I'm sorry to respond when its suggested not engaging further is preferred, but what I'm actually saying has been misrepresented. I'm not asking for a response to my rebuttal of that.
For the record: I'm saying that when a child is in school and both seen to be bruised, and being kept home when too badly bruised, insufficient is done, because it is felt that the child attending school is enough to ensure this can't be happening, even though it is.
We now know that many of the serious injuries where pre Sara's removal from school. She was attending school in pain and with them.
It isn't that I believe 'they should have been allowed to remove her from school and 'hide her away' as you claim I do, it's that I believe other things.
I removed my child from school after broken bones, culminating with them being shot at. There was no dispute as to what had been happening, but the school went to some lengths to try prevent removal, despite talking about planning for the next serious incident. Not how they'd prevent it happening, they said that wasn't within their power, but how they'd deal with the immediate aftermath to stop Dc feeling suicidal about the violence. The focus was on the schools role in what they considered inevitable.
They actually tried to claim I wasn't allowed to remove them, and demanded their return.
LA belatedly tried to use what had happened to me as a child when I took them to court. Little was centered around my Dc or genuinely safeguarding them.
Some schools aren't fit for purpose, many are already just totally overwhelmed, and many simply incapable of joining up the CPOM dots, or correctly following policies. Relying on schools to be able to protect children is fatal for some children.
An ill thought out one size fits all policy is generally dangerous for some.
When their are concerns about a child, individual focused attention needs to be paid to the child and it's situation. Schools are rarely able to do this, and can act as a barrier when expected to.
A child with suspicions about it, suddenly removed from a school, or kept home from school, or suddenly removed from home ed circles, after questions have been raised, should cause a ramping up of concerns and should be immediately followed up, and we should be prepared to pay for it. We aren't and look for systems that wont cost, to supposedly manage concerns instead.
A swaddled supposedly poorly child at a mandated health appointment should be examined by the Dr anyway, even if it will need to be repeated. A child visited by SW's should have the chocolate on it's face removed and seen before they leave. A skeletaly thin hungry child eating out of the bin at school, should require evidence of a medical condition/investigation, not Mum's word.
Social workers already have power of entry via police accompaniment, if a parent refuses to produce a child or they have sufficient concerns about conditions. The mechanisms exist, professionals have to be together enough to use them. That means investing time, organization, and money, and available police. Instead we get chaos followed by 'look over there, don't look over here.'
Are children "hidden away" by being on holiday from school? Is being at home "hidden away?"
Should we say children who there are concerns about shouldn't be allowed to not go to school during school holidays? It's obviously not workable, but instead of looking at what would work, we ignore what already hasn't worked and say having more of it and not being able to leave it would be enough. It won't be.
I am saying that children there are concerns about, should always be properly followed up, and those specific big red flags such as sudden removal from normal activities following raised concerns, should always cause increasing urgency and attention.
The fact that something isn't allowed, such as not attending a school when enrolled at one, doesn't stop abusers, or automatically protect children, and can lull everyone into a false sense of security that 'someone knows' so 'it can't be that bad', and nothing really bad will happen.
'Protective factors' are entirely subjective and often far from protective.