# when social services calls



## Amatullah0 (Apr 7, 2009)

i think thats who it is, kinda...

didn't answer the phone because i didnt know the number.

well, its the mihp. i think they're harassing me. they called months ago. i let them come to my house to see if i was eligible for their program. when the dietitian came i told her that i dont see how the program can help us, we dont need their services. nextday, coordinator calls, asks if the nurse can come the next day. i tell her i told the dietitian we didnt need the program. ok she leaves us alone. a month or two later(a few days ago) they call again(though, it may be through a different group, same progam though) see, we have medicaid, we changed ds's health plan group, so i think its the new health plan who referred him again. they're referring him b/c hes under a year old and on medicaid. so, today, some man called from that program(first time i've heard from him) asking why we didn't want the programing, saying he wants to clear up the misunderstanding. i didnt answer the phone, i didnt know who it was, so he left this in a voicemail. he asked me to call back. i don't want to, mainly because i don't know what to say... the purpose of the program is to prevent infant mortality. its not like i can't say, "ok, we don't need that, we're good" because then i think it sounds like we don't care about ds's life(the horror!) of course i care about him, more than anything in the world, but that doesnt mean that just because we're young parents, i'm a SAHM, we're a low income family, we have wic and medicaid, that i want people butting into my life. i already avoid telling the wic lady about our natural parenting tendencies, i go to the trouble of wic because we could really use the help they give. however, this MIHP can't tell me what they can offer other then "we aim to decrease infant mortality in the first year" and sending a dietitian, social worker, and nurse to my house.


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

I guess I don't really understand. You are using services and getting money from specific groups. Do you think it should be no strings attached and without certain controls in place like a home visit and such?

Why not at least start the conversation and see what they want rather then assume they are harrassing you?

When you use social services programs you have to expect some level of "butting in."


----------



## notjustmamie (Mar 7, 2007)

I think what OP is saying is that her child gets medicaid, but these calls are for additional, optional services like nutrition counseling, which she isn't interested in, but doesn't know how to politely decline.

If I have this right, OP, I would simply say, "No thank you, we are working with our pediatrician and already have a nutrition plan (or whatever the specific program is) in place."

I found that they generally don't want to harass you when you're getting government assistance (they're busy enough); they just want to make sure you know about all the programs they offer and are getting the most out of it.


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

Ah-thanks-that makes more sense. Then definitely pick up the phone and have a conversation. Seems like it would be the easiest way to opt out of the additional services.

They probably have a check list sheet that they have to check off indicating the services they have offered you. We use a county program (a DD specialist comes to our house) and I know we had to opt out of additional therapies/visiting nurse because they are required by law to ensure we know about them.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *notjustmamie* 
I think what OP is saying is that her child gets medicaid, but these calls are for additional, optional services like nutrition counseling, which she isn't interested in, but doesn't know how to politely decline.

If I have this right, OP, I would simply say, "No thank you, we are working with our pediatrician and already have a nutrition plan (or whatever the specific program is) in place."

I found that they generally don't want to harass you when you're getting government assistance (they're busy enough); they just want to make sure you know about all the programs they offer and are getting the most out of it.

Yes, they probably have budgeted funds and mandates to make sure everyone is aware of these services and they are doing all they can to reduce infant mortality. If you don't want them to come to your house you can explain that you don't feel you need it and listen to their rebuttal. Or you can let them come, maybe they can offer something interesting.


----------



## Amatullah0 (Apr 7, 2009)

thanks









its just annoying, really... i already went through this, a lady called the other day, i declined again, and now they have someone else calling back to confirm what i told the other lady...


----------



## Mountaingirl79 (Jul 12, 2008)

I know, it's a big hassle...I'm newly on medicaid and I've had to jump thru so many hoops. I usually just repeat the same thing over and over and over when they call. You don't have to accept everything they offer. When my kids were little, they would send me info all the time about kids health stuff. I just tell them we are set and we talk to our ped about all of that and nutrition too. That seems to help, if they think you've got it taken care of.
Then I throw their mail in the recycling.


----------



## 34me (Oct 2, 2006)

I think too (which I learned while on WIC) is that they assume there are lots of things you might not know, because many people don't. When we were on WIC I wanted to shout, we are low income - not stupid! But I didn't...


----------



## SunshineJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *34me* 
I think too (which I learned while on WIC) is that they assume there are lots of things you might not know, because many people don't. When we were on WIC I wanted to shout, we are low income - not stupid! But I didn't...

I'll second that!! When I had our ds I was the first to admit there was much I had to learn, but my goodness that also didn't mean I was a raving idiot either!


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Honestly, I'm thrilled they are following up that way! I work with waaaay too many isolated families that seem to never get connected to useful or needed resources at all. I get that you're not isolated and don't feel you need them, so I'm sorry you're so annoyed by the calls/interest, but I'm happy to know that somewhere in N. America (assuming that's where you are) social services are really following up!

I've never used the services but everytime I work with the people who do those homevisits I think "I wish I'd had someone like you come visit me!" so is it possible it might be worth it (both to stop the calling and also because maybe there might be something useful) to let them visit you?


----------



## Meems (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
Honestly, I'm thrilled they are following up that way! I work with waaaay too many isolated families that seem to never get connected to useful or needed resources at all. I get that you're not isolated and don't feel you need them, so I'm sorry you're so annoyed by the calls/interest, but I'm happy to know that somewhere in N. America (assuming that's where you are) social services are really following up!

I've never used the services but everytime I work with the people who do those homevisits I think "I wish I'd had someone like you come visit me!" so is it possible it might be worth it (both to stop the calling and also because maybe there might be something useful) to let them visit you?

Yes to this.

Our county has a few great services, some of which I *wish* we were eligible for, but b/c we're not on Medicaid, don't qualify. They offer free lactation consults, nurses who basically do well baby visits *at your home* (!) which I would love to have and skip the doctor's office!

Also, coming from a former social worker, oftentimes (and I'm not saying this is you, just from experience) the families that decline all services, don't call back, etc are the families that worry you the most. Might be worth your time to make a call and see what they offer!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
Honestly, I'm thrilled they are following up that way! I work with waaaay too many isolated families that seem to never get connected to useful or needed resources at all. I get that you're not isolated and don't feel you need them, so I'm sorry you're so annoyed by the calls/interest, but I'm happy to know that somewhere in N. America (assuming that's where you are) social services are really following up!

Well, if it makes you feel better, they "follow up" out the wazoo here, too. Of course, that's not social services - they harass everybody here, assistance or not. It's a freaking nightmare, and I'm SO glad they didn't push it as badly this time as with ds2. They add a _lot_ of stress to my early weeks post-partum/post-op.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meems* 
They offer free lactation consults, nurses who basically do well baby visits *at your home* (!) which I would love to have and skip the doctor's office!

It always amazes me when I see posts like this. This is the exact crap I've had to argue my way out of with my last two babies. It drives me nuts. I don't want it, they don't help, and I wish they'd just go away. It continues to amaze me that there are people who actually want this crap - but I wish they'd spend their time on people like you and leave people me alone.

Quote:

Also, coming from a former social worker, oftentimes (and I'm not saying this is you, just from experience) the families that decline all services, don't call back, etc are the families that worry you the most. Might be worth your time to make a call and see what they offer!
Yup. And, this is exactly why I put up with their patronizing, condescending, stress-inducing _crap_. I've already got a HBA3C attempt that ended in a stillbirth on my record. I don't need to send up a bunch of other red flags, by worrying people. So, I refuse everything, but I'm polite while they basically inflict their pointless "help" on me by phone, instead of in person, but it's not worth my time, except to stop people from "worrying about me". The at home nurse visits (well baby checkups) are a PITA...and opting out of them is almost as big a PITA, because they don't take "no" for an answer.

I'm glad this topic has come up, though. I've been feeling a bit down about dd2 being my last baby. Being reminded that I'll _never_ have to deal with any of the hospital crap, or the home health nurse crap, or _especially_ the lactation consultants and nurses who try "help" me breastfeed, again is actually making me smile.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Just call back and tell them like the pp have said - thanks for the offer, but you already have X, Y, Z.

As for the whole issue of obnoxious social workers... it definetly seems to have picked up hugely since my DS1 was born 2.5 years ago (we're on the same programs now as we were then: wic/medicaid), but I don't remember getting the calls like I do now. WIC has called at least 4x since DS2 was born (hes 11 wks today), mostly to followup on breastfeeding. Part of me thinks this is great, but another part of me just finds it obnoxious. I can only imagine how frigging anoyyed I'd be if DJFS and/or the health department kept calling offering service X, Y, or Z since we're on medicaid/wic.


----------



## Labbemama (May 23, 2008)

Seriously WIC doesn't count at nutrional education anymore??? They actually want to come to the house and teach you about it?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
It always amazes me when I see posts like this. This is the exact crap I've had to argue my way out of with my last two babies. It drives me nuts. I don't want it, they don't help, and I wish they'd just go away. It continues to amaze me that there are people who actually want this crap - but I wish they'd spend their time on people like you and leave people me alone.









This is exactly how I would feel.

As to the poster who thinks you can't get public assistance without having to put up with some interference, I just haven't found that to be true.

Maybe it's because neither of our girls had medicaid 'til after the age of one?


