Social worker visit for letting child walk to school

[Kathyate6mincepies]

Anyone else read this?

Interested to know what people think. I think this shows that the principle of social workers investigating 'all' reports is flawed - it leaves it far too open to malicious reports or differences of opinion in parenting styles.

It's bad enough that they came out to investigate, what is particularly worrying is that they sent her a letter saying she musn't let her child walk to school. If she disobeys them, what's the next step - removing the child? Look at the way SS and the family courts operate...

That is extremely worrying.

Ds1 is keen to walk to school by himself next year. He will be 7. (I've previously told him he couldn't until he was in keystage 2). It's a five minute walk, no roads to cross... heavily frequented footpaths with lots of other parents taking their kids to school. I would be following behind with ds2 who will be starting in reception.

I really didn't think this would be an issue at all. But now I find I might be at risk of being reported?!

I find this really very sad

(to clarify, he will be in keystage 2/Year 3 next year)

I'm afraid I read that article and thought it was pants. SHe was also being investigated for other reasons, notably leaving her child alone repeatedly in the house; and it was just one view, a very (badly-written) partisan one. She may be Done Wrong By, but I witheld judgement.

There is no law governing what age a child can be left alone/ walk to school. This is because each child has individual ability. Some children have more sense than others at the same age. However, IMHO I think 7/8 is too young to be walking 1km alone to and from school. Their road sense is only just developing and their ability to judge speed and distance is only just developed. I feel at 10yrs most children without special needs would be capable of travelling safely this distance. Also, 7/8yrs would be more likely to panic and not know where to get help in an emergency.

bloody nora, that report is terrifying.

I read it and was struck by the similarity to this thread

She left her children alone very briefly, in circumstances in which I began leaving ds1 alone at about nine. It sounded a reasonable decision to me, certainly on the spectrum of responsible parenting. I was on her side. Of course it was partisan: it was first-person journalism. But it wasn't badly written, and it spoke volumes about our irrational approach to risk.

This is getting tiresome, do you really expect to be told the whole truth in a news paper article?
What were the investigating agency supposed to do when they got a call??? Say oh, ok, don't worry about that family they live in a nice area where most poeple go to work.
Yes, clearly the reporting person/ agency did know a lot about this family, perhaps it was the childs teacher or sim who reported, someone who may have been privvy to other information -that hasn't been shared in this article. Perhaps it was a an old boot trying to stir things up, but how could any one tell? If you took that phone call would you want to be the one to risk it?
Can you imagine if it hit the headlines that a three year old child left playing outside had been abducted/abused/ runover/ wandered off and it had been reported to SS but no one had done anything???

Of course the social workers had to follow up. It doesn't sound like they acted at all unreasonably. The worrying thing is that someone should ahve thought her parenting to be worthy of reporting to the authorities.

I think the child running into the road does sound alarming, tbh.

I just found the whole thing a bit of a whinge. I wouldn't have commissioned it, myself.

I think what is valid in the article, is her observation about how disempowered and unconfident she now feels. If SS are going to come out and visit you, then they should give you guidelines about what you're allowed to do to keep them off your back. OK, so SS have told her she's not allowed to let her DS walk to school alone. At what age is he allowed to? If they are prepared to interfere with him doing it now, then they ought to be prepared to state when they would allow him to do it without interference. Same with being left alone. There is no law that says she can't leave her child alone at home for short periods, so why is that an issue? Obviously the child is not a toddler, and it doesn't sound like she's leaving him for long periods.

If SS's role is guidance as well as threatening (as SW's would have us believe), then where is the guidance here? Without it, parents who are visited by SS, are left feeling terrified and utterly floundering, I should think. I think I'm capable of deciding when my DC's should be allowed to walk to school and/ or be left alone in the house, but if someone from the state authority with power over me, tells me I'm not, then they really ought to tell me how to do it, seeing as I'm incapable, not just tell me I can't decide and leave it at that.

