Social services in bedrooms

[Ythough]

I have two children from my first marriage who are late teens/adults and one child from a subsequent relationship.

Youngest child’s dad lives at the opposite side of the country and my child spends time there in the school holidays. The ready of the time they live with me.

There has been an issue at dad’s house that may or may not affect my DC, as such social services want to be involved and make an assessment regarding wether or not DC should be having contact at Dad’s.

I have agreed that they can come and speak with DC here, at school, speak with their doctor, whatever they need. To have these meetings I am having to take time of work but it’s important so I am just doing what they ask.

Now on their first visit they explained all the issues, then said, right we need to look around the house and see the children’s bedrooms.

I allowed this but I am wondering why they needed to look around my home considering this investigation has nothing what so ever to do with me other than being DCs mum and more so, why they needed to check my older children’s rooms when they have absolutely nothing to do with youngest DCs dad.

Teen DD was horrified as she is a messy teen, older DC was away at uni so they just went in to look around and came back out.

so AIBU to think this wasn’t at all necessary?

I can see how it’s feels invasive but it’s about social services making sure they have a fuller picture of child’s life. Usually this just confirms things are ok, helps to improve Social Services’ understanding of a child’s experience but there might be other times when exploring wider family / wider home, (unexpected) safeguarding issues might emerge.

It’s standard. They are simply checking the children have suitable beds etc. Nothing invasive or expecting perfection.

I do understand why they would want to look if there was a problem reported about the time when DC is with me but since the issue is about time At dads and his second family it just seems unnecessary.

I did let them look round as they are just doing their job but DC having a lovely room at my home means nothing in the context of what they are actually supposed to be investigating.

They’re investigating the dc living conditions and need the fullest picture. Imagine if they said no contact with dad when there was evidence their home life with you wasn’t great but they didn’t bother checking.

Of course its necessary. You dont have to agree but it means no information can be gathered about whether a child is provided with a proper bed, clean bedding. Provision to keep clothes clean and tidy, does it smell, is it clean, no SW is going to be thrown by the average untidy teen bedroom, they're looking for neglect or things that are dangerous or a lack of prioritising the child's needs showing itself in how the bedroom is provided, is it cluttered and unsafe, is the child given broken and dirty toys, is the flooring safe for little feet to run across and not covered in nails or sharp edges, a million other things.

I would hope they looked in the kitchen cupboards, fridge freezer as well.

But why would they want to see the bedroom of the teenage sister and an older DB who is at university? Why would those bedrooms be relevant?

Once they are involved they need to see all aspects of the children's lives. They can't just only look at what goes on at dad's, especially as they're mainly at yours. So that includes the other kids in the family.

I hope they didn't literally rifle through stuff, just open the door look inside then leave?

Anyway it's all part of the process, and I'm sure they won't need to do such things any further as your home is clearly not an issue.

It must have felt invasive, however, if thye

I know it feels so invasive but as a police officer in child protection I’m actually pleased to hear this. It’s supposed to be standard practice but I can’t tell you how many times social workers aren’t going upstairs or looking round a home a child lives in. You get a sense of that child’s life from their room. Do they have reasonably clean bedding, access to clothes, do they have toys or books. It’s very easy to miss what a child’s life is like if you only ever go into someone’s living room. They’re not bothered by a bit of mess trust me they’ve seen much worse. That’s normal happy children with plenty of (relatively) clean clothes to throw on the floor and possessions to make a mess with.

I can’t tell you how many children I’ve removed from their parents care who were living in dire circumstances where the social worker hadn’t gone upstairs in months/years/ever.

If they recommend the child is to live with you, they’d need to be sure that they had the proper facilities in their room and also that your older kids were not drug dealing from their bedrooms or whatever. If it was like a normal family home, then that’s presumably what they wanted - teen Dd’s mess is a normal thing.

But the investigation is into the time spent with his dad and his dad 's second family.

What does that have to do with the bedrooms in the OP's house?

It makes no sense.

Why? The child standard of living at his mother's house is not what is in question here.

You see that’s the issue.

The parent who isn’t investigated is treated like crap. As if THEY were as guilty or a risk as the parent who is under suspicion….Why??

Because of the issue is ‘we need to check everything is ok just in case’, esp in a case where the child is already spending most of the time in that house, then they should be checking in everyone ‘just in case’

No, when a child is referred to SSD, an assessment is completed about how the child is being cared for. Full stop.

This is why I try to correct every thread where someone says 'Ive been reported to SSD' or 'Im going to report him/her to SSD'

No one is 'reported', a child is referred.

So this isnt about only looking at one parents capacity, its about how the child is being cared for overall, bearing in mind the context of the referral - ie concerns about dad's care.

But it is not the care in the mother's home that is under investigation here, it is the key in the dad's home with his second family that is the issue.

Thank you to those that can see where I am coming from.

@soupyspoon why would you hope they looked in MY cupboards when the investigation is to asses wether DC should be allowed contact with Dad who lives 300 miles away.

Surely if anything they should check HIS cupboards and sleeping arrangements!

There is no problem at my home, DC had a lovely bedroom of his own, clean bedding, clean washed clothes etc etc, I didn’t mind them looking but I don’t know what it is adding to their investigation at all. As far as I am concerned I am helping them by providing access to DC and supporting their investigation, I shouldn’t feel under suspicion myself.

The child already lives there with his mother, he visits his dad in the holidays.

But the child is ALREADY living with the OP. There is nothing new there.

If they need to check the living conditions are ok, why didn’t they do so before too? The only thing that has changed is the fact THE OTHER PARENT is under investigation.
why would they need now to check that ‘Older children aren’t drug dealing from their bedroom’…. I mean, surely if they thought there was a risk, they should have investigated before no??

Because any assessment of any child details the care they receive, the lived experience of that child and the protective and risk factors around them.

You cant just look one dimensionally at a child's experience.

You dont have to comply with anything of course.

No, when a child is referred to SSD, an assessment is completed about how the child is being cared for. Full stop.

That’s the issue isn’t it?
If one parent is seeing as acting ‘suspiciously’ then BOTH parents are seen as potentially badly behaved.

Its an issue because it increases negative attitude and suspicion towards SS, who are going to be seen an insufferable busy bodies spending time, energy and ressources where it’s not needed,

Think about it from another perspective - what if somebody claimed their DC was being abused/neglected and they didn't bother looking to see whether the parent complaining had a breeding XL bully, a small plantation of cannabis and thirty grands' worth of ammunition stored in the room where the child was allegedly sleeping safely?

Well, that makes no sense. If the child had just continued living with his mother and visiting his father in the holidays, no one would have been remotely interested in his home with his mother.

It's unnecessarily intrusive and a negative experience for a parent that's doing a great job of bringing up their child, implication that the mother also needs investigating is unnecessarily unpleasant.

SS leave children in homes that are totally unsuitable where they have had reports from School's neighbours and family, they should focus on improving themselves in these situations and not on investigating the other parent when one parent has been reported

In that case, the question is p: why hasn’t that been picked up Regardiess of whether someone has made an allegation of abuse WITH THE OTHER PARENT.

I wasn’t the person complaining about Dad’s care.

The issue is with a child in his second family and Social Services want to be sure DC hasn’t been exposed to anything of concern whilst At Dads. I can’t say too much as there is a police investigation under way but it it is not something I am remotely involved in at all and I highly doubt DC has any idea about either but I am more than happy for social services to make sure.