To be outraged about this!

[BlessThisMess]

(Thanks to 'Anonymous' on the DareToKnow blogspot for this):

Since the majority of children who die at the hands of their parents are aged under 5, maybe the following regulations ought to be brought in. This seems the next logical step after the Government has accepted these same recommendations for Home Educators. At least there is some evidence of risk for the under 5s!

Recommendation 1
That the government establishes a compulsory national registration scheme, locally administered, for all children from birth to statutory school age who do not attend a nursery [though this idea seems particularly ironic ATM].

This scheme should be common to all local authorities.

Registration should be renewed annually.

Those who are registering for the first time should be visited by the appropriate local authority officer within one month of registration.... etc

Recommendation 7

The DCSF should bring forward proposals to change the current regulatory and statutory basis to ensure that in monitoring the safety of infants and young children:

That designated local authority officers should:

• have the right of access to the home;

• have the right to physically examine pre-verbal children [how else could they check for abuse in a pre-verbal child] and speak with older child alone if deemed appropriate or, if a child is particularly vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the parent/carer.

In so doing, officers will be able to satisfy themselves that the child is safe and well.... etc.

Honestly, would you accept this level of interference into yours and your children's lives? I think not. I think there would be an absolute public outcry. Why then is it OK for home educators to be subject to this level of intrusion and scrutiny?

Bollocks to civil liberties I am really tired tonight and that was badly phrased! Hope people know what I mean.

hmmm..not a home educator...but..surely many kids in nursery and school get abused without it being picked up by nursery/school....

most parents chosing to home educate do so because they love their children and feel their lifestyles might not fit in and therefore bullying can happen, etc....I think it would be an intrusion...

'But I think communities protect kids'

Well, that's not really true though is it?

Think of the recent cases (and not quite so recent) such as the nursery case, baby P, the little girl that was starved to death etc... how many cases of child neglect/abuse/death are school aged children being home-schooled? I'd bet my last pound on it being a lot less than those pre-school age and children in schools.

So why target those not actually at risk?

I honestly think that those of you who are saying it's not as issue/if it keeps one child safe it's worth it/it's an inconvenience but that's all etc thought that the same could happen to your child at school or that a govt rep could call at your house and do this to your child, when they felt like it, without any reason to suspect foul play - you'd be up in arms. However, as it's only affecting 'the strange families that home educate', then it's to be expected.

It's another nudge down the slippery slope of govt control over us.

Well that is the only decent argument to my mind, ChippingIn. That resources are scarce so target them most at people who already are on the At-risk register.
Home-ed saves the govt. lots of money. Can't see any reason to actively discourage it.

"I'd still vote in favour of this if the opportunity arose. Better to inconvenience 1000 good parents than let one child die who could have been saved."

But this assumes that no harm is done to the families of the 1000 good parents because of these checks. Just the idea that parents cannot be trusted and the safety of children must be checked by someone in authority will be enough to upset some children and destabilise some families. Then there is the issue of false positives. When people look for abuse, they are likely to see what isn't there, as demonstrated to extreme during the satanic abuse scandal when families were split apart for no reason. Many cases may be resulted after a more careful look at the family with further interviews, requests for information from the family GP, a case conference, etc. But think of the stress this will put families under. There will also be the continuing stigma of having been investigated by SS when you visit the doctor and see other people involved. Many people have the attitude of 'no smoke without fire'. There are also likely to be some cases that go as far as taking the children into care as a result of a false positive.

How many children is it OK to take into care in error, with all the ensuing harm, the state makes a very poor parent, to save one child? That's the question you should be asking.

Found the following on a web site for defence against false accusations. Even taking into account the possible bias of the site, it gives some idea of what people may be up against and the type of problem experienced by other groups (like the satanic abuse situation).

"There have been instances where children have been tested at a
physicians office and then asked what the examination consisted of and
each child responded that the doctor looked in their ears. A few weeks
later, the same children were again interviewed, but this time, the
question was posed, "Did he touch you anywhere he was not supposed
to?" 15 of the 100 children tested responded yes and one even went so
far as to say the doctor stuck a stick up their behind. Again, totally
untrue but in that case, the power of suggestion got 15 children to
respond in a certain manner. That is the exact reason that false
allegations get out of hand and the very reason that one simple
allegation can quickly turn into 15 separate indictments following
multiple interviews by untrained individuals. The fact is, a child
should be interviewed once, not on multiple occasions, and there
should never be leading or suggestive questioning used. Leading and
suggestive questions work as a coaching tool and tell a child what the
interviewer wants them to say."

Also, only around a third to a half of children disclose abuse, usually to an adult they have learnt to trust. The majority of school children never disclose abuse even though the see a teacher about 200 days a year. How likely is it that a child will disclose abuse to an adult they see for an hour or two once a year, or even termly?

