Revised Children First a step too far?

James Jones

Single incidents of slapping and pushing are defined in Children First (page 9) as a form of physical abuse, as is "terrorising with threats".

2.4 Definition of ‘physical abuse’
2.4.1 Physical abuse of a child is that which results in actual or potential physical harm from an interaction,
or lack of interaction, which is reasonably within the control of a parent or person in a position of
responsibility, power or trust. There may be single or repeated incidents.
Physical abuse can involve:
(i) severe physical punishment;
(ii) beating, slapping, hitting or kicking;
(iii) pushing, shaking or throwing;
(iv) pinching, biting, choking or hair-pulling;
(v) terrorising with threats;
(vi) observing violence;
(vii) use of excessive force in handling;
(viii) deliberate poisoning;
(ix) suffocation;
(x) fabricated/induced illness (see Appendix 1 for details);
(xi) allowing or creating a substantial risk of significant harm to a child

Although I abhor physical violence against children, I am concerned that the new guidelines, when they become mandatory, will make a criminal offence of what used to be frowned on socially but also make a criminal offence of failing to report the matter.
For example, if my neighbours child tells me that their parents have threatened to slap them, I will be obliged to report the matter to the HSE or else face a criminal conviction.
Threatening children with physical chastisement will be a criminal offence but a false allegation (white lie) by a child will result in a member of the general public HAVING TO REPORT THE MATTER.

The implications of these new rules are horrendous given that they are being introduced without any debate.
Also, judgement calls will be made by Social Workers (remember those people who failed to do their job HERE and HERE?)

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

For example, if my neighbours child tells me that their parents have threatened to slap them, I will be obliged to report the matter to the HSE or else face a criminal conviction.
Threatening children with physical chastisement will be a criminal offence but a false allegation (white lie) by a child will result in a member of the general public HAVING TO REPORT THE MATTER.

You might be jumping the gun a little.

The slap has to cuause actual or potential physical harm. 'Physical harm' isnt specifically defined referable to that section but a light slap on the leg/bum is very unlikely to have caused actual physical harm.

Similarly, 'terrorising' isnt defined referable to this section, but threatening children with a slap is very unlikely to be considered to be 'terrorising with threats'.

Of course, when you are in the hands of others (ie. judges) when it comes to defining and interpreting loosely worded laws, it is understandable to be concerned that unreasonable and unfair interpretations might be given to certain sections which threatens the criminalisation of 'sensible' people.

But, really, i dont think the interpretation you have given above are reasonable.

deisemum

I would like to think common sense would prevail but going on the actions of some judges and social workers anything is possible.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

You might be jumping the gun a little.

The slap has to cause actual or potential physical harm.

Afraid not.

2.4.1 Physical abuse of a child is that which results in actual or potential physical harm from an interaction.

"Potential" is the cover-all word that makes these guidelines scary. Potential means possible, as opposed to actual and so requires a certain amount of knowledge of the future.

Social Worker: "Was the child hurt?"
James Jones: "No"
Social Worker: "Did he hurt the child?"
James Jones: "No"
Social Worker: "Did he have the potential to hurt".
James Jones: "I don't know".
Social Worker: "Well, if he continued to slap the child, would the child have been hurt?"
James Jones: "Maybe".
Social Worker: "Then why did you not report it?"
James Jones: "Because I only read the old Children First and not the new super-douper ones but the media never pointed out that slapping was now illegal due to the smokescreen created over the seal of confession".
Social Worker: "You seem to be a bit cynical of the law but I was involved in the case in Roscommon[/URL
and it was very stressful so I'm not taking any chances this time".

CrazyRabbit

Also, any nudity in front of a child is considered abuse in the new guidelines. No more mums & dads getting dressed in front of their 1 year old child.

Section 25.1 (i)
Definition of ‘sexual abuse’ : "exposure of the sexual organs or any sexual act intentionally performed in the presence of the child;"

BostonB

James Jones wrote: »

...the new guidelines, when they become mandatory,...

Mandatory?

Is this for people working with children only, or is more wide ranging than that?

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

Mandatory?

Is this for people working with children only, or is more wide ranging than that?

Afraid not.

