Tweedledum, the social services key worker, wanted a meeting, she said. He/they wanted to "reassure" us about our son's failing placement. "Reassurance would be information that indicates his placement isn't failing." I said bluntly. "No, no we want to reassure you about how you feel about the placement." She explained. "I don't need my feelings reassuring, thank you." I replied, bemused and rather offended by her patronising manner. "I'm a grown up. I can look after myself, thanks. I'd happy to have any meeting, providing the focus is on my son's needs."
Later that morning, my partner (a busy health professional) telephoned Tweedledee (from her work) to arrange a time for the meeting that would fit in with her days off. She offered two possible days this week which would be convenient, explaining changing a day off would require her to amend the rota and a reasonable period of notice would be required to ensure adequate staff cover. Tweedledee told her she would be get back to my partner "in a few days". The few days have become a week, and my partner has heard nothing. It appears there is to be no meeting. But then we strongly suspect that this meeting had nothing to do with reassuring us.
A few weeks ago, Tweedledum discovered we had told S's school about our search for an alternative placement. He also found out we had told the school that his recent visit there to see our son - and the associated flurry of activity within social services in respect of his respite placement - was probably motivated less by professional concern, and more by a need to look like they were doing something positive, in the event of our compelling social services to fund any new placement through legal action. Shortly after Tweedledum's visit to the school, we had a 3 hour meeting with him (plus one) that concluded with almost nothing new and nothing of any value towards making the placement a success, although Tweedledum did proffer his own "theory of autism." I very much doubt you'll be hearing about his theory in any peer reviewed journal. Tweedledum is a care worker with no professional qualifications and he talks bollocks.
Of course, all their busy-beeing might have been motivated by good will, but when it comes it issues of funding, our experience is: act as if everyone is acting in S's best interest, but assume they are really acting in their own. Being palpably conceited and ignorant, Tweedledum sees our attitude as an affront, as if we are implying his provision isn't good enough. In fact, it's simply not suitable. I'm sure fools like Tweedledum are capable of working with children with less complex needs. In reality, I suspect desperate parents - until recently faced with no local alternatives - simply tolerate a poor service as long as their children are physically safe. We will be the first to take on this authority under the new funding arrangements. They fear the floodgates will open.
Posts
