to be unsure if I should report friend to SS?

[custardismyhamster]

Friend is 23, has dyspraxia (and other things I think as have read up on dyspraxia and it's just difficulties with co-ordination if I'm right, so she may not run as well as others etc)

She has a DD, 8 months.

Her DD is not cared for very well and I am worried. Whenever I visit her DD is passed to me and I end up caring for her. If I don't, she gets ignored-so today she was sat on floor playing with a toy, she fell and banged her head (was fine!) and cried so I left it for a few minutes, my friend ignored her so I picked her up, cuddled her, then distracted with funny faces-her DD laughed and forgot about her fall bless her.

Anyway the little girl doesn't seem to ever be properly clean (not as in oh she has baby food on her clothes-she is a baby they get messy! but as in she stinks-literally after clean nappy on etc, her hair FEELS greasy and she smells. She also has terrible exema and cream from gp, friend doesnt put it on her as 'makes my hands feel greasy')

She is also never spoken to, or interacted with by my friend, at least not when I am there.

Friend never seems to buy her anything she needs-had no cot until about 7 months old etc, but yet can afford pauls boutique bags and mac makeup for herself...hmm.

AND friend told me today that to make money (she doesn't work, but lives at home with her mother, who does work and she isn't paying any board even) that she is sleeping with men for money-in her house, in front of her DD.

This has worried me and I feel it's the final straw-should I now as a concerned onlooker be speaking to social services or similar, as am concerned about little girls welfare?

Any advice really appreciated guys as don't know what to do for the best but don't want little girl to suffer

And just to add, despite what people may be thinking, social workers do not set out to remove children. They will assess a child's needs in a family and decide what needs putting into place to support that child - if safe to do so.

Maybe the OP's friend would benefit from support, or would like a child minder to give her a break for a couple of days a week ....who knows but social work intervention does not equal removal of children without very very good reason and strong evidence of risk of serious harm.

Hmm, I think I accidentally got too into this argument because nobody has ever commented on anything I've said before. But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

She is also never spoken to, or interacted with by my friend, at least not when I am there.

Friend never seems to buy her anything she needs-had no cot until about 7 months old etc, but yet can afford pauls boutique bags and mac makeup for herself...hmm.

What is this? Who says a baby at 8 months needs a cot - is this a crime? Those that think it is, please explain it to me! But
be-warned, those whom have such courage to make a claim as to this and I should find through this site that they also purport to have the authority of a SW or similar, then I will go to every service provider relevant that exist professionals acting in their service with such views.

I'm glad this mother can afford pauls boutique bags and nac makeup - whatever they maybe or cost - and what exactly is OP's ppoint here? jealousy? If not, what does she really know about the mothers financial situation?

Ahhh here we go, the next sentance...what a treat - hasn't it just got the juices going wild on this thread:

AND friend told me today that to make money (she doesn't work, but lives at home with her mother, who does work and she isn't paying any board even) that she is sleeping with men for money-in her house, in front of her DD.

BLOGGERS SHAME ON THE LOT OF YOU - OP - in my book you have really shown your nasty colours
i'll start two new threads

fifito i beg your pardon - who are you to judge?!

I have not commented on the OP for various reasons.

Of course if someone is genuinely concerned that a child is at risk of abuse, or being abused, they must contact the authorities.

Bearing in mind that the two cases cited by fifitot, were cases where the children were very well known to the authorities. There had been no problem with people not referring there.

Is there evidence that many children dying are previously unknown to SS? I would be interested to see some figures on that. Those figures might go some way to showing whether it is a lack of people reporting that is an issue, or a lack of appropriate action being taken when reports are made.

Actually I can't help wondering if the 'friend's assertion to the OP that she was doing sex work was said in order to outrage the OP sufficiently that she fucked off out of the friend's life as opposed to coming round and tutting at her and patronizing her.
Because there's no 'friendship' in the OP's posts, nothing but contempt and malice and self-justification - and it really doesnt add up to a plausible picture, sorry.

You are thinking in quite a short-term way about the immediate report/or not report decision without thinking of the consequences

It is sad but true that almost all neglectful families are better than the council-care alternatives

In any event they wouldn't remove the child for being unwashed

So, what's the point of reporting? No point, really.

