Well can I just say well done Concernedmum for accepting Sammy's feedback in good faith and without getting overly defensive. I haven't read every detail of all 3 pages so I don't want to form any solid opinions of my own on the situation, but I did read his first few comments on the first page and he's absolutely right, Child Protection would need to do an investigation or at least a preliminary investigation before making any official recommendations. I've got my own issues with Victorian Child Protection and their lack of self-reflection and ability to be impartial and fair given a particularly bad experience with them a few years ago, but at least they interviewed me and advised me themselves in person that they did not want me to have my children unsupervised until such times as their investigation was completed. So at least I heard it from the horse's mouth so to speak. Child Protection don't usually make recommendations to one parent without being involved and knowledgeable about the details of the case. However, what Child Protection seem to enjoy doing is substantiating 'risk' (not actually investigate and make factual findings about what has happened, just announcing the 'risk' of something happening or 'likelihood' of having already occurred) and then hanging in the wings putting pressure on the reporting parent to take necessary steps to 'protect' the children from abuse, and if that parent doesn't sufficiently protect the children, subtly implying that they may at risk of intervention by CP too. In that way, they can subtly influence the situation to keep parents in line without having to actually physically intervene.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening here though.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening here though.