Should we accept greater state monitoring of families in order to safeguard children?

[AllYearsAround]

This point has been raised on a few threads in reference to Sara Sharif - that the state should do more monitoring of home educated children if there's a possibility of uncovering abuse and saving a life.

But looking into it, most children killed by a parent or step parent are actually under 1
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/statistics-briefings/child-deaths-abuse-neglect

There have been a few awful cases recently of babies and toddlers being murdered, particularly by mums' boyfriends.

Would it not be more sensible then to put the time and money into monitoring families with young babies? We already have the system in place with health visitors.

Maybe health visitors should be a mandatory service, with regular (weekly? Monthly?) home visits and babies stripped and weighed/examined.

This would surely save many more lives than any additional monitoring of home education.

Do you have stats to back up that fact? I'm just interested as I couldn't find anything detailing whether SS were involved.

If it can be done for home educating families it can be done for all families.

The vast majority might be loving, but if it saves lives then isn't it worth it? Why would anyone object if their baby was fine?

Don’t we also need a fundamental shift in the mentality of the family courts? Its judges that decide whether children can stay with their families and yet time and again they allow contact/residency with abusive family. Teachers, neighbours even social workers can document concerns and raise flags but they can’t remove children from harm.

Are you a disgruntled home educator who feels under the microscope after this case?

I think it’s incredible that there’s currently no way of keeping track of kids who aren’t registered at a school. Children don’t belong to their parents to do what they like with them, they are people who need protecting and IMO at the very least having an unrelated person check in on them once a year if not in school should be a minimum.

Not disgruntled at all, but I do think that if there needs to be monitoring for safeguarding purposes it needs to focussed on those most at risk - babies.

So would you just suggest once a year mandatory health visitor checks? Surely that will leave a lot of children vulnerable if those most at risk are under their 1st birthday.

You haven't answered my question- do you have children?
And yes I agree with pp that I would gladly be observed all day every day if it meant keeping any child safe BUT that is not the issue here- all of these people were already known to the authorities and nothing was done!!!
The system you are suggesting would not help children- following up on the existing concerns is what needs to be done.
But yes more health visitor appointments could be a good thing but mandatory weekly appointments that's insane.

Why does it need to be one or the other though? I don’t think abusive families stop abusing if their children survive past one year old.

It's not really either/or in my mind.

Vulnerable children were always able to go to school throughout lockdown for safeguarding reasons, and it was probably insisted on for certain children. So with that logic I don't understand why they were allowed to withdraw Sara from school if she was already known to social services. Poor little girl.

I think OP if you’re keen on additional health visitor checks then by all means campaign for it.

I went back to work before my children’s 1st birthdays. Would I be exempt because mine are seen daily in nursery or would I be forced to take time off of work every week?

People who take their children out of the school system should be prepared to endure more oversight.

More support in the first year would be good. My eldest is 17 yrs and there was far more interaction with health visitors back then than my sister has now with her babies.

All of the children in the horrible recent cases were monitored.

It didn’t seem to be working.

I agree , children should be treated as citizens in their own right.

I agree OP and with other posters. There need to be changes around home education etc but the structures around babies and toddlers are lacking. I found HV provision lacking a lot - didn’t hear from mine after the first few weeks. More check ins at a younger age is important - it’s also when children are most vulnerable and parents can feel a lot of strain through lack of sleep etc. There also needs to be a much stronger system once concerns are raised.

Even social workers dont have right of entry, the only people who do are police and they cant force entry unless they have just reason to believe a crime is being committed in the property itself.

I can't remember any similar case where the family were not already known to social services.

I think social services need better resourcing and support to act decisively and with authority when there are concerns.

Yes, this, in abundance.

It's unusual that children not known to the local authority die. But not unheard of.
The second most vulnerable group are teenagers so what is your plan for them?

Case near me where a baby died within the last few weeks with no previous involvement

Equally there are many children attending school whose abuse is also off radar

I think social services have an incredibly high bar to remove children. Lots of despite it being known a parent being violent/ abusive / alchoholic / taking drugs that a child should stay in the family home.

The idea that Sara who should have been well on the radar already could be taken out of school in response to reported concerns without red flags waving is ridiculous. I’m not saying all children who are HE need monitoring but perhaps a review on a case by case basis would be sensible.

I think possibly an annual wellness check over with would be sensible for all children.

No it can’t.