And therefore no dilemma for you.

Personally id go with the gut every time ,i have in the past reported families to social services ,not because im an evil witch ,but because i had reasonable grounds for doing so ,the first time ,the parents were well known to social services , a fact i realised when i marched into the offices with the children in tow and they all greeted each other by first name ! The second time i struggled for a while before picking up the phone ,i have no regrets at all for my actions ,the child was subject to neglect and mental and physical abuse , the mother got a reality check and more importantly ,help to parent her son better .
I am sure that there are social workers out there who shouldnt be in the profession ,but as someone pointed out ,they do a bloody difficult job well ,most of the time , a fact that is rarely mentioned in the media as it doenst make 'good' news .
As for having a go at someone who is dyslexic for their spelling/grammar etc , im sure im not the only one who doesnt spell/grammar check my posts before posting ,so shame on you

Right guys, rang social services today and discussed with them. Said that I had concerns re the care of the baby, apparently my friend has a careworker who is involved with this (didn't know that, but feel a bit reassure now)

They are going to get her careworker to try and spend a bit more time there and talk to her to see if there is anything else they can do to support her. I'm also planning to keep an eye on her as much as possible-but as social services are now aware I hope they will do this too.

Thanks everybody for the advice and guidance on here. I posted this thread as wasn't sure if I was acting incorrectly and reading too much into things.

Those who are doubting my motives-I'm sorry you feel that way. I asked advice for that reason, didn't want to read too much into it and do something I shouldn't.

I just hope she does get the help she needs for her and her DD

I would not report her for ignoring her after a fall if she was fine. I don't and never have made a fuss when DS falls over unless he is badly hurt.

I wouldn't report her for the baby being dirty or smelly. Baby sick and baby poo does smell and they can't be clean 100% of the time. My own DS gets a bath once a week and hair washed once a fortnight.

Before my DS could talk I didn't really know how to play with him. I would just sit him on the floor whilst I talked to my friends, watched TV or surfed the net, so I wouldn't report for that either.

Many babies never have a cot. Some stay in their parents bed until they go into a bed in their own room. Others sleep in a chair, hammock or moses basket until they have outgrown it and get a cot.

However if the exczema is uncomfortable and sore for the DD I think it is neglectful for not trying to soothe it for her. Not necessarily with the cream from the GP cos I know some of them are full of chemicals and I would probably find a natural alternative.

And I would definitely report for the prostitution.

Well done, custardismyhamster, I think you've done absolutely the right thing and thanks for coming back to tell us.

well done custard glad you phoned them

did you mention the sex work thing BTW?

Not surprised that she has a keyworker already.
Alt, SGB, Me and others queried the freindship of the OP towards the actual woman. I think 5 or 6 posters queried this. I wonder how the Op's 'friendship' with this lady will develop, when she tells her about teh SS phonecall. Op says she will keep an eye on her. I think many people would not want to Op to visit anymore.
Bet Op won't tell her though.

Noodlemaker, you realise this isn't a blog, yes?

Only you're sounding a teeny bit bonkers, frankly.

Custard, I am on the part of those who think there was clearly enough here to warrant concern, and I think you did the right thing.

That doesn't in any way detract from my sympathy towards Oblomov, ISNT, MiLady, etc, who've been through horrendous investigations.

I have a friend who was referred because her baby was borderline 'failure to thrive' - perfectly reasonable. In her case, the baby was just small, but it's a common indicator for neglect, so it wasn't unreasonable to have SS involved.

But they never told her that the investigation was over. They never officially closed her file, despite her ringing and writing to request confirmation. So until that child was 18, she was technically, officially, under SS investigation. It coloured her whole parenting career, she made every decision with the thoughts 'what would SS make of this' instead of 'what do I want to do, as a parent', and she's deeply bitter that she'll never get to parent freely again.

A support thread is a good idea, I think. This stuff runs deep.

Could be depression? or parenting issues?.Hv seems good route-they have access to services such as parenting classess ,support etc.Although this may not be seen as neglect at the mo , if the child remains in this situation on daily basis could have consequences for her if pattern remained,and would poss cross line into neglet area.
This is why it seems important to get positive ,and this level, appropriate support, at this point.
A real plus seems the grandmother and If this did ever need SS imut im sure good practice would look at this as a v positive thing. hope things work out.
ps does your friend seem different - is she depressed,does she show signs of understanding her childs needs at some times? does she seem emotionally attatched to her child and does the child show attatchment to her ?Hv may need to ask similar things alongside care issues to get full picture and support if required.

