I have been reported to SS

[mooning123]

I have a DS with ASD and LDs. he is 10 but cognitively much younger well.

anyhow, we went out the other day and whilst I was getting something from the house and DS was waiting outside for a minute, a lady living down the street and her 7 yo DD pass by. for whatever reason, DS dropped his trousers to show his bum to them. he has never done anything before.

Said lady is also a HV and when she passed by today and saw me outside told me, she would (or already has) reported us to social services over safeguarding concerns re DS as he mooned at them and I am clearly unable to keep him safe.

DS is very well looked after. But with a child with SN, sometimes, you take your eyes off them for a moment or two (generally speaking, DS is always with an adult).

I am terrified what will now happen? anybody any insight?

@jenny nobody is saying that isn’t the case but really a ten year old kid doing this is that? I don’t think anyone needs that explaining to them it’s more that some of us question the context of this and others because of their direct experience of what has turned out to be absolute fiascos.
If that’s the case we also need millions and millions more social workers and other MASH professionals, because soon every tom dick and harry will be referring and reporting for something like a child sticking their tongue out or peeing in public when there is no toilet.

Where does it end?

Safeguarding isn’t a Police state.

If they use their judgement and discretion then I’m sure not many of them would have acted in the way the one has here in this scenario. Isn’t that what safeguarding training is also about?

Not at all. It’s about knowing the potential signs and following procedure. No exceptions for “nice families”.

Surely traumatising a potentially innocent family such could have serious safeguarding ramifications in terms of let’s say their non abusive primary carer’s mental health.

Referral to SS shouldn’t be traumatising for families where nothing worrying is going on. The risk of a child staying in an abusive situation justifies any stress.

@hercule you are rather patronising.
If safeguarding is about keeping a child safe in its fullest sense it is also about not striking fear into the hearts of parents who are NOT all abusive. It is about using your bloody brains and judgement and using appropriate language and behaviours so as not to potentially exacerbate a situation or to make what turns out to be a “mistake” something catastrophic for a family.

I see safeguarding as something bigger than just reporting because if it isn’t then it may do more harm than good. If the outcome of the safeguarding intervention is to support and educate then a bad start may totally jeopardise critical engagement and outcomes.

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

Gin From what the OP has said there are no concerns here.
But the point is that we when we report we don't know what other reports or info SS already have. I already posted about how I for something on the minor end to SS, SS were very interested and I heard from the mum the next day in the playground that SS had visited her home within an hour, and had been involved before. It was relatively minor thing, but enough to raise concerns for me. From what the mum said to me, it was a big red flag to SS.

Gin I'm sorry but I really don't think you understand safeguarding at all.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

Sorry you feel patronised (not sure why). My training is crystal clear, though. Not reporting because of the risk you will upset someone is poor practice, and the reason children are left in unsuitable situations.

@purpledaisies there is an entire spectrum of families and people out there.
I’m not saying abuse fits stereotypes or de lgrsonics that would be ludicrous: what I’m saying is that if the ultimate aim is to keep children with their families where possible and that removal is a last resort, then the initial approach is at odds with this. In particular the use of language such as referral and report.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

“Referral” - perfectly neutral language

“Report” - I see what you mean, but actually you report the concern, not the family.

I do understand safeguarding. I also know how mandatory training works and have worked alongside a number of HV and SW to know they tick boxes and dash back, to their jobs that they are drowning in. Sorry but true. And that’s not the worst of it.

I think some of you don’t understand that if you decide to leave a child with their families who have been unsuitable enough to require help via a referral or a reporting - but then need to build a relationship with them for this to succeed - then you are failing with belligerent and deliberately obtuse responses to people such as me and of course ultimately them. If this happens then you are at grave risk of failing a child as much as if you have never intervened in the first instance.

But gin you are advocating practices which all the research and serious case reviews shows leads to children continued to being abused and even killed. What you are advocating does not work. It is how safeguarding used to work a long time ago, and it failed many children.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

The point that the authorities may need to engage more positively with families isn’t a bad one. We still need to report concerns.

‘Referral to SS shouldn’t be traumatising for families where nothing worrying is going on.’

I can assure you it is.

@jen it is still failing them. So what is the answer?

@hercule please don’t talk to me like some middle of the road conservative politician.
“May need to engage more positively with families”
Just a bit.

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

I’ll talk to you how I talk. How’s that?

@makingmammies exactly.