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *betsyj* 
I guess I don't really understand. You are using services and getting money from specific groups. Do you think it should be no strings attached and without certain controls in place like a home visit and such?

Why not at least start the conversation and see what they want rather then assume they are harrassing you?

When you use social services programs you have to expect some level of "butting in."

Our social service programs don't butt in like this. They make sure that people who use the programs qualify for them by doing very intensive checks every six months. They do not send social workers to anyone's home just because they fell on hard times and need programs for their children until they can get back on their feet. The only time you would actually see a social worker would be if they think you are committing fraud or child abuse and they are investigating in person. These things you should expect. The type of situation the OP describes sounds inappropriate.

I think you should call the supervisor and explain why you don't want the program and ask that they stop calling you. It sounds like a program that is way to invasive, probably because they are trying to discourage people from wanting it. The calls they are making may be in order to have proof that they tried to get people to stay on it but people just didn't want to do that just in case they are looked at by the feds.


----------



## Landover (Oct 12, 2007)

Just going to do out on a limb here.... if you are taking their money and their aid in other ways, is it so out of line and such "crap" for them to think that you might need other things as well?

How up in arms would society be if they just handed out aid without some sort of follow-up and additional services? People would be upset if a baby getting government aid did die... "Why wasn't there follow up? We need a program to help reduce infant mortality!!"

I am very glad that certain areas have additional programs to offer families who need help. By taking the aid at all you are indicating that you need help. Not a bad thing... but getting so upset over them offering you extra support (to the point where you think they are harassing you) is a little extreme. There are other options if the things that come along with the aid programs bother you so very badly.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Landover, I don't think the OP was offended that the service was _offered_ to her. It was after she declined and said she didn't need it, twice, that she started to think it was ridiculous when they kept calling about it. And it IS ridiculous that they can't document better than that.

If someone declines a service, you move on to the others who need it -- don't act like "when they say no, they really mean yes," or some such nonsense.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

I learned from this thread. I never realized there were people who felt so irritated by the offers of help. It breaks my heart because I really wish there were some "Help Fairy" up above who could figure out who didn't want the help and save those resources and divert them only to families who want it and need it. Sounds like that would make everyone a lot happier!

Now, there are a LOT of families who say no, but you can see just by observing their babies/kids that they probably really need it but for some reason parents either think they don't need assistance or just really don't want anyone from outside butting in.

And I can understand that.

But for most of us who provide these services, honestly our commitment is to the babies and kids first and foremost, and even if a family says no multiple times, if you see obvious issues with the kids, we're going to keep trying to find ways to offer help to the family as a whole.

I'm not saying that any of the posters here who repeatedly had services offered had obvious problems. I'm just saying that for me, I think the times there are obvious problems, I hope the services keep trying to find a way in the door. Because babies and kids can't advocate for themselves when parents don't see the problem or won't see it.

OP if you haven't already just tried Storm Bride's approach, it's probably worth trying. And maybe in the midst of being really annoyed by the calls/visits, think about an isolated family somewhere that, but for those same calls/visits, might not get help they need (and maybe even want), and think of their kids and maybe that will help it be slightly less annoying.

If I were in your shoes I'd also be thankful you're fine and don't need any help!


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

Quote:

But for most of us who provide these services, honestly our commitment is to the babies and kids first and foremost, and even if a family says no multiple times, if you see obvious issues with the kids, we're going to keep trying to find ways to offer help to the family as a whole.
Thanks for saying this. We use county supported developmental specialists and we have found them to be helpful, friendly, and only concerned that our son reach his full potential. They are even going to our daycare next week to help the dcp learn to support my son as he transitions to the Toddler Room.

They don't come to my home to spy on me. They come to help my son and I truly appreciate their assistance.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

You know, I wasn't saying there needed to be a magic fairy to tell social service workers who wants their services and who doesn't. I definitely think those services need to be offered. Your are right that if it's not offered, some parents won't even be aware that it's available.

If someone is declining a service and you think they really need it, the obvious step would be to call and say, I know you've declined this service, but I'm wondering if you really know what we have to offer? And outline that.

If they still decline, then move on. Unless they've given you reason to suspect that they are endangering their children's lives or health, in which case of course you report them to Child Protective Services.

But just repeatedly calling, after they've clearly said No thank you, truly is a nuisance.


----------



## littleteapot (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
I learned from this thread. I never realized there were people who felt so irritated by the offers of help. It breaks my heart

You're totally missing the point. She declined, multiple times, and they aren't listening and are still calling. That's annoying, and due to the power they have it can also be really scary.
That's it, that's all.
This isn't a debate on need or WIC or "asking for help", don't make it into one. I'm pretty sure if this was about a telemarketer or a door-to-door salesman your answer would be different. But honestly that post of yours is subtly demonizing the OP for being rightfully upset over people with a lot of power (and a history of flipping out over "people like us" doing the things we do) calling/coming by despite multiple, and polite requests to stop. I don't see why this had to turn into a debate on the merits of WIC...?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
I learned from this thread. I never realized there were people who felt so irritated by the offers of help. It breaks my heart because I really wish there were some "Help Fairy" up above who could figure out who didn't want the help and save those resources and divert them only to families who want it and need it.

I'm not the OP, but one "Help Fairy" is available. It's accepting that "no - I don't need/want your services" means exactly that. I'm in BC, Canada. These services are offered to _everybody_ (I guess not homebirths with unlicensed care providers, but they have the care provider helping them out, anyway). With ds1, I accepted the call. I was feeling really off balance after an unwanted and refused c-section, and had _no_ confidence in myself as a mother - none. The nurse came. She asked me a few questions, gave me _more_ unwanted and unhelpful advice on breastfeeding (my single biggest breastfeeding obstacle with ds1 was the conflicting advice I kept getting - next biggest was the c-section pain), weighed the baby, told me to put baby on his side to sleep, told me I was a "natural" and left. Umm...okay - nice to hear that I'm doing okay, but it really wasn't worth giving up my chance to lie down and get a few minutes of shut-eye, yk? (DS1 slept reasonably well at night, but he only ever cat-napped during the day - 15 minutes was luxurious.)

DD1 was 10 years later. I accepted again (not sure why). The nurse came and insisted on watching dd1 latch, gave me more unwanted and unhelpful advice about breastfeeding, checked my incision, told me to put the baby on her _back_ to sleep, went over "what had changed in the last 10 years" (yeah - ie. all the stuff you told me to do back then, and have decided I shouldn't have been doing at all), and left. Again - whatever. Her style annoyed me, and I would have preferred to just be left alone. So, I decided to "just" opt out next time.

There's the background. Here's why I wish there was a "Help Fairy", in the form of people who actually understand "no, thank you". DS2:

Another unwanted c-section. This time, I wasn't completely devastated (at first), because I'd at least managed to put them off long enough to start labour spontaneously before I caved. However, I had an LC grab my breast and take my baby out of dh's arms, without even telling me who she was. I had a nurse start to "helpfully" pile pillows around ds2, after I said no, which jostled him and broke his latch. This resulted in a cracked nipple, which, unfortunately got infected. Instead of the pain-free and entirely _perfect_ breastfeeding we'd been experiencing, I went through over a week of excruciating pain when he latched on the right.

Now, we come to the home health liaison. OMG. At first, I _thought_ we'd been overlooked and I was home free. No such luck. After I was discharged, she came to the room and started talking about my visit. I told her "no, thank you - I had the visits with my first two babies and I find them stressful and unhelpful." She started her spiel again. I said "no, thank you" again. She proceeded to start giving me all the details of what they offer _again_. I said no, _again_. She just wouldn't go away.

At this point, I've called dh to come and meet me, and my mom (we were living with her) to come and pick me up. The nurse comes in to take out my staples. While she's there, the liaison is _still_ trying to talk me into a visit. She's determined that I have "lots of help" (her words - my mom, stepdad, dh and ds1, who was 12 were all around all or most of the time), but just wouldn't stop pushing the visit. So, the nurse found that two of my staples had bent and the right end of the incision hadn't closed. She starts telling me I might "have" to stay another day. I tell her I don't want to, so she gets my OB to come in and take a look. The liaison was _still_ there while this was going on. DH happens to get to the hospital at the same time as my OB, so he hears the liaison, who has gone out into the hallway at this point, trying to get my OB to talk me into accepting the help! (She was probably operating under the flawed assumption that I'd trust him.)

The OB looked over my incision, closed it up with steri-strips, and told me to come by his office on Monday, when I took the baby to the GP (same building) and he'd take another look at it. Mom arrives. I leave. YAY!!!

I got a call two days later, wondering if I'd changed my mind and wanting to schedule my visit. UGH!!! I dragged my sore, aching butt over to the phone, post-op, so those people could hassle me _again_. So, I turned down the visit again...and got more lecturing about "back to sleep", the importance of breastfeeding (it was in my records that I'd breastfed my last baby until she was 21 months old and stopped nursing during my pregnancy - the nurses had called me a "poster girl" and said they needed more moms like me - so _why_ was I getting this crap?), don't shake the baby, etc. etc. etc. Okay - can I go now? My dd needs me.

So - yeah. No Help Fairy is necessary. What's necessary is for people to understand "no". It's a really simple word.

Quote:

Now, there are a LOT of families who say no, but you can see just by observing their babies/kids that they probably really need it but for some reason parents either think they don't need assistance or just really don't want anyone from outside butting in.

