Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

431 replies

ssquestion · 22/09/2017 09:11

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.

OP posts:
HeebieJeebies456 · 23/09/2017 11:47

Your attitude is disgusting, OP....carry on being obstructive, prejudiced and ignorant.

The family member has been prosecuted for an offence which was so minor
Yea? The law obviously doesn't think so because alongside the punishment, they referred it to SS.
Also, just because there wasn't enough evidence to go for a higher charge/punishment does NOT mean your family member isn't a risk to others.
Reporting 'minor' offences to SS is NOT standard procedure - not unless there is significant past history that flags that person as a risk to others.

For all you know this person has prior relevant history that YOU don't know about, because just like you - your parents chose protecting the criminal over protecting their child!

The fact that you can't even tell us what this 'minor' offence was that you think the law is going OTT on...............says it all really.

I suggest you wind your neck in regards the prejudiced attitude you have....otherwise they will wipe the floor with you.

Original poster
ssquestion · 23/09/2017 11:53

I haven't said my DC aren't mature enough to know. It's of no relevance to them. I don't care for gossip or chit chat. I don't discuss anyone's personal business. A friend is likely to be made bankrupt soon and will lose their home. I've not discussed this with DC, or friends or family. When they move, I will mention it to DC, as they know them, but I won't discuss their finances because it's irrelevant to them. And it still would be if my DC were 27 or 37. It has nothing to do with age. This situation is the same. There's no need for them to know.

OP posts:
HeebieJeebies456 · 23/09/2017 11:59

No - it's not the same.

This is FAMILY member, a convicted CRIMINAL with some form of PRIOR HISTORY who has free/unsupervised ACCESS to your dc.

Are you so dense and lacking in comprehension that you can't understand the difference between this and some stranger you've stuck up a friendship with?

I guess speaking fluent English doesn't guarantee you have the intelligence to understand it.....

RestlessTraveller · 23/09/2017 11:59

You do realise that not just young children get abused don't you?

Original poster
ssquestion · 23/09/2017 12:01

Pray tell how I've been prejudiced and ignorant? I'm very interested to know.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the law"? The criminal justice system has investigated and imposed a minor penalty. You will I'm sure appreciate the courts have a plethora of sentencing options open to them. In my view it's pertinent to highlight this was one of the lowest penalties that could be imposed.

There is no prior relevant history. If there was, the CPS would have raised this in their case/ at sentencing. I was there, that didn't happen Smile

Moving on, the 'law' hasn't decided there is a risk. The legal system has not been involved with my DC. The police have no interest. SS, who are not the law, have said they require a meeting but have not been prepared to say what this concerns. Those are the facts.

OP posts:
RestlessTraveller · 23/09/2017 12:03

A few years ago I was giving a training session to the adults in a community group who also had child members.

I was teaching them how to recognise the signs of abuse and what to do about it. A woman was visibly resistant through the whole session and eventually folded her arms, shook her head and said "I think what happens in the home should stay in the home". You remind me of that woman op.

AtSea1979 · 23/09/2017 12:07

OP just go to the god damn meeting and stop being a muppet.

stitchglitched · 23/09/2017 12:08

Your children are over 16 now, but is it possible there are concerns that they were exposed to harm by this family member when they were younger? Depending on the offence of course.

Original poster
ssquestion · 23/09/2017 12:08

There is no prior history. The family member doesn't have free and unsupervised access to DC. They visit with us occasionally, as a family. Family member has never visited just to see DC, and not me - why would they?

Restless, you referred specifically to the case of 2 very young children. That is of no relevance.

My DC haven't been abused and are at no risk. They are over 16 and therefore legally able to engage in sexual relationships with their peers; whether they do or not is not a matter for SS.

OP posts:
OhTheRoses · 23/09/2017 12:10

OP when dd was 17 she took a tiny overdose and sent to A&E to check herself out physically 26 hours later because she regretted it. The law is complex but not difficult to understand for 16-18 year olds. We were reported to SS (I was upset about it) and got a call from someone who asked if we needed support but couldn't articulate what that support was. He was difficult to understand and addressed me by my surname so actually a bit of a pig. Therefore not so SW's are nice or particularly competent. I got a letter saying case closed and I raised a formal complaint about his attitude and manner and sought and received a helpful explanation from someone senior in children's services.

Had the case not been closed I would have complied but would have done so through my solicitor. I think it would have been money well spent.

rizlett · 23/09/2017 12:13

Perhaps SS are asking for a meeting with you which has nothing to do with your relative and subsequent court case.

