WIBU to have prevented my DC having to (temporarily) share their home with 5 children they don't know?

[LazyMareofEastown]

A few weeks have passed since this happened and I'm just reflecting. It's long and complicated so will try and keep it factual.

I co-parent my DC with their dad. All amicable. He lives a few mins away from me and we do things 50/50 with flexibility on both sides.

We both have partners. I don't live with my DP. EXH lives with his partner. Neither me nor ex have gone on to have any more DC and his partner (will call her B for convenience) doesn't have any. She's a nice enough person and adores my kids.

B's sister lives 1.5 hours away and has a very chaotic lifestyle. Sister has 6 kids (aged from 19 to 8). 4 or 5 different dads, none of whom are involved. She's had intense input from Child Services and the younger kids are on a Care Protection Plan. Between them, the kids have a variety of health conditions, behavioural issues and mental health problems (self harm, gender dysphoria). One has suspected autism but has never been diagnosed as mum doesn't take him to appts. The two youngest (8 and 9) display incredibly challenging (often hypersexualised) behaviour and my two DC have found being around them very difficult in the past on visits to where these kids live. My DS has told me he doesn't like going there.

For added context I work in a job that heavily incorporates safeguarding and have good knowledge of how social services operate.

To get to the point. A HV was done by the police a few weeks ago. Police called SS due to the state of the house and the kids were temporarily removed from the house while mum was questioned re: neglect.

B offered to have 5 of the 6 kids come to stay in her and my EX's house. The house is a small 3 bed with the only spare bed being my 13 year old DD's other bunkbed. DS (7) has a tiny box room (so small they had to buy a non-standard bed).

Ex rang me to ask what I thought. I told him that if this went ahead, I'd be keeping our DC at mine until these other kids went back home. Simply put, I had genuine safeguarding concerns for my DC if this were to go ahead not to mention the obvious overcrowding issue. Obviously they didn't need my consent but Ex was on the same page as me - he just didn't want to upset his partner.

They went back to SWs (I even spoke to the main SW on phone - she tried to guilt trip me into agreeing) and said that I had said it was a definite no.

As I had predicted would happen, SS suddenly came up with a new plan and found a house in the kids home area where B could stay with the kids until they went back to their mum (a few days later - house had been cleaned sufficiently for SS to be happy with this).

Ex told me he was relieved that I had said no as he knew B's suggestion was not a good one (albeit an understandable emotional reaction to the situation). He thanked me for being rational and clear.

B is now being super frosty with me. I'm not massively bothered by this as we're not mates and my kids safety will always be something I'm taking zero chances with but I'm just wondering how it looks to an impartial observer.

Biblical length, thanks for reading if you made it this far.

bellac

I don't know whether you're trying to suggest I'm lying (I'm not) but it's an area with social housing stock so SS out them in a council house. Wouldn't have happened where I live (2+ years even on Band A).

Happy to PM you if you're genuine.

As I've said repeatedly I have zero issue whatsoever with B harbouring resentment towards me. We're not mates. She would never raise any grievance with me because I think she's mildly terrified of me tbh 🤣 yup and thats fine but I sense that exactly what your ex wants..you to be "the baddie" so he can come out smelling of roses everytime he says no to her.

I can't imagine turning away my sisters children in any circumstances - so I think I'm not sure tbh. The needs of ALL the chidlren matter in this situation - not just yours. I totally understand your concerns but sharing with other children in an emergency situation is not going to harm them.

Oinky He won't have gone back to her and said that he was 100% up for it but I ixnayed it. He told her (in front of me) that he was really worried about overcrowding and with the prospect of our DC being disrupted and his time with them being compromised. She knew he didn't really want to go ahead with it. I think me being definitive about it just made it easier for him as he was treating my advice as being as much from a professional capacity (i.e. if you take this kids in it could be for an indefinite period of time) as it was as his kids mum. Hope that makes sense..

I voted YABU
These poor kids have been through enough and by you refusing meant they could have been split up and gone into foster care with strangers.
Fortunately that didn’t happen but it’s very surprising that it didn’t.

Siblings being split up and living with strangers vs your kids not sleeping over at there dads for a few weeks.

I completely see why you’d not want your kids sleeping over but their dad could have still been involved without much impact to your kids.

Wonder

"I totally understand your concerns but sharing with other children in an emergency situation is not going to harm them."

This makes no sense whatsoever. If you understood my concerns you'd see that my kids could very well have been at risk from harm from children who have been brought up with little to no boundaries and who behave violently and express sexualised behaviours.

No way in HELL am I letting my DC be put at risk in their own home.

I feel for the kids but it was an awful idea from the getgo and a far more appropriate solution was found.

"Well your ex is a genius anyway. He knew you'd say no so now you're the bad guy and he didn't have to do what he didn't want to."

Yep. What a wet blanket, not being able to say no to his partner.

YANBU. You prioritised the right children... yours

If B’s children were going into foster care, for instance, the fact that a couple of them have displayed hyper sexualised behaviour would mean they wouldn’t be placed in a foster family with other young children already living there. So OP has every right to safeguard her children in the same way.

You sound over invested in B’s family; how do you know so much about the diagnosis’ of these children and of her Mum? You say your children have never met these kids but seem to know a lot about their personal information; you reference self harm, gender dysphoria, a possible autism diagnosis, hypersexualised & challenging behaviour etc. How do you know her Mum is just ‘highly strung’ and doesn’t have any mental healthy conditions?