And I can understand that.

But for most of us who provide these services, honestly our commitment is to the babies and kids first and foremost, and even if a family says no multiple times, if you see obvious issues with the kids, we're going to keep trying to find ways to offer help to the family as a whole.
You know - I kind of understand that. But, continuing to put on pressure when they've said "no" isn't likely to help. If they find having strangers in their house and people pushing them as stressful as I do, it's quite possible that those of you providing services are making things _worse_, not better. Some of us do best when we're left to figure things out on our own.

Quote:

I'm not saying that any of the posters here who repeatedly had services offered had obvious problems. I'm just saying that for me, I think the times there are obvious problems, I hope the services keep trying to find a way in the door. Because babies and kids can't advocate for themselves when parents don't see the problem or won't see it.
I know a woman who had a hearing impaired son. She had multiple people, over a fairly long period of time, mention to her that they thought he had hearing problems. He had outbursts of anger from frustration, and his speech acquisition was severely delayed. She wouldn't hear it. The more people brought it up, the more she resisted hearing it. Eventually, everyone just gave up. She had his hearing tested within a few months. He had glue ear, and tubes were put in. And, knowing her and knowing what was going on, I really wonder if those tubes would have gone in sooner if people had just backed off. Do I think getting her back up was the rational, mature way to handle the pressure? No, I don't. But, that's what she did, and all the attempts to help almost certainly delayed the diagnosis and treatment of his problem. None of the people pressuring her to get him tested were professionals (well, if her GP ever mentioned anything, she didn't pass it on), but they were _all_ trying to advocate for the child. He still has a slight speech impediment, and he's in his teens now.

Quote:

OP if you haven't already just tried Storm Bride's approach, it's probably worth trying. And maybe in the midst of being really annoyed by the calls/visits, think about an isolated family somewhere that, but for those same calls/visits, might not get help they need (and maybe even want), and think of their kids and maybe that will help it be slightly less annoying.
That does help sometimes. Sometimes, it backfires. It can be doubly frustrating knowing that there are families who really need or want (or both) these services and the people providing them are wasting time and resources hassling someone who doesn't. I'm really, really glad those programs exist - but I'd be even more glad if "no, thank you" were an acceptable answer to the offer.


----------



## Landover (Oct 12, 2007)

Okay.... I think what so many are not seeing is that just simply accepting, "No, I don't need your help" will leave many children in less than stellar situations. I am so very thankful that the system in this area continues to offer support to someone. I have worked with children with behavioral disorders, and the social workers tried so hard to get the families the help they clearly needed. However, the families did not trust the agencies and did not want to take the time to meet with them. In fact, it seemed that the families who needed the help the most were the ones who turned it down, and the families who were more stable but just going through a trough time, often leaped at the chance.

Further, the OP mentions calls spaced out over months. It isn't like they called her five times in three days. It sounds like they are reaching out to someone who has bleeped on their radar for whatever reason.

Lastly, and I am going out on a limb here, and I am really not aiming to offend anyone. However, many of the families who are very upset with this "harassment" have had multiple babies using these types of programs/aid. I am so very glad that the aid is there to help, but there are other options if you want to be able to have more free reign without these people trying to help you. Overall, children who live in families who are on prolonged government assistance (in general - not anyone's children specifically) have lowered achievement, more school dropout, higher levels of socially maladaptive or deviant behavior, and are in need of more help (please do not ask for citations as I am NOT going down to the basement to dig through all of the literature from my doc program







). Social workers know this, and they are trying to reach these children and not let them fall through the cracks. I know it is terribly annoying to have to get up and answer the phone or spend some time with a nurse who wants to help you learn to bf, but think of these children who truly need it and momma just keeps saying no. Maybe, if one person can call and connect with her, on the right day, then that little one will get the help they need.


----------



## rere (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
Okay.... I think what so many are not seeing is that just simply accepting, "No, I don't need your help" will leave many children in less than stellar situations. I am so very thankful that the system in this area continues to offer support to someone. I have worked with children with behavioral disorders, and the social workers tried so hard to get the families the help they clearly needed. However, the families did not trust the agencies and did not want to take the time to meet with them. In fact, it seemed that the families who needed the help the most were the ones who turned it down, and the families who were more stable but just going through a trough time, often leaped at the chance.

Further, the OP mentions calls spaced out over months. It isn't like they called her five times in three days. It sounds like they are reaching out to someone who has bleeped on their radar for whatever reason.

Lastly, and I am going out on a limb here, and I am really not aiming to offend anyone. However, many of the families who are very upset with this "harassment" have had multiple babies using these types of programs/aid. I am so very glad that the aid is there to help, but there are other options if you want to be able to have more free reign without these people trying to help you. Overall, children who live in families who are on prolonged government assistance (in general - not anyone's children specifically) have lowered achievement, more school dropout, higher levels of socially maladaptive or deviant behavior, and are in need of more help (please do not ask for citations as I am NOT going down to the basement to dig through all of the literature from my doc program







). Social workers know this, and they are trying to reach these children and not let them fall through the cracks. I know it is terribly annoying to have to get up and answer the phone or spend some time with a nurse who wants to help you learn to bf, but think of these children who truly need it and momma just keeps saying no. Maybe, if one person can call and connect with her, on the right day, then that little one will get the help they need.

I am upset.I have never used any of these services and no one has ever assumed that I don't know how to take care of my child.Why aren't families who need these services given the same respect?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
Okay.... I think what so many are not seeing is that just simply accepting, "No, I don't need your help" will leave many children in less than stellar situations. I am so very thankful that the system in this area continues to offer support to someone. I have worked with children with behavioral disorders, and the social workers tried so hard to get the families the help they clearly needed. However, the families did not trust the agencies and did not want to take the time to meet with them.

So, how exactly does it help to hassle a family who doesn't trust you in the first place? LROM has made it clear that my distrust of people in these fields is well founded. They are convinced they know what's best for me, and are quite happy to shove it down my throat, if they feel it's necessary. If they want people to trust them, maybe they need to back the heck off.

What some of you are not seeing is that trying to push services on people who clearly do not want them is _not_ being helpful. It's being obnoxious, annoying and counter-productive. It's also very unhelpful if the objective is to build trust.

Quote:

In fact, it seemed that the families who needed the help the most were the ones who turned it down, and the families who were more stable but just going through a trough time, often leaped at the chance.
So, why did the ones who needed help turn it down? Why don't they trust the services or people offering them? Why do they feel that they're being spied on?

Quote:

Further, the OP mentions calls spaced out over months. It isn't like they called her five times in three days. It sounds like they are reaching out to someone who has bleeped on their radar for whatever reason.
"whatever reason". Yeah - that's a good reason to trust people - they have a "bleep on their radar", and the person on the receiving end has no idea why. Unfortunately, ime, not wanting the help is considered a reason to "bleep".

Quote:

Lastly, and I am going out on a limb here, and I am really not aiming to offend anyone. However, many of the families who are very upset with this "harassment" have had multiple babies using these types of programs/aid. I am so very glad that the aid is there to help, but there are other options if you want to be able to have more free reign without these people trying to help you.
I don't know if you were including me in this. If so, I'll just point out that I'm in Canada, and _everybody_ gets this "help". The program is offered to anybody having a baby in the hospital, for sure.

Quote:

I know it is terribly annoying to have to get up and answer the phone or spend some time with a nurse who wants to help you learn to bf, but think of these children who truly need it and momma just keeps saying no. Maybe, if one person can call and connect with her, on the right day, then that little one will get the help they need.
So, because they _might_ have actually helped someone breastfeed, it's okay that they nearly sabotaged me - twice? If I weren't absolutely hellbent on breastfeeding, no matter what (and, ironically, if I weren't too broke to buy formula with my first...which they didn't know, so it had nothing to do with anything), I never would stuck it out through the "help" they offered me.

It wasn't just "terribly annoying" to have a nurse try to help me breastfeed. It was invasive (didn't care so much later, but with my first, I was horrifically uncomfortable having a series of random strange women looking at my breasts and nipples all the time) and _counter-productive_. They messed me up. They made breastfeeding much harder than it needed to be, _and_ they hammered home the idea that I had to have all the "help", or we couldn't possibly work it out ourselves. Breastfeeding through all that was a nightmare. As for the "helpful" LC with ds2? Seriously - we're talking about a stranger grabbing someone's breast without permission.

As for it being "terribly annoying" to have to answer the phone? I'd had a c-section. My incision had become infected (where the staple tore). I was in a lot of pain. I had to answer the phone, because it might be my son, and it might be an emergency. It was really incredibly awful to put myself through what it took to answer the phone to hear "Hi. This is so-and-so from the public health office. We're just checking in. blah blah blah". I'd told them already I didn't want their "help". I had their contact number. Enough is enough.


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

Please remember we do not host political discussion. Post on this subject will be removed and the posters will be alerted.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
Okay.... I think what so many are not seeing is that just simply accepting, "No, I don't need your help" will leave many children in less than stellar situations.

How one person defines "stellar" and how another defines it is highly subjective.

I'm sure people in your line of work are mandated reporters, so if you've got reason to suspect *actual abuse or neglect* (and not just the parents doing things differently than you think they should), you know what to do.

Since you're talking about the sort of "less that stellar"-situations (however you personally define "stellar") that simply motivate you to keep someone on your radar, and keep calling to offer them services they've refused -- then these are obviously situations that fall short of you actually thinking the children are endangered.

