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 was mainly commenting on the refusal to allow the midwife to check how baby was doing post birth.

This visit also does not have to take place at your home and nothing OP said suggests she would have turned down medical care. She just didn't want people in her home.

Sara Sharif had already come to SS attention and put under a child protection plan from birth. Her father had been reported to police on several occasions for violence against women and children and her mother was classified as vulnerable because of learning difficulties. He was later witness being violent towards Olga and the children and the children reported him assaulting them. She was taken out of school to be "home schooled" after they reported unexplained bruising to SS.

The proposed new legislation is for monitoring of home schooled children to make sure they are seen by other people. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that would make HV home visits compulsory for everyone and there is nothing in the Sharif case that suggests that doing so would have changed the outcome for the poor girl. It is nothing at all like the situation OP described.

The just after birth visits are essential, this is often when difficulties are picked, with weight gain and jaundice etc, which can lead to more serious problems. I am not surprised you were reported, these visits are very different to the ones after 1 year+.

red flags

I never said the two situations are similar. I said that the likelihood of her winning this case is slim because of recent child neglect cases like Sara Sharif. The professionals involved in Sara Sharif's case are also under review. OP wants to sue her local children's services for essentially trying to force her to allow a home visit. Whilst I agree with OP that the way they went about it is wrong, I don't think a court will be sympathetic to her given the children's services were acting out of worry for her child.

If you realise the situations aren't similar, why do you think a court wouldn't? The Sharif case has no bearing on the OP's right to quiet enjoyment of her home because there aren't any obvious concerns for the safety or well being of OPs DC which there were in the Sharif case.

I don't know if HVs and SS can be held responsible in law for deceptive coercion to give them access to someone's home. I certainly hope so. But whether they can or not won't be changed by mistakes that were made in cases with clear signs of abuse that could have given a court or police the grounds to enter.

How do you know?

I work in an area with lots of "alternative folk" who are anti vaxx, free birthers, no westernedicine type hipsters. A sizeable amount of them refuse routine care for themselves and their babies. This doesn't raise alarm unless they display what is essentially evidence of mental health issues alongside their refusal. This could be in the form of delusional, aggressive and/or irrational behaviour.

That's when we would start getting insistent.

OP refusing critical care to her 5 day old will count as a concern for the wellbeing of her child. Which is why it was reported to SS and why SS felt the need to open a case.

If a HV had said "SS, I wasn't allowed in this home but they came to the clinic", SS wouldn't do anything about it because there's nothing to do.

What actually happened was midwives were refused entry to carry out standard, essential care to a baby and the midwives raised that with SS.

OPs right to quiet enjoyment of her home does not come above the right of her baby to receive essential medical care. Any court that said otherwise would be a massive problem.

Can you take the baby to the clinic for their 1year check? The midwife and health visitor only called to the house for the few weeks when I had my children. I attended all future appointments at my local GP surgery. I agree your behaviour is probably making them concerned. Maybe book to go to the clinic to see them, and at that appointment explain you don't like people in your house.

This is hyperbole. Critical in medicine refers to something that is life threatening. This was a check up. One at which important issues can be picked up, but it is rare for anything immediately life threatening to be found that a mother wouldn't spot anyway. When OP told the midwives she didn't want a home visit, she should have been offered a check at an NHS facility. OP has said she was happy to go to a clinic. She wasn't refusing care, she was refusing to let them use her home as the setting.

She was refusing to let them see her child and provide care when they'd told her that they needed to come to her home. If they'd told her that in hospital (see the OP) there is a reason. They felt the need to check on the baby in the home for a reason.

This isn't a standard thing, for the HCPs to refer to SS because a home visit was refused. It's not standard to tell a new mum someone was going to come regardless of her wishes.

It's very obvious that OP hasn't given us the full picture and it's very obvious that something else was going on that triggered the HCPs to feel the need to check the home life of this particular baby.

Was the baby low risk when it was transferred to community care?

This may be why we have such different takes on this because telling me they needed to see my home and threatening social services was exactly what the health visitor did to me when I turned the offer of a home visit. So in my experience that sort of over reach is a standard response.

Possible they had a reason with you too. Have you considered doing a dSAR to get the notes they hold to see why?

A polite "sorry, that doesn't work for me, but I can make it to a clinic if you let me know when/where they're on" wouldn't ring any alarm bells for anyone.

Refusing visits from the health visitor is quite different from refusing the postnatal midwife check though. I think this is what has caused concern.

I was booked at home when pg with DS2. That booking appointment brought into sharp relief why home visits blur professional boundaries.

The midwife was very pointed in her comments about the size if the house and the fact that she and her partner had to live in a two bed flat. It was wholly inappropriate.

Despite commenting about wedding photo's DH's job etc., she had no compunction in asking if "It" had the same father as DS1. I know why the question had to be asked but it was not done nicely and I was carrying a baby not an "it".

She also disregarded my concerns about breastfeeding having been told of the difficulties I had with DS1. She was categorically told I was undecided about feeding but when I challenged why she had put "plans to breastfeed" told me they always put that and couldn't answer why she had asked the question in that event.

I was not happy about the appointment at the time. At the 20 week scan it was clear that the baby had a congenital heart deformity incompatible with life. A baby referred to as "it" whose parentage was questioned.

The remainder of the oregnancy was difficult and our son died shortly after birth. I have always felt he was not afforded the respect he shoukd have been by that midwife.

I declined future booking appointments at home. Sometimes the invasion of one's home is not done appropriately.

I'm so sorry to hear your story, that's so sad 😔 I had a home birth with DC2 and the midwives who visited me at home were lovely, however when I gave birth to DC1 in hospital the midwives there were absolutely awful, one even tried to deny me gas and air!! I have to wonder why some of them even go into the profession in the first place!

I was a polite "No that doesn't work for me, I can come to the clinic."

I haven't considered doing a dSAR to get my notes because I know there were no red flags. It was so obviously a front to try and get me to comply.

I was just pointing out that the certainty some posters have that they were reasonably concerned about the baby and not simply using the threat as a standard way to try and coerce a patient who isn't letting them do what they want is not borne out by own experience.

The postnatal midwife check is still a voluntary service. And while it's lovely they offer it at home, there is no need for it to be there. Instead of threatening to report to SS they should have offered a check at an NHS facility. It is shocking that so many people are justifying the use of threats to a vulnerable woman to make her give them access to her home instead of offering her the medical care she and her DC deserve.

That is awful, RosesAndHellebores. I'm so sorry.

@RosesAndHellebores
I am so, so sorry to hear your story.
I am ashamed that a health care professional would behave so badly.
Sadly there are awful people in all walks of life and I am afraid working in the nhs is no exception.
The loss of a child is the most dreadful thing to happen to anyone.

No one can know more than the OP has said. However, the MW and/or HV services referred OP to social services. Social services opened up an investigation. As pointed out by a number of people on this thread who work within that system, SS would not have taken the referral and opened up an investigation if the referral was simply that the visits were declined so it is not simply the case of a MW or HV using an idle threat to get what they want, they did something concrete that would have required an explanation of a reasonable concern. Of course they could have made something up but why would they do so if they didn’t have any concerns?

@endofthelinefinally thank you. Something that stayed with me from those earlier pregnancies was just how young and "right on" some of the HCPs were.

When I had dd I booked with a different hospital and had consultant led care. The midwives were older, on the whole, and the vibe was different and far more caring. It was more about the mother and baby and there was greater acknowledgement that some mothers planned and wanted their babies.

Yes. There are some jobs that really should be done by older, experienced people - and some that should be done by women - and a combination thereof.