posted for traffic...can I refuse a SS meeting?

[ssquestion]

The circumstances are quite sensitive and identifying so this may be a bit vague.

I've been contacted by SS who want a meeting with me about my DC (over 16 but under 18).

My view is DC are over 16, not at school, not children and therefore don't need child protection. They are suggesting a meeting with me and then me and DC.

Can I refuse? Apart from anything else, I have no annual leave left til Xmas, so if I did meet them I'd be losing a days pay, which isn't great.

Of course I would meet them and your children are old enough to know what family member has done too. You can arrange appointment in your lunch break, first thing/last thing and make up the time. There may be something you haven't been made aware of. I can't imagine SS would want a meeting if it wasn't something important with a risk element involved. Sorry I feel you owe it to your children to go.

If police have been involved and there are children its standard for them to contact s.s. i wont go into details but it happened to me. I had a letter from them but nothing else. I wouldn't worry to much.

The not telling the child really bothers me.

Whatever has happened is obviously serious, it is obviously bad enough that SS have concerns that it may be a problem for young people.

The op has a 17 year old so in the next 10 years could easily have children of their own. If they don’t know the potential risk this person possesses how can they protect their own children in the future? How would the op feel if she was to find out this person had been allowed to babysit for a future grandchild?

My advice is to 'be seen to comply' aswell. I had a horrific experience with SS, but would always advise someone to tread very carefully.
Never go to a meeting alone. Ever. I always had a witness - without him it would have been far worse.
Be very wary.

Yes, maybe do what Oblomov says. Just use the old disguised compliance techique to get them out of your hair, I doubt they'll recognise it.
Make sure you're clear that the important issues here are not inconveniencing you and not embarrassing any adults in your family.
You'll certainly not be the first and defintiely not the last, but hey, don't let those trouble making interfering do-gooders spoil your day.

There is a lot of hyperbole and assumption going on in responses.

The family member has been prosecuted for an offence which was so minor it was dealt with by community punishment. There were no other offences and no failed prosecution.

My DC are perfectly safe. I'm an intelligent person. I don't need someone from SS to tell me how to 'protect' my DC.

The police officer did tell me I wouldn't be contacted. I couldn't give a flying fuck if that seems as one poster says unlikely. That's what happened. Just like at court every single person discussed a community punishment order as a CPO. Even though apparently no one calls them that any more

The legal system doesn't consider them a risk. The police expected I'd get a letter. Much like my friend who was punched in the face in front of her small dc - a 'we've had a report but won't be taking it further'. For some reason SS have decided they need a meeting, even though the police who have all the same info, don't expect it to be required.

I don't need to tell my DC about the conviction. Just like i don't tell them about other family members marital or financial difficulties, or a friend of the family losing their job. Why would I? It's of no interest or relevance to them.

I certainly won't be allowing anyone in my home. I can't meet with SS during the work day as I often have lunch work meetings. Also I work nearly an hour from home, SS offices are over an hour from my workplace. I don't foresee SS being prepared to travel that far, even if I could keep a lunch hour free.

If a meeting takes place (and I've been told I can refuse or at least ask for the scope of the meeting beforehand which they have refused to provide) I will either be accompanied or recording it. Hopefully the next person I deal with at SS will be able to speak English intelligibly, unlike the last one.

You're sounding more obstructive with every post op, your making things harder for yourself and ultimately your children. Your need for privacy is overriding your concern for your children and that is worrying.

If you refuse a meeting, a social worker may visit your children at school or college. Aside from the embarrassment that this may cause to them, it's probably better to inform them of what's happening so they are prepared. They deserve to have the information so they can chose to protect themselves from a possibly risk within their family.

A Social worker who cannot get in touch with you may, (for that read, should) attempt unannounced visits to your house. If you refuse to comply there may be a professionals meeting called, to which safeguarding representatives from your children's school/college, the police, GP's and any other agency involved with your family will be invited. The case will be discussed and a decision will be made in your absence.

Depending on the level of risk and your continued non-compliance a SW may turn up with a police officer who will ask your for entry to your home.

Not looking so private now, is it?

Sorry, wrong 'your/you're' in that post.

No, i didn't know I could refuse.