If one of my dd's is ill I stand outside my house with both girls until I see a parent I know walking their child to school and ask them to take my dd. It wouldn't even occur to me to leave one of my children at home alone let alone a sick one.

I agree that ss had to go out to investigate after they received the informing phone call.

I'm not sure if I think that it's reasonable to leave a child of that age to walk home or stay at home alone. I walked to and from school alone aged 9 and was allowed to walk some of the distance alone from the age of 8. I think it's reasonable to start to let children do so at that age if you are confident in their road skills and in the route that they will be taking.
I'm much less comfortable with the idea of leaving the child alone at home either when ill or at other times that seem to be for the writer's convenience. It's the worry of just what an unsuperbised 7 year old could get up to in the house and how they would react if the adult was delayed in their return that concerns me. I think I remember a thread not that long ago from Rhubarb who was asking views on leaving her 7year old dd at home alone for short periods after school and the vast majority seemed to think it was inappropriate. I think Rhubarb decided against it in the end.

I think in this case they had to investigate because that is the policy. However, if many of the reports they are getting are this trivial, there is going to be a very real risk of them being overwhelmed by the work and missing the real abuse.
Also, once they have followed up a report they are going to be biased in favour of finding something wrong because no-one likes to think they have wasted their time. So clearly if you did dislike a neighbour it would be very easy to make their life difficult by this means.

I read it and it filled me with total distaste for the journalist to be honest.

I think her decisions were wrong and am glad that she has been told officially he is too young to be left alone and she appears to be re-addressing that decision

The walking to school alone was a bit of a misnomer though wasn't it? She shadowed him didn't she?

typical Guardian moan and drone article innit

yes I didn't understand that, did she just shadow him for the first few times or something?

do people get paid to write this whingey, woe is me drivel?

in some peoples' eyes , she made an error of judgement

i for one would not leave a poorly 7 year old home alone for 25 minutes while i did the school run.. what if whilst i was out they were hugely sick or had diaorrhea? i personally would ask a friend to collect any other siblings from school. if a child is too ill to leave the house, they are too ill to be left alone.

maybe reporting it to SS was over the top, but someone obviously felt she was exposing her childrne to harm in some way

agree with LB, SS can't just say something's unacceptable but refuse to provide guidance on what is acceptable.

Since there is no law wrt leaving children alone I don't understand why it was even followed up tbh. Agree about our ridiculous attitude to risk.

i don't get why she didn't want him accepting lifts from people they knew?

exactly camilla, I'd probably give the others a day off school if one was really too ill to go out anyway, as experience has shown they will more than likely exhibit similar symptoms within a day or so - if I did leave a 7 yr old at home I just know it would be the day of some terrible accident that sends me on an 8 mile diversion, or malfunctioning railway crossing gates and just being STUCK for ages. Or you wait for a friend to take the others in a bit later, or to sit with the ill one.

Feel very sorry for social services generally, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Whenever horrible stories of neglect or abuse emerge we are always so 'oh how terrible our society is that nobody notices', we can't really have it both ways. If the call was malicious she really has nothing to worry about, being investigated by social services can hardly be the end of the world - what are they going to do without evidence, shoot her?

well they had better comehere as my two elsdets walked to school from 8 and 6

well hey were going to take that poor girls baby away at birth on v little 'evidence' werent they? they operate in secrecy and dont really seem accountable to anyone much dont they? id be worried about them too.

i also wouldnt leave a sick one a home alone, but then mine are all younger...

agree it mus be a difficult job and they have to look into reports... but would feel more confident about their interest if i were more confident in them, individually and as an organisation tbh.

I dont agree with her in any way. I would never let a 7 or 8 year old walk to school alone. I would never leave a child that young alone in the house for any amount of time. Im not surprised social services are involved. Shes trying to treat that child older just because shes too busy with the younger two. I know people will diasagree because they may be doing the same thing but i think its wrong.