3. Basis for reporting concerns and
Standard Reporting Procedure


3.1 Purpose

3.1.1 This chapter offers guidance to the general public and to all people, both professional and voluntary, working
with or in direct contact with children who may be concerned or who suspect that children are being abused
or neglected or at risk of abuse or neglect. It outlines the standard reporting procedure to be used in passing
information to the statutory authorities about child protection concerns

3.2 Responsibility to report child abuse or neglect
3.2.1 Everyone must be alert to the possibility that children with whom they are in contact may be suffering from
abuse or neglect. This responsibility is particularly relevant for professionals such as teachers, child care
workers, health professionals and those working with adults with serious parenting difficulties. It is also an
important responsibility for staff and people involved in sports clubs

So we can't even claim that we were not trained to police our neighbourhood, local shopping centre, etc.

metrovelvet

This looks like an overcompensation for the culture which allowed all the abuse to happen.

Rules look somewhat ridiculous in their vagueness and also give a lot of power without checks and balances to the government.

I can see split and seperated parents having a field day with it too.

BostonB

James Jones wrote: »

Afraid not.


So we can't even claim that we were not trained to police our neighbourhood, local shopping centre, etc.

That just states that for "guidance" its doesn't say it will be law.

In the foreword it says....

...We intend to enact legislation so that all people who are working with children will have a statutory duty to comply with the Children First: National Guidance.....

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

"Potential" is the cover-all word that makes these guidelines scary. Potential means possible, as opposed to actual and so requires a certain amount of knowledge of the future.

Equating 'potential' and 'possible' in the manner you have in your little story is way off the mark!

I think, in a number of respects, you are over exaggerating
(deliberately or not) the legal ramifications of the new Children First guidelines to paint an absurd picture (ie. that we will all be obliged to contact AGS if the neighbour down the road gives little johnny a slap on the bum).

Your recent comment (corrected by Boston is another good example. The intention is that the law relating to these guidelines will apply only to those working with children. Go no further than the front page of yesterdays IT or the CF Foreward and you would have realised that. But instead, you chose to pluck a section of the guidelines, which does not say what you claim it does, and pretend it does apply.

There are many issues with CF but that kind of hysteria & ignorance doesnt do a rational debate any favours.

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

That just states that for "guidance" its doesn't say it will be law. In the foreword it says....

...We intend to enact legislation so that all people who are working with children will have a statutory duty to comply with the Children First: National Guidance.....

As I posted earlier, the guidelines quite specifically state that

3.2 Responsibility to report child abuse or neglect
3.2.1 Everyone must be alert to the possibility that children with whom they are in contact may be suffering from
abuse or neglect. This responsibility is particularly relevant for professionals such as teachers, child care
workers, health professionals and those working with adults with serious parenting difficultie

The guidelines refer to "EVERYONE" and then qualifies this by saying "this responsibility is particularly relevant for professionals" indicating that it is relevant to people other than professionals. It could be argued that this refers to volunteers but it is in the section that "offers guidance to the general public and to all people, both professional and voluntary"

drkpower wrote: »

Equating 'potential' and 'possible' in the manner you have in your little story is way off the mark!

URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potential"]po•ten•tial[/URL]
   [puh-ten-shuh l] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclearenergy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Maybe you can indicate how you see a difference between "possible" and "potential" in this instance.

drkpower wrote: »

I think, in a number of respects, you are over exaggerating
(deliberately or not) the legal ramifications of the new Children First guidelines to paint an absurd picture (ie. that we will all be obliged to contact AGS if the neighbour down the road gives little johnny a slap on the bum).

You are entitled to your opininon.

Your recent comment (corrected by Boston is another good example.

I disagree with you on this point, as posted above in reply to Boston B

The intention is that the law relating to these guidelines will apply only to those working with children. Go no further than the front page of yesterdays IT or the CF Foreward and you would have realised that. But instead, you chose to pluck a section of the guidelines, which does not say what you claim it does, and pretend it does apply.

I believe that my reply to Boston B undermines your position.

There are many issues with CF but that kind of hysteria & ignorance doesnt do a rational debate any favours.

Claiming that my points are ignorant and hysterical indicates a particularly defensive position to take of the Children First guidelines unless you have some involvement with the document or perhaps you are a Social Worker or other person affected by them. Before we go any further, can you now declare if you have any interest other than as a parent?

