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 interesting you say that as someone who has experience of them from that end of the system, Cazboldy. Obviously people who get investigated by SS are bound to not be too keen on them, but you would have thought foster parents would be fairly objective.

(Hope that didn't come out wrong - I mean, I am assuming as foster parents your parents are fairly objective.)

Skidoodle: "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. "

Exactly. That's the nub of the matter.

Many of us are eccentric one way or another - where does the State draw the line?

Does the fact that people go to sleep when they are tired in my house rather than having fixed bedtimes make me a bad parent? Should SS investigate?

When a parent takes a child out in pyjamas rather than having a getting-dressed conflict (come on, I know I'm not the only one), does that mean they should be reported to SS?

If a child doesn't go to nursery like all the other children on the street, is that cause for state intervention? After all, they might not be following the 0-5 National Curriculum (I still can't believe that's not a joke)

If a parent pops out into the garden to feed the chickens, leaving children indoors but out of earshot, is that more OK than parent popping up the road to post a letter leaving children indoors?

I don't have an answer, I do want a safety net for the Victoria Climbie's of this world, but I don't think making the rest of us nervous about whether the neighbours might report us is the way forward - I think SS should demand more than a possibly malicious phone call (which can remain anonymous) before investigating, and I'm sure they'd rather have more than a single phone call triggering an investigation - it's not as if they are vastly underworked and overstaffed is it?!

I don't think it's on to leave a child in the house alone for 25 minutes when you are far away - as in the article - taking another child to swimming. What if you have a minor bump in the car - or a puncture?
The walking to school regime on the other hand sounds more than reasonable - but I can see that a neighbour, who saw the child letting themself in - repeatedly but didn't see mum coming along behind, would be anxious.
The child running into the road so you have to wave in acknowledgement to drivers peeling themselves off the windscreen - more than once - no that's not good and you need to re-evaluate how you are doing things!
Should SS investigate such claims/calls - yes of course. I would far rather have a million embarassing and disempowering conversations with a sw about how I let my daughters let themselves into the house whilst I went into the bakery on the corner for a loaf of bread than have one child harmed or killed by parental neglect.

My mum and dad have to remain impartial - I'm hust saying how I see it from my own perspective.

great posts emmaagain and NorthernLurkerwithastarontop!

It all depends who's doing the deciding, doesn't it? I mean, if the people deciding what is acceptable are people Like Me, then of course I'm going to have few qualms about it.

But what if they aren't?

What if they are the kind of people who think smacking is an essential part of good parenting, and my lack of hitting my children is cause for investigation?

What if they are people who think that co-sleeping and breastfeeding beyond 4 months are more than a little weird? (and given the HV experience lots of us have had, I wouldn't want to bet any money on the State employees being sympathetic to such odd maternal behaviour)

What if they are people who don't think children should play out in the street. At All. Ever. ? (because either they are too young, or they are teens hanging around and hence intimidating to the neighbours)

It's just the tip of the iceberg.

I guess I'm just not very trusting of the State to have my best interests at heart, strangely enough.

"I would far rather have a million embarassing and disempowering conversations with a sw about how I let my daughters let themselves into the house whilst I went into the bakery on the corner for a loaf of bread than have one child harmed or killed by parental neglect."

well I wouldn't.

ordinary parents doing their best should not be harrassed by social services on the basis of their parenting choices and the fact that some children are neglected and abused by their carers doesn't justify it.

there is no way of making sure that no children are ever harmed again. it's just not possible.

in attempting to achieve this impossible dream we are allowing a situation to develop where children are seen as primarily belonging to the state rather than to their parents. I find it truly shocking that anyone can think that social services should call to a family's home on the basis of an anonymous call about issues such as these, and that it is reasonable of them to have sent a letter to a mother telling her how much independence she should give to her child.

in answer to where does "parental choice" (I would just say parenting) end and neglect begin? I guess that's not a fixed line, but the line should be drawn a long way from seven year olds being left home alone or allowed to walk to school. Those are both things that are clearly in the spectrum of things that parents can reasonably decide for their own children,

They wouldn't be my choices, but I think parents should have the right to make them without interference.

Sorry skidoodle - I disagree - the fact that some children are abused and negelected does justify the role of ss in making enquiries. Of course nothing justifies harassment - which is a quite differnt thing. I think Fran Lyon, for example has been apallingly harassed - but her experience does not mean that all intervention pre-birth and at birth is unwarrented. It is because some parents do not distinguish between what is a parenting choice and what is neglect that ss have to work where they do.

ss cannot ignore referals-Victoria Climbie is a good example of what can happen if appropriate steps are not taken.

