Letter from School Health Service - wwyd?

[noodle6]

I received a letter from the School Health Service. I'm not quite sure how to respond but clearly the LA had informed the Health Services (or the other way round?). Only my eldest DD is "known" so far - I withdrew her from school 2 years ago, and I now have another DD who turned 5 last Sept so I am guessing they are writing that because of my younger DD. This is so stupid because we have been using the GP services for any queries and health-related matters for the 2 years we have been home educating. We have had no need for any further meet-ups with health staff. Why would anything need to change now??

The letter, which is sent from a neighbouring Children's Centre which we never used, says :

"I am a Child Health Practitioner working within the Integrated Children's Team, working with children aged 0 - 19 years. I understand that your child/children is/are being homeschooled.

I would like to visit you and your child/ren at home on 09/07/12 at 14:00.

This will be an opportunity to discuss our service, offer any screenings and provide support with any health-related issues.

If this appointment is inconvenient I would be grateful if you could contact mee on the above telephone number so I can arrange a more suitable time.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXX
Child Health Practitioner

(signed) XXXXXX - Assistant Practitioner"

How should I respond? I think I'd better respond in writing. I just need some ideas. Should I say "Thank you for your offer, but we have been using the GP's services for support in health-related issues and are very happy to continue as such. I do not see the need for any additional health-related services."?? Or is there a better way to put it?

Any suggestions or thoughts about this appreciated. TIA.

The OP is engaging with health checks though. In fact, she says she takes her children to the opticians, who are going to carry out a far more accurate eye test than a school nurse. The only test that may need sorting out is a hearing test.

She isn't avoiding health professionals - she just doesn't want an additional one turning up at her house when she is already in contact with other health professionals for the checks her children need.

We cross-posted.

"However, if a parent refuses to allow their children to engage with normal health checks then that does raise concerns because it indicates the parent might have something to hide and might be preventing their child from accessing healthcare. "

You're suggesting that the child is saying "Please, mum/dad, I really want to engage with a normal health check!" and the parent is replying "I refuse to allow you to and I will prevent this."

I agree that would raise concerns, but that's not how it is at all. Rather the parents defend their child's right not to have to go through unwanted unnecessary check-ups.

'Professionals do not visit families to prevent normal parents from becoming abusers. They visit families in order to identify those ones that are abusive. If you're not abusive, then nothing will happen. If you are abusive the child will be given help. Would you rather nothing was done and the abused children just carried on being abused?'

This isn't true - lots of professionals do work on preventing parents becoming abusive or neglectful in the first place, and lots of parents who are abusing or neglecting get help to change their behaviour or situation so the child can remain with them.

I have nothing to hide but I prefer to decide who sees my child and for what purpose.
This is my right.
Unless I am putting my child at risk of harm I can refuse to allow access to my child.
As it happens, two of my children have had many more appointments than average. I have rarely said no.
But if I do, I have good reason and should not be assumed that I am trying to hide something.
I visit families at home. I think I offer a valuable service but if a parent decides they dont want to take advantage of it, I must respect that.
My first thought would not be a suspicious one.
Not unless I had a lot more reason to be concerned.

Suze, I didn't say the child would want to engage with the healthchecks, I'm saying the child needs the healthchecks as a point of contact with outside professionals. The child might not know at all that the parent is denying the contact. The point is, the child might need that contact in order for abuse to be picked up. If the child doesn't have that contact then abuse could go unnoticed for years. That's why there is an emphasis on these visits - to give the child a chance to see other adults who are looking out for their welfare in order for any problems to be picked up.

And isn't duplicating medical checkups unneccesarily a classic mode of abusive behaviour anyway? Surely that is a big red flag if a parent gets a child checked for something they know they have already been checked for by another HCP - it is subjecting children to unneccesary clinical involvement for the parent's own ends.

"Because it's my job to look out for my children. Because I believe people should be presumed innocent unless there is reason to feel guilty. "

Once a child is murdered like Victoria Climbe, Baby P or Khyra the its too late. There is a world of difference between child surrivalence and an accusation of child abuse. The Every child matters agenda is why the school nurse wants to see you.

The school nurse will have all the health visitor records. I imagine that if the OP's health visitor had concerns then the school nurse has a duty to follow it through when she takes over.

If you want an easy life you would see the school nurse be sweet and charming and then she would never bother you again.

"And isn't duplicating medical checkups unneccesarily a classic mode of abusive behaviour anyway? Surely that is a big red flag if a parent gets a child checked for something they know they have already been checked for by another HCP - it is subjecting children to unneccesary clinical involvement for the parent's own ends"

Caramel I'm not sure how this is relevant, could you explain? In this situation the OP has been offered health checks that the children haven't already had. You're right that if the parent requests multiple unnecessary checks that can be a red flag but that hasn't happened here at all.

I am curious, if people don't think children should be checked up by professionals how should abuse be spotted?

It is very straightforward - with the exception of the hearing test, the OP has said her child has had the other tests that, to my knowledge, are carried out by a school nurse or other HCP's that visit schools. The child is seen by a dentist, an optician and a GP.

To get another HCP around to carry out health checks that the child has already had is to subject a child to unneccesary checks. It is a classic sign of abuse, isn't it? It is similar to parents who take children to different hospitals/doctors/dentists to hide the fact that they are taking their children in with the same supposed complaints multiple times.

