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.

Here's a really quick way to solve this mystery.

You don't know why SS want the meeting, so if you GO to the meeting you will find out. Problem fucking solved.

I do understand that the court will only discuss the charged offence, and previous convictions.

However it is the police who investigate criminal matters. If SS had knowledge of any criminal offense, past or present, they would have to notify the police. Who would then investigate, pass to CPS, etc.

So the police would know about it.

The police told me upthread SS wouldn't be interested. They wouldn't have said that if there were all manner of failed charges on the background would they? I'd just have been told SS would be in touch, no more.

Or are you suggesting the police are lying to me?!

There are no other charges, no other offences which is why all this is such a waste of time. I've today been advised that SS would normally only be involved if the person convicted lived at the same address, and that this sounds either like they've not read the papers properly or that it's someone being over zealous.

So why don't you go to the meeting and then you will have your answers? No-one on an anonymous forum will be able to help you as none of us know what has happened. Simple when you think of it

Ok. Read what I am writing. I shall try to make it as plain as possible.

SS investigate incidences where children are at risk. Most cases that go to court where SS are involved do not involve the police.

The police are involved when there is a criminal offence and under that remit SS will be involved to speak to the children and their family.

If there had been other charges or indeed incidents with this relative the likelihood is that they would not have been discussed in an open courtroom because those children have a right to privacy.

If there was any other information regarding this individual and children it would be SS that would discuss it with you so they could advise you of how to minimise the risk.

Is that clear enough for you?

The police have got no business telling you what SS are interested in.

That's up to SS.

It doesn't matter if an Schedule one offender lives with you - it's even if they have contact or access to your DC

Why are you convinced this visit relates to the court case?

To be fair to the op, the fully qualified social worker who called me was inarticulate, unhelpful and very rude. He started off calling me "mum" having opened the conversation with are you dd's mum. He was told yes I was Mrs Roses, dd's mother. I asked him not to call me mum so he started using Oh the (my first name).( I asked him to please call me Mrs Roses as he had introduced himself as Mr A.... and I was his equal. He then started calling me Roses without the Mrs.

So actually I don't think SW's present themselves as courteous, polite people always and regrettably that is the sort of behaviour that makes people defensive.

But do comply OP. I would recommend you take an advocate and that you make sure you take a full note of the meeting which sets out all matters raised and action points and send them a copy. You should set out clearly that if they do not respond in five working days that you will assume they accept the note as a correct record of the meeting. Send it electronically and by guaranteed next day delivery so you have an audit trail.

I felt that you went to court to lend support to a relative who was convicted of a criminal offence which caused SS to be alerted. You claim you were giving support using the hope that your good character and professional occupation would encourage leniency. I dont think that was a good idea and if I was your manager I would be having strong words with you. The fact that you could leave work to attend court which is during working hours but cant leave work to speak to SS concerning the welfare of your offspring would raise concerns for me. I am not a SW but csn just imagine how a social worker would view this situation.
Given your conduct of supporting a criminal I would not think you a wholly suitable person for work or child care and protection

Restless, I won't bother to respond as you clearly have an agenda here.

As to going to the meeting, if I decide it will be to the benefit and not detriment of myself and my DC, and if it can be arranged outside of work hours and away from my home, then I'll attend. I won't be attending during work time as I can't afford unpaid time off, and I'm not prepared to have people in my home.

can you update us once they've been?

If SS still see under 18's as children, why was I not given one when I was kicked out aged 16, and I presented at Jobcentre etc. No one cared, they were more interested with threatening me with sanctions, a scared young vunerable girl. No one cared (I even tried a samaritans office, they fobbed me off too)

Don't give me the 'SS only care about the welfare of kids' they don't give a shit..they just live to make parents feel bad about inane shit. That is my opinion, as in I am allowed to feel like this imo..

SS don't care about getting access to your home.

They just want to share information with you.

Most rational folk would appreciate that.

You are being difficult, obstructive and evasive.

I call BS

And what would that agenda be?

Can I ask, do you believe this family member to be guilty?

Because motherofdragons the legislation changes quite recently.

I'm sorry for what you went through.

And people wonder why Jimmy Saville got away with it for so long
Even the parents of children are more invested in the perpetrators of "minor" offences than in keeping children safe.
Well done OP

User, i used prebooked annual leave to attend court. What I do on my own time is my own business it has nothing to do with my employer unless i was holding myself out as a representative of that co (I wasn't) or bringing the company name into disrepute (ditto). No one at court knew who my employer was. It was not put on record.

Annual leave is finite. I have a holiday booked in half term, and time at Xmas. That is all my leave for this year. I do not have spare holiday I can take. I did have one spare day which I used previously for court.

I've been told by SS that they wish to see me re family member/ court. That's why I believe that's what they want to see me about. What they won't explain outside a meeting is how that relates to my DC and what their concerns are.

I'm pretty sure you had to take more time off to attend the court case than you would for this meeting - you wanted to support a family members guilty of a crime, but not your children when SS have a concern and want to discuss it? It's truly baffling.

What if you're wrong? What if your children have been harmed in some way by this person - wouldn't you want to know that? My mum didn't know I'd been abused by a relative until I was about 20.

You seem to be clinging to this idea that because the police told you SS wouldn't be interested SS shouldn't be interested. But SS are interested.

You keep insisting that your children haven't been abused, but SS are interested in a range of things that you might not view as abuse, such as witnessing domestic violence.

You insist also that you know the full background and that anything you don't know isn't worth knowing. However, there might be the merest tiniest possibility that something has escaped you - something that is relevant to SS.

I'm almost at the point of drawing the conclusion that the 'family member' is in fact your boyfriend, who has been convicted of assaulting you, and your insistence on your privacy is to keep SS from learning that your children have witnessed your boyfriend's violence against you. This is, unfortunately, a fairly common scenario. I'm really struggling to see what other possible reason there could be. If I'm right, I hope you will act to protect your children. Also, if I'm wrong, I hope you will act to protect your children.

I wouldn't refuse to engage as surely they are only trying to help. But I would ask that it's either done at a time to suit me or a conference call.

In all honesty I think that this relative is a partner, I think that you don't believe he has done what he's been convicted of and I think you're putting him above the safety of your children and that's why people are concerned.

I may be wrong.

Tammy, I took a days leave. I have no unbooked leave remaining. That's a simple fact. I cannot increase my holiday entitlement at will.

Quite, family member plead guilty to their offence. I accept their plea. Does that answer your question?

Dr Rogers, I would ask for your unpleasantly offensive post to be deleted, but I'll leave it as I think it says far more about you than me.

"I accept their plea" is not 'I believe they are guilty'.

I'm surprised posters are saying that SS are concerned about DV, because as I said upthread my friend who was a DV victim just got a letter from SS (after police were called and carted her partner off) saying they wouldn't take it further. No call or visit. Even though her young DC saw their mum punched by dad. SS couldn't have been less interested.

Anyway this is a different situation and apparently my family is in greater need.

What a weird post. So they didn't help your neighbour so you think it's added hassle? Yay for anecdotal evidence!!
16 year olds are rarely made subject to plans but older children are often linked in if it's a community issue like cse/Vanessa George and dealt with at group strategy meetings.

But hey protecting your kids is really inconvenient