I have seen many examples of ss investigating after a tip off and concluding there is nothing to it and closing the case very quickly.

I think the problem is that there is no "law" as to what age is "too young" to be left alone at home, even for short periods - yet SS seems to have dictated a "law" to this mother....

Well, the million dollar question is whether casting their net very widely increases the chances that real abuse will be picked up, or decreases it by stretching resources to beyond breaking point.
IIRC Victoria Climbie had been brought to the attention of social services many times by several different people. I wonder whether the majority of cases of actual abuse do in fact involve reports from more than one person.

However, what we need to know, but are never going to know as things stand (because SS seem to want to find something wrong in order to justify their intervention, judging by this and many other cases) is what proportion of single reports don't actually have anything really wrong behind them.

Message withdrawn

It's intersting isn't it - I've just looked at the piece again and the writer says that the letter she received said 'in the view of ss' her child was too young to be left at home alone. You are right, IceQueen - she obviously views that as an instruction - but I think you could see it as supportive advice - designed to help her be a better parent. But then of course - they mean a better point in their eyes - and you are back to Skidoodle's point (I think) about the state interevening and making decisions.
Hmmm I'm going round in circles here

But why does the view of SS about the capabilities of this 7 year old girl take priority over that of her mother?

Are they really more qualified than a child's parent, to say how well a 7 year old could cope with independence? Did they interview the child? Do they know her better? Or is this just a blanket view of 7 year olds and if so, on what authority?

"I do think that there was cause to have a brief look into this. I live in SW London and I wouldn't let my 7 year old walk to school by herself. "

do you think that SS are justified in looking into this because it's not something you'd do? even though you live in totally different circumstances (and with a different child) than this woman?

Do you really believe that nobody should be above this kind of thing?

Because to me her point is "I'm doing my best, these are my choices" and that should put her above all this stuff. It should put any of us above it.

NorthernLurker - I guess a lot rides on what is meant by "in the view of SS". If they think their views are just one valid view among many then that's one thing. But if they think their views are the "expert" view and if they see themselves in the role of protecting children from their parents that could be seen as an instruction.

IMHO I think that OK the SS should have visited, as yes they should look at ALL reports. However that letter sounds so vauge as to cause real upset. My DDs are 6 and 8 and yes I have started to leave them 'home alone' for 15 mins if I pop to the shop. My 'rules' for this iare that are given a choice to come or not and that they either BOTH stay or BOTH come IYKWIM. Neither is on their own.

As far as walking to school, well they don't ATM, BUT that is beacuse they go to a CM in the morning and we live on a quite busy road. However by next summer when it is bright daylight am and pm and DD1 will be 9 then I think I shall start allowing this.

I mean it is daft that if SS vivit and say 'no too young' they don't then say 'must be 9 or 10 or whatever' That to me is the issue here

I would be happy to have SS come round and give me parenting advice at the drop of a hat, if their parenting advice were not backed up by legal processes so secret, that I wouldn't even be able to appeal to my MP if I were the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

People object to SS because they are frightening. Because the powers they have are frightening. If they weren't so frightening, people wouldn't be so terrified of them and would be less ungrateful for their unsolicited advice.

Crunchie I agree - it's the negativity without any positive guidance that's the problem.

Wow, well if SS should look into ALL reports then the easiest way to get away with abusing your kids is to spend your time phoning in anonymous tip offs about all your neighbours.

I think we should also extend this policy to all state agencies. All reports, no matter how spurious or unlikely should merit a full investigation including a home visit.

Imagine the fun we could have with our neighbours. They'd get to know the local bobby REAL well.

well said LS Bella R

It's ironic really when you think about how hard it can be to get the police to come out

LSBR there is a right of appeal from the family courts and appeals are heard in open court mostly and are quite often reported in the family law reports with the names reduced to letters to protect identification. If anybody wants to see the workings of the family Courts, questions of evidence permitted, the standard of proof applied and the sorts of cases that are before the Courts regularly they should have a read of these reports-although its not great bedtime reading.

There is a right of appeal but there have been cases where parents have been prevented from appealing because they could not get a written judgement in time.

Message withdrawn

By the time you get to appeal, your kids might have been taken away from you though. And appeals are heard in open court "mostly". Mostly's not good enough. All cases should be heard in open court, not just most appeals.

Sorry chipkid, you've failed to reassure me! I'm still not hoping one of my neighbours will report me so that I can welcome my local SW with a nice cup of tea and open arms... which is a shame, because I really think parents could benefit from a non-judgemental, supportive parenting-help type body (such as Homestart I suppose)