... to think that a 5 year old looking after a 3 year old is a bit dodgy?

[joannabaranna]

Just found a very slight acquaintance's 2 kids (5 and 3!) playing in the street with their front door open. Said their dad had just gone out to the car and they'd been waiting for him to get back. They trotted off to the car park to look for him (leaving the front door wide open) but he was nowhere in sight. My 2 year old started playing with them on the pavement and I asked the 5 year old whether he had any older brothers, sisters, mum etc at home - no, mum was away and he was the oldest. After about 25 minutes I thought I'd leave a note on the door for the dad and take them to our house just up the street for tea (it was 6pm). They got me a paper and pen and I left a short note saying "Kids are at [address] - they weren't sure where you were - found them in the street!" As I was leaving the note on the door the dad got back, pretty pissed off to see me there, tore the note off the door and said "he knows he's not supposed to go out of the front door". House, by the way, was a tip. He had told them he was going out to the car and had gone to the shops instead.

I'm inclined not to do anything about it but it makes me uncomfortable... Any thoughts?

hv and ss have same safeguarding duty of care.the hv will share to sw on need to know safeguarding role,its a statutory and legal responsibility

in safeguarding info is shared.case conference and safeguarding.wee chats are revealed as salient points

Hmm, mrsbean, you have a point. The friendly concern approach does require a certain talent for not being suckered. I would couple it with a beady eye and no second chances.

No chances, Topsy. None. It's not good enough. Even if this man really didn't know what he was doing AND it was a one off, it is more likely that he needs some support and ss are better qualified to work that out than MNers.

What can you tell with a beady eye? My father's home was spotless, my grandfather was a pillar of the community (we had a Secretary of State at his funeral), the children were all well-behaved. SS exists for a reason. This does not deserve a second chance.

tf - sorry, Ive never belonged to the fan clubs of rude poeple on mn.

But mrsbean, surely in the terrible case that you are talking about, the noises continued? therefore a truly watchful neighbour would have reported them?

I see your point, mrsbean. Shit situation though- will likely rain merry hell on the OP. But yes, the children's welfare is paramount.

Sorry I agree with Scottishmummy, what if the man took offence and turned violent? You don't know? the OP stated that the door was slammed in her face!

I would prob go to HV let them approach SS/take initial action, yes they might know who visited them but much rather that than a child be in an abused situation like Mrsbean78 explained.

SS don't actually want to remove children from homes unless they have to, they have the skill/responsibilities to access the situation and take the appropriate action, OP would be devistated if something awful happened and she could have potentially prevented the issue!

If it was a friend or someone the OP knew well enough then I would approach but the fact that the children were in a carpark! 3 and 5yrs don't have the full realisation of the danger of cars/motorbikes/vans/strangers not worth the risk!

Yes, you are probably right, on reflection.

I see where you're coming from nighbynight.. but that's still not good enough.

It only takes a few minutes for children who are unsupervised to get into serious - potentially fatal - trouble. As far as I remember, the OP says these children ran out into the road, leaving the door open.

What happens next time, if OP is not there to be watchful? What if, in a situation like I described, the next beating had been a fatal one? Victoria Climbie.. Baby P.. we focus on the SS failures and there were undoubtedly massive failures, but on an ongoing basis, people in these children's everyday lives must have known and chosen not to report. How many people thought, oh, well, I'll just have a quiet word..

I understand the reticence re: SS and the fear, and I would share the fear for my own personal safety and that of my dcs in a situation like this, I do get that..

BUT SS do not tend to go in hammers and tongs blazing and they will 'assess' and monitor in the first instance. I know with some of my clients SS involvement has led to some seriously good support.

It is BU, IMO, to take a 'softly softly' approach with something as potentially dangerous as this situation.

It is not a sexual abuse or violent situation though - all the OP knows is that the children were on one occasion left on their own (which is bad), while the mother wasnt there. Potentially, this mother is going to come home to find her children are being monitored by SS, without her knowing anything about it.
I think this is a very british knee jerk reaction to have so little faith in the community that people automatically think that is the best solution, without even trying to trace the mother or talk to her first.

I don't think there's anything British about it. I think it's very sensible to assume, in the society that we do live in vs the ideal of a society we live in (e.g. one in which we know and can trust our neighbours etc) to hand the situation over.

Neither you nor I have any idea of what led to this situation. It is really not for us to speculate why this situation arose or what it might mean about what's going on in that home. Neglect is a very serious thing, and it is important to realise the danger of the situation that these children were place in. I repeat: 9 children in my trust have been killed in housefires caused while parents were not in the house.

