Can HE be a cover cfor child abuse? discussion on Radio 2 today.......

[Yurtgirl]

I know I know Jeremy Vine and his show not what everybody enjoys but...........

He has just announced that todays show will feature a discussion called "Can HE be a cover for child abuse?"

Anyone confident enough to phone up and have a rant?????????????

I think often there are no pre existing concerns...or none that would come to the attention of the authorities.
These girls, as the poster said below, simply disappear.
Currently the LA can request a meeting to check whether the claims of HE are true but as most of you know you can put this off for ages. You can refuse a visit to the house.
Without hard evidence to the contrary what can the LA do?
If the LA could insist on a one to one chat with a child immediately after removal that might help.

Everyone keeps saying there are welfare provisions but what can the LA do if they have no access to the child and no-one has reported concerns?

yes, of course it could be. But that doesn't me all HE kids are being abused FFS.

I heard this and it made me mad.

anastaisia makes a good point - it is a welfare concern which is why I think my ex employer had such trouble doing anything about it when it happened right in front of their nose.

the other trouble we faced was a lack of understanding on both sides of eachothers culture and in alot of cases language was also a barrier.

I know I've been out of teaching a few years now but I can't see that either of those issues will have been magically solved. So again the question is what will harrassing HErs gain for these young women? Its like using the wrong fire extinguisher on an electrical fire. it will achieve little other than fanning the already high flames of misunderstanding re HE

Some good responses here.

It's a no-brainer.

Asian girls at risk of forced marriage = welfare concern. If anyone has reason to believe that they are at risk of forced marriage then they call SS and SS investigate.

It makes no odds whether their parents force them into the marriage under the cover of removing them from school, or just claiming they've got flu so they won't be in for a week (after which they have disappeared off to Pakistan or whatever), or taking them on a family holiday from which they never return, or just taking them one random Wednesday afternoon. I mean, really the Home Education angle of this is a COMPLETE red herring. Yes it's a scandal, but the State would be logically better off claiming that every single family with daughters needs to have hourly inspections from a member of the LA or SS to make sure the girls are not being forced into marriage at any time when the daughters are not safely out of the care of their families. Or even better, remove all girls from their families at birth and raise them in properly approved State care so that they are definitely at no risk of being forced into marriage or otherwise abused. No wait, that's discriminatory. Let's remove ALL babies from their birth families within 20 minutes of birth and raise them in state approved homes. Happy now? (I wonder whether heavily pregnant hormonal women are more likely than others to indulge in reductio ad absurdam?)

Perhaps the issue is not HE, as illustrated many times, but forced arrange marriage and abuse! DOH. So let's call the topic 'abuse and the many ways people hide it'.
Of course stepping on PC toes is acceptable to protect the rights of children. Every child should have the protection and guidance of the state. I'm not sure why there would be outrage to anyone in accepting that not all people make credible parents and that some do wish to cause harm or are too ignorant to prevent harm to their children. Laws and guidance are not made for the good they are made ensure good is available to all.
In all honesty I never accept culture as a defence for flouting human rights. We are British and/or living in Britain and it is the laws of Britain and human rights as set out by our law that should be respected, not cultural practices that send 14 year olds off to be married to a cousin in a village in Pakistan.

If a child does not attend school it is likely that an educational officer will visit them at home, probably within 4 weeks. If their parents say they are to be HE then no visit.

In answer to the question in the OP.
Of course it can. That doesnt mean though that if you're an HEer you're being accused of abuse.
All women are humans, not all humans are women. That kind of thing.

I didn't hear the show though so don't know what tangent they went in on.

Surely it would be simpler to have a policy where all schools are expected to report their concerns to the LEA/SS when Asian girls of around 14 are deregistered unexpectedly, or suddenly absent from school without reason? That way there would be someone expressing concern, and the circumstances could be investigated.

Equally, if the school believed that they had been deregistered in order to be kept home to help out with younger siblings, or to go out to work, then they could raise those concerns. In those circumstances, I'm sure there would already be a pattern of unexplained absences before they were deregistered.

I just want you all to know that I dont think HE is a cover for child abuse in very many instances at all!

Julienoshoes - exactly children who are abused are mostly known to social services, there are Im sure very few instances of abuse amongst HE children

My son gets bullied at school quite regularly, not something that would happen if he was HE - amongst all the other numerous benefits I can see (learning stuff just to fit government targets being one!)

By golly that's a laugh. I wish I had known about this broadcast, I would definitely have phoned in and given my opinion which is based on my own experience of having suffered abuse at the hands of my mothers boyfriend for more than six years as a child! My abuse was never picked up on by any teacher in either of the two schools I was currently attending. Even when my grades dropped, I had a mental breakdown, and I started bunking off school, no one discovered my "secret."

The fact is that the very act of a child "normally attending" school is a great cover for all kinds of abuse, as opposed to withdrawing a child from school, which is more likely to attract (for an abuser) unwanted attention. Society places so much emphasis on school as a Norm, that in effect the very act of attending school on a regular basis allows others to assume that any individual who does so without complaint is "normal" and fine. Parents who take interest in their childs' schoolwork, and are seen to be active in the community etc, are perceived as "good" and "normal" parents. This means a lot that is not normal can be going on in the family, but because a healthy and prolific interaction with the outside world is maintained, no one looks for anything. Why would they? If a child is bright and intelligent at school, they could be burying all sorts of things but no one will look for it. As in my case.