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

You are entitled to your opininon.

I am indeed; but it is based on an understanding of legal interpretation. Yours does not appear to be so.

James Jones wrote: »

I believe that my reply to Boston B undermines your position. .

No it doesnt. Your reply to Boston B simply betrays your misunderstanding. The Children First guidelines are of wide application. The intention to legislate on them is of narrower effect. The intention is that they will only legislatively apply to those working with children. That is the fundamental point that you have missed.

James Jones wrote: »

Before we go any further, can you now declare if you have any interest other than as a parent?

No. But i have an understanding of how guidelines such as CF are interpreted and how they are legislated for.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

Go no further than the front page of yesterdays IT or the CF Foreward and you would have realised that.

Yesterdays Irish Times

"We must ensure that all of society, particularly those in trusted positions with children, are fully aware of their responsibilities to children and supported in their work.”

"those in trusted positions with children"= professionals and volounteers working with children.

ALL OF SOCIETY = everybody else.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

The intention to legislate on them is of narrower effect. The intention is that they will only legislatively apply to those working with children. That is the fundamental point that you have missed.

Reference please

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

"We must ensure that all of society, particularly those in trusted positions with children, are fully aware of their responsibilities to children and supported in their work.” .

Sigh; read the article and try to understand it. The Gudelines, as I stated are of wide affect, and are intended to ensure everyone is fully aware of their responsibilities. The intention to legislate is confined to those working with children. Read the rest of the article!!! This is not that difficult to understand!

Under the measures, the national code on how to respond to child protection concerns – Children First – will be placed on a statutory footing.
This requires all organisations and individuals working with children to share information with authorities relating to child welfare concerns, and to follow protocols for the assessment of suspected abuse or neglect. Failure to comply with aspects of the code will give rise to a range of civil and criminal sanctions.

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

Reference please

Me & Boston B have already pointed you to the foreward of the code and the intentions of the goverment. What bit cant you understand?

James Jones

I meant a proper reference and not a newspaper article which is simply the interpretation of the journalist, who more than likely didn't read the guidelines. Have you a reference from a source such as the Dept of Health or the Office for the Minister for Children to back up what is only your opinion?

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

I meant a proper reference and not a newspaper article which is simply the interpretation of the journalist, who more than likely didn't read the guidelines. Have you a reference from a source such as the Dept of Health or the Office for the Minister for Children to back up what is only your opinion?

You used the article yourself in an attempt to back up your point!!:D

If the reportage of what the Minister said isnt good enough, read the foreward to the guidelines themselves. Sometimes you need to just accept you are wrong!

James Jones

I used the article (which you had referred to) to undermine your position rather than back up my own.
I am willing to accept if I am wrong and, in this instance I hope I am, but you have not done anything to actually prove that I am.

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

I used the article (which you had referred to) to undermine your position rather than back up my own. .

That's a tad jesuitical, to say the least. But if we are nit-picking to that extent, I did not refer to the article you posted - i referred to the one on the front page of the IT.:D

James Jones wrote: »

I am willing to accept if I am wrong and, in this instance I hope I am, but you have not done anything to actually prove that I am.

I have told you what the Guide says.
I have referred to what the Miister(s) have been reported as having said.

At this point, I have made a prime facie case - if you want to differ, its your turn to present something of substance, rather than misintepreting sections of the code and sitting back and asking people to provide more and more evidence.

James Jones

drkpower wrote: »

I have told you what the Guide says.
I have referred to what the Miister(s) have been reported as having said.

At this point, I have made a prime facie case - if you want to differ, its your turn to present something of substance,

I believe that what I had claimed originally was the prima facie case and you tried to rebut this. I believe you failed whereas you do not so it is simply a mater of differing opinions as we have no one to adjudicate on the mtater.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Sigh; read the article and try to understand it. The Gudelines, as I stated are of wide affect, and are intended to ensure everyone is fully aware of their responsibilities. The intention to legislate is confined to those working with children. Read the rest of the article!!! This is not that difficult to understand!

Is the distinction that "all of society" has a philosophical and ethical obligation but that those "working with children" have a legal obligation?

