Human rights health visitor

[Erlisk]

I have seen it here before but the posts are old. Before my baby was born i told my midwife (UK) that i did not want any visits at home. I just like my privacy and want to be able to decide who enters my home. They offer visits as a service so i just decided to not let them in. I was happy to go for appointments.

Then in the hospital when the baby was born, they told me "someone was going to come into my house even if i do not want that". I kept saying no. They kept saying they just wanted to see where the baby would sleep etc. i said no. Then the midwifes came to the door and i told them i did not want them in my house. So they reported me to social services. Social services called me and threatened with official investigation if i do not let the midwifes and later health visitor in my house. Also for the one year visit.

I texted them many times i did not want. I also told them in person. So i have a lot of proof. Ok long story short i let them in.because they threatened with social services investigation = trying to take your baby. I had to let them in, they said everything was fine, and closed the case. But instead of bonding with my baby i was stressed that they were trying to take her away.

So. It is ten months ago so the one year visit is coming and I DO NOT WANT THEM IN MY HOUSE. So i decided to go after them. And yes, it is human rights violation. It is not normal in civilised countries that someone comes to your house without your consent and without a warrant. If you do not let them in they basically threaten to take your baby.

I am not looking for the comments that they are just helping etc. I am not interested in that 😉. What i am looking for here is other moms who went after them. I am researching where to complain. I am also making a list of solicitors who would help me. And maybe some group court case? I will make complaint to NHS. I believe we only have one year for this kind of thing so only people who experienced this last year. Or if you went through going to court and have a good no win no fee lawyer (London or Kent). They are violating human rights you everyone so no, i will not let it go.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience but that is different from the question of whether a HV insisting on home visits is a breach of a parent's human rights. Yes they offer the service, but declining will send a message, like it or not. As I said, I'd prefer them to be overly cautious than not cautious enough, for the good of the wider population.

An irony is that your child's name will now be on the Social Services recording system OP and no, they won't remove it if you fancy legal fisticuffs with them too.

Lots of people turn down health visitor involvement with no issues but not allowing midwives in for post birth checks is rightly going to put red flags up. I'm amazed you can't see that and recognise that you've actually put yourself under more scrutiny than would have been needed.

@takealettermsjones You are missing the point that the HV has no statutory right to insist on a home visit. Only a statutory right to offer it.

I declined their visits after the first two and for subsequent children. It was not an issue. If there were any issues then my GP or midwife team could have reported me to SS.

It is a significant issue that so much is spent on this service and yet its quality is very poor.

I thought you weren’t replying

Recently retired HV here. So sorry to hear you've had a stressful time? Refusal of service would never lead to SS referral in the areas I've worked, unless there was another significant safeguarding concern
. It would be shared with management, noted in childs notes, and shared with GP only, so that they knew they were only ones with eyes on baby for health and development concerns. I would offer appointments elsewhere eg clinic, as an option too,and a hopeful letter at 1 and 2 years, just reminding you that I was still there if needed.
If a referral was made to SS, with no specific safeguarding concerns, it wouldn't be acted on in my area.They simply don't have the resources, or wish, to follow up inappropriate referrals.
Can you think of any historical concerns about you, your partner, child's father, home conditions, that would wave a flag OP? Mental health concerns, alcohol, criminality, drugs, domestic abuse, child safeguarding concerns for other children or partners children, or even you or your partner/child's father as a child? Other close family members?
I'm just trying to make sense of an unusual situation, and seek clarity as to whether you are wasting your time or not.

Sorry, tried to edit to unquote OP

The way you have communicated in this thread alone - and your previous one - would give a reasonable person legitimate concern for your baby's safety.

You seem to have an unhealthy level of paranoia around people forcing themselves into your home.

You would presumably be ok with the 'state' compelling entrance to your home in your case then, given the red flags you're giving off?

Ridiculous reaction to organisations trying to safeguard your child.