Possible bases for reporting:
She seems detached from the child.
She doesn't meet its physical needs (cream)
She is having sex for money in front of the child.

These are not spurious concerns. Each one individually may not, in your opinion, be neglect/abuse (though if you don't think the last one is then ) but taken together they are reasonable grounds for reporting to SS.

In which case, it seems irresponsible (and to be frank, irrelevant) to post continually about one's own individual experience of being (as you see it) spuriously reported - however awful that was for you.

If the intention is to use your own very different experience to dissuade an OP from reporting under circumstances which most of us would agree are extreme, then that is putting a child at risk. If that is not the intention, then it is irrelevant and distracting and again, therefore, puts a child at risk.

Nature of 'friendship', dispraxia-disablism etc - also irrelevant.

Emotionally and physically neglected child, exposed to risk (clients) and adult sexuality = child at risk. That's it.

As an aside: Quattro, I've seen stats which say that the children themselves would rather remain with abusive parents but not stats which say that it is empirically better for the child to stay with them than to go into care (which in any case is not the most likely outcome here).

Discussed this thread with a friend of mine and she told me, that her neighbour got a visit from SS recently.
DS(3yrs)of the neighbour had pushed her DD (2yrs) down the stairs and although DD, after initial good cry, calmed down and was rearing to go again, Mum wanted to be sure and took DD to A&E. Typical doting and panicked Mum...
Fast forward a week or so - hello, I'm from SS.
The SW had been intimidating, overbearing and downright insulting, the attitude best described as 'I will get you'.
The family in question, very academic, well off middle class family (as in - no loons or lowlifes) is in pieces, worried sick and terrified of yet another power trip by the said SW.
There was nothing wrong with the child in question, docs at A&E said she was fit as a fiddle; why the visit from SS?
Would abusive parents really take their child to A&E 'just to be sure', or would they hide the said child from authorities?
Where's the logic in this?
Could SW here please give the stats of the serious cases where families were unknown to SS or better yet, any cases that develop and warrant action from previously unknown families.
I must admit, I never gave SS a thought, well, apart from groaning in disgust over their absolute uselessness, when reading about Baby P.
Now, however, I am starting to mollycoddle my darling boys, as paranoid that they might hurt themselves while playing in the garden.
My friend cancelled the bouncy castle she had ordered for her DSs birthday.
This is not right.
Bit Orwellian, really...

As a society we have agreed that a child's needs come before those of adults. This is how the law, for example, structures things, for the simple reason that a child, simply because he is a child, can't protect himself.

In a situation where there is uncertainty, therefore (ie is/isn't there abuse/neglect? We don't know for sure) the putative needs of the child to be protected from possible abuse must be put before the putative right of the adult to be protected from an unfounded accusation (which is not, I don't believe, a right any of us have if the accusation isn't public).

Children come first, regardless of the damage to adults. That is the only possible way of structuring things, if we believe that children are less able than adults, as we do.

Children's needs have always come before those of adults, and always must.
However, if an agency that is supposed to protect the children that need protecting, is unable to do it's job properly, something wrong.
Hunting innocent families 'just in case' and 'better safe than sorry' is firstly, wasting huge amounts of the said agencies resources and time, something that should be used for protecting the children who desperately need it; secondly, it is devastating too many innocent families and as a consequence, hurting children indirectly, via stressed, worried parents and constant paranoia.
The system needs to be changed to be more effective. No more Baby Ps.

But how is that relevant to whether or not a worried observer should report a child whose mother is having sex for money in front of it?

TBH, the OP struck me as a story that suffered from a quite a bit of embellishment.
As mentioned before, the envy (why mention whatever brand bags etc?) and and malice was thinly veiled. Not sure I believe the prostitution allegation as it seems to be added for the effect.
Then again, I might be wrong.
My rant was not about the OP as she has already acted according to he conscience.
It was about an agency that has vitally important role but is too often getting side tracked.

But the OP hadn't already reported when you began discussing this.