The language is confusing enough that 'All of Society' will perceive themselves to be under legal obligation and potentially or possibly, whichever word you prefer, be legally punished if they dont follow these 'guidelines' and the results will be the same.

Guidelines are not laws are they?

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

I believe that what I had claimed originally was the prima facie case and you tried to rebut this. I believe you failed whereas you do not so it is simply a mater of differing opinions as we have no one to adjudicate on the mtater.

Your initial assertion (that the intended legisaltion putting the CF statutory footing applied to everyone) was plain wrong. There is nothng in the guidelines that says that. What you did was you completely musinterpreted a section in the Guidelines. That has been pointed out to you ad nauseum.

So, you have provided no evidence. I, and others, have pointed to two specific pieces of evidence suggesting the contrary is true.

It is not a matter of adjudication. It is a matter of you being incorrect from the get go, but unable/unwilling to accept that fact.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is the distinction that "all of society" has a philosophical and ethical obligation but that those "working with children" have a legal obligation?

That is pretty much spot on. The CF guidlines are just that, guidelines. They impose no legal obligation. The Sate could choose to put them on a statutory footing for everyone or for only certain classes of people. It seems clear the intention is the latter.

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is the distinction that "all of society" has a philosophical and ethical obligation but that those "working with children" have a legal obligation?

Maybe, maybe not.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Guidelines are not laws are they?

Not yet.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs If she will provide further information regarding her plans to bring legislative proposals to Government putting the revised Children First guidelines on a statutory footing

The Minister replied

In line with the programme for Government, I am committed to the introduction of legislation to underpin Children First

BostonB

metrovelvet wrote: »

...
Guidelines are not laws are they?

That it exactly. This is not law. The intention stated by the minister, to make it law only for those working with children, and guidelines for everyone else. Thats my reading of it. You don't need to reference anything else. Thats how its written in that document.



IMO its completely unworkable anyway. You'd have to report super nanny for her timeout on the step. Or the threat of it. They have no resources to deal with the work it would create either. There isn't resources to enforce most of the laws already in place.

deisemum

They can bring in all the laws to protect children but when you currently have lazy couldn't care less social workers who will not return numerous phonecalls from people who are phoning to report child abuse, ignoring similar requests from Barnardos and the Gardai and local politicians then nothing much will change.

I along with a number of neighbours were left very upset from witnessing and hearing abuse for 3 months last summer and the social worker assigned to the family did not want to know. The only people that took it seriously were the gardai.

It was extremely distressing to be in bed at night and unable to sleep from all what was going on next door. There will be plenty more cases like the ones in Galway and Roscommon because some social workers are lazy and are squandering resources because they haven't taken anything on board since the Roscommon case.

One thing that you'll always read or hear when these cases come to the attention of the media is "why didn't the neighbours do something?", for all anyone knows the neighbours may have been blue in the face reporting things only for the social workers to do sod all.

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

The intention stated by the minister, to make it law only for those working with children, and guidelines for everyone else. Thats my reading of it. You don't need to reference anything else.

Can you quote where the Minister specifically stated that?

IMO its completely unworkable anyway. You'd have to report super nanny for her timeout on the step. Or the threat of it. They have no resources to deal with the work it would create either. There isn't resources to enforce most of the laws already in place.

Agreed. Problem is there is nothing to stop false reporting and these guidelines invite loads of those.

BostonB

James Jones wrote: »

Can you quote where the Minister specifically stated that?...

I already did.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73332824&postcount=9

I don't see how its workable in its current form. Any threat of any kind of discipline, never mind the discipline it self seems to be illegal.

drkpower

James Jones wrote: »

The Minister replied:In line with the programme for Government, I am committed to the introduction of legislation to underpin Children First

Are you selectively quoting on purpose or are you just not reading & understanding the whole of any article that you post. This is what was said by the Minister later in the link you provided.

They are not just about reporting, but about an approach to the management of child protection cases to which every organisation working with children will need to adhere.