If I was B I would feel like your ex has overshared with you as presumably this is where all that info comes from. I’m not saying you were wrong to say no but it seems unusual that you would know so many private details about their lives and medical history etc.

I agree with you completely.

But even if the kids were there due to a different reason (i.e their house being flooded) it would make sense from a practical point of view for your kids to stay with you anyway so would be way too crowded.
No idea why B is being frosty with you.
Don't worry at all

@LazyMareofEastown

bellac

I don't know whether you're trying to suggest I'm lying (I'm not) but it's an area with social housing stock so SS out them in a council house. Wouldn't have happened where I live (2+ years even on Band A).

Happy to PM you if you're genuine.

No Im not saying you're lying but SSD dont have control over council housing allocations. We cant even get parents housed when they are homeless to ensure their own children are with them. Councils generally wont (in fact Ive never known it) allocate a house big enough to someone to accommodate their own children if the children are not already in their care. Its baffling that a council would house a woman with children who are not hers when she was not homeless (and also didnt already have the children in her care). The criteria for a family member to have the care of other children (ie a family member stepping in, in situations like this) is that they need to be able to accommodate them. is this in England?

Or was it a private rental that SSD supported with rent upfront and deposit (but even that is fraught with difficulties and is so rarely done as the tenant still has the pass the credit and financial checks and be able to show that they can pay the rent moving forward, thats not going to be the case here because there is no guarantee that the children would remain with her, they might return to their mother, they might go into care.

Yanbu. Made the correct choice.

@MolkosTeenageAngst completely agree

@PuppyMonkey

If B’s children were going into foster care, for instance, the fact that a couple of them have displayed hyper sexualised behaviour would mean they wouldn’t be placed in a foster family with other young children already living there. So OP has every right to safeguard her children in the same way.

They very well could be placed with other children, just like they will be with other children at other times, like school. However obviously there need to be safe care plans in place and protective factors which the carers would ideally be experienced in or capable of. It entirely depends on the exact need and the match.

so theyve essentially split up for now your ex and b-she lves with the kids an hour away in a council house and they dont know how long for

it would have been wrong to say yes they woud have been there indefinitely once they were settled and no room or security for your dc

Yanbu. She will get over it. Your children's safety is your priority, her nieces and nephews are hers. It is much better that you get the blame than your ex as if he was the one to veto it, then that would just cause tension in your children's other home. I can't see how you could have had made a better decision or achieved a better outcome. It is so much better that exs get on for the sake of kids, so we'll done there it certainly isn't the norm. Although I feel sorry for the other kids, their mothers behaviour is definitely not a reason for you to put your kids in uncomfortable or potentially dangerous situations

whynot

"so theyve essentially split up for now your ex and b-she lves with the kids an hour away in a council house and they dont know how long for".

Nope. As it says clearly in my posts, the DC have now returned home to their DM's care.

@whynotwhatknot

so theyve essentially split up for now your ex and b-she lves with the kids an hour away in a council house and they dont know how long for

it would have been wrong to say yes they woud have been there indefinitely once they were settled and no room or security for your dc

No, she said in the OP that they went back to their mum a few days later.

I'd have done the same, OP.

YANBU at all. You had genuine well founded safeguarding concerns for your children and you said what you needed to protect them.

If that makes you the baddy then if it were me I wouldn’t care. Your kids are more important than what your ex’s partner thinks of you.

Im in agreement with your thinking OP, but I’m missing something..

I don’t understand what you actually said no to, or why you had to say no to.. Surely 7 kids in a 3. Ed house is not something SS would accept as a practicable/workable solution anyway? That’s presuming your kids split time with your Ex would continue for that period.

On the other hand, if B’s kids were to stay there, and yours stay with you - split time on pause - what’s the issue with that?

I just don’t understand what SS had you say no to?

Apologies i misread still think you were right-they did go back very quickly though

I totally agree with your decision.

I don’t see how any of this is even slightly your fault. She’s cross because she’s had to take responsibility for her sisters children, which a big ask of anyone. I don’t blame you for saying no and TBH that sexualised behaviour would worry me, as much as I’d feel for the sisters children, YOUR children matter most to YOU.
Her Mother should have taken them or B could have stayed at her Mothers house WITH the children?

I also work in a field with close ties to children's safeguarding. Those who don't are unlikely to understand why you did what you did. I absolutely agree that your children should not be exposed to the sister's children given the behaviours, the hyper sexualised behaviour in children alone screams alarm bells. I think lots of people will get that, however lots won't realise that social care can be ridiculously slow to act if they don't absolutely have to, so it's very likely it wouldn't have been a few days, it could've been weeks or even months if they were seen to be in suitable family foster together. They are very lucky however to have been found accommodation like that, where I live they would've been split and put in emergency foster, there are women with children in refuge who can't even access housing for months and sometimes years due to lack of housing stock (outskirts of London). I'm sure if that had been proposed you and your ex would've agreed they could stay with him and B and he see your children elsewhere or even at your house if you get along so well.
I really feel for those children being placed straight back with mum, the house night be clean now but what other things are they being exposed to to cause them so much trauma and damage, which is evident from the behaviours you've described.