Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Revised Children First a step too far?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    deisemum
    Registered Users Posts: 5,588 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,249 ✭✭✭✭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!".


  • Options
    #34
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


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


  • Options
    #35
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    BostonB wrote: »
    It doesn't apply to family life scenerio's.

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


  • Options
    #36
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    mareliada
    Registered Users Posts: 28 ✭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?


  • Options
    #40
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


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


  • Options
    #41
    James Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 534 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #43
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    sophia25
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


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


  • Options
    #46
    sophia25
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭sophia25


    BostonB wrote: »
    Just so you know, a block of text like that is unreadable.
    Well don't then!!


  • Options
    #47
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


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


  • Options
    #49
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Hannibal Smith
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,893 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement