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

Does it not strike anyone else as odd that SS apparently told a random caller (OP) that the mother in question already has a caseworker?

Um, data protection?

Surely they would have said thank you very much, taken details, and passed them on to relevant people?

I'm not sure I'm buying the OP anymore.

And your point is???

My point is that I think it's possible OP is making at least some stuff up.

My point is not relevant to the debate around whether or not she should have reported her concerns to SS. It has been an interesting discussion even if hypothetical.

Her saying that SS revealed data protected personal info about her friend just sent a red flag up for me.

To be honest here, I could have written two pages worth of posts here on my friend and her DD. But clearly something that long would not be read, and then I wouldn't have known whether or not I was over reacting to want to ring them.

So anyway, I'm glad I did, they can then do anything they feel the need to, and hopefully my friend will get some help.

I AM her friend no matter what some people think, I will continue to see her, spend time with her, try and help her, and see her DD. NO I won't be telling her I rang SS, as I feel that, if this upsets her to the point where she doesn't want to see me (and pretty sure it would!) then thats one less person to offer her help and support-and I think we all agree she would benefit from it.

I never suggested I wanted to report her to SS out of malice (don't know WHY I would want to do that-anyone?) and then walk away and never see her again, never spend time with her or see her or baby. I was querying whether to do this because I felt she needed help and was also worried about the baby. whatever problems the mum may have, it's not the baby's fault is it? And she shouldn't suffer for it.

My point is the same point I made in my first post:

"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."

What you are discussing has the same effect, I think. It distracts and might dissuade the OP from reporting a child whom it is reasonable to assume is likely to be at risk.

Biscuit yourself.

My comment for directed to onebatmother.

OP doesn't sound very credible to me.
I was discussing the agency, not OP potentially made-up story.
Have a cookie instead...

Since when did people posting on a thread have to stick precisely to the situation described in the OP?

Most threads go off at tangents and into different territory, that is the nature of a conversation.

Some people were saying that if in any doubt, always report, if the accusation was incorrect then no harm is done.
Others responded to that by saying that, even if the accusation is incorrect, harm often is done.

That is a valid point and has been accepted by many people on the thread, including SW. Many have also agreed that some organisations have an incorrect reporting mecanism, and that at least one local authority has implemented a mechanism to feed back on reports that should not have been made.

That is a interesting and relevant information.

Everyone has said that if they have serious concerns that they should report people. I can't remember (although it's been a long thread) anyone who has said that in the situation described, no action should be taken.

I cannot see why people are repeatedly being told not to post. It is not the nature of MN to proscribe what direction a conversation may take, and it is very interesting that on this particular subject it often seems to happen.

That's right: the people who have been posting warning stories about the way SS can overstep bounds have done so explicitly in response to posters saying "what harm could it do, if she's done nothing wrong it'll be fine, always better to report". They've explained that in some cases, no, there's significant consequences for families, so it's not an action to be taken lightly.

I don't think anyone (except noodlemaker) has said that in this particular situation, the OP is acting out of malice, have they?

OP, tbh, your post mentioning designer bags and expensive makeup did imply some level of judgement, but I think you're coming from the right place.

"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)."

On this basis we are back to annual inspections of every family by SS. No-one can say with 100% certainty that a family they know isn't abusive. So there is always doubt. So all families must be examined.

At the moment, I thought that people usually reported if they had genuine concerns. And some people on this thread are in a palaver about organisations that report when there are no genuine concerns, or indeed any concerns of any kind. Some organisations have got rather "trigger happy" and report everyone who crosses their path. That is not helpful to anyone, least of all SS.

I thought that we had had a pretty good conversation about all of this on here TBH.

But the OP the situation describes is clearly not borderline.

Of course I understand that there is much to discuss about how social services function, but I stand by my point that on these threads where a child is at risk, it can be irresponsible to extrapolate a general rule from individuals' personal stories, because it has the effect of sowing seeds of doubt in situations where the OP really should report.

It didn't and it hasn't though.

People were clear that they were talking around teh subject, the overwhelming feeling about the actual OP was that SS needed a call.

Which the OP has done, and they have told her that the woman already has a caseworker (which I am also a bit surprised they told her, TBH).

I don't think that the thrust of the thread at any point was "stay out of it" at all. A few people mentioned HV or trying to get more info, which were also valid posts. I think that people are entitled to respond when others start giving the "if there's nothing wrong then no harm done" argument.

Having said that I do understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that there is a risk of someone not referring when it is obvious that is the right thing to do, on the basis of a couple of people like me whinging.

I am sure that most people read our posts and think "no smoke without fire" etc anyway.

I got involved as I wanted to refute the "no harm done" idea which is often expressed.

I think it's important to acknowledge that intervention can have a negative impact on families and this needs to be minimised as far as possible. Ime it can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but what causes tje problems ( lack of time and resources ) often prevents this happening. This is such a shame for families carrying anxiety unnecessarily for months and years in some cases here.

Yet another terrible failure by SS
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7832870/Social-services-failed-to-monitor-religious-fanatic-wh o-smothered-her-baby-to-death.html
Perhaps if the SWs spent more time on serious, known cases and less on witch hunt under the banner of 'better safe than sorry', tragedies like this would be less frequent.

Hello again
I'm going to start a support thread in other subjects, and call it "Cooking with aubergines" so that it's too boring for anyone to click on

That way we can rant at each other in peace

Oblomov, leonie, milady, anyone feel free to come over if you would like

ta da!

Just to say that one of my pupils told me yesterday how her dad used to repeatedly rape her. She told another teacher when she was in year 6 and was taken into care immediately (3 years ago). She just thought I should know.

This is an example of SS working well.

The reason SS 'achievements' are never celebrated is because even when they do an amazing job, the outcome is still tragic. It always is.

jsut wanted to say that i reported a friend a few years ago and was put through to her case worker to report it to her,so it does happen..

Rollmops, I don't see how that story-in-the-Telegraph link is relevant. That's a case where SS were already involved but not enough; most of the disagreements in this thread are about whether to involve SS at all -- especially without sufficient info.

wow tethers - you must be a very approachable teacher to be told that.

I told my favourite teacher in year 9 that I was sexually abused (not by a parent) as she was the first person I felt able to trust. Obviously she had to take it further, and SS were involved - they were very helpful as I had a police interview etc. Too many years had passed for a prosecution, but I'm glad I took it as far as I could. If I'd told my parents I am pretty certain it would've gone no further. Not a nice thought actually, I've never considered that before

Anyway - recently found teacher on FB (by chance) - it's been lovely to be able to tell her how great life is going now.

Sorry this post isn't terribly relevant, I'm just in a sharing kind of mood!

That's the point, the SS gets 'involved' but doesn't amount to anything. Another tragic ending.
Funds and resources are wasted on 'witch hunt' and children who need help are left for their own devices.

Rollmops, do you want me to post more cases where SS have acted swiftly to remove children from unthinkable abuse?

There is always a tragic ending, this is why you never hear a heartwarming story about how SS saved a child in the press.