:rolleyes:

mareliada

diesemum,
can i ask how many social workers have you met? how many times have you been inside a social workers office or team meeting, or had a conversation with a soical worker at the end of another day whereby they didn't get to do half of what they wanted to do because there is just too much bad stuff happening in the world and not enough time, resources or other social workers to make it all better?
"lazy couldn't care less social workers", why do you think social workers get up every day to face sadness, abuse, more complex and a heavier caseload everyday? for the money, prestige, glamour or thanks??
no they do it because they care, genuinely, and are doing their best everyday against a lot of resistance with feck all resources. and do you thnk you are the only one lying awake worrying about little ones? i can guarantee they are too and more so because they are the ones actually meeting with all the kids and having to make incredibly difficult decisions everyday about which calls they can return and which home visits they can do, and unfortunately which ones they can't. it is a ****ty world out there, this is not the fault of the social workers. social workers are people who see the horribel and sad things inthe world and do what they can within limited resources to make a difference.
they are also putting themselves at great risk in the community. how do you think a conversation with an addict or violent parent or with serious mental health goes when they are being told their children are being taken into care? or how do you think you woudl explain to a child that they are being taken away from their home, their toys, brothers and sisters friends and parents?

maybe you have had a bad experience, there will always be good and bad in every walk of life, but would you like to be generalised in the negative the way you feel qualified to do so after one experience?

deisemum

I've been in their offices, I've worked alongside them and yes I've had very negative experiences from dealing with them and I can see why a lot of other medical and ancillary professionals have such a low opinion on social workers in general.

Sleepy

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Also, any nudity in front of a child is considered abuse in the new guidelines. No more mums & dads getting dressed in front of their 1 year old child.

Section 25.1 (i)
Definition of ‘sexual abuse’ : "exposure of the sexual organs or any sexual act intentionally performed in the presence of the child;"

Wow. This one would affect us as a family. Whenever we go swimming or anything like that, I'm always happiest with the family changing rooms and showers.

In our culture of airbrushed celebrity magazines etc. I think it's a good thing for younger children to see their parents naked, to get an understanding of what "normal" bodies look like. I don't want my daughter comparing herself to impossible "ideals" she sees in magazines or on the internet when she's a teenager. I'd rather her point of reference be normal and, preferably one that makes her think "hey, at least I don't have Dad's belly / Mums Cellulite!".

BostonB

It doesn't apply to family life scenerio's.

CrazyRabbit

BostonB wrote: »

It doesn't apply to family life scenerio's.

I must have missed that. Where does it say this?

BostonB

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73332824&postcount=9

James Jones

BostonB wrote: »

It doesn't apply to family life scenerio's.

Only if such scenarios remain private!
What if Crazy Rabbit goes swimming with the children (bunny rabbits?) who subsequently inform their teacher during a "what did you do at the weekend" discussion?
The teacher will be required to report such behavior and will be scared not to due to the entire class having heard the story.

January

James Jones wrote: »

Only if such scenarios remain private!
What if Crazy Rabbit goes swimming with the children (bunny rabbits?) who subsequently inform their teacher during a "what did you do at the weekend" discussion?
The teacher will be required to report such behavior and will be scared not to due to the entire class having heard the story.

Seriously!?

Teacher: What did you do this weekend little Jimmy?
Child: We went swimming Teacher, we all got changed in a cubicle together afterwards.
Teacher: That's good! Now, little Lucy, what did you do this weekend?

Nothing wrong with seeing mammys or daddys parts while they're changing in the changing room... It's ridiculous to think that just because you're naked in front of your child you're abusing them, a bit of common sense from the teacher there would be all that's needed. Imagine what prudes we'd be bringing up if every time your child walked in on you naked you shrieked at them and covered up... what message does that give them about body image?

mareliada

so you are prepared to make a judgement about ALL social workers the vast majority of whom you have not met. i have to say that is incredibly closed minded.
i'm not going to even debate this out it is too ridiculous a stance for one to take to warrant arguing with.
iv been working for just 6 yrs and every sw i have worked with or come into contact with works as hard as they can under extreme pressure. yes we all have bad days as no doubt even you yourself do and we get burnt out and demoralised- but we are there for genuine good reasons everyday.i don't think any of us health professionals should be criticing anyone else, none of us fully understand each others role/remits/limitiations fully.
if you are a professional with high standards and ethics what did you do in terms of reporting your observations to management?

BostonB

sorry.... you'll have to wear your swimming togs to and from the swimming pool in future. :rolleyes:

James Jones

January wrote: »

Seriously!?

