To think this guidance on the safeguarding network is awful ?

[Nurserypractitioner]

Perplexing presentation and FII :

It states in the guidance for schools to basically be suspicious of parents -specifically mothers seeking a diagnosis of ASD or ADHD and then goes on to say about parents who think their child may need an ehcp??!!

A lot of children with ASD mask at school - so if an educational setting see a different presentation that’s probably due to masking yet they are saying it’s potentially a safeguarding issue and could be indicative of FII??? AIBU to think this is dangerous advice ?

I don't like this at all. I have 2 dc's with ASD (not a mental health disorder as stated in that document).
With dc1, his nursery teacher couldn't 'see' his autism so his diagnosis was delayed, thankfully his primary 1 teacher, paediatrician, Ed psychologist etc all 'saw' it and he finally got diagnosed aged 6.
Dc 2's ADHD...school couldn't 'see' it. Me and his paediatrician could, but it needed a 3rd input. This lasted until he was 12, when we (him and me) discussed taking medication over a few sessions. It worked, so the paediatrician was able to diagnose ADHD from that and the history we were able to provide.

Schools don't see the whole picture. They will see a performance of our children.
A performance they drill into them. Sometimes it slips, as in my ds2's case. He ran out of school a few times, but my ds1 was as quiet as a mouse in school and slipped under the radar, as admitted by his school.

We are our children's advocates.
Not pushy fussy mothers!

I agree - I’ve read about genuine cases of MSBP and it seems to be about increasingly invasive procedures and degenerative conditions - ASD and ADHD are too variable and with no treatments as such it isn’t in keeping with genuine FII/MSBP? So I feel there’s another agenda ?

I’m not sure I see the issue op. Id understand if this was an article about ASD and referenced FII. But it’s an article about FII and gave ASD as an example. I’d agree that FII is probably very rare, but do you not believe any parents push for incorrect diagnosis for their children?

That's not what it says.

How the fuck is your average school teacher even qualified to judge if a parent has FII?

As a way to explain their dc's behaviour as they were struggling to accept their child is experiencing significant attachment and trauma based on their life experiences.

Part of the difficulty there is that there’s huge crossover in presentation between developmental trauma, ASD and ADHD, and all can occur in the same child, and many professionals simply don’t have the knowledge and experience to differentiate between them.

There’s also a tendency with developmental trauma for professionals to tell
parents their child just needs safe, secure parenting (which effectively blames the parent for their child’s difficulties) which flies in the face of current research. While there’s not much support around for kids with ASD/ADHD there’s much less for developmental trauma, and what there is has to be fought for from a place of knowledge, which many parents don’t have especially if they have their own trauma history. Our local neurodevelopmental unit now assesses for the whole spectrum of neurodevelopmental issues including trauma, ASD and ADHD, which seems a much better fit than not assessing a child because they have a trauma history.

They're not, they're just expected to have some awareness so they can recognise and refer if appropriate. Similar to exploitation, they’re not experts but they do need some understanding to recognise potential signs.

This is exactly why so many parents of children with SEN are absolutely broken. The system is rotten and they try to shift blame and suspicion onto parents who are just trying their best to get help for their child.

I don't understand why so much stuff is getting lumped in with FII, like where it says "The second motivation is based on the parent's erroneous beliefs, extreme concern and anxiety about their child's health (e.g. nutrition, allergies, treatments). This can include a mistaken belief that their child needs additional support at school and an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP)."

As far as I understand it, extreme anxiety about your child's health, mistaken beliefs about it, and misguided attempts to deal with is, are not FII. I thought that FII was knowingly inventing or actively producing fake symptoms of an illness, in yourself or someone else, for some kind of nonfinancial gain. If it's for financial gain, it's just malingering. If you're mistaken about there being an illness due to extreme anxiety or obsession, then that's probably some sort of anxiety disorder. If it's symptoms your body produces for psychological reasons, but you're not doing it on purpose, then it's some kind of functional disorder or conversion syndrome or hysteria or whatever other term is current at the time. If you're giving your kid your own prescription blood pressure meds because you genuinely think they have ADHD and you truly believe it might help, it might be really fucking stupid but it's not FII. Surely?

If you're giving your kid your own prescription blood pressure meds because you genuinely think they have ADHD and you truly believe it might help, it might be really fucking stupid but it's not FII. Surely?
No it’s physical abuse in the form of poisoning, which would be a clear child protection concern.

I thought the diagnosis criteria is that difficulties have to be apparent in more than one setting. That does not have to be school. But it does mean a parent can't claim something that no one else ever sees.

But they can't recognise warning signs of something a parent has (FII) because they're not qualified.

It's madness. We have to accept that teachers are simply teachers. They can report something they see in/on a child but they can't interpret why it is happening or what a parent's mental state is.