So, you know, social service workers can just learn the serenity prayer, and move on to people who want the help.









As to your admonishment that those of us who use public assistance have other options -- I know what my options are, thank you. And I'm sure the OP has looked at her options and determined that getting some help is what's best for her family for the time being.

In all the forms we've signed for programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps, we've never had to sign any agreement that now that we're getting assistance, we need to accept being on a high-risk list and getting lots of annoying phone calls.

Actually, if some of the families ARE high risk, if they find that the assistance they are getting is causing them to get interfered with more than they were intererfered with BEFORE they got the help, this interference may very well end up putting the children at even higher risk. Because some parents will just drop needed assistance and get by with less rather than be a bleep on someone's radar.


----------



## Carma (Feb 10, 2006)

I am surprised by this topic. Actually I hear more often that social workers (is that the right term) interfere too little, resulting in all kinds of problems for the kids involved, overhere as well as overseas where I am from originally.

Where I am from they also have this ('mandatory') babynurse service. They even come by before the delivery to check if you have everything you need for a baby.

Here I find they want to keep you in the hospital as long as possible (I wanted to leave as soon as possible) and I got a call from someone inquiring about PDD, which I did appreciate.

Carma


----------



## Landover (Oct 12, 2007)

Yes, I realize that "less than stellar" is a subjective term.







However, when taken with a little common sense, it is fairly easy to discern. I am referring to kiddos who are not being abused or neglected, but are in high risk situations with parents who may not have adequate information or resources. By signing up for the aid itself you are, in fact, saying that you do not have, nor have you found a way to provide, adequate resources for your children. Is it such a leap for a social worker, who is paid by the state to help children, to think that your children may need more? They are not trying to harass anyone, they are trying to help the very children you said you need help with.

I am sorry, but I will never think a good social worker should just "learn the serenity prayer." Never once have I seen a news report of a kid on aid who slipped through the cracks and thought... "good for the social workers for accepting what they could not change."


----------



## major_mama11 (Apr 13, 2008)

I have a friend who was receiving these visits due to her son being on Medicaid. She decided she didn't want the visits anymore after a few months, and she was straight up with the social worker about it. As far as I know, the lady didn't give her any grief about it. She just called the social worker and said, Thanks but these visits don't mesh with my work schedule anymore.


----------



## SunshineJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
Lastly, and I am going out on a limb here, and I am really not aiming to offend anyone. However, many of the families who are very upset with this "harassment" have had multiple babies using these types of programs/aid. I am so very glad that the aid is there to help, but there are other options if you want to be able to have more free reign without these people trying to help you. Overall, children who live in families who are on prolonged government assistance (in general - not anyone's children specifically) have lowered achievement, more school dropout, higher levels of socially maladaptive or deviant behavior, and are in need of more help (please do not ask for citations as I am NOT going down to the basement to dig through all of the literature from my doc program







). Social workers know this, and they are trying to reach these children and not let them fall through the cracks. I know it is terribly annoying to have to get up and answer the phone or spend some time with a nurse who wants to help you learn to bf, but think of these children who truly need it and momma just keeps saying no. Maybe, if one person can call and connect with her, on the right day, then that little one will get the help they need.

Having a child while on assistance doesn't necessarily equate to "prolonged government assistance". That struck me as a little presumptive. When DD was born we had the state really pushing their "shining stars" program or whatever to come and check on her well being. DS was just under 2 at the time, and biased or not he's *always* been a great kid who listened well and was generally very well behaved (pre-elementary, right now all bets are off! LOL!). He did something or interrupted the nurse and I or something. I don't even recall what it was other than it was very, very minor. The nurse THREATENED my son with a spanking. Not just once, but a few times over the remainder of the visit. I was floored. I wasn't really anti-spanking, but the rules of our house at the time were that that was something reserved for the huge over-the-top omg types of things - like when DH was 8 and had called his dad a f--r. (We have since changed our views on spanking, but that's not really relevant for this discussion.) Things a 2 yr old wouldn't even be capable of though, kwim. I can't tell you much of what she did in her visit, what I remember most is her threatening my son, advocating I hit him over something insanely minor, and my informing her that he'd never been spanked and trying to rush her out the door as soon as possible. This was the states idea of "help".

Around the same age or so we had DS enrolled in Parents as Teachers, a federally funded program to assist with pre-elem children and identify those who may be at risk and need more services. Our rep was constantly comparing DS to her DD, dismissing things he could do because *her* dd wasn't on the same page in some areas, etc. He couldn't talk much, but at one point DS had enough, took the lady's shoes to her and told her "go". We took DS to all their development screenings, etc. No one noticed he was _severely_ tongue tied, including their nurses (they wanted to check his teeth dev every time, so we'd turn him upside down. It'd make him laugh and give a clear view of his gums - which wouldn't have been possible with a normal tongue iykwim?). With DD we actually requested P/T's and for 3 years they wouldn't come. Never figured out why on that one, but we were doing it mostly to stay off the radar anyway.

Frankly I've yet to find many "services" that are helpful. WIC assisted with DD's wicked expensive formula but had no ideas what to do for a ftt child who was willing to eat. They asked me for my menu ideas to pass on to other families! Then they made fun of the fact we sacrificed a lot to buy good quality shoes for the kids. The only stellar program I really encountered was the lactation consultants at the hospital we delivered at. They were sensitive, non-judgemental and very much of the "whatever works so you can get this down" philosophy. It's from experiences like this that many of us would much rather take a pass on all the "help" that's out there.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
Y By signing up for the aid itself you are, in fact, saying that you do not have, nor have you found a way to provide, adequate resources for your children. Is it such a leap for a social worker, who is paid by the state to help children, to think that your children may need more? They are not trying to harass anyone, they are trying to help the very children you said you need help with.

I have a serious problem with ANYONE who cannot take "no" for answer when it comes to my family and my children. *I find it incredibly offensive and condescending that someone else thinks their own assessment of my needs is more accurate than mine.
*
I was unaware that working for a company that does not offer reasonably priced health insurance coverage (thus failing in my obligation to provide adequate resources for my children) somehow means that I need someone to tell me how to breastfeed (which I've been doing for three years now) or how I need to vaccinate my children (I've spent more time researching that issue than most anyone who would try to educate me) or how to prepare a nutritious meal.

So yes, it is a big leap to assume that receiving any one form of assistance means you need intrusive intervention into multiple aspects of your life.


----------



## Magali (Jun 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
Yes, I realize that "less than stellar" is a subjective term.







However, when taken with a little common sense, it is fairly easy to discern. I am referring to kiddos who are not being abused or neglected, but are in high risk situations with parents who may not have adequate information or resources. By signing up for the aid itself you are, in fact, saying that you do not have, nor have you found a way to provide, adequate resources for your children. *Is it such a leap for a social worker, who is paid by the state to help children, to think that your children may need more?* They are not trying to harass anyone, they are trying to help the very children you said you need help with.

I am sorry, but I will never think a good social worker should just "learn the serenity prayer." Never once have I seen a news report of a kid on aid who slipped through the cracks and thought... "good for the social workers for accepting what they could not change."

Yes, it is a huge leap.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
I have a serious problem with ANYONE who cannot take "no" for answer when it comes to my family and my children. *I find it incredibly offensive and condescending that someone else thinks their own assessment of my needs is more accurate than mine.
*
I was unaware that working for a company that does not offer reasonably priced health insurance coverage (thus failing in my obligation to provide adequate resources for my children) somehow means that I need someone to tell me how to breastfeed (which I've been doing for three years now) or how I need to vaccinate my children (I've spent more time researching that issue than most anyone who would try to educate me) or how to prepare a nutritious meal.

So yes, it is a big leap to assume that receiving any one form of assistance means you need intrusive intervention into multiple aspects of your life.

I'm just gonna say this part one more time: those of you talking on this thread, I really get that you are clear about how you're parenting and what you're doing and that you do not need any other assistance, AND that anything more than one inquiry is a pain in the butt to you.

And honestly, I'm sincerely happy for you and your families that you have things that under control.

But 2 things...

1) If you ever do need government assistance - NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED YOUR SITUATION IS and no matter how much it's understandable that you need it - IT COMES WITH RULES AND REQUIREMENTS! And part of those rules sometimes are that there need to be repeated check ins.

Sometimes it's simply to be sure everything's ok. Sometimes it's because agencies don't keep getting funding if they can't show that they tried to use it to provide services to the families it's meant for. Sometimes maybe it's just a hardheaded social worker who doesn't realize that a family really is ok and they really should accept "We're fine" and leave them alone.

It can be some or all of the above. But at the end of the day, nothing is free, and in order to keep providing services to the families that DO need them, we who provide them need to follow our own rules and guidelines as well.

2) Again, you guys sound great and totally in control and not needing any help. But if you actually visit a lot of families while offering these services, the vast majority of families that get repeated calls in the US are families where there's a REASON to call. And when you talk to the parents and even if they say clearly "No we don't want your services", there are many times other things that they say that signal that things may NOT be ok with their kids. If social services has concerns but doesn't reach out (concerns that don't quite rise to an actual abuse/neglect report, but are serious enough to need follow up), then if something happens it's social services fault they didn't protect the child.

