Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Social worker visit for letting child walk to school

170 replies

Kathyate6mincepies · 09/12/2007 10:39

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.

OP posts:
mylittleponey · 10/12/2007 14:10

she can't be the only mum doing this are ss going to prosecute all of these as well?

Heathcliffscathy · 10/12/2007 14:12

she isn't allowed by law to leave him at home alone for any length of time is she?

theUrbanDryAdventCalendar · 10/12/2007 14:13

the fact isn't that she's doing it though, the fact is that she got reported for doing it. so the SS have to investigate it!

if you live in an area where things like that are widely acceptable then chances are you won't be reported. if you don't, then you might be.

i stand by my statement that SS are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Original poster
Kathyate6mincepies · 10/12/2007 14:22

I think it's a myth that it's illegal, Sophable - you're just meant to not put your children at risk, but what that consists of will depend on the circumstances as well as being a matter of individual opinion. (Obviously when they are very very young no reasonable person will regard it as acceptable so it would count as neglect and therefore be de facto illegal.)

OP posts:
pippo · 10/12/2007 14:36

as I mentioned some where near the begining of this thread, we don't know the detail here and anyway blanket rules cannot apply to all.
Also like to add SS cannot remove anyones children without parent's permission without a police order or court order- this is where the power is and where decisions are made.

hellywobs · 10/12/2007 14:49

I wouldn't let my 7 year old walk to school on their own (my son is 5) but I am paranoid. Certainly since the McCann case I feel that paranoia is justified.

However, I would never condemn anyone for doing so if they feel it's safe and whoever told social services has caused a great deal of upset and for what? 7 year olds (and younger) routinely walk to school alone in other countries (notably Germany and Switzerland). Mind you, I wasn't allowed to walk home by myself until I was in the final year of primary school so age 11 (a 15 minute walk).

I think leaving her son on his own at home was more of a problem but social services should provide proper guidance.

I don't know why she wasn't happy about his accepting lifts from people they knew - that is a bit strange.

Social services had to follow it up but why on earth was she reported in the first place? There's more to this than meets the eye - at least I hope there is or this could happen to any of us who give our child more responsibility than some feel is right. And social services don't need evidence - the family courts seem to take everything they say as gospel -I do hope they will be reformed - Harriet Harman, listen to your sister (in an article in the Sunday Times yesterday which was terrifying) and do something about it.

Original poster
Kathyate6mincepies · 10/12/2007 14:53

I can see the logic of telling the child not to accept lifts from people they know - just because the child knows who someone is doesn't mean you'd necessarily want them to give your child a lift without you knowing about it, and if you were going to abduct a child you presumably would 'groom' them first.

OP posts:
seeker · 10/12/2007 15:05

It's a mythi that there is an age when it's illegal to leave a child alone. The law is about putting a child at risk, but it doesn't mention age. I find it very hard to believe that the social services would get involved in a case of a child walking to school alone at the age of 7 - there just HAS to be more to this story than that.

cazboldy · 10/12/2007 17:28

Kathyate6mincepies - I think 7 is very very young!

I live in a very remote rural area, however, i would feel even more uneasy if I lived in a town!

Dinosaur · 10/12/2007 17:31

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

cazboldy · 10/12/2007 17:33

but why would you want to?

Original poster
Kathyate6mincepies · 10/12/2007 17:38

7 is going to be too young in most cases, but there are situations where it may be appropriate (the situation where one child is under the weather but you have others you need to take to school is the obvious one) in some cases - depending on the child and where you live.
Leaving them alone at, say, 2, would be obviously inappropriate in every case, but by 7 it is at least more open to interpretation.

OP posts:
pastilla · 10/12/2007 17:40

hard to strike the right balance, obv nspcc should be informed of abuse but I wish there was some comeback for people doing the reporting as well if it is malicious. as it is, you can have nspcc/ss on your doorstep cos someone with a grudge/mental health issues/nosy neighbour phones them up and even if there is nothing wrong, it is incredibly stressful having someone question your parenting. i understand completely how that woman felt. it does not help that family courts are so secretive and some sw so obviously incompetent that it is hard to trust them as a whole.
imo she was right to warn her child about accepting lifts from people her child knows without checking with parents first - most abusers are known to the child, not strangers. personally I wouldn't leave them in the house alone at that age, handy as it would be, mind you I might do if it were just for 5 minutes. would 'stalk' them to school, as she did poor kids

cazboldy · 10/12/2007 17:41

sorry, but if they are only under the weather, they are well enough to come with you, and if they are to ill to come with you, then they are definitely too ill to leave alone!