Teachers are expected to spot potential signs of abuse and refer. This is no different

I mean it wouldn't be so bad to group all of these things together — all the different types of situations where a parent may say there's a medical condition when there may not actually one, and all the situations where something a parent is doing is causing medical harm to children — if you used a neutral title and were clear about the differences, but implying that all these situations fall under FII when in most of them, the motivations and intention are benign (even if the outcome isn't) is going to cause harm. Sticking all these kinds of situation under the FII banner is tarring a lot of innocently mistaken or well-intentioned people with an incredibly stigmatising brush, and that's before you even get into the situations where the parents are actually right.

No one is suggesting teachers diagnose FII…just that that they are aware of it as an issue and the potential concerning signs they might want to refer on. That’s no different to any other safeguarding issues. Teachers can’t say an injury is non accidental however they do need to have an understanding of what type of injury might need to be referee on as a potential concern because they know something about the signs of “non accidental injuries”

It is different, because they are interpreting the parent's motivation despite being entirely unqualified.

'I don't see Tommy exhibiting this behaviour in my classroom' is different to 'I think Tommy's mum is making things up'.

I woukd rather have fucking support than a label my sons school was told in YEAR FIVE that without a laptop and special exam conditions he would fall behind this was advice repeated in high school assessment in year 9 he got one he is catastrophically behind he may never catch up academically

No ehcp because he "doesn't need that level of support" fine but he does require support the report says that? Well yes but he will "catch up" he will be "fine"

Little clue he isn't fine

How do you think a teacher can judge if a parent has FII? Upon what can they base such a suspicion?

Yes yes and yes. It's clearly extremely serious, whether well-intentioned or not. But it's not FII. FII would be knowingly lying that your kid has symptoms of ADHD, doing things to provoke them into behaving in ways that look like ADHD, or giving them drugs to produce symptoms that mimic ADHD. The conflation is unhelpful.

I'm absolutely sick and tired of being blamed for my children having sen my ex does it his family do it even my family try the best was my teacher family member telling me he behaves exactly like a three year old should and I shouldn't worry so much I laugh at her "he is five" (small for his age)

He has been assessed by experts when I can see them due to backlog its still hard they all agree but we are no further with a diagnosis than we were five years ago

No-one wants this for their child

I suspect very very few cases of genuine FII are first identified by a school. The only situation of this type I was involved with was first highlighted by a paediatrician after multiple similar incidents at multiple hospitals and even then it took years and much multidisciplinary working.

However I suppose a teacher could be aware of the child saying they’re being taken to multiple different hospitals, being given multiple medications when the school is not aware of any medical issues. The parent might tell the school a child has an Ilnness that needs specific treatment but not provide medical notes etc for this.- this last one was a thing of the case I was involved in. School being asked to do a procedure with the child around toileting but with no notes/health involvement guiding the school, just the parents assertion.

I'm really angry about this. As you rightly say @Nurserypractitioner, they incorrectly refer to neurodivergence as 'mental health' conditions and then go on to give what she a horrible prejudice towards parents of children who have ND kids.

And they have zero qualifications to write this shit:

Alongside John and Andrew (who are social workers) we have an ever growing team of full-time staff and associates, with a mix of skills including ex-Ofsted inspectors, designated safeguarding leads, education safeguarding specialists, ex-headteachers as well as staff with extensive customer support experience.

I wouldn't trust them to run effective safeguarding.

Incidentally, this is what the NHS says about FII

Fabricated or induced illness (FII) covers a wide range of symptoms and behaviours involving parents or carers seeking healthcare for a child. This ranges from exaggerating or inventing symptoms, to deliberately making the child ill.
Behaviours in FII can include a parent or carer who:
• persuades healthcare professionals that their child is ill when they're healthy
• exaggerates or lies about their child's symptoms
• manipulates test results to suggest the child is ill, for example, by putting glucose in urine samples to suggest the child has diabetes
• deliberately induces symptoms of illness, for example, by poisoning their child with unnecessary medicine or other substances.

So bugger all about neurodiversity.

These people are dangerous clowns.

This is a fair point. I agree that the definition seems to have been stretched.

This is not what the doc says, it specifically says teachers should 'challenge'.

Yes indeed if a child reported this you would ensure that info was passed on.

But 'challenging' health professionals is mad.

If you passed on all relevant info and a health professional gives a diagnosis, a teacher shouldn't 'challenge' it.

However I suppose a teacher could be aware of the child saying they’re being taken to multiple different hospitals, being given multiple medications when the school is not aware of any medical issues. The parent might tell the school a child has an Ilnness that needs specific treatment but not provide medical notes etc for this.- this last one was a thing of the case I was involved in. School being asked to do a procedure with the child around toileting but with no notes/health involvement guiding the school, just the parents assertion.

All of this is fair enough abd I’d expect a teacher to refer on but the guidance is referring to parents pushing for a neurodivergent diagnosis. Which is something many, many parents find themselves in conflict with schools about, with schools saying they don’t see any issues and therefore the parent is making it up. That’s no basis for a suspicion of FII given the system for assessment is so heavily gatekept by education and is so ineffective.

Yes — and it's one thing to stretch a definition to include several other things that have some similarities, but another thing entirely when the definition being stretched is one of the most stigmatised psychiatric conditions that someone can possibly be diagnosed with.