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.

I agree with greater transparency would welcome it in fact-not sure that 9 out of 10 of my clients would wish to see their cases in the local press however.

Reading threads like this makes me even more of the view that there should be more reporting of care cases, as it would give a greater public awareness of why people have their children removed and greater reassurance that it is not something that the majority need fear.

The only caveat being that reporting should be full and all relevant facts included. Identities should be hidden (for the sake of the child) A lot of cases would be difficult to condense into a few column inches-especially the ones involving years of neglect (and in order to understand why a step has ben taken the history needs to be set out in full). However I fully accept that the lack of reporting, means that the high profile "unusual cases" give an inaccurate impression of the day to day practice of the family Courts.

Yes i can't believe there isn't a way to ahve proper accountability and to protect children's privacy. We manage it for rape victims.

LSBR-appeals in family cases are usually heard very quickly. I did one in November where the order under appeal had been made only 14 days previously-and there had been another short hearing in that 14 days-to decide precisely what should happen pending the full appeal.

She was letting a 7 year old walk 1km to school? I let mine walk unaccompanied at that age but it's only 200m and they stayed together. 1km seems too far to walk alone.

how long does a km take to walk? about ten/fifteen mins? i wouldn't have a problem with that.

My mum says she walked to school alone when she was younger than this.

I think it depends very much on the child. My ds is 4 in February and cycles home from nursery (with me I might add) but is often miles in front of me, although in view, while i push dd in her buggy, as I KNOW he will always stop at roads. It does make passers by nervous, and drivers, but I am not at all nervous about it. He is extremely road aware.

I can't trust dd not to run into the road though and I could trust ds at the same age (2 1/2) so I never let her unless I have another adult with me.

I have to say I have sympathy for the author of the article.

The SS has another meaning ... I think is is bloody terrifying that there is an organisation who can take away your children on a whim and ban you from talking about it. why do we put up with it - because the only people who care are those who already have children, that's why. Fear.

I'd let dd1 walk to school alone if she wanted (she is 8)

but I wouldn't leave her alone in the house repeatedly

think its no bad thing she's had a wake up call tbh

1km is quite a long way isn't it? [dumb non metric person face]

about 2/3 of a mile

From the article -

"My youngest has dashed into the road on occasions. I think I can remember waving thanks to drivers who had to slow down suddenly"

I was shocked at the nonchalent tone of this part of the report. My youngest child wandered into the road once whilst I was momentarily distracted and to this day I remember it vividly and thank my lucky stars that no cars were coming. The writer of the piece didn't seem that worried about this having happened not just once but several times or to have learnt from it. I must admit that on the basis of this alone, I wonder if there are more reasons why she was reported to s.s than just leaving her 7 year old alone briefly in the house or letting him walk to or from school.

I read this too and was also a about the running into the road bit, made the writer seem rather nonchalant (sp?). I used to walk home on my own at that age- well, with same age friends but we all did then & there was less traffic. Round here most people begin to allow it towards the end of yr 5, and deff by yr 6 to prepare them for secondary. Not sure what is the right answer tho, must be horrid to be reported to SS ,I felt sorry for her.

I find it incredibly depressing that when a car has to slow down to avoid hitting a 3 year old on their own residential street that the parent is blamed rather than the driver.

Toddlers and young children must be allowed to walk about in public places. They are likely to run out in front of cars. In residential areas, particularly where there are children, cars should not be travelling at a speed that would require them to do much slowing down if a child "unexpectedly" runs out i the road.

3 year olds are unpredictable. How are they to be stopped from running out in the road? Should they be tethered to their parents? or kept in buggies getting fat until they are old enough to be utterly reliable in terms of where they might run?

Would I let a 7 year old walk 20 yards on their own? Or run ahead for 25 yards? Would I keep them on an extendable lead to prevent them going too far? Or let them walk a km on their own? It doesn't actually matter exactly what I or you would do, it's a question of whether not following a societal norm in such matter is worthy of involving the State machinery.

If I beat my child senseless every saturday - then yes, involve the State, no question.

If I live a picture postcard white middle class home counties life, never doing anything (and never permitting my children to do) anything which might be remarked upon by anyone we encounter as eccentric, either in our home or out of it - then of course noone would consider involving the State.

But where do you draw the line? Are we really arguing over whether 200 yards is ok but not 1km? Or, in even having the argument, is there an underlying assumption that this woman has crossed the line into no longer being assumed to have the best interests of her children at heart, and to be responsible to decide, with them, what sorts of risks are ok for them to take?

I want to know exactly where that line is supposed to be. Lots of people parent in ways I find distasteful, sad, counterproductive, unkind to their children, but I still respect their right to privacy in family life, in the absence of the sorts of abuse we would all agree are illegal. I don't think we should be calling social services on other people, or that they should act on phone calls, unless there are clear allegations that families are acting outside the law.

Surely acting ultra vires should be outside the SS remit?