Teacher: What did you do this weekend little Jimmy?
Child: We went swimming Teacher, we all got changed in a cubicle together afterwards.
Teacher: That's good! Now, little Lucy, what did you do this weekend?

Yea, seriously. Lucy goes home and tells her parents what Jimmy was doing at the weekend. Lucys parents tell the Principal who is duty bound to report it to Social Services.

January wrote: »

Nothing wrong with seeing mammys or daddys parts while they're changing in the changing room... It's ridiculous to think that just because you're naked in front of your child you're abusing them, a bit of common sense from the teacher there would be all that's needed. Imagine what prudes we'd be bringing up if every time your child walked in on you naked you shrieked at them and covered up... what message does that give them about body image?

I agree with you but does every social worker in the country agree with you?

January

James Jones wrote: »

Yea, seriously. Lucy goes home and tells her parents what Jimmy was doing at the weekend. Lucys parents tell the Principal who is duty bound to report it to Social Services.


I agree with you but does every social worker in the country agree with you?

I'm sure little Lucys parents would be doing the same thing...

January

mareliada wrote: »

so you are prepared to make a judgement about ALL social workers the vast majority of whom you have not met. i have to say that is incredibly closed minded.
i'm not going to even debate this out it is too ridiculous a stance for one to take to warrant arguing with.
iv been working for just 6 yrs and every sw i have worked with or come into contact with works as hard as they can under extreme pressure. yes we all have bad days as no doubt even you yourself do and we get burnt out and demoralised- but we are there for genuine good reasons everyday.i don't think any of us health professionals should be criticing anyone else, none of us fully understand each others role/remits/limitiations fully.
if you are a professional with high standards and ethics what did you do in terms of reporting your observations to management?

Take the debate about how good/bad social workers are to PM and stop dragging the thread off topic.

sophia25

Well I welcome it but only if more resources are put in so social workers can effectively deal with cases. Three years ago my husband (now obviously ex) viciously punched my son (his ss) and left him badly bruised. I brought my son to GP who measured bruising and arranged counselling for my son as he was really upset. She had been trained in child protection in UK so did not speak to him at all about incident as she did not want to contaminate his evidence. She reported it to SW's and it took three months before it was investigated.

The sw spoke to my son and he told her what happened. She then interviewed by husband who was out f the house, he admitted causing the bruising but claimed it was accidental. The sw said it would depend on medical report on whether it could be ruled abuse. The dr. said in her report there was severe bruising and that my son was emotionally distressed and was referred for counselling.

The sw asked could she say 100% it was non accidental and the dr. said no because she never spoke to my son re incident and had no access to my husband history etc. The social worker then said that if the dr. couldn't say this 100% then she would have to drop case. the dr. was angry, she said the sw basically expected her to rule yet it was the sw's role to investigate. The dr. said that basically because my son was out of danger, that with the limited resources the sw had to drop my son's case. The sw had spoke to my son, knew he was very upset, found out my husbands 1st wife had a barring order against him and that he had two separate criminal convictions for criminal damage against the house of the woman he was having an affair with and was currently doing community service for the most recent conviction.

I can understand that they were short staffed and underfunded and I have to take responsibility for bringing this man into my son's life, but it had a devastating effect on my son that my husband was believed over my son. The problem is/was we had a 7 month old baby together which I was obviously afraid of access with this man. He has chosen not to see her, but if he had insisted, as a result of the ruling, he would have been allowed unsupervised access. The social worker told me if there was an incident with my baby, she could take action then, but who wants to risk a baby who can't talk. I do know that she was used to seeing much more severe cases of abuse, but still!

As I said, I fully accept how I was to blame in all this and feel so guilty continuously, but unless additional resources are put into child protection (and very unlikely in current climate) these regultions will have no impact whatsoever. I believe social workers are put into an unenviable position of prioritising cases and ignoring cases where they believe the ongoing risks are minimal.

BostonB

Just so you know, a block of text like that is unreadable.

sophia25

BostonB wrote: »

Just so you know, a block of text like that is unreadable.

Well don't then!!

January

BostonB wrote: »

Just so you know, a block of text like that is unreadable.

sophia25 wrote: »

Well don't then!!

