carer's obligations

There is no legal definition of what a parent, guardian or carer should or shouldn't do for a child. This is more an area of socialy acceptable 'standards' - part of the unwritten rules, if you will.

Consider this for a moment. Mary Hare Grammar school is a school for hearing impaired children. It is a school rule that sign language may not be used - all children in the school must use other means to understand in an aural world, because that's where they'll be living in their future. They have various means of achieving this, and their web page is informative.

Each child, therefore, is not having their impaired hearing taken into account during lessons. A child autistic not having their impairment taken into account during lessons would, and does, lead to arguments between schools and parents. The 'Mary Hare' approach, then, would be quite contentious for many.

ANY concerns about the treatment of a 'disabled' child should be expressed to Social Services in a clear way, because they have the responsibility, on behalf of society, for ensuring children's safety and welfare, The bottom line is, is the child suffering a detriment, and to what degree?

As Longman says, child autistics have very little access to meaningful services. So do adults, but staying with the children for a moment, I must say this:-

There are many ways of causing 'stress and anxiety' in autistic people, and only the individual can tell you what their experience is. Autism is such a wide spectrum that we find each individual's impairments and experiences vary. We often mention this fact. Our children probably suffer in ways that we cannot guess at even though we have some insight, but this is neither a given, nor is it easily quantified.

By it's very nature as an isolating 'condition', autism means that these things happen in the real world. What is probably most important to a child autistic is that they have safe places and people that they can retreat to, and be comforted by. Please appreciate that this is my personal view.

If you have genuine concerns for the child, you should express them to Social Services and leave them to look into the matter. They do play the 'confidentiality' card, even parents whose children are subject to Social Services can be kept firmly out of the information loop, so they won't necessarily discuss their finding with you. Even if they have serious concerns, they'll often refuse to discuss them or what they're doing about it.

Should they remove the child from its' carers, the most they're likely to say is that they're acting in the best interests of the child. Under the 'Children Act' only 'professionals' are legaly obliged to report any child welfare concerns, there is no such obligation on the general public.

If you have concerns, you should report them to Social Services, but only they have the duty to decide whether or not there is any foundation for them so you must express them clearly, and be prepared to accept, or get involved in a long argument about, their findings and actions, I'm afraid.

There is no legal definition of what a parent, guardian or carer should or shouldn't do for a child. This is more an area of socialy acceptable 'standards' - part of the unwritten rules, if you will.

Consider this for a moment. Mary Hare Grammar school is a school for hearing impaired children. It is a school rule that sign language may not be used - all children in the school must use other means to understand in an aural world, because that's where they'll be living in their future. They have various means of achieving this, and their web page is informative.

Each child, therefore, is not having their impaired hearing taken into account during lessons. A child autistic not having their impairment taken into account during lessons would, and does, lead to arguments between schools and parents. The 'Mary Hare' approach, then, would be quite contentious for many.

ANY concerns about the treatment of a 'disabled' child should be expressed to Social Services in a clear way, because they have the responsibility, on behalf of society, for ensuring children's safety and welfare, The bottom line is, is the child suffering a detriment, and to what degree?

As Longman says, child autistics have very little access to meaningful services. So do adults, but staying with the children for a moment, I must say this:-

There are many ways of causing 'stress and anxiety' in autistic people, and only the individual can tell you what their experience is. Autism is such a wide spectrum that we find each individual's impairments and experiences vary. We often mention this fact. Our children probably suffer in ways that we cannot guess at even though we have some insight, but this is neither a given, nor is it easily quantified.

By it's very nature as an isolating 'condition', autism means that these things happen in the real world. What is probably most important to a child autistic is that they have safe places and people that they can retreat to, and be comforted by. Please appreciate that this is my personal view.

If you have genuine concerns for the child, you should express them to Social Services and leave them to look into the matter. They do play the 'confidentiality' card, even parents whose children are subject to Social Services can be kept firmly out of the information loop, so they won't necessarily discuss their finding with you. Even if they have serious concerns, they'll often refuse to discuss them or what they're doing about it.

Should they remove the child from its' carers, the most they're likely to say is that they're acting in the best interests of the child. Under the 'Children Act' only 'professionals' are legaly obliged to report any child welfare concerns, there is no such obligation on the general public.

If you have concerns, you should report them to Social Services, but only they have the duty to decide whether or not there is any foundation for them so you must express them clearly, and be prepared to accept, or get involved in a long argument about, their findings and actions, I'm afraid.