What I know - having attended one gruesome 'Safeguarding Children' training session too many - is that you cannot assume that strangers are benevolent, good parents.

I also know that any professional who works with children would be obliged to document and report this as a safeguarding concern and that's reason enough for me to choose that path vs assume that this is a one off.

placed

we have no idea of situation.it is alarming.cant blithely assume nowt going on.the professional role is to assess,gather info,evaluate situation

child protection and safeguarding must prioritise the child

Do not go round and see these people they wil not 'appreciate' ur input. Anything u say will be seem y dad as confrontation.

Maybe it was a complete one off. I mean i go upstairs and have a shpwer for half an hour wirh my pair unsupervised downstairs - is that neglect??

But if you have any other concerns ar all, i,e if you think there is even a chance it has gappened b4 etc. Call ss. You gave no choice. Imagine if u didnt

Just checked, and here:
It is an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to neglect or abandon a child under the age of 16 for whom a parent or carer has responsibility, but the law gives no detail of what amounts to neglect or abandonment. Prosecution and/or conviction depend largely on the circumstances. The punishment can range from a fine to ten years? imprisonment.

The court is to likely to take into account the age and maturity of the child, for how long he or she was left alone and the arrangements to ensure his or her safety. Here, the children might get out of the car and wander on to the road ? or anybody could remove a child from the car.

from: women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1762734.ece

Sorry, can't do the wonderful blue link thingy

So Supersonicmum, that would not be neglect because presumably you are confident that your children downstairs are reasonably safe. However, it would be hard for someone to argue that leaving a 5 and 3 year old alone in a house where they could enter/exit freely, adjacent to a busy road/carpark, was not neglectful and dangerous.

YANBU- its not good, is it? I have an almost 5yo and a 2.6yo, and I worry going out to the garden to feed the rabbits!

I think in your shoes I would tend to be keeping an eye out. Any further incidences and you'd really have to take it further. I have no experience of how to get help with something like this. Are there other sympathetic neighbours you would trust to mention it casually too, who could also look out?

actually what I see more on here is a very british "it can't be real neglect, just have a word, don't leap to action".....that's far more prevalent imo than people who report straight away.

Agree with mrsbean - with safeguarding children, there should be NO chances - if you see children's safety being neglected, and them being put at risk, you should report, not wait to see if it happens again. Once is too many times.

And what gets me is comments about letting the community help. SS and the workers who deal directly with the public, ARE part of the community. It's more formalised, yes - but they're just people doing a job within the community, to help the community. This is what they are there for and often they are far better placed to help. One reason being that they are not Mrs SoandSo from over the raod who you have to see every day of your life and who you don't want giving you parenting advice and possibly talking to all the other neighbours about it if you do confide in her.

That is what a community is about though, neighbours give bad news as well as good, ie you are not looking after your child properly.

The mother of the child may be far more effective than SS - she might come scorching home on teh next train, furious with her h - you dont know unless you have tried to contact her. You can always up the pressure if you feel that the parents arent taking the issue seriously enough.

And SS are not the community - they are the authority - there is a difference.

they are part of the community, working within the community, but yes given the powers they have there is a difference, they wouldn't be much good without that difference!

Nigh you are making up a scenario to suit yourself. How can this OP try to contact this 'very slight acquaintance' and what on earth reason have we to suppose what she would or wouldn't do, or why she's not there, or what she would be like if she was?

Simple facts - kids put at risk. I like to think it's better to act on that and do as all adults should in terms of safeguarding vulnerable children.

Sorry, what am I making up? I seem to remember saying "you dont know unless you have called her" Dont know = not making a scenario up, yes?
I would try and contact her before passing the buck. Others wouldnt. Fine, lets agree to disagree.

That's very sexist, nighbynight. You are assuming that this is a perfectly wonderful home with a slightly hapless dad who simply didn't realise that it was unacceptable to leave such young children alone. These assumptions can lead to death and disaster for children.

I am also assuming, of course, but with safeguarding, I fully believe it is safer to err on the side of caution than potentially compromise childrens' safety. If there is truly no need for concern, SS will show up, have a chat with them about the situation and b*gger off back to help all the millions of kids who need interventions urgently.

This OP doesn't appear to know her neighbour. Hence they are not living 'in community', and a community approach would be at best misguided and at worst, dangerous for the OP.

sw is a legitimate authority with statutory duties and remit to tackle challenging decisions.in fact case discussions very much like op discusses

Passing the buck is having a quiet word with a parent and assuming they can deal with their own situation appropriately. Contacting SS is dealing with the situation.