I cannot imagine something much more traumatising than that. It must be horrific.
And it is precisely because the language, approach and ethos of safeguarding needs to be so blanket in its of course right every child matters cornerstone that this occurs. I understand the dilemma, the conundrum,but I feel very strongly that something should be done about this and I am dismayed that safeguarding training, devised by so, these experts cannot find a way to navigate through this, so that when it transpires innocent fs likes have been under scrutiny, that their lives are not destroyed.

@hercule I’d rather you just debated it with me not let me on the head as you were won’t to do in other points with previous posters.

In my view, your previous response to me was something thst a children’s minister in the spotlight would oh let’s say, the aftermath of say a single mother killing herself because the authorities manhandled an issue to so with a report to SS about one or her children.

You know it needs to be done better, but cloaking it in public sector speak such as “could engage more positively” makes it condescending and disingenuous.

you are legally entitled to have a carers assessment - contact National Autistic Society & ask for advice & or local support group

Ginlinessisnexttogodliness

No, I just said what I thought. You don’t get to police my language, thanks.

For as long as sw's, hcps, etc, speak to me like shit, call me "mum", refuse to communicate clearly and articulately, yes dreich I'll be snooty and patronising and have a high opinion. I agree every family should be treated with the utmost respect and the utmost transparency. But they aren't are they? I got a taste forst hand and only because we are wealthy, articulate, well educated did I feel empowered to complain:

About dd not receiving care
About incompetence
About lack of transparency
About waste
About threats made from ignorance of the MHActs and Capacity Acts
About a bitch of a Sister who screamed abuse in public at me because I disagreed with her spin
About a consultant who lied and didn't know what servicea his own hospital provided
About CAMHS who were rude and did nothing but arse cover
About the sw who couldn't speak clear English and called me "Smith"
About the fact that DD got no effective servicea from the state

Yes I will keep kicking up a stink about these disgraceful services because I can and am not disadvantaged. Also because it makes my blood boil that there are thousands of young people like dd whose parents don't have the money to hire the best consultant psychiatrist in London. Dd recovered not due to all these agencies and the state but because her parents are rich and care. I also care about all the young people abandoned by the state who don't recover and whose parents, through fear, go along with it all. The system is an absolute, arse covering disgrace. Many in it need to own up to it.

I think that perception is definitely very real hercule. SWs have a lot of power, and some (no doubt a small minority) will abuse it. Add in a family court system shrouded in secrecy with few checks and balances, and you can surely understand why parents would view a referral with fear.

Additionally, it could be bloody embarrassing, humiliating even, to be placed under scrutiny and assessed as to your ability to parent when since the moment of conception you have sacrificed your own wants, desires, sleep, physical comfort, career, money etc every minute of every day, and poured your heart and soul into bringing up your child properly, and meeting/exceeding all their physical, mental and emotional needs.

In OP's shoes, and indeed any child with a medical or additional need, it very often involves being your child's advocate, developing a level of knowledge and skill to rival any dr, SaLT, psychologist, HV etc in their particular condition (and often over and above it, particularly on emerging treatments) and providing medical and therapeutic services to your own child that are way over and above the paltry 'care'/treatment that is provided by the NHS. To then be put under the microscope by agents of the system that has failed you and your child for years must be galling in the extreme.

Tolleshunt

I absolutely understand.

@tolleshunt summed up in a nutshell. Far better than I have tried to do.

Moving forward however, no hcp/sw etc will ever, ever assume they may use my first name again. It is Mrs Roses. End. Of. And certainly never "mum" "love" "dear". It's called basic respect. My mother taught it to me. Something has gone very rotten.

OhtheRoses that all sounds absolutely disgraceful. It is appalling that only those children with wealthy parents are able to access adequate treatment. It is the same with very young children with suspected ASD, speech delay etc. Despite all the evidence that shows early intervention makes a massive difference to functioning throughout life, children are put on waiting lists of months or more than a year, then given inadequate speech therapy for an inadequate length of time, before being returned to the waiting list for their next go. Those with parents wealthy enough to pay for a private SaLT do much, much better than those who don't. It's a disgrace.

Also, I can't stand being called 'mum' either. It's extremely disrespectful.

roses workers should definitely check you are mum before calling you it.
I'll be snooty and patronising and have a high opinion
I'm not totally sure what having a high opinion means but in general this approach isn't going to lead to successful working with any agency.
I am guessing you don't use this approach to others in your working life?
Individual workers and their response to your outlined approach is a totally different issue to what services are available. CAMHS in particular has chronic underfunding but no amount of patronizing its workers will create more funding.
I would expect social services involvement to be stressful particularly at the start, I'm sure I would find it so.