Honestly, it's a pain and I understand for some of you it may even make things worse to get repeated inquiries (are you all in Canada who are getting the repeated inquiries?), but still if it means that a few families are inconvenienced but many many many more are serviced because of hte outreach, I'm still supporting the outreach. And repeated outreach if it's for a good reason.

But to bring this all back full circle, if there's no other reason to call again except that someone doesn't like that the family said no, that is NOT enough reason to keep following up with a family.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

"Outreach?" Is that what you call it? I call it harassment. And, ime, simply saying "no" is enough to bleep someone's radar. Maybe things are different in the US, but that's how it is here. Why don't I want them here? What am I hiding? I might as well have had the stupid visit with dd2, because by the time they finished with all their freaking phone calls to "check up", they'd caused me almost as much stress, and wasted even _more_ of my time than if they'd just come and poked around in my life in person.

I'm sorry if you guys have to harass people to justify your funding. But, call it what it is - harassing people. It's not "outreach" when people clearly want you to go away. It also exacerbates existing disconnects/trust issues between the families and the "support" services.

It's also not all that benign. As I said above, I know a child who went without needed treatment for his hearing until he was about 5 (it was either just before or just after his 5th birthday) - and the way people kept "reaching out" to the mom was a contributing factor, imo. (I know her pretty well - feeling criticized puts her back up, and the repeated comments made her feel criticized.) If she'd just been left alone, she probably would have figured it out sooner, without feeling that her parenting was being attacked. Because, frankly - attacking someone's parenting isn't helpful, and continued attempts at "outreach" end up feeling like an attack - as they should, because from what's being said here, that's exactly what they are.

You also mention "many many many more" families being serviced because of the outreach. Got any numbers on that? Calling someone repeatedly, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything has actually been done for that family.


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

Quote:

It's also not all that benign. As I said above, I know a child who went without needed treatment for his hearing until he was about 5 (it was either just before or just after his 5th birthday) - and the way people kept "reaching out" to the mom was a contributing factor, imo.
Stubbornly refusing to help your child because people are bugging you is not a shining example of why social services are bad. In fact, it only makes me fear for that poor child.

And it isn't justifying funding. It is SAVING funding. So many wonderful programs are being cut every day that do really great things for our children and our families.

In this day and age proving a program's worth often is a numbers game not because that is the way social services wants it, but because that is the way the government decides on whether or not to continue the program.

And you know these case workers and social workers are our neighbors. They live in our cities and send their kids to the same schools our kids go to. They are not mindless, faceless government Zombies intent on destroying a family.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *betsyj* 
Stubbornly refusing to help your child because people are bugging you is not a shining example of why social services are bad. In fact, it only makes me fear for that poor child.

She's not a great mom, but the kid is now in his teens, and he's doing okay. (I'm not sure why you chose the word "fear", however.) However, the way she thinks is something I've seen before, and often in the groups that social services consider to be high risk. It wasn't a refusal to help - it was a refusal to see the problem...and being hassled about it made her _less_ willing to see it.

Quote:

And it isn't justifying funding. It is SAVING funding. So many wonderful programs are being cut every day that do really great things for our children and our families.

In this day and age proving a program's worth often is a numbers game not because that is the way social services wants it, but because that is the way the government decides on whether or not to continue the program.
Okay - so how do social services decide that a program "works"? I'm highly cynical about all the "wonderful programs", because I haven't seen many of them do much. I know at least two cases that were determined to be success stories by social services, and nothing fundamental changed at all.

Quote:

And you know these case workers and social workers are our neighbors. They live in our cities and send their kids to the same schools our kids go to. They are not mindless, faceless government Zombies intent on destroying a family.
I never said they were zombies. I never said they were intent on destroying families. I don't care if they're my neighbours (don't think we actually have any in my neighbourhood, but I know what you mean). I, personally, wouldn't socialize with a social worker. I have a number of reasons for that. And, I don't send my kids (except ds1, because I had no options when he reached school age) to school at all. I don't need _their_ crap, either. Mind you, most of the social workers I've dealt with (second hand, through a few friends and relatives who have had open files at various times) were childless, so "their kids" is irrelevant.


----------



## AngeliqueW (Jan 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Landover* 
By signing up for the aid itself you are, in fact, saying that you do not have, nor have you found a way to provide, adequate resources for your children. Is it such a leap for a social worker, who is paid by the state to help children, to think that your children may need more?

This statement is seriously bleeping my radar! By signing up for aid- you are not admitting personal inadequacy. Saying "we need more money or the things money purchases, like food, housing, healthcare, etc" is not saying "we are clueless and need state intervention into every aspect of our lives." We have amost 10% unemployment. Working families struggle to survive as wages fall. Our economic system is largely antagonistic to families. How can a social worker have any idea what my child needs after seeing his name on a screen or even after meeting him for 15 minutes?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
1) If you ever do need government assistance - NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED YOUR SITUATION IS and no matter how much it's understandable that you need it - IT COMES WITH RULES AND REQUIREMENTS! And part of those rules sometimes are that there need to be repeated check ins.

Um, no. There are no rules that state that accepting assistance comes at the price of allowing strangers into all of your parenting choices. The agency could simply send a brochure of available services and be done with it.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Landover, I guess my personal "discernment fairy" isn't helping me today.









I'm hearing you say that there are children who aren't being abused or neglected, but that you define the situations they are in as "high risk."

Wasn't it you who, in a previous post, even said that getting assistance for a long time gets a family labeled as high risk, or something to that effect? Would the fact that our girls have been on Medicaid for the past 3 years qualify as long time assistance? And Food Stamps off and on throughout the past 9 years? And sometimes WIC?

Maybe for YOU to sign up for assistance, it would take you feeling that you were incapable of raising your children yourself, and that you needed all kinds of outside interference ...

But for me, it simply means money is tight, and we're checking to see what assistance we might qualify for to stretch things a bit. Thankfully, the social workers WE'VE dealt with never seemed to think we were signing up for all kinds of interference.

From your posts, and LROM's posts, it comes across like some social workers really do think there's some fine print we're signing, agreeing to get harassed. All I can say is, here in Kansas City I've never heard of any workers having this sort of an attitude toward their clients.

Also, in the cases I've heard of where people blamed Child Protective Services for children falling through the cracks, there was always a record of neighbors, teachers, and/or other concerend people calling and calling to report suspected abuse or neglect, and those calls getting ignored or not adequately followed up on. I'm sure there are reasons for this, and I for one don't agree with blaming CPS for every child death.

Anyhow, I just seriously don't get how the kind of harassment that happened to the OP, is going to solve the problem of children being locked in their rooms and starved to death, etcetera. It's kind of like telling children that cleaning their plates will feed the starving children in India.









The answer would seem to be to respond better to the actual abuse calls coming in -- not to turn people you don't even suspect of abuse into a "bleep on your radar."

If you're NOT thinking a child's being abused or neglected, but are just concerned because the family meets lots of criteria that matches your profile for being high risk, and additionally you think the parents are uninformed about the resources that are available ...

Then obviously it's your job to inform them about the resources. I'm not suggesting you say, "Oh, they're not informed" and then go pray the Serenity Prayer. After all, the prayer includes a request for "the courage to change the things I can." If someone's uninformed about resources, you do have it in your power to change that by informing them

The serenity comes in AFTER you've informed them (once) and they've declined. You might say, Can I send you some information about this program and who to contact if you change your mind? -- but beyond that, it's most respectful to your clients, for you to follow the path of serenity.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

mammal_mama: Well said. You're keeping your head a lot better than I am.

I think I'm going to bow out of this, because it's a topic that's caused me a lot of grief. My post-partum periods have been really brutal, and pretty much everything that happened during those times are major hot button issues for me.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AngeliqueW* 
Um, no. There are no rules that state that accepting assistance comes at the price of allowing strangers into all of your parenting choices. The agency could simply send a brochure of available services and be done with it.

Honestly, it really comes down to what you care about the most. Do you just care about checking off boxes? Or do you care whether you're using the proven best ways to reach parents who need what you have?

You can say an agency should just send a brochure of available services and be done with it. But when you talk to actual parents, real parents, and ask them what they do when they need help and what ways they usually hear about programs/services that help them, it's overwhelmingly either word of mouth or outreach (i.e. the service coming to them to say "Hi, we're here!").

I respect that you and me and everyone else has our individual opinions. But it matters what works and what doesn't, what the majority of parents respond to and what they don't. AND... needing help is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to be harassed about. But you can't just visit someone once and think that an entrenched issue (like depression, or lack of adequate food, or mental illness, or violence, or even just basic cluelessness) are going to be resolved to the point of no concern in that one visit. Especially if a parent who shows signs of having a significant challenge says "No problem here so go away, I don't need you". If your job is to help families that show specific signs of needing help, you follow up if either family says they want it or you see concrete signs they need it.

In the end, if the family refuses services and you haven't seen anything that rises to a serious serious concern, you have to let it go and accept the family doesn't want services. And if nothing was ever that concerning to start with, you shouldn't be focusing on that family in the first place.

I honestly don't know how things go in Canada (sounds like a different system to me), but here in the US, in my personal 20 years of being in one area of social services or another, the number of parents who initially hated my involvement and wanted me to go away who later said "I'm so glad you stuck with me, I really needed help and I was too deep in it to know" is HUGE.

