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.

The referral does not only relate to letting a 7 year old walk to school it also involved leaving a 7 year old home alone and also letting a three year old play unsupervised on a road. These are potential child protection issues and therefore well within the remit of ss. Clearly there was someting in the referral that caused somebody to feel a visit was in order.

but the kid didn't play int he road - and its hardly the end of the world when you nip out and leave a 7 year old as long as its not a regular occurance whilst your down the pub.

i abhor this kind of behaviour that makes rational women shake at the knees becuase 2 words are spoken
social
services

tell them to fuck right off and come back with a warrent and a police officer - cock suckers.

child protection does not only centre around parents "breaking the law" it also involves exposing children to unacceptable risks. I am not saying that the mother in this case exposed her children to unacceptable risk-but that was probably what the SS felt they ought to at least investigate.

well child protection should just centre around parents breaking the law. It is up to parents to determine what risks are acceptable for their families.

The logic of your (and SS) argument seems to be that since no risks are acceptable for children, SS are justified in investigating families for whatever they see fit. That kind of intrusion is not justifiable IMO.

I don't see why a junkie shouldn't have custody of their own children as long as they are not abusing or neglecting them.

Oh well. I shall be expecting a call from the SS soon

DS#1 (10) and DD (8) walk to school regularly without me (and home again sometimes). I left the 8yr old in bed yesterday when I took the other 2 to school. And I leave my 10 yr old home alone when I have to go out. They all play out in the cul-de-sac unsupervised and the older 2 are allowed to go out on their bikes to the park. Eldest can go further afield (with his mobile).

I'll get the kettle on shall I?

I do agree that SS are damned either way but it does seem a bit OTT.

skidoodle I donot take the view that no risks are unacceptable for children. I am not saying that this woman took unacceptable risks-but some parents do sadly expose their children to risk and harm where the consequences for the child can be dire. Thus the need for ss to at least investigate in some cases.

FioFio, no clearly it's not the same thing as a child walking to school. You can see why SS might have legitimate concerns for the family you're talking about.

OrmIrian, I know what you mean by the "damned either way" thing, but it seems to me a very convenient truism for SS that basically justifies anything they do.

They need to be able to use their judgement to stay out of things as well as interfere. There should be just as much approbation for unnecessary meddling in family life as there is for them not catching things they should have.

Of course, we should all be a little less quick to assume that every time a child is hurt at the hands of their parents that the SS should have and could have done something to prevent it. Even if they treat us all as potential child abusers (as appears to be increasingly the case) they can't make the world into a fair and lovely place for all children. Unfortunately that lies well outside all of our powers.

But how can they use their judgement as to how to stay out of things if they don't look into it at all? I am happy that my 10yr old is sensible enough to walk to school alone taking into account his nature, our morning schedule and the route he needs to take. I know of a 10yr old boy who also walks to school in quite different circumstances that I personally find a bit concerning. If SS were tipped off about both these children how could they know which was OK and which potentially wasn't without speaking to the children and the adults involved?

Having said that I'd be mortified if that happened to me. And mud sticks - even if they found out that everything was fine I doubt if anyone would think of us the same way again

"unacceptable risks"

Who decides what's an acceptable risk?

Isn't that what statute and case law are for, not Social-Worker-makes-it-up-as-they-go-along-according-to-their-own-values? Or is there a social workers' manual? Is it in the public domain, please?

And where, precisely is parental responsibility in all this?

Me, I thought it was the parents who were responsible for their children, and that includes parental responsibility for assessing risk within their family, while remaining within the law.

Please explain exactly how it is that social workers are permitted to be above and beyond the law.

Of course SWs must look into any referrals they get. But their actions should be within the law, and I'd like to know how writing letters of so-called advice are within their legal remit - and what precise legal status such letters have.

I sometimes think that Social Workers are so within the culture of doing their best for very troubled families that they have absolutely NO IDEA what harm their interference in a perfectly capable family can do. Like OrmIrian said, mud sticks. It's not only the social shame, it's the loss of confidence. Huge potential damage.

They can use their judgement to decide that decisions about letting children walk to school, play in the street, or stay home alone are outside their remit.

Just because you find the circumstances of the other child concerning doesn't mean they are or that they warrant a visit from SS.

If SS were "tipped off" about either of these cases I would expect them to do nothing.

If they haven't got better things to do than investigating 10 year old walking to school then perhaps we should think about thinning their numbers somewhat.

Yep - read it. She's a at worst naive. It's not a fair world, and 7-year-olds just aren't safe on our roads - they need protecting. Traffic is the biggest danger, even in quiet, rural areas. I run a 'walking bus' and you have to be aware that drivers cannot see over the top of other cars on the road to view a small person - but they can see the head of an adult! Ergo - anyone shorter than the top of a windscreen needs protection when walking/crossing roads. Plus - the child may well be mature, but it's the other adults and children around who may not be! But I reserve my contempt for the spineless individual who reported her and will not own up to it. Anyone with a shred of decency would have been able to have a discreet word along the lines of "are you sure you're happy with your decision" before hiding their self-righteousness behind Social Services. Shame on them!

It is interesting how these things vary from culture to culture. Here in the Caribbean it is very common to see children as young as 4 stoically walking to school unaccompanied on roads without pavements. They always look very serious when they do it as if they are aware that a huge responsibility (as well as a heavy backpack) rests on their shoulders. I wouldn't do it but that's probably because I have the luxury of a car and don't go to work on an unreliable bus service.

I do think that as a society we tend to judge people a lot by what everybody else does rather than on the merits of a situation. Is it because we fear the wrath of SS and our peers more than the actual result of our actions?

Oh my goodness!!! I would never consider leaving a seven year old at home alone. is a newspaper really more important than the wellbeing of your child. It can take matter of moments for something to go wrong. And yes i am all for children learning responsibilites and independance but come on let children be children and mum of article you learn your responsibilites. should it of been 'working class mum leaves child of seven home alone' i think peoples views would be different.

Like BarbadosMama, I see kids aged 2 or 3 walking to nursery in the care of a (not much older) sibling here in Ghana. No one thinks this odd or particularly dangerous. I wouldn't do it myself, but there it is.

But those who know... what happens if she ignores the (in my opinion outrageously misguided) SS advice and continues to let her DC walk to school alone and stay at home alone for short periods?

My son starting walking to school (approx 12 minutes) just before his ninth birthday - we had spent the previous two terms walking with him and teaching him how to deal with the traffic. He is an extremely sensible child - most of his friends would not have been ready to do that at that point. His younger sister is now 9 and a half - but she is not walking to school on her own yet as we have moved - it is further and the traffic here is much heavier and the roads very difficult to cross. So it is horses for courses - I would have been outraged if anyone had reported me to SS because DS was walking.

I just thought of something ironic with regard to this thread. The only pupil of our school that has been recently hurt by a car whilst on the way to school was a little girl in DD's class who was knocked down while with her mother. Driver was blinded by the sun and didn't see that the lights were against him.