Randomly Monitoring Families

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Should Social Services or Child Protective Services (or whatever your local area calls it) be allowed to randomly monitor / check up on families with children?

..or should they only focus on those who have reported problems.

 

[Durandal]

I think they should stick to handling reported cases. However, other sources should be [better] vigilant for signs of problems, particularly schools.

 

[Rapunzel]

Social Services have way more cases on their books than they can deal with adequately now, without going and looking randomly for more cases.



Random investigations would also cost a huge amount of money and Social Services are renowned for being strapped for cash.



Schools are hyper vigilant on reporting cases of suspected abuse and they all get followed up. We have special forms printed on bright cat-sick-yellow paper so that they stand out. I have reported about 10 cases of suspected abuse in the last year.



One instance that was quite amusing was when a child in my previous school had some nasty scratches on her upper arms. She took her cardigan off and I saw the scratches and I asked her how she got them. She said the family dog had jumped up on her and scratched her and she complained that I was about the seventh teacher to ask about the scratches. I was amused because it showed how aware all the teachers were and how we all asked her in such a way that she wasn't put on her guard as to why we were concerned.



A deep concern is when you ask a child why they are upset and they reply that mummy or daddy has told them not to tell anyone about it. Children actually find it really hard to keep secrets and will eventually spill the beans because they are upset and you are offering consolation.



Children love to share and to tell people things. Teachers get told all kinds of private and personal things that you may not even be aware your child knows.

Although we would never tell a parent what we know, we quite often have a chuckle over some of the things the kids tell us.

 

[Evil Eye]

It seems a little bit intrusive to be honest...

Although we would never tell a parent what we know, we quite often have a chuckle over some of the things the kids tell us.

Do tell...

 

[Durandal]

Social Services have way more cases on their books than they can deal with adequately now, without going and looking randomly for more cases.



Random investigations would also cost a huge amount of money and Social Services are renowned for being strapped for cash.



Schools are hyper vigilant on reporting cases of suspected abuse and they all get followed up. We have special forms printed on bright cat-sick-yellow paper so that they stand out. I have reported about 10 cases of suspected abuse in the last year.



One instance that was quite amusing was when a child in my previous school had some nasty scratches on her upper arms. She took her cardigan off and I saw the scratches and I asked her how she got them. She said the family dog had jumped up on her and scratched her and she complained that I was about the seventh teacher to ask about the scratches. I was amused because it showed how aware all the teachers were and how we all asked her in such a way that she wasn't put on her guard as to why we were concerned.



A deep concern is when you ask a child why they are upset and they reply that mummy or daddy has told them not to tell anyone about it. Children actually find it really hard to keep secrets and will eventually spill the beans because they are upset and you are offering consolation.



Children love to share and to tell people things. Teachers get told all kinds of private and personal things that you may not even be aware your child knows.

Although we would never tell a parent what we know, we quite often have a chuckle over some of the things the kids tell us.

I think Nebulous's basis of asking also might have been U.S. based in terms of inquiry. I think we're convinced of the 'Kids First' policy of your school at this point, lol.



I think you'd be surprised how much kids are capable of keeping internal, though. I know I could've shared some information as a child that would've in retrospect probably done me better, but I kept it to myself.



I imagine the staff must know of a few peculiar...costumes...a few parents like to wear on certain occasions, EE

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

I think if families were randomly monitored and the public was made aware of this, it would give some bad parents out there the motivation to be good parents simply because they would be scared of getting caught being bad parents & possibly losing their children / going to jail.

 

[Durandal]

I think if families were randomly monitored and the public was made aware of this, it would give some bad parents out there the motivation to be good parents simply because they would be scared of getting caught being bad parents & possibly losing their children / going to jail.

Well the 'bad parents' that are bad enough to get notice of those agencies usually aren't too concerned about losing their children, at least from what I can see. Typically, the children are a burdensome liability, not anyone they want. Also, a lot of times these people have such a messed up way of thinking, that there's no 'fear' reaction in them about being 'caught', because psychologically they are self-justifying what they are doing through some behavioural aberrance. They think they are doing right, and often that the kids receiving the mistreatment 'deserve' what they are doing to them. On the opposite end of the spectrum, almost, are the people that just don't give a damn, and in that case, their lack of responsibility is just so severe, they can't be bothered to be afraid of consequences, because they're too lazy to really even think that much for themselves, for their children, or for anyone else. Both cases tend to involve some pretty sheer tendencies of Narcissism - one just happens to carry a more direct role, while the other a passive one. It's sad, because the kids lose the most, and really the parents, even though they victimised the kids in the process, probably need some help (and likely needed help - as in an earlier intervention), too.