A family saying "No, I don't need you" often should be the end of the conversation. But often it should NOT be the end, and families who use certain services or receive certain benefits do not get to both have those benefits and also dictate the conditions.

There are MANY things in my life I don't like, many agencies who operate in ways I don't approve of. But ya know what? I have yet to find a health insurance plan that will let ME decide what my copays are, how quickly my docs get reimbursed, which dental services are covered at 90% and which are covered at 50%. They have rules that they made sometimes because it's best practice, and sometimes because they're greedy as heck. But at the end of the day if I want health insurance at all, I sign onto their rules and hope for the best.

And on my way home last night, rushing home to relieve DH of caring for DD, I got stuck in a police roadblock where they were checking people's licenses and making sure their car tags were current. That took AGES to get through. Did I like it? Nope. Did i wish I could just say "Hey, I'm good, can I just go through?" Definitely. But I'm also glad that they're checking these things if it makes the roads safer and my neighborhood safer, and I can see that the bigger benefit makes my inconvenience worth it.

That is how the world works, and where we can improve it we should, but we can't expect that just because we want something a certain way, everyone else will "make it happen". Usually not possible, and often it's not even good practice.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Mammal mama, I actually agree with a lot of what you say. But I am NOT saying in any way that "harassment" is ever justified.

What I *am* saying is that sometimes what is feels to a family like "harassment" is actually either just following up because someone somewhere had a concern about the family, OR it's the follow up that comes along with receiving a service. The family may feel it as harassment because they don't want ANY contact other than just getting whatever they wanted/needed... or they might feel it as harassment because indeed someone is calling and visiting again and again when a) they've not expressed any specific concern and b) the family has clearly said "No, we don't want it, go away" and they still don't go away.

I actually spend a huge amount of my professional time representing *parents* and helping them have say in how services are provided, preventing unfair intervention and unjust application of policies. And I know from their own input (as well as looking at the results of interventions) that it's the exception to the rule (in the US) that social worker types who repeatedly contact a family are doing so even though there's nothing to be really concerned about. Almost always it's the opposite: there is way more families we're concerned about/need help than there are social workers to work with them.

Honestly, I just don't know enough about OPs situation to be sure that there wasn't a good reason people kept visiting her. It's possible that a family member was calling services about her, or a teacher of an older child, or a neighbor, and that's what was leading to the visits. Or maybe she lives in Canada where apparently there is a huge river of social service people making calls and visits! (I'm half Canadian but never lived there, so I'm affectionately giving Canada a hard time).

But I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that harassment is justified or ok, in any circumstance. I think we just don't all agree what is harassment and what might be good social work that feels intrusive but perhaps is justified.


----------



## SunshineJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
A family saying "No, I don't need you" often should be the end of the conversation. But often it should NOT be the end, and families who use certain services or receive certain benefits do not get to both have those benefits and also dictate the conditions.

I'm generally not "afraid" of the government, heck I worked for years at the local level. But I can honestly say this entire post scares the living crap out of me at a bone deep level. Because a family is on ANY type of assistance or services (and keep in mind there are a lot of reasons other than "need" that families may qualify for different services) then it's the job of a social worker to evaluate that family for disfunction or issues. Seriously? Please tell me I'm mis-reading this because that certainly can't be ok with anyone! According to the stated guidelines of most assistance programs, there are no strings attached requiring that people allow or accept this. You usually will have to check in or perform some type of reporting depending on the service. That's really all there is - those are generally the sum of the "conditions". Yet this post is presenting a host of new "conditions" that are NOT stated as a condition for assistance in most instances. Do we mistrust our population and ourselves so much, and do we really grant such power to strangers who don't know anything about us? This is frightening.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
But at the end of the day if I want health insurance at all, I sign onto their rules and hope for the best.

Thank the gods when I got medicaid and WIC it didn't come with all the crap being described on this thread, because frankly, if signing up for itincluded signing up for what you're describing, I'd seriously consider passing on it altogther.

THAT is what the effect of "well, you said you wanted help, so now we're going to do what WE think is best and ignore you" is. Because it makes me say "You know what? I don't need help that badly. Never







: mind."

If you won't respect me and won't respect my boundaries, I'll find a way to get by without your "assistance".

I'm bowing out of this thread now because I'm not going to be able to continue in a civil manner. The condescending judgment is too much, and I really feel sorry for anyone who has had to deal with social workers who display this kind of attitude towards the families they are trying to help.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

LROM, that's great that you have so many clients who are happy that you kept at them about resources you thought they should avail themselves of.

And I'm glad you don't feel that needing assistance is anything to be ashamed of or to be harassed for. I guess from some of your and Landover's previous posts, I got the impression that one or both of you saw longterm use of an assistance program as some sort of indication that the family is at higher risk for abusing or neglecting their children.

I've always thought social workers really want everyone whose income qualifies them for a program, to get the assistance for however long they qualify, because of how helpful it is to children and families to have that extra food or that free (to them) medical coverage for their children.

I think everyone who applies for assistance understands that there are rules, and they don't get to dictate how much aid they get, or whether they get full medical coverage or have to pay a co-pay. We're also aware that we have to choose from the doctors and dentists who are covered by Medicaid.

So, I don't know of anyone who uses, say, WIC, Medicaid, or Food Stamps, thinking that they should be able to call the shots or re-write the rules. The complaints here are about the interventions they didn't sign on for.

If most or all of the people you've intervened with in this way are saying Thanks I'm so glad you did -- then it sounds like you're not like the worker who's been harassing the OP, after she's made it pretty clear that she understands what is offered but simply doesn't want or need it.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Prothyria, I think this conversation is made much MUCH harder by the fact that you guys don't know which families I'd consider "in need" and I have already said that by the sounds of it, for the programs I work in, most of you guys probably wouldn't be families we'd be visiting anyway.

But if that's how we're coming off, that's unfortunate. I respect your opinion and I'm sorry you feel that this is about judgement.

And honestly, I'm really glad you don't see what I see, and I'm almost relieved that most of you think this is all overkill. It's actually one of the things I like about being on this board - most people are so together, they really don't need the services my agency give out! And that is a good thing.

But I also really care that the clients I do work with also feel good about the services. We have many of our clients return as resource people, because they know more than we do about what it means to use these services and still be ok or better then ok - thriving. It matters the world to me that we get good feedback from the people we work with.

My particular program wouldn't be in business anymore if parents felt like we were judgemental and didn't listen, because building relationships and listening carefully are at the heart of what we do. But that clearly doesn't come across here, and I accept that.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Thanks Mammal Mia, maybe everything isn't getting lost in translation!


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Now I'm curious exactly WHAT social service programs out there are requiring social workers to make home visits?

Because we get Food Stamps, and this has never come up. We've gotten WIC in the past, and it's never come up. It has also never come up with our girls' Medicaid.

The only difference between our Medicaid and the OP's Medicaid, is that we never got Medicaid for either of my pregnancies with the girls, or during infancy.

When dd1 was born we had private insurance through dh's job. Dd2 was born at home, and I didn't feel a need for any prenatal medical care during the pregnancy. I just started seeing an independent midwife in the last trimester, and she was willing to wait 'til we got our tax return to get payment.

So we didn't apply for Medicaid 'til dd2 was 17 months old and fractured her elbow. We had gotten it for a while previously for dd1, but this was after she was 1 year old so I'm guessing she was past the high risk category. If you have Medicaid during pregnancy, does this mean you are automatically signing on for home visits after the baby is born?


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunshineJ* 
I'm generally not "afraid" of the government, heck I worked for years at the local level. But I can honestly say this entire post scares the living crap out of me at a bone deep level. Because a family is on ANY type of assistance or services (and keep in mind there are a lot of reasons other than "need" that families may qualify for different services) then it's the job of a social worker to evaluate that family for disfunction or issues. Seriously? Please tell me I'm mis-reading this because that certainly can't be ok with anyone! According to the stated guidelines of most assistance programs, there are no strings attached requiring that people allow or accept this. You usually will have to check in or perform some type of reporting depending on the service. That's really all there is - those are generally the sum of the "conditions". Yet this post is presenting a host of new "conditions" that are NOT stated as a condition for assistance in most instances. Do we mistrust our population and ourselves so much, and do we really grant such power to strangers who don't know anything about us? This is frightening.

Good news SunshineJ: you ARE misreading! Or maybe I mis-wrote!

Your post helped me realize there are 3 different scenarios here that are colliding: 1) where certain outreach programs that are available to EVERYONE and reach out to everyone and maybe someone (perhaps OP) says "No thanks, not interested". 2) where because a family signed up for a certain kind of assistance (like food stamps, TANF, WIC), the following up with the family that comes along with that (which is NOT supposed to be about doing an intensive family assesment) may or may not feel intrusive, and 3) programs like mine where if we are contacting you AT ALL it's because someone has said something very serious/bad for children is happening in your home.

So just to clarify what I've been trying to say:

In situation 1) if the family says no thanks and nothing awful happened while you were contacting them, then no should be enough. If the family says no but when you called or rang the bell you heard/saw shouting, crashing, screaming... maybe you feel the need to call/visit again to just "check in". I would hope that wouldn't be considered intrusve, but it might. But to me it's still worth following up again because you heard/saw something that made you think "Whoa, I wonder if this family needs help?"