Most abuse takes place at home. By far the greater amount of children currently being abused go to school regularly. Some may use HE as a cover for abuse, but the odds of them doing so are far less than those who don't because creating an illusion of social cooperativeness is far more effective a cover and a deterrent to unwanted suspicion.

My "stepfather" was the centre of the community and the life and soul of the party.

It disgusts me that they would use something as sensitive as this to try and demonize home-edders. I'm quite upset actually.

ANYWAY, what with bullying, teacher-student relationships and so on, culture of early sex etc, I think they should look at cleaning up schools first surely?

You can leave comments on this article in the Times today.
this page

It does say that most people are doing a good job. I think it is a good reason to be visited by the LEA - if it saves just one DC it would be worth it IMO.

It has been demonstrated here by others first hand experience, that being seen by professionals does not keep you safe-and witness ALL of the children who have died recently-as I said before-in Doncaster and Birmingham etc etc.
Eunice Sprys children were seen over and over again and begged for help from social workers, police and hospital staff.

LAs can AND DO report if they have concerns of welfare issues Litchick. Social Workers can and do visit home educating families-I know I have been present at several such meetings.

If there is a concern that a child is to be entered into a forced marriage, then of course SS can investigate.

I was talking to the LA Home Education Officer for a large region, with a very large Asian population. Believe me he is on the side of insisting on visits-he told me that there have been a few instances of forced marriages and none of them were home educating-or even claimed to be. They simply took the child on holiday and they didn't come back.
I am not saying it couldn't happen. I am saying increasing the monitoring of home educated children will not change this.

I am saying again-if there is a welfare concern, then Social Services should and could investigate.
I have a child health care professional background. I have reported suspected welfare concerns. Sometimes I have been right and sometimes I haven't.

Now I spend my days trying to help families whose children escape from the misery of school. Escape from a place where they are NOT protected by the state, by the teachers or by the LA.

I spend my time trying to pick up the pieces when an misinformed/misguided LA official tells a child that they will be made to go back to school, because they haven't produced the right work/timetable/can't read too well.

I have spent the last eight years rectifying the damage done to my children by the malpractice in the schools they went to and the neglect by the LA.

They didn't want anyone else to be judging their work any more.
They felt safe at home-and I was not going to let in someone from the LA, and undermine that feeling or our right to a private family life, so that someone can tick a box and say they have seen my children-when the children did not want to see them.

I have no idea what LEAs are like generally, I only know one area and one person, and the LEA are very friendly, take an interest and don't interfere. I can't see why anyone would mind but perhaps it isn't representative. Anyway if you read my link you can add your own comments.I thought 2kidzandi would be interested as she wanted to give an opinion and missed the braodcast.

broadcast. sorry.

picesmoon you are lucky then
Not all LAs are as you have experienced. Not all are awful, but as I said I spend a lot of my time, trying to help folks deal with over zealous, mis-informed LA officlas, some of whom lie, and bully home eductaing families and children.

I was thinking about this thread on my way to work tonight.

The whole thing of saving a child if every home educated child are all seen by a LA professional is ridiculous if you think of it in the light of the statistics I sent earlier

Each week: 450,000 children are bullied in school.

But if just one child could be saved from this .......if every child were seen by someone from the LA once a year.......
Oh wait a minute ..........these children are seen every day in term time....

Each year: more than 360,000 children injured in schools

But if just one child could be saved from this ......if every child were seen by someone from the LA once a year....... Oh wait a minute ..........these children are seen every day in term time....

Each year: at least 16 children commit suicide as a result of school
bullying
But if just one child could be saved from this if every child were seen by someone from the LA once a year........ Oh wait a minute ..........these children are seen every day in term time....

Perhaps if we could save just one of these children by shutting all schools ........it would be worth it.........

Yes I know I am being facetious!

But once you start to think of all of the children who die at the hands of abusers/are victims of forced marriage and are known to the LA/SS and are seen every day at school in term time as well as the above........well you start to think, that maybe this isn't really what this is all about.......maybe this is more about other agendas?

"We are British and/or living in Britain and it is the laws of Britain and human rights as set out by our law that should be respected"

Exactly Divineintervention!

The LAW states that it is a parents responsibility to ensure that a child receives a suitable and efficient education

(Incidentally doesn't that mean conversely thousands of parents of schooled children who send their children to a 'failing school' are breaking the law?)

The LAW states that each family has the right to a private family life.

That is exactly what I want the Government and LAs to respect- the laws of Britain and human rights.

In the calm light of day and after a crap nights sleep I have considered this further....

Julienoshoes makes the point that the "LAW states it is parents responsibility to ensure children receive suitable/efficient education" - absolutely and your comment about parents sending their kids to a school that is failing them or where they are being bullied are not IMHO doing whats best for their children and therefore as julie argues could be seen to be breaking the law.

I think someone with legal training (sadly I have only internet training tee hee!) would look at the wording of the law and suggest that the govn haven't got a leg to stand on with us HErs unless they write a new education act.

Now THAT is what is worrying me slightly. If baroness "interference" is ordering a review then it could lead to changes in the law yes? Then we could be in trouble. Currently the law is on our side (I'm not reducing the argument to mere sides but YKWIM?) and so we are safe in our knowledge that we can refuse LEA "inspections" etc.....with a new law passed - we will be at the mercy of people who know little of education or child welfare - i mean how many politicians actually have a degree or some other formal training in social work, education, mental health nursing, early years, child psychology etc etc etc ??

God I wish they would pass a law that says politicians should at least have some qualifications or experience in their field before they can start passing orders about. Is the baroness a social worker or child psych - or even teacher???

Sorry I'll get off my soap box before i kill yet another thread...............

I have 2 points to make...

1. I really am a bit thck I was sifting through this thread going and who the fark is he? I realised at some point i meant home educating LOL but was getting quite irrate well tell us who he is and we maybe able to tell you

1. In all seriousness, I think anything can be a cover for abuse these days. it's rediculous that it stands that way but I do actually think that yes in some (few) cases it could be used as a reason t keep your child locked away from sight of others so obviously any injuries could not be detected but I don't actually recall ever hearing about a case where this has been happening anyone else?

I think the government need to stop looking for people to blame and start looking at guidelines instead which at the end of it all seem to be the main problem in child abuse cases. There needs to be more physical checks carried out to ensure a healthy child but to also note any possible signs, and more needs to be done about mothers who suffer PND they don't get anywhere near enough support.

In my area the children are supposed to be checked at 1 and 2 years my son is now 2 and a half and has not had either. When I asked the HV about this over the phone she said DS doesn't need to be checked because th ahd a few home visits in amogst this time, they had been to my house to see hw bad his eating is. Never wrote anything down, never mentioned the massive bruise on DS's head from jumping out of his highchair, and never weighed him or anything she literally just sat talking about his eating but surely a mention of the injury would have been something when I mentioned it all she said was oh dont worry about it happens all the time. It's things like that need to be picked up on.

And I ahve gone totally off subject but you get the jist sorry

nomore - to be fair to the government - Lord, I've actually said that twice on this thread aaahhhh - they have taken advice from professionals.
As a child care lawyer of many years and because I sit on a panel I have been asked about a review of the law in this regard.
I know Judges who specilaise have also been asked as have SS and the police.
Also charities such as NSPCC, Kids company and a raft of Asian networks and forums have been pressuring the government to review the current legislation.
And it's not becuase they are anti HE it's because some very horrible people are using it as a means to remove children from prying eyes.
Now I have mixed feelings about the whole issue. Reviewing the law does seem like a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
And yet, each time I've personally had a case where the parents have used their claim to HE to cover abuse I've wondered what could have been done differently. Could the abuse have been picked up earlier if the parents had had no option but to allow the LA access?

litchick IMHO if people are sick enough to want to abuse their children then they will be very clever about covering it up. So lets say we open our front doors and say "come on then all and sundry who has an interest in child welfare - come spy on what I do in my own home with my own family" - if parents are abusing their kids they will find a way of hiding it from LEA visitors anyway - because if they were crap at hiding it SS would already know about it wouldn't they?

Sorry but the more I read/hear about this the more annoyed I am getting. I have chosen to home ed because I am willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to give my children the best start I can in life. i can't afford a private education for them like I had sadly but I can give them 1-1 tuition myself. Wanting the best for my children doesn;t make me more at risk of being an abuser.

Where have they come up with this theory? Statistics is it showing that abused children are more likey to be abused if they are HEd than if they are at school?????

lies, damn lies and statistics......

NOMORE - You've got the wrong end of the stick.
No one ( at least no one I've come across ) has said that HEers are more likely to abuse.
The parents who are being targeted are quite frankly not HEers they simply claim to be.
What the governemt is trying to review is how to distinguish between those that are genuine and those who are using it to keep below the radar.
And apart from a very few I am sad to say that parents who abuse their children are generally not clever at all. It should not be beyond the wit of man to work it out.
I can see that a genuine HEer would be irritated by a visit from the LA but it would surely be no more than an inconvenience?

In my experience a fair few children that are subject to Child Protection Plans are "home educated". This often means that the parents can't be bothered to take their children to school, or that the child doesn't want to go to school.

Of course that in NO way means that I think that children that are HE'd are more likely to be abused. More that parents that are generally neglectful don't see education as important and claim to be educating them at home when they are actually neglecting them physically, emotionally and educationally.

Not being party to a panel of experts who obviously know from the horses mouth precisely what the review is supposed to achieve I can only go on what I hear or read in the media.

If I have got the wrong end of the stick (and its very likely based on the lack of information available) then I won't be the only one. If you have the power to pass opinion back to the govnm then it would be really helpful if you could point out that we are getting second hand information through the media which is implying a far worse scenario for HErs than the one you are presenting.

How can they target claimants to HE without also tarring genuine HErs with the same brush - impossible task IMHO.

I just feel that utilitarianism can be taken too far at the expense of individual freedoms.