No, Caramel, accepting a healthcheck offered by the school health team isn't a sign of abuse.

The primary purpose of the health checks is to check the health of the child.
All people working with children have a responsibilty to ensure they are aware of safeguarding issues.
But unless there are existing child protection concerns the visit should not be about looking for signs of abuse.

The OP's children are having contact with their GP and various other checks. If she was keeping them away from all HCP i would be worried but that isnt the case afaik.

My DS2 had to go for 6monthly eye tests from the age of 1. He had no problems with his eyes. Because he was classed as a Looked After Child he had statutory checks which then just kept going and going even after his status changed. They were pointless and distressing. I had them stopped because that was in his best interests.

As parents we have that right. I had to wait until I was his official parent before I could do it and boy did it feel good when I did!

Abuse is spotted by anyone who knows the child, whether they are a professional or not. Professionals will be trained to do it, but they shouldn't carry out a whole load of unrelated, unneccesary clinical tests as a pretext for looking for child abuse. Seeing if somebody is short sighted or not is not a test for child abuse.

What if the only people who know the child are the abusive family members Caramel? Who's going to spot the abuse then?

"I am curious, if people don't think children should be checked up by professionals how should abuse be spotted?"

Abuse isn't a train or a bird. You can't send people out with binoculars and a check list and expect ordinary families to offer up their children as potential specimens.

Social Services investigate where abuse is suspected. Unless there are any grounds for suspicions (and "they didn't let us come round and use their children for abuse-spotting practice" isn't grounds) then there shouldn't be any suspicions and all should be presumed to be well.

If I had my child's eyes tested on Monday, and then a school nurse turned up on Friday, and I went along with having the test done again on the basis that I had 'nothing to hide,' I think that would be a cause for concern in my relationship to that child. It is odd behaviour that is not about acting in the child's interests, but is more about being concerned with how I was presenting to HCPs.

Where would they get their "grounds for suspicions" Suze? If the child is kept at home, doesn't go to school, who's going to spot problems?

I ask again Caramel, what if the only people who know the child are the abusive family members? Who's going to spot abuse in that case?

Caramel I'm not sure why you're talking so much about multiple eye tests. That is a recognised form of abuse, yes, but it's not relevant here as the OP wasn't suggesting that she take her child for multiple checks. She was offered a visit from the school health team. She didn't want it.

Cailin: It's pretty obvious to me at least that you're not coping very well with this topic because of your own personal and horrifying issues. But you're very close to being abusive towards parents who are doing, and have been doing, their very best for their children by removing them from the system. Those are the parents and the children that you should think about how best to support them. But all you seem to be doing is denigrating those parents and children who choose not to have unnecessary inspections.

It's probably worth your thinking of children who have passed all the plethora of tests through school, etc., yet have stories to tell about abuse that wasn't picked up. The wearing of a school uniform isn't always a protective, and the discarding of a school uniform isn't always a precursor to abuse.

I think we are getting into the realms of a horror film now where some child is kept on an isolated farm in Northumberland and is never seen by another human being outside the family until they appear at the age of 10, completely disturbed. I think that did happen a while back somewhere in Eastern Europe.

If your child has never seen any health care professional ever, I agree that would be a cause for concern. It is an enormous leap from never seeing any HCP ever to not needing to see a school nurse.

Lots of people who have children in schools opt out from their children seeing the school nurse anyway. It isn't compulsory.

"If the child is kept at home, doesn't go to school, who's going to spot problems?"

I don't think anyone should be assigned a task of problem spotting.

Do you really think if a child doesn't go to school then they're kept in the house and never seen by the outside world? I think that's a pretty extreme and bizarre assumption. Are your children locked in their bedrooms during the holidays?

Or is it just that neighbours, bus drivers, librarians, check-out assistants and so on don't count because they're not professionals?

Callin, she didn't want the visit because her child has had all the checks apart from the hearing test, and so it was pointless repeating them. We are going around in circles now.

I have not said anything abusive huggly. I am debating an issue that I feel passionate about, but I have not used offensive language or been personally insulting to anyone.

You however, telling me that I'm "not coping," is offensive because you are assuming that my opinions come from the abuse I suffered rather than from my first class degree in psychology and my years as a researcher in developmental psychology and in primary teaching. Yes, I was abused, but that doesn't mean my opinions are invalid because I'm "not coping."

I have never suggested that HE is always a precursor to abuse. Not once have I suggested that.

Huggly I think that was out of order. If I were you I'd message mumsnet and ask them to remove your post.

I saw plenty of neighbours, bus drivers, check out assistants etc Suze and not one of them reported the abuse I suffered because not one of them had the merest idea it was happening. I don't think it's sensible to rely on bus drivers to report abuse, I think it's far more sensible to have trained professionals looking out for children.

You seem to believe that if a child is being abused, it'll be blatantly obvious to the whole world. That is not the case. It takes a trained professional to go into the home and talk to the parents, to see the family dynamic to spot abuse. And even then they often don't spot it. But at least there is a chance.

The vast majority of parents are loving and do their best for their children. But there are also a significant number who make their children's lives hell. It is worth a little annoyance and inconvenience to the good parents to identify the bad ones IMO.