Situation 2), that's the part where I was saying some familiies who receive assistance don't like that they have to give ANY information or do any follow up. You have to, that's the only way we can give out the assistance in the first place. But no, it does NOT mean we have the right to show up at your house with a CSI team and look through your sock drawers "just to make sure everything's ok". We only have the right to provide assistance and try to help you help yourself to not need the same assistance in the future. And to do whatever follow up we're mandated to do. That's it.

However IF in the course of talking to you you say your'e about to be evicted or you don't have any electricity, those are serious things that actually rise to the level of neglect, even if you're a great parent who's doing your best, it's still a bad situation and kids can get hurt in that situation. So even if you feel like you can live without electricity for a little while longer while you get other things sorted out, you've now said something to someone who a) cares and b) is mandated and you're probably about to get more "checking in" than you asked for.

and the 3rd situation, like I said, by the time my program is involved, something serious has been alleged. If we look into it and dont' find anything, we are THRILLED to never see you or talk to you again because nothing is wrong. We LOVE looking and not seeing anything concerning. But if we do find evidence of abuse or neglect, or we see/hear something seriously concerning that indicates more follow up, we're going to follow up. And most families do not want us to show up at their door, but if we do it's because someone said something serious and we can't ignore it.

Those are 3 really different scenarios that got blended together, but you're absolutely right that signing up for services of one kind does not give anyone the right to impose on you services of another kind. We can offer, but if you say no and you've done everything you're supposed to to receive whatever you're receiving, that should be the end of it.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
And honestly, I'm really glad you don't see what I see, and I'm almost relieved that most of you think this is all overkill.

I've seen it. However, it was already discussed upthread that at least some of this discussion is about "bleeps on the radar", not about suspicion of actual abuse or neglect.

As for this:

Quote:

But you can't just visit someone once and think that an entrenched issue (like *depression*, or lack of adequate food, or mental illness, or violence, or even just basic cluelessness) are going to be resolved to the point of no concern in that one visit.
My depression is nobody else's business. I don't want your (or anyone else's) "help", thank you very much. The fact that your industry would feel justified in adding stress and triggers to my life because you don't think my mental state is acceptable is just one more reason why I don't trust you.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Oh, and I wanted to clarify about this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
Or maybe she lives in Canada where apparently there is a huge river of social service people making calls and visits! (I'm half Canadian but never lived there, so I'm affectionately giving Canada a hard time).

My whole involvement in this thread originally came about here:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meems* 
They offer free lactation consults, nurses who basically do well baby visits *at your home* (!) which I would love to have and skip the doctor's office!


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
It always amazes me when I see posts like this. This is the exact crap I've had to argue my way out of with my last two babies. It drives me nuts. I don't want it, they don't help, and I wish they'd just go away. It continues to amaze me that there are people who actually want this crap - but I wish they'd spend their time on people like you and leave people like me alone.

The people who have been driving me batty after my last two babies weren't social workers. It was the public nurse's home health program. They offer support (that's what they call it, anyway) to everybody who has had a baby in our health region. It's a government sponsored program for our own good, but it's not social work, as such. Just wanted to clarify. I think our social workers are just as stretched as those anywhere else.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

LROM, I never realized that getting a utility shut off or getting an eviction notice was classed as child neglect.

Gosh, and I'll bet the people mentioning this to social workers are doing so because they're hoping the social worker might know of resources they haven't tapped into yet, that might help them get the bill paid.

But it sounds like it's wiser to just act like everything's fine, regardless of what is really going on, because rather than getting help with bills you're more likely to get your parenting scrutinized.


----------



## Landover (Oct 12, 2007)

I have tried to read through everything, but I don't have a ton of time to devote to posting. I have been at MDC for a long time now, but I rarely post.







I will try to address the questions that were asked of me.

Quote:

I got the impression that one or both of you saw longterm use of an assistance program as some sort of indication that the family is at higher risk for abusing or neglecting their children.
Nope, I do not think that the aid itself makes someone at a higher risk to abuse their children. I *know* that kids who are on aid for extended periods of time have a higher rate of abuse and neglect. There is a big distinction there.

Quote:

Wasn't it you who, in a previous post, even said that getting assistance for a long time gets a family labeled as high risk, or something to that effect?
I did not mean that using assitance for a long period of time gets you labeled as high risk. I indicated that studies show that kids who are on assistance for prolonged periods of time are at a higher risk for lower academic achievement, increased rate of school dropout, increased episodes of socially maladaptive and deviant behaviors. In other words, when two groups are compared (children in families who use governmental aid and a population who does not) a statistically significant amount of children from the former group will have these issues. There are reasons why public school systems base many decisions on the percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunches - because these children are at greater risk statistically. This does not say anything about any *one* child - it is about an overall truth.

Quote:

Would the fact that our girls have been on Medicaid for the past 3 years qualify as long time assistance? And Food Stamps off and on throughout the past 9 years? And sometimes WIC?
To simply answer your question... nine *years* of some sort of governmental aid... yes. You probably knew that would be the answer though or my simply stated facts would not have bothered you.









Look... I am not trying to offend anyone at all. I am happy that aid exists and there is no shame in getting aid temporarily while your family actively seeks another answer.

This thread has gotten crazy.... the OP asked about a few calls over the course of MONTHS. I do not think this constitutes harassment of any kind. I am not going to argue that point as that is simply a matter of semantics.

There are a lot of other issues at play with folks who have posted on here who have received governmental assistance such as distrust of the government and hostility toward things that are simple facts....

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Landover View Post
By signing up for the aid itself you are, in fact, saying that you do not have, nor have you found a way to provide, adequate resources for your children. Is it such a leap for a social worker, who is paid by the state to help children, to think that your children may need more?

This statement is seriously bleeping my radar! By signing up for aid- you are not admitting personal inadequacy. Saying "we need more money or the things money purchases, like food, housing, healthcare, etc" is not saying "we are clueless and need state intervention into every aspect of our lives." We have amost 10% unemployment. Working families struggle to survive as wages fall. Our economic system is largely antagonistic to families.
Okay.... looking at my post, I did not say that anyone was inadequate as a person. My post simply indicates inadequate *resources.* Isn't saying "we need more money to buy things like food, housing, and healthcare" saying that you have inadequate resources? And, as far as our economic system being antagonistic to families.... I guess you are referring to a free market economy or capitalism? Not sure what economic system makes it easier for families.









Quote:

How can a social worker have any idea what my child needs after seeing his name on a screen or even after meeting him for 15 minutes?
This is wonderful! I think you just made my point for me. One phone call or one fly by visit will never be enough. I completely agree!!









Quote:

I'm generally not "afraid" of the government, heck I worked for years at the local level. But I can honestly say this entire post scares the living crap out of me at a bone deep level. Because a family is on ANY type of assistance or services (and keep in mind there are a lot of reasons other than "need" that families may qualify for different services) then it's the job of a social worker to evaluate that family for disfunction or issues. Seriously? Please tell me I'm mis-reading this because that certainly can't be ok with anyone! According to the stated guidelines of most assistance programs, there are no strings attached requiring that people allow or accept this. You usually will have to check in or perform some type of reporting depending on the service. That's really all there is - those are generally the sum of the "conditions". Yet this post is presenting a host of new "conditions" that are NOT stated as a condition for assistance in most instances. Do we mistrust our population and ourselves so much, and do we really grant such power to strangers who don't know anything about us? This is frightening.
Huh? Honestly, I'm confused. I definitely want someone checking up on kiddos who are at risk for abuse and neglect, and I am so happy that we have a system to advocate for those kids. Yes, it is someone's job to evaluate a family for these risks - thank goodness! I have seen many children saved by persistent social workers who cared too much to just walk away. I think you have expressed this as if it is some sort of governmental conspiracy... hmmmm.... Pretty sure it is just the best and only way most governments have come up with for helping children in need.

I'm outie folks... this has been fun (kind of). I am simply stating facts that people don't want to hear, and there isn't much else for me to do then that. I have seen many people helped by these additional services who said no at first. However, someone who cared about kids kept trying. For that, I am grateful.









LROM... thank you so much for the wonderful work you do!


----------



## Landover (Oct 12, 2007)

I know I said I was outie on the last post, but I wanted to make sure everyone saw that and didn't think I was ignoring you if you ask me a question. I do lurk on MDC sometimes, but I normally don't have time to post (as evidenced by my microscopic post count







). The previous post took me like 15 minutes which is way longer then I generally spend on here, and I can't keep up with you diehards! Much love folks!


----------



## MI_Dawn (Jun 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
So, you know, social service workers can just learn the serenity prayer, and move on to people who want the help.









AMEN!









Just say "No thank you, I'm not interested." Keep saying it. Politely. And then hang up.

As for this:

Quote:

According to the stated guidelines of most assistance programs, there are no strings attached requiring that people allow or accept this.
BWAH! Really? Oh you mean the overtly STATED strings... no... none of those... but there's a huge web of strings you don't see when you sign your name on the dotted line...


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

Quote:

LROM, I never realized that getting a utility shut off or getting an eviction notice was classed as child neglect.
Getting a utility shut off or an eviction notice is a big deal in the life of a family. My friend John lived without gas for more then 6 mos and I will tell you what-if his daughter had been living with him it would have been awful-no heat, hot water, or stove to cook with. It sucked something awful and I only visited.