Slightly worrying that you’re a recently retired HV and you’ve failed to spot the bit where the OP says she was referred to SS for refusing entry to the MW so soon after the birth.

And you sound incredibly rude. I’ve reported your post.

Have a little respect for yourself and think before you post- calling people names online is ridiculously immature.

It works the same way with vulnerable adults. I don’t like people in my house either as I find it overwhelming but I have carers and mental health teams come in 3 mornings a week before my daughter because her needs come before mine. If I refused access, they would make safeguarding referrals as they would not know whether she was being cared for adequately and if all her needs are being met.

Eith regards to complaints or further action, you haven't a leg to stand on. This isn't about you, the health visitors and midwives have a duty of care to newborns and children. Imagine the outrage if something was missed. You're being completely unreasonable. We are so lucky to live in a country where these appointments are given. To be honest your thought process is a huge red flag. surely you're not serious? this can't be real.

She did also say though that she had given them entry and the case was closed. So why are they pushing to go back? It suggests something else must have happened? Otherwise they wouldn’t bother if she just said ‘no thanks’ surely?

Who do they think they are?

People who are trying to make sure children still exist, and are safe.

I am not missing any point - of course they have no statutory right to gain entry to your home but they have every right to give SS a bell and let them know that a new mother is refusing to let HV/midwives see her home. You can refuse whatever you want but you can't stop people making inferences from that refusal.

There is a reason they mandated it for you.

Again, the OP refused entry to the midwife. Nothing to do with HVs.

I know you’re saying you don’t want to talk about. But it’s weird. Who would want to go back to hospital with their newborn baby rather than be sat on their sofa in pjs so people don’t come to your house?!
they’re trying to do their job in making sure your child is ok. If you’d just been normal about the initial visits which are pretty few, then once you’d declined the 1 year check they’d probably leave you alone. I imagine now they’ll be pestering you during the two year check too.

You say this though, but how did the health visitor know that your house wasn’t filthy, dangerous and unsafe for a baby? How did they know the baby wasn’t just put on a mattress on a floor, surrounded by rubbish. They wouldn’t without checking. Your house may not be like I describe but other people’s could be, and their baby could go under the radar because you don’t want someone in your house for 15 minutes

Oh, no apology necessary! I hadn't read the whole thread and didn't mean to take your comment out of context.

And, yes, I think the OP might be what's called an unreliable narrator in fiction, because I can't really understand the way this scenario is playing out unless there's additional detail.

It seems that the initial refusal to allow the midwives to do the early post natal checks has triggered everything else. I am not clear whether the OP has been taking her baby to the baby clinic or GP in order to have the basic checks done there, or if she is not engaging at all. Generally it is fine to take your baby to a clinic for all the developmental and health checks after the first 10 days. Refusing to allow the midwife to check mum and baby at least once during the first 10 days is a red flag.

I think people like the OP often see their child as an extension of themselves, and not a separate being with human rights of its own, and in the case of a newborn, at the most vulnerable time in its life.

It can't talk, it can't tell people if it's living in a cesspit with an abusive, addict parent and is imminent danger. The only way such things can be cleared up if is HV is allowed access for quarter of an hour.

When I adopted pets from the local SSPCA shelter, they wanted to talk to me and I had to provide them with footage (it was during Covid) of my home and my other pet so they were satisfied that the animal would be rehomed to good, sanitary and safe conditions. If that's considered a necessary step to safeguard animals, how much more so is it important to safeguard the health and wellbeing of a tiny, helpless newborn?

In relation to a midwifery call, yes. However, not in the case of an HV visit in the absence of any other markers. I am sorry but you are incorrect.

I only allowed whatsapp call for first visit and ignored any later contact.
I did wellcome any reporting and formal investigation but asked that all threats about "taking baby" etc. get sent in writteing.
Obviously abuse stopped and they left us alone.
HVs are mad cows.

Unhinged behaviour is a definite marker.