Perhaps your almost adult children have spoken to SS independent of you and the subject is something they wish to discuss with you.

Perhaps your dc feel they are at risk and SS are in agreement and want to notify you of this.

ziggzagg · 23/09/2017 12:13

In addition to @RestlessTraveller post above about escalation, I would like to point out that if SS think you are deliberately resisting and failing to safeguard your children, a referral to your Local Authority Designated Officer could be completed. You said you were in a professional position and if there is any safeguarding requirements to your job or contact with vulnerable people, this would lead to an investigation into your ability to do your job. Refusal to engage could have massive implications not only for your family but your career also.

Just arrange a meeting, I always work around people's jobs etc if I'm that concerned I will work late to ensure the children are safe and have the correct support.

Original poster
ssquestion · 23/09/2017 12:14

Restless, let's hope you're not the representative of SS I'm dealing with then.

Clearly I should be tugging my forelock and begging for advice, because clearly SS must know more about the criminal case than I do, even though I was at court and they weren't. And more about my DC and my family member. Except they don't. Which is why when I was first contacted they asked when family member came to live at our house. They have never lived here...that apparently was a 'mistake'.

OP posts:
RestlessTraveller · 23/09/2017 12:14

I used those cases because they are examples of why this will simply not go away, not because I was making any distinction on age. I also think you know this and are deliberately misunderstanding me.

The fact that you are still allowing this individual back into your home whether or not he has unsupervised access to your children is of huge concern. Why would you do that? And without giving them the information to protect themselves?

QuiteLikely5 · 23/09/2017 12:15

SS are the law when it comes to Child Protection.

It's all well and good you giving it large here but the fact is they probably want to share information with you that they feel is in your best interests to know.

You don't 'know everything' already so pipe down

RestlessTraveller · 23/09/2017 12:16

SS may well know about other incidents with this individual that you don't, though.

helpfulperson · 23/09/2017 12:17

You keep pointing out that your 17 year old is not a 'child'. Be aware that this may mean that SS will approach them directly with information if they think it is important enough with another adult present to act as 'competent adult'

RestlessTraveller · 23/09/2017 12:17

And what is wrong with my representation of SS?

QuiteLikely5 · 23/09/2017 12:17

If he is a Schedule one offender then they need to ensure that all children he has access to are protected. They do this by contacting parents of said children.

You may have been in court but you have not seen a full breakdown of this mans criminal history. FACT

HeebieJeebies456 · 23/09/2017 12:19

Ignorant - for judging this CRIMINAL harmless despite not having their FULL PAST RELEVANT HISTORY.
For assuming YOU know more about child safeguarding than SS and the law.
For trying so hard to avoid their involvement and bad mouthing them despite not knowing why they want to meet or what exactly they want to discuss.
For assuming that the non-native english speaking person receptionist had the authority to tell you pertinent, confidential details about the 'case'.

Prejudiced - For tarring SS - and thereby all social workers - with the same brush despite not having had any relevant personal experience of their efficacy.
For the way you speak about someone who does not speak fluent english. That individual obviously spoke english well enough to get the job and be given that responsibility.

OhTheRoses · 23/09/2017 12:19

Why can't they provide an agenda for the meeting then Quite likely.? They aren't the law. The law is determined by statute and decisions relating to DC would be taken by a judge in the court of protection or family court. Not by a social worker although if it got that far I'd sell everything to fund a barrister if I had to.

Original poster
ssquestion · 23/09/2017 12:22

Ohtheroses, I was called by the wrong name and title. And the caller laughed when I asked them (politely) to address me correctly. I asked for the call to be listened to, but as no calls are recorded, jt was my word against thelrs.

There is no safeguarding requirement to my job, nor do I work with vulnerable people.

OP posts:
OhTheRoses · 23/09/2017 12:26

To be fair op when I called and asked to speak to someone more senior they were very helpful and explained the referral and provided reassurance.

QuiteLikely5 · 23/09/2017 12:26

SS don't have to provide an agenda! This is not a business meeting.

It is in relation the the welfare of a child.

SS are there to uphold the law in regards to the protection of children. FACT

SS do build cases where it is evident that abuse is occurring - in the same way the police do. SS do not arrest people but they provide evidence to the courts (same as the police) in relation to child abuse.

stitchglitched · 23/09/2017 12:29

Is family member actually boyfriend then? Since SS assumed they'd moved in and they have specific concerns about your children.