Many cases may be resulted after a more careful

Many cases may be resolved after a more careful

I understand the argument that children who are currently in the system are not always protected and there have been high profile cases where children have slipped through the net, but there are also many many cases where children are taken away from harm and these cases do not get the same publicity.

Just because some cases are missed does not mean we would want to see the systems disappear and in the case of HE, there is no system.

Is not better to argue about what system would be best rather than an up in arms total reaction against it?

I think it is difficult to talk about the children being interviewed alone, but I can also see that a very small minority of children would need that one opportunity for their parents not to be there.

I have an awful lot of interference in my home life, as my son is disabled. I have to put up with social worker visits and professionals talking to each other about how I manage my son and it's intrusive, but done for his benefit.

I really don't see a checking visit as intrusive, any more than an OFSTED visit to a school is intrusive - it's to check and make a judgement on what's being provided, and, in most cases, will be validation of what you're doing with the child at home. And in the other cases, the ones that aren't validated as good? Well, it's right in those cases for a judgement to be made and action taken.

No, schools and communities don't protect children as well as anybody would like. But I can spot neglect and starvation in a child that I teach. I can spot oddly sexual behaviour in an abused child. I can pick up on something not being right in a child's words and writing. If that child sees nobody but their parent, nobody sees that something's wrong.

This is about the masses just having to be a little less selfish and precious and put up with something they're not keen on for one day out of 365 in order to prevent the minority from suffering for 365 days out of 365.

I think the OP is a little extreme. I don't think it is right to place so much trust in Government organisations. Clearly child abuse is wrong but there are many reasons parents are abusing children - lots of them just need help, education and support to be able to look after the children themselves.

The care system is a horrible place for a child to be, this needs to be improved but should only be used as a last resort in any case. Yes, parents sometimes kill their children. But a child is much better off with their real family. No matter how many checks you make as standard you will never stop all children dying. I think if you make more checks you'd just increase the number of children separated from their parents and the number of parents being falsely accused.

Clearly there are real problems with our current system but this is mainly due to underfunding and overloading of the services. How would increasing their work load help this? Also having more checks on top of a failing system would not help anyone.

Medical professionals have an obligation to report suspected child abuse. All children are required to have contact with their local PCT from birth to school so are not as out of the system as the OP implies. People also have friends and family.

It should be very difficult to conceal child abuse already, the reason it is not is because there is no integration or consistency in our existing systems. If you see a different HV/social worker/doctor each time then evidence of abuse can much more easily explained away without documentation so can go unnoticed for long periods. We need to move away from the Government's idea of specialist services/centres and go back to family GP practices within local communities.

What would greatly improve the current system is: 1. Giving parents of children suspected of abuse the right to put forward their own evidence and letting them have access to the media, 2. More investment in training and supporting social workers to carry out their jobs with confidence, skill and access to adequate resources, 3. Enabling of much better communications and co-operations between all public services (police, health services, education services, charitable organisations) in cases of suspected child abuse. 4. Proper support and education for parents who are struggling to cope.

I think the point the OP was making was that at the moment the government are planning safe and well checks on home educators because they fear the children are not seen by those in authority as often as those in school, this despite a lack of evidence that this risk is real. Home educators are seen and the local community probably look more closely at them because they are a bit strange and don't send their children to school. However, there is evidence that children under 5 are at increased risk of harm, so the next logical step is to introduce compulsory safe and well checks for this group too. And for pre-verbal children, the only way to be sure they are safe is a physical examination.

Currently we are not legally required to submit our children to be seen by someone in authority. We do not have to give birth in hospital, we do not have to use a midwife, we do not have to visit or allow visits from health visitors, we do not have to use schools, these are all voluntary even though most people will automatically use them. As far as I know, there is no group of children in the UK who are legally required to be routinely checked by someone in authority over them (except maybe disabled children?). This is a massive shift in emphasis from checks if there is reason to suspect neglect or harm, towards routine checks for all. It may be that it's the correct route to take, it may not. But it shouldn't be allowed to slip into practice without wider debate and a careful look at the risks and benefits.

Hear,hear SLS!

I am not against HE at all. I dont think all HE are weird either.

Some are and some are abusive. I am sure the ratio is exactly the same as within non HE parents.

The difference is that non HE kids are seen daily by adults [trained in CP] outside the family. The system is far from perfect but it IS better than nothing.

So what is the answer? Do HE parents have any ideas?

My DS's half sister is still with birth mum. SS are not involved at the moment. I can tell you that they WILL be when she starts school. The school (if they are doing their job properly) will see that there are huge issues and should do something about it. If DS's half sister was HE (fat bloody chance) she wouldnt come to anyones notice unless something very serious happened.

If I had decided to HE my children I would be v.pissed off at assumptions that I was a weirdo who was going to abuse my kids. But children are vunerable and its everybodies responsiblity to keep them safe.