Original poster
Kathyate6mincepies · 10/12/2007 17:47

'sorry, but if they are only under the weather, they are well enough to come with you, and if they are to ill to come with you, then they are definitely too ill to leave alone!'

I don't agree - I think if a child has a stinking cold and it's a horrible rainy day they may well be better off indoors (and, incidentally, not spreading their germs around), but they're not so ill as to need constant supervision.

OP posts:
cazboldy · 10/12/2007 17:54

not requiring constant supervision, and being left home alone are 2 very different things imo!

Original poster
Kathyate6mincepies · 10/12/2007 17:55

But for short periods of time they are pretty similar, especially if there is a neigbour or similar in case of emergency.

OP posts:
TheIceQueen · 10/12/2007 17:58

Well - I've just been upstairs for 1/2hr - my DS1 and DS2 (7 and 4) are downstairs - I haven't been down to check on them - have no idea what they're up to - but I trust them both to be sat doing something sensible...as 9/10 they do. Often I'm up here longer leaving them to their own devices for that time.....

Should SS be called on me too????

Admittedly some 7yr olds can't be trusted on their own - but a lot can. DS1 is a very sensible boy and I trust him 100% if I need to go to the shop/over to church for 15-30 minutes. He also knows what to do in an emergency and I'm sure he would do it if nessecary (HoweverI doubt DS2 is going to be the same though so he may be older when I first start leaving him at home.....for more than the 5 minutes while I pick DS1 up from school next door)

cazboldy · 10/12/2007 18:02

ok maybe i'm strange, but I am never alone for half an hour. hell it's an achievement to have a wee on my own!
I have 5 dc (11,7,6,23months and 8 months) it's just as often the older ones wanting my attention as the little ones!

TheIceQueen · 10/12/2007 18:03

I have 3 DS's - 7, 4 and 6 months - the latter being asleep at the moment.....but also equally happy being entertained by his older brothers

skidoodle · 10/12/2007 18:14

cazboldy,

the point is not whether or not you agree that children of a certain age should be left alone, allowed to walk to school, or any other measure of independece.

the point is whether you think it is the business of social services to be interfering in a parent's decision about these kinds of matters.

for example, I could think "oh she's just a very cautious parent" or I could think "that woman has attachment issues with her children, I think they're in danger of being psychologically damanged by her parenting, I'm going to report her"

if I reported you, would you think it reasonable for SS to visit your home and tell you that you spent too much time with your children and that you had to loosen the apron strings?

I also strongly challenge the "SS are damned if they do and damned if they don't" justification for unreasonable interference by SS in family life. Having SS call to your house to question your parenting decisions is an enormous intrustion by the state in private life. It should only be done if there is reason to believe a child is being abused. It should never be done because of differences in opinion about children should be reared. That is not their business and they need to be made to remember that.

Original poster
Kathyate6mincepies · 10/12/2007 18:22

Good post Skidoodle.

I think in this case they did not know until they got there whether the child was being neglected or not. But once they got there and saw that everything was normal they shouldn't be looking for things to criticise her on, they should be trying to undo some of the harm their visit will have done, by turning it into a positive experience (you know how nice it is when a HV or similar compliments you on your parenting).

OP posts:
theUrbanDryAdventCalendar · 10/12/2007 18:26

but Skidoodle, where does parenting choice end and neglect begin? i'm not saying this writer was neglecting her children, far from it, but SS don't know that.

IMO what should have happened is that SS should have made a call, assessed the situation, realised nothing was wrong (assuming there isn't more to this story than meets the eye) and left it at that.

btw - i'm currently involved with 2 families who've had their babies removed, so don't think i'm a SS sycophant, i'm not. i just don't know the full story here and obviously this woman is going to give her version!

theUrbanDryAdventCalendar · 10/12/2007 18:26

x post Kathy

cazboldy · 10/12/2007 18:32

I do take that on board skidoodle.
My mum and dad are foster carers, and from that experience, I know that I could not do that job.
The children are great, but SS get things so wrong!
There are children on the at risk register that do not need to be and others that should have been removed are left at the mercy of the so called parents. And that's just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.