, someone looking in the DC's rooms and poking around your kitchen, your HV, GP and school being questioned, no one giving you answers or any sort of reassurance and this going on for weeks and weeks.

All of the above may be entirely necessary to protect children but please don't kid yourself you wouldn't be upset or unsettled by it. And the above only describes an initial assessment.
They could insist on a further 6 week assessment where your parental capacity would be examined and all kinds of restrictions 'suggested' to you.

Based on one person calling SS with a plausible concern.

Again, these things HAVE to be in place to protect your children but I always cringe when I see people glibly proclaim that they 'wouldn't mind'. Of course you would. You would be devoid of normal emotions if you breezed though all that without a care.

I'd be a litype stressed about it but iv nothing to hide so would be ok

Having nothing to hide doesn't mean they won't put you through the same intrusion as someone who does though. Its like you think those who find it shattering must have something to hide.

This is not me scaremongering or SS bashing. I have to make referrals myself.

Do not dismiss this process as easy to deal with. It isn't.
So when people insist 'no harm done' they are being incredibly naive.

""All child protection guidance recommends talking to the parents before involving SS unless there is a likelihood of talking to them putting the child in danger.""

I've never heard that advice and it's contrary to what Family Support, School and other agencies are told.

You 'chat' as in "oh that's a bed bruise", but not necessarily question the Parent.

This isn't a 'tick box exercise', the School has given information and probably the family GP. Then the Parent's explanation has been accepted.

This is a considered a 'First Contact' with this Family and will be recorded and the School will know this.

Any more would be heavy handed.

I am not suggesting anyone investigates. Initial questioning is not the same as trying to get to the bottom of something.
But guidance does say that you should include parents in the referral process and they should be made aware of every stage. Their agreement should be sought.

This is fairly standard wording:

The parent(s) and the child (where appropriate) should be consulted prior to a referral being made. In most situations, concerns should be discussed with the child (as appropriate to their age and understanding), and with their parents, and their agreement sought to a referral being made. However, agreement should not be sought if doing so would place the child at risk of Significant Harm. Where it does not place the child at increased risk of Significant Harm parents should be informed that a referral is being made.

Of course its a tick box exercise. The child hasn't been seen by a medical professional or been spoken to by SS.

In the OP's case that is fine. Lets not pretend this is effective safeguarding though.

It was not the school who reported the OP. If it had been, they would be duty bound to have told her as is was a professional referral. As they carry more weight than a random one, they have a duty to inform you they are reporting.

Much more likely to have been a parent in the playground, as they would also know the school to be able to inform SS of this. SS then ring various people who have contact with your child/children to see if they have any concerns.

In this case, the school seem to have known it was an accident, informed SS of this, then SS phoned the OP and she told exactly the same story, so all was well.

Had the school said 'This child always has bruises for one reason or another', SS would have probably looked into it deeper.

It's the friend covering her ass.

YANBU to be taking it so well but I can also understand why your friend is so upset on your behalf. Your DD has got a black eye, which is a perfectly normal injury for a child to get and yet someone has felt it serious enough to call in SS.

So, it's either someone who knows you enough to have your details but doesn't know you enough to speak to you about why your child has a black eye or it's someone who knows you enough to have your details and to speak to you about it, but have chosen to get SS involved instead.

If it's the former, why on earth would they get SS involved over a lone incident? If I see a child of an acquanitence with a black eye/cuts and bruises/arm in a cast etc with no other injuries or signs of it being anything other than a one off childhood accident my first thought isn't "They could be being abused, I should call SS!" but "Oh dear, they look like they've been in the wars! I hope they're okay, poor thing!". If the child has a history of this kind of injury or there are other concerns, I might consider speaking to SS but that would be on the basis of all the evidence, not a one off injury.

If it's the latter, why would they not talk to you first? Why go straight to reporting to SS when a quick "Oh DD's eye looks nasty!" "Her and her sister were mucking about and she got hit in the face!" type conversation with you or even directly to DD would clear up what had happened. I had multiple operations on my eyes when I was a child that would often leave me with bloodshot eye and bruising of the eyesocket and the amount of shop assistants or random people in queues who would see my face when I was out and about with my mum and fuss "Oh dear, have you hurt your eye? What happened to your eye, my love? You're so brave, that must hurt! etc" but purely out of genuine concern for seeing an injured child than because they were assessing me for SS intervention!

So in cases of suspected abuse do SS just phone parent up, ask what happened and check in with school? Obviously no abuser would turn around and say "yeah I punched her".

Wouldn't bother me,or anyone else imo who has nothing to hide..I'd actually be glad people cared

I disagree. Being accused of abuse, of abusing a child is a serious allegation. The insinuation, that a person has such concerns about said child, that they think this child is in immediate danger, at risk, is not a petty accusation.

Quarkin it's a case by case thing. In this case the allegation was the black eye and possible suspicious absence from school. So they rang the school first,cleared the absence and how the child said black eye happened,whether there are any other concerns etc then rang the mum. Op confirmed everything the school said and this was fine. If OP had a completely different story, or the school had other concerns etc then other steps would have to be taken.

""All child protection guidance recommends talking to the parents before involving SS unless there is a likelihood of talking to them putting the child in danger.""

I've never heard that advice and it's contrary to what Family Support, School and other agencies are told.

That's the process in our LA. If we have concerns about a family but the parent doesn't consent to us contacting SS, we can't do a referral unless we feel the child is at significant risk. Often, what we consider enough concern to make a referral without consent still doesn't meet the threshold for it to go through. It also feels like lower level cases (children being impacted by parental MH or drug use but not 'significant risk of harm') don't get any support because the parents don't want it, but we see the children suffering or being impacted by it. So frustrating.