BostonB, if you have a problem with a post, report it, it will be dealt with.

sophia25, don't take it to heart, it's easier to read paragraphs and I have edited your post accordingly.

BostonB

I thought I was being helpful. My bad. Sry.

CrazyRabbit

January wrote: »

Seriously!?

Teacher: What did you do this weekend little Jimmy?
Child: We went swimming Teacher, we all got changed in a cubicle together afterwards.
Teacher: That's good! Now, little Lucy, what did you do this weekend?

Nothing wrong with seeing mammys or daddys parts while they're changing in the changing room... It's ridiculous to think that just because you're naked in front of your child you're abusing them, a bit of common sense from the teacher there would be all that's needed. Imagine what prudes we'd be bringing up if every time your child walked in on you naked you shrieked at them and covered up... what message does that give them about body image?

Common sense is a rare commodity these days. There have been cases of parents being arrested because they had innocent photo's developed of their naked baby in the bath. All it takes is one prude who believes that a child should never ever see a naked adult body, and the gardai would be informed. Nothing would likely come of it, but that's not the point. A mere accusation can do a lot of damage.

Any guidelines that explicitly prohibit a child from being 'exposed' to an adults genitals just won't work. Context is soo important. There are many many harmless situations where a child might see an adult naked, and yet come to no harm.

Hannibal Smith

sophia25 wrote: »

Well I welcome it but only if more resources are put in so social workers can effectively deal with cases. Three years ago my husband (now obviously ex) viciously punched my son (his ss) and left him badly bruised. I brought my son to GP who measured bruising and arranged counselling for my son as he was really upset. She had been trained in child protection in UK so did not speak to him at all about incident as she did not want to contaminate his evidence. She reported it to SW's and it took three months before it was investigated.

The sw spoke to my son and he told her what happened. She then interviewed by husband who was out f the house, he admitted causing the bruising but claimed it was accidental. The sw said it would depend on medical report on whether it could be ruled abuse. The dr. said in her report there was severe bruising and that my son was emotionally distressed and was referred for counselling.

The sw asked could she say 100% it was non accidental and the dr. said no because she never spoke to my son re incident and had no access to my husband history etc. The social worker then said that if the dr. couldn't say this 100% then she would have to drop case. the dr. was angry, she said the sw basically expected her to rule yet it was the sw's role to investigate. The dr. said that basically because my son was out of danger, that with the limited resources the sw had to drop my son's case. The sw had spoke to my son, knew he was very upset, found out my husbands 1st wife had a barring order against him and that he had two separate criminal convictions for criminal damage against the house of the woman he was having an affair with and was currently doing community service for the most recent conviction.

I can understand that they were short staffed and underfunded and I have to take responsibility for bringing this man into my son's life, but it had a devastating effect on my son that my husband was believed over my son. The problem is/was we had a 7 month old baby together which I was obviously afraid of access with this man. He has chosen not to see her, but if he had insisted, as a result of the ruling, he would have been allowed unsupervised access. The social worker told me if there was an incident with my baby, she could take action then, but who wants to risk a baby who can't talk. I do know that she was used to seeing much more severe cases of abuse, but still!

As I said, I fully accept how I was to blame in all this and feel so guilty continuously, but unless additional resources are put into child protection (and very unlikely in current climate) these regultions will have no impact whatsoever. I believe social workers are put into an unenviable position of prioritising cases and ignoring cases where they believe the ongoing risks are minimal.

That's such an awful story. Is your son okay now? I don't see how you are to blame or why you should feel guilty, though maybe that's a normal maternal instinct kicking in. But there's only one person to blame and that's your ex.

Regarding the Revised Children First Step, it seems like a gut reaction to all that's going on in the news at the moment and the problem with legislation or guidelines that are rushed through is that they are ill thought out and seem almost irrational.

It's sad to think that even as far as three years ago Sophia that your son got a thump and the father's rights seemed to have taken precedence over your son. This is exactly the kind of thing legislation needs to put a stop to. But like others have said, common sense needs to prevail, it's so difficult at the best of times. If I was to believe half the stories my little lad told me from creche, I'd have all the kids in there done for GBH!

Also, when it comes to trial, I don't know how a person could be convicted because Mary down the road heard a child say something a bit unsavoury.