As unfortunate as it is - a RRF (Rapid Reaction Force)-approach is a Best Practices way to address the issue, rather than a more secretive Stasi-like approach to it.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

. Typically, the children are a burdensome liability, not anyone they want. Also, a lot of times these people have such a messed up way of thinking, that there's no 'fear' reaction in them about being 'caught', because psychologically they are self-justifying what they are doing through some behavioural aberrance. They think they are doing right, and often that the kids receiving the mistreatment 'deserve' what they are doing to them. On the opposite end of the spectrum, almost, are the people that just don't give a damn, and in that case, their lack of responsibility is just so severe, they can't be bothered to be afraid of consequences, because they're too lazy to really even think that much for themselves, for their children, or for anyone else.

Not all bad parents in the world think the way you think they do. They come in all forms. Its not as easy as saying they are either delusional/have mental problems or just plain don't care. What goes on in each household in the world is hard to predict and from the exterior, some families may even seem normal with no warning signs plainly visible to outsiders.





I think it would be great in addition to dealing with reported cases. I'd be happy to fork out an extra dollar a month in taxes to fund it.



..or.. It doesn't even have to actually exist. The govt. could just say they are doing it and it might help motivate some people to be better parents out of fear.

 

[Durandal]

Not all bad parents in the world think the way you think they do. They come in all forms. Its not as easy as saying they are either delusional/have mental problems or just plain don't care. What goes on in each household in the world is hard to predict and from the exterior, some families may even seem normal with no warning signs plainly visible to outsiders.

Really, then how do they act? What is the other way they may act. Of course there is a spectrum of habits within the demographic, but there has to be a causation - an action brings about a reaction.

I think it would be great in addition to dealing with reported cases. I'd be happy to fork out an extra dollar a month in taxes to fund it.



..or.. It doesn't even have to actually exist. The govt. could just say they are doing it and it might help motivate some people to be better parents out of fear.

It doesn't have to exist, but they Government can say it exists? Yeah, there we go - that's a plan ripe for the enabling of corruption. Let's just keep writing up the 'Child Defense Act Tax', but not actually enforce it...I think that dollar would go better spent to actually get another person hired for enforcement and counseling of victims, rather than establish a new element that would complicate management, and likely dilute the effectiveness of the agency as a whole. An example? Look what has happened with the clusterscrew of agencies we have to enforce and invesitigate into Federal Law Violations. You have the FBI, ATF, Secret Service, etc. Many nations have a Federal Police that handles the federal jurisdiction, with sub-ordinate divisions to handle what the other splinter groups we have Federally. Instead you have ATF and FBI butting heads at locations instead of having a unified force tackling the problem.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Really, then how do they act? What is the other way they may act. Of course there is a spectrum of habits within the demographic, but there has to be a causation - an action brings about a reaction.

Couldn't tell you, each persons mind works differently. There isn't always an explanation for what a person does.

I think that dollar would go better spent to actually get another person hired for enforcement and counseling of victims, rather than establish a new element that would complicate management

The point of what I was saying is to help find a way to prevent some people from becoming victims in the 1st place. Sometimes the world needs to be proactive instead of reactive.

 

[beowulf]

Social Services have way more cases on their books than they can deal with adequately now, without going and looking randomly for more cases.



Random investigations would also cost a huge amount of money and Social Services are renowned for being strapped for cash.

^^^ i agree with what the bunny says



theres been enough cases of social services getting it wrong recently.....they need to concentrate on getting right what they do already without going looking for more

 

[Durandal]

Couldn't tell you, each persons mind works differently. There isn't always an explanation for what a person does.

Perhaps there is, there might not be a specific dx for it in all cases, but there can be an observable pattern of events given an investigation into the causal factors.

The point of what I was saying is to help find a way to prevent some people from becoming victims in the 1st place. Sometimes the world needs to be proactive instead of reactive.

Well, yeah, but 'randomly' monitoring families isn't really proactive then, because the randomness isn't necessarily going to catch all of the problems, thus the problem still exists. Full surveillance does the trick, but you try and sell that - especially in the climate sentimentally a lot of people are in respect to Governments these days here in the U.S. Is Full Surveillance even possible, also? At that point it almost becomes cyclical, because eventually the surveillance comes back onto those doing the surveillance, and that becomes messy, unless it's required that all people doing that sort of work don't have families...