Thanks to a couple of posters on here I was told to contact organizations who help people in this situation. It is they who have told me my options. I didn't know about those organizations, nor what my options were, when I posted! Surely that's not difficult to comprehend?

I haven't decided yet if I'll refuse. It is an option. There are pros and cons. I may also ask for clarification as to the meeting purpose, which they have this far refused to provide.

What's on your list of pros and cons?

why haven't you told you dc.
I'm saying this because shit happens and people find out and this may blow up in your face if dc doesn't find out from you.so not to worry or wconfrotn something simply to say.you need to tell them something so your aware of it out there incase anything came up you didn't want them ever to feel on the backfoot.then go from there if they seem to need more help with it.
could you contact ss and ask/mention you want to keep your dc out of this person knowledge/life so don't even want them to have to think bout it.therefore haven't brought him/her up and don't want to.so is there anyway you can meet with them as per request but not dc,at least at first and they can outline with you first what they want what they need to tell or help you or dc with.
so your not getting any backs up.not refusing.just as a parent want to be a sprepared as possible and discus what to do next with your opinions counted for the dc.

*The not telling the child really bothers me.

Whatever has happened is obviously serious, it is obviously bad enough that SS have concerns that it may be a problem for young people.

The op has a 17 year old so in the next 10 years could easily have children of their own. If they don’t know the potential risk this person possesses how can they protect their own children in the future? How would the op feel if she was to find out this person had been allowed to babysit for a future grandchild?*

Yes. Exactly what I was thinking.

Maybe Your post is EXACTLY why I put may in bold. I am simply outlining what could happen so the op is informed.

SS are there to help, unfortunately they are so over stretched and underfunded that there really has to be a serious reason why they would offer a meeting. When the help is refused is when suspicions arise. What if the SW in this case thought "oh well, the mother doesn't want to see us, we'll go away" and the children were being abused. We all know from the Victoria Climbie and Peter Donnelly cases exactly what would happen, and e press and people like you would have a field day.

Oh and no one here has said that a referral to SS means that the op doesn't have the best interests of her children at heart. It's the refusal to speak to them that indicates that.

Except we are talking about children over 16. Not toddlers. Young people who are old enough to leave home, live independently, work, have sex, drive. Not a small child who needs safeguarding.

If my DC were tiny, I could see more reason for SS insistence. But at the age they are, it seems unnecessary and jnfantilising.

I think OP needs to realise that this isn't going to go away. Exactly because of Baby P/ Vic Climbe etc, the whole SS petrified of yet another such case, so things bring 'Uber sensitised atm' means tgryoribabky

It has been pointed out to you many, many times on here that they are still children in the eyes of the law, and the law dictates that they are still children in the eyes of SS.

ssquestion yes at 16 they can join the armed force but only with parental consent as they are a child and they can't go to war because again they are a child.

Sorry.
Means they probably won't drop it.
Do I'd :
1)ask for clarification as to what the meeting is about (but realistically you do know that I'm not going to tell you what their concerns are I just don't tell you on purpose)

2. agreed to the meeting with a witness and get it over with ASAP and hopefully the whole process asap.

3. ask for copies of everything and be very careful how you phrase things.

I appreciate in the eyes of SS they are classed as children. I'm not stupid, please don't patronize me.

But drawing parallels between very young children who were abused, and 17 year olds who haven't been, is utterly pointless. There is no comparison!

Is there any possibility that SS actually know something from another source of which you're not aware? You are assuming that you have the full picture, but perhaps that isn't the case?

There's a contradiction between you saying a 17yo is old enough not to need safeguarding/ can join the army but also you think too young/not mature enough to be told of your family member' conviction.

This whole thread would make sense if you would just say what he was convicted of.

My DS had SS involvement at Child Protection level when he was 17. The problem/issue was that they could not do very much because of his age. that is to say, funding for some services was restricted to individuals who were 16 or younger and (if this had been necessary) it would be difficult to find him a foster placement at 17.

However CSC were able to help DS transition to adult services which he needed. They were also involved with our younger DS and, if your son has younger siblings, CSC may wish to ensure the other child/ren are safe.

That said, if DS refused to see or cooperate with CSC, there may be very little we can do practically. Yet, I would be cooperative as a parent.