Getting evicted for many families can mean being homeless. Kids deserve warm stable homes with utilities. These are basic needs for kids and if you are having problems providing such a basic need I would hope you get help.

Even if it meant a few phone calls and some checking.

I have seen and experienced nothing but good things from my county services. And the people I know who have used them have positive things to say as well.

In the end if I did not like the level of supervision required I would simply not use the services offered. We all have a choice. Some choices are just better then others and which choice you make depends on your own family.


----------



## LROM (Sep 10, 2008)

BetsyJ thank you for clarifying that. Getting evicted is not in and of itself considered neglect - if you have an appropriate place to take your kids and live while you get sorted out. But if you're about to be evicted and have nowhere to go... being homeless IS considered neglect. But please also remember that the reason there are laws about that is that there is supposed to be HELP if you find yourself homeless with your kids. It's not to criminalize you because you are in this awful situation.

Having your utilities cut off is also considered neglect because one of the main forms of neglect is "Inadequate food, clothing or shelter". No utilities is often quite dangerous unless you live out in the woods and that's the norm where you live. We have kids getting cut, bitten, or hungry among many other issues when there are no utilities in a house. There are fire hazards, it means your fridge is off and you can't refrigerate food... no utilities means a ton of things that - again unless it's the norm where you live and families are accustomed to life without utilities - it's one fo the situations that we get tons of hurt children from.

You know, many parents feel exactly as Mammal Mama and others, that it's better to just say nothing. But you know what? Living without utilities or without adequate housing IS A PROBLEM. And if some parents would rather put their kids through that when there are alternatives, well, if you never come across social services paths I guess that's your choice. But most of the parents who say they're being evicted in my state are glad they did mention it, because there is ASSISTANCE in situations like that and it could mean the difference between being homeless or getting temporary housing and other assistance that would benefit your family tremendously in that situation.

Have you ever been homeless with kids? One of my best friends was, and the word "vulnerable" doesn't even begin to describe how awful that experience was for her family.

And Storm Bride, if you are taking care of your kids needs, you're right, your depression is no one's business. Period. End of story. But if someone somewhere notices that your kids needs are NOT being taken care of because of your depression, like it or not there are laws protecting children if their parents can't care for them and it IS someone else's business if you need help yourself to the point that you can't adequately care for your kids. Not saying this was ever your situation, because it sounds like it wasn't. But your statement that your depression is no one's business is only true as long as your kids are not lacking some major need.

Of course, reasonable people can have WIDELY DIFFERENT opinions on the definition of "adequately caring for kids", which is where a lot of these things get out of hand and parents feel violated (and in some cases, parents ARE violated). But in most cases, if child welfare knows about you at all it's because there's some really major sign that all is not well. And then yes, laws kick in to protect kids. Those laws and the agencies who are supposed to enforce them are often woefully inadequate, sometimes judgemental and intrusive. But mostly... they are caring people who want the best for the whole family and do their best to get in, help the family solve whatever the problem is, and get OUT.

I'm now bowing out of this thread too, because at some point this goes beyond generalities and is about individual's personal experiences and why they trust or don't trust agencies, why they are troubled by a few calls over the course of several months, or why they think it would be better to not mention something as serious as being about to be evicted because they don't trust an agency. I obviously base a lot of what I say on my personal & professional experience so I put myself in this same category as well.

I wish everyone well, and OP I hope you've found some peace now, whatever you chose to do or not do.


----------



## lauratheexplorer (Jan 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunshineJ* 
I'll second that!! When I had our ds I was the first to admit there was much I had to learn, but my goodness that also didn't mean I was a raving idiot either!

I also think that with any government program or healthcare in general, the bias is to speak to the lowest common denominator-the person who knows the least and needs the most help. The assumption that parents in general know LESS rather than MORE is very prevalent, and to some degree it probably is a good thing. Those who don't need help (like your family) will decline it and those who do need it are glad to be asked.


----------



## DariusMom (May 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LROM* 
BetsyJ thank you for clarifying that. Getting evicted is not in and of itself considered neglect - if you have an appropriate place to take your kids and live while you get sorted out. But if you're about to be evicted and have nowhere to go... being homeless IS considered neglect. But please also remember that the reason there are laws about that is that there is supposed to be HELP if you find yourself homeless with your kids. It's not to criminalize you because you are in this awful situation.

Having your utilities cut off is also considered neglect because one of the main forms of neglect is "Inadequate food, clothing or shelter". No utilities is often quite dangerous unless you live out in the woods and that's the norm where you live. We have kids getting cut, bitten, or hungry among many other issues when there are no utilities in a house. There are fire hazards, it means your fridge is off and you can't refrigerate food... no utilities means a ton of things that - again unless it's the norm where you live and families are accustomed to life without utilities - it's one fo the situations that we get tons of hurt children from.

You know, many parents feel exactly as Mammal Mama and others, that it's better to just say nothing. But you know what? Living without utilities or without adequate housing IS A PROBLEM. And if some parents would rather put their kids through that when there are alternatives, well, if you never come across social services paths I guess that's your choice. But most of the parents who say they're being evicted in my state are glad they did mention it, because there is ASSISTANCE in situations like that and it could mean the difference between being homeless or getting temporary housing and other assistance that would benefit your family tremendously in that situation.

Have you ever been homeless with kids? One of my best friends was, and the word "vulnerable" doesn't even begin to describe how awful that experience was for her family.

And Storm Bride, if you are taking care of your kids needs, you're right, your depression is no one's business. Period. End of story. But if someone somewhere notices that your kids needs are NOT being taken care of because of your depression, like it or not there are laws protecting children if their parents can't care for them and it IS someone else's business if you need help yourself to the point that you can't adequately care for your kids. Not saying this was ever your situation, because it sounds like it wasn't. But your statement that your depression is no one's business is only true as long as your kids are not lacking some major need.

Of course, reasonable people can have WIDELY DIFFERENT opinions on the definition of "adequately caring for kids", which is where a lot of these things get out of hand and parents feel violated (and in some cases, parents ARE violated). But in most cases, if child welfare knows about you at all it's because there's some really major sign that all is not well. And then yes, laws kick in to protect kids. Those laws and the agencies who are supposed to enforce them are often woefully inadequate, sometimes judgemental and intrusive. But mostly... they are caring people who want the best for the whole family and do their best to get in, help the family solve whatever the problem is, and get OUT.

I'm now bowing out of this thread too, because at some point this goes beyond generalities and is about individual's personal experiences and why they trust or don't trust agencies, why they are troubled by a few calls over the course of several months, or why they think it would be better to not mention something as serious as being about to be evicted because they don't trust an agency. I obviously base a lot of what I say on my personal & professional experience so I put myself in this same category as well.

I wish everyone well, and OP I hope you've found some peace now, whatever you chose to do or not do.









:

LROM, I think you've handled this whole discussion beautifully.

I haven't stepped in because I've (thankfully) never been in the situation of needing help, nor have I ever been the one offering it. But I've been reading the thread with a lot of interest.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I do understand that getting a utility shut off or getting an eviction notice is a huge deal for a family! We've never actually had either of these things happen to us -- but I just don't see this in itself as tantamount to neglect. Just as death of a parent is a huge deal for a child -- but that doesn't mean it's child neglect if Mommy or Daddy is killed in a car accident or gets cancer.

While I've never known anyone to get evicted without having any place to go, I have known a number of families who've temporarily had a utility shut off. Our former neighbors used to periodically ask us for hot water because they couldn't pay their gas bill (most of the time they could pay it, but sometimes they couldn't).

I'd give them pansful of hot water, I also offered for them to use our bathtub but they prefered to just get the water and wash in their own home. And sometimes they'd use our phone when theirs was shut off. They were good parents with happy kids. I never had the slightest suspicion of abuse or neglect.

I certainly think it's good to look into available resources -- the reason I said that maybe it was best not to be too forthcoming about problems, was because someone seemed to be saying that telling a social worker you're about to get a utility shut off, or get evicted, could get you categorized as a neglectful parent --

Which seems to me like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. A family under stress doesn't need the added stress of being under surveilance for child neglect -- but at the same time if the situation is discovered and the parents haven't been seeking assistance, I suppose this can be damning evidence against them, too.

That said, the social workers we've interacted haven't given us any problem, so it sounds like where I live there's not the same stigma for "longterm use of assistance" that there is in some other regions.

Also, about the statistics showing that kids in families getting longterm assistance, and kids in free lunch programs, being more likely to be abused or neglected -- I seriously think that these kids are more likely to live in neighborhoods where more people are in contact with social workers, know what numbers to call, and so on and so forth.

I think people in middle class neighborhoods who feel concerned about a family, may be more likely to just get to know their neighbors better and see how they can help the family out. Whereas in lower income neighborhoods, people may be more likely to have safety concerns and to feel afraid to get involved directly.

And also to have fewer resources to help the family themselves.

ETA: The reason I mentioned safety concerns in lower income neighborhoods, is not that I think most lower income families are dangerous or untrustworthy -- but because living in a lower income neighborhood myself, I see how people in organized crime tend to move in to do their drug sales, prostitution, etectera.

We can't afford to pay as much money in support of our police force, so we have a much slower police response time than in neighborhoods where there are higher property taxes and better donations paid to the police. Therefore people who want to make money illegally, tend to move in here.

And it just makes everyone more cautious, even though most of us are just honest families raising our kids and abiding by the law.


----------