I don't know here whether SS are ultra vires. I expect so. In the woman's position, I would be writing a letter to SS asking at what age she is permitted to allow her son to walk to school alone, and asking them to quote the case law. And ditto, asking them at what age and for how long a period children may be a) in the house alone, or b) on some portion of the family premises alone and out of earshot. She won't get a reply. There is no case law, AFAIK.

In law, it is a parental judgement call, however much you or I might want our children to walk with us until the age of XX (insert suitable age here)

Thick question - what is ultra vires?

Outside the law.

agree with skidoodle

my 5 year old totters into the road sometimes when skipping along pavement

slow down people

it is not ultra vires for ss to investigate a referral made to them. Until they investigate they donot know whether there is any substance to the allegation. Not to investigate leaves the ss wide open to justifiable critisism should their inaction lead to serious harm being caused to a child. They are under a DUTY to investigate. I would be utterly astonished to see any attempt at legal intervention based on the facts stated within this article.

But why do you think it's possible today. It's not.

We've already started to let ds walk to school (abut a km) on his own, aged 7. SO far he has only done it with us "shadowing" him - much to his chagrin.

We have trained him to be good with traffic and are confident about his judgement. Howver, it is a personal thing: he has frineds who are nearly a year older who aren't as good with traffic.

From quite an early age, we would let him play out in the garden without us watching his every move. he kewn he wasn't allowed out of the driveway without permission and respected that.

I agree with skidoodle - where is the approbation of the people who drive too fast? I was talking to my dad about this and the freedom I enjoyed when I was young (child of the 60s) and he pointed out that in the past, if a young child got abducted or something nasty while they did an errand for thier parents or were walking to school or were out playing on their own, the person who did it would get lamed. Nowadays it owuld be the parent.

Where is our scoial reposnibility?

FWIW, I am proud of the independence we give our wee boy. I'm sure it goes in a large part to what his making him such a confident wee boy.

I agree that as parents we have to make choices based on our own children's abilities and sense. There is an age below which though that I think a little one cannot be fully trusted however sensible they may appear. I was not so worried about her letting her nearly 8 year old walk to school. I would have more concerns about leaving him alone at home for 25 minutes especialy when ill. However, it is the younger child and the traffic that causes me some concern. I agree that peole drive too fast and it is a real bugbear of mine-but as parents we have to accept that there are selfish drivers out there who will drive like lunatics and we have to factor that in to the environment that we allow our children alone into. I have a very sensible 3 year old-but I would never let her near a road alone under any circumstances. She is just too young to be trusted.

I think it can - depending on route, roads and so on - be entirely reasonable for a seven year old to walk to school on his own. However ... I don't think it is reasonable to leave a 7 year old at home regularly, and it sounds as if cars have had to brake to avoid her todler on the road on several occasions.

Normally I view all social workers as the spawn of Satan but in this case, to be honest, it sounds as if "Lisa Bacon" needed a damned good talking to.

I actually don't have a concern that SS checked out the referral (although on the face of it, it seems strange/sad that she was referred),

What I do quibble with is that (apparently) SS have said she is not let her ds walk to school.

I could tell stories about hwo ds or other kids have got away from you while walking - that is why our street is supposed to be a "20s plenty" street: toddlers, unless you have them on reigns all the time(and anyone want to start that debate?! ) can get away from you.

Ds even, aged 17 months (only just walking) escaped the house (through the cat flap after his baaaad Mummy forgot to shut the outside storm door when leaving the house in the pouring rain at 6am ) at 7.15 in the morning and dh eventually, after half a hour of panic, found him crying in the next door house's driveway. We think he walked along the pavement rather than through the gardens, as his babygro wasn't muddy, only wet - but if a car had gone past at that time, should we have been referred to SS?

I totally agree with emmaagain. well said.

chipkid why should SS be investigating complaints outside their remit? if it's not their business whether children are allowed to walk to school alone, then there should be no compunction for them to investigate such reports.

If they have to investigate every report then their business in acting as busybodies and not actually doing anything to protect children that are really at risk.

"it is not ultra vires for ss to investigate a referral made to them."

If the referral contains nothing to suggest the family have broken the law, then it's surely ultra vires? So the first thing SS need to establish is what law the family have supposedly broken before they wade in. The 2009 "Not Walking Alone To School Before You Are 15 Act And Never Being Out Of Earshot Of A Responsible Adult Until You Are 37 Act?"

Whether or not that holds - I can see that SS can invoke "neglect" or "emotional abuse" at the drop of a hat and hence investigate whoever the hell they like - it may WELL be ultra vires to write a letter to a family advising them not to allow their child to walk to school alone. Dispensing unwanted and unsolicited parenting advice (with the strange power that such "advice" has coming from people who can, if they wish, try to take your children away from you) surely lies outside SS legal remit?

We might all be thinking "but the advice SS are giving is reasonable". It might be, in this case, but we've all come across enough lunatic and interfering HVs to be fearful, surely, of an extension of the remit of the State into family decision making of this sort without clear legislation outlining their new responsibilities? (and yes, after such legislation, I would be on the first plane to the Antipodes)