So what to do?

Chegirl said what I meant to say, and better !

My DS's half sister is still with birth mum. SS are not involved at the moment. I can tell you that they WILL be when she starts school.

So you are saying that you know of a child at risk of harm but you are going to leave it to chance that a teacher will spot the problem and report them to SS? Why haven't you contacted SS yourself?

I agree with the HE thing too I am afariad.

I ahve HE'd and realise how caring most HE'ers are there, and that many are there because of the failings of the Education system in the first palce.

But I have been the chosen confidante of a child who has been abused and had minimal access to adults so tolerated it for years, despite training in CP i'd no idea what was going on and nor ahd anyone else.

I don't think SS should be involved and I am no big fan of the LEA's eitehr- needs to be seoparate imo (not because i have isues with SS but ecause there is a real stigma).

But a version of Ofsted / estyn for he? Absolutely.

Pre- school we have HV's, no matter how much we / I dislike them there is a system in lace

So could someone please tell me how they think that a visit once a year would stop a parent abusing their dc?

It wouldnt

but it might pick up signs of pbvious neglect, children who are toos cared to talk, parents who are over controlling on theday

hoses falling apart with filth,that sort of thing

These are the things that do exist in RL and are often picked up by teachers etc

"despite training in CP i'd no idea what was going on and nor ahd anyone else."

If that's the case, what difference would it have made whether that child was at school or not. Or whether someone that they didn't know came round every 12m to check up on them? Presumably this child got to an age where they made a conscious choice to confide in someone, who happened to be you.
Was this a HE child? Did SS become involved?

Chegirl, I'm curious too. Why haven't you notified anyone about your DS half-sister's situation if you are concerned about it? Why wait until she's at school for them to pick it up?

Peachy, do you think the child would have confided in someone she meets for an hour or two once or twice year and possibly a different person each time in some areas?

Ofsted is there to check the quality of schools on behalf of the parents and taxpayer. In theory, any parent sending their child to a failing school should have their education provision checked because it's the parent who is responsible for ensuring their child has a suitable education. If they are sending them to a failing school without topping up their education to ensure it's suitable, they are breaking the law. If home educators are going to be checked on routinely the same should apply to people using schools, at least for educational reasons.

It's against the law to have stolen goods in our homes but I wouldn't be happy for the police to make annual visits to check that we are not breaking the law. It is against the law for us to drive whilst a child is not seat-belted in, but I wouldn't be happy for police to set up road blocks to check that everyone that passes that point is strapped in securely. Before a house is searched or a car is stopped the police officer needs to have reasonable cause to suspect a crime is being committed and this is the current situation for home educators.

You say that pre-school we have HV's but we are not legally required to attend appointments or allow them into our homes so this is not comparable.

She was out of school- i think she'd never been palced in one after moving areas.

I was the first eprson she had a chance to confide in. I think anyone who had time alone with her even once at that point would have been asked to help, but to reach me (a youth worker she'd known previously) she ahd to break out of her home because nobody was allowed in. She was in all reality a prisoner, a kid who had slipped through the nets.

SS were involved, dad was prosecuted for multiple rape and died awaiting trial.

Supposing the dc were too scared to talk because a complete stranger had taken them away from their parents, against their will? Supposing that dc was forced to attend school on that basis alone (which could easily happen).

This is waaaay over the top imo. I also get mad at this assumption that H.E kids are not "seen" by anyone. We are not freaks ffs.
Our kids are out in the real world. They are seen by loads of people nearly every day.

Do we force entry into everyones' house on the off-chance that they MIGHT be thieves or murderers? It's outrageous and I don't get why some people think that this kind of state intervention would be acceptable.

No kayteee youa re not a freak

But there 8are* freaks out there, and that's the point isn't it?

OFSTED inspects schools on behalf of the parents who are legally responsible for their childrens' education. They are reporting on a service provided for the parents and funded by tax payers.

Home educating parents DO NOT NEED feedback from OFSTED to know how they are doing at meeting their educational responsibilities. They are there in person and can see what they are doing and how it is received by their children for themselves.

Welfare is a separate issue ENTIRELY, and there are already procedures in place to deal with welfare concerns. One of the problems is that due to a lack of funding and failure to follow procedures adaquately, children that should be picked up by these systems are missed. Someone wrote 'if you're looking for a needle in a haystack, don't make the haystack bigger!' Which sums it up perfectly to me, why increase the number of children to be checked on when there is no reason to check on them? What about innocent until proven guilty, or at the least until there is reason for suspicion/concern?

OP, YANBU.

Peachy, if a child being too scared to speak is a sign of abuse they I'm glad I've never been inspected! My son went through a phase (of a few years!) where he would only speak to adults he know well. I can assure you he is not abused or neglected and if you have had training in this area and have this view, I'm even more concerned!