What should be done in "smoke, but no fire" child welfare cases, like this hypothetical scenario?

In this hypothetical scenario, there is a man who is a misanthropic hermit. His estranged older children and former stepchildren believe he’s abusive to his youngest son. However, they don’t have any damning proof, and digging for information has proven rather difficult for reasons that’ll be explored further into his post.

For some context, he married his first wife rather young and had two daughters and a son with her. His children with his first wife range from their late twenties to early thirties in the present day. Even while he lived with them, he was aloof and ignored his children whenever possible.

He divorced his wife when his oldest daughter was between 8 to 10 years old. After his divorce was finalized, he walked out on his childrens’ lives all together. The only involvement he had was him begrudgingly paying the obligatory child support bills. Contacts with his children in the present day are very rare, due to him shunning them. The very few that occur consist almost exclusively of his children knocking on his door for a visit. At best in those instances, the hermit would obscenely snarl them to leave and slam the door in their faces.

The hermit married another woman some years later. She already had three children of her own, a son and two twin daughters (who are now in their mid and early twenties respectively). He convinced another son (currently in his mid teens) with her shortly after their wedding. Another few years later, his second wife was killed in a car accident.

After her funeral, the hermit expelled his then teenage stepdaughters to their aunt’s house and barred his stepson (who was coming home from college at the time) from entry. He then banned his youngest son from seeing any of his maternal half siblings ever again. The hermit has also prohibited him from speaking to his paternal half siblings as well.

Despite these issues, most of his adult children and step children live in somewhat close proximity to him, though none are in touch. The hermit is very elusive and taciturn, only rarely emerging from his country side house. In addition to shutting out his family, the hermit also isolates himself and his son from the greater outside world. He is something of a luddite, and has forbidden technology like phones, computers, the internet, and TV from his home.

The other children and stepchildren have long feared that their father/stepfather is abusing the youngest. However, personal inquiry has proven rather difficult. As the hermit has rebuffed/ignored all attempts at in person correspondence, neither he or his son have any social media pages to lurk on/contact, and both lack phones to call. From his father’s influence, the youngest also hasn’t been overly open to his half siblings.

What really alarmed them was a chance encounter at a store. On one particular day, the hermit’s oldest daughter was out shopping and bumped into the youngest browsing alone. A few details that were off putting right away, were that the youngest was wearing long shelves in hot weather, makeup on his face, and sunglasses indoors. At first, the youngest was a bit wary of her. However, she managed to get a conversation going after a little coaxing.

In the conversation, the oldest invited him over to her house. For a second, he eagerly accepted her offer, but pulled a 180 mid sentence, and fearfully turned her down. He was also evasive when she tried prying into his home life. The youngest did agree to her proposal of driving him home. For reasons he refused to disclose however, he insisted that she drop him off two miles away from his house.

From that encounter, the half siblings dread that their worst fears are true. Adding to their concerns, they can see that the Hermit’s house is very run down (and it appears to contain at least some degree of hoarding), from their brief drive-by visits. However, for the several aforementioned complications with the seclusion and secrecy, gathering information for a report has been rather difficult for them. Additionally, the hermit also doesn’t associate with anyone beyond the bare minimum. Thus preventing the siblings from asking around about them.

Legally speaking, what should the half siblings do in that situation? Especially considering that they have so little information to go on? Even then, what they have is certainly concerning, but would it be enough to take it to the court? Also what would be acceptable actions and what would be pushing boundaries? Last but not least, what are the chances of success if they tried to contest the hermit for custody?

TLDR: To sum this scenario up, a group of half siblings are seeing what they deem red flags in their estranged father/stepfather’s relationship with their youngest brother. Gathering information on the situation has been difficult, due to the man’s fortified isolation. Legally, what should they do in such a “smoke, but no fire” situation?

 

You mean recluse or hermit?

 

Depending on where you are - is this the states or Canada and what do these people want of the boy - custody? - then they should contact a lawyer. Getting family and children's services involved too fast especially without proof of abuse can take the entire situation out of your hands for months if not a year(s) and could possibly do more harm. In Canada they just don't hand a child over to the most willing relative (even if abuse was detected) you have to be screened and that could take months. The lawyer might be able to set this up quicker. A cold, hermit parent is not enough to justify foster care. The entire system is risky and unfeeling (not the individual homes - the judges, the rules, the court orders etc) and sometimes dangerous (foster parents, friends of foster parents and or foster siblings can be abusive) you have measure that risk. Will he be in a safer place? Not just a nicer place.

The brothers and sisters should work out a system where they're visiting the little brother regularly and at odd times to keep the father from anticipating their drop ins and if the father objects, go to a lawyer and sue for visitation rights. But if they're going to get involved be involved. At the very least if the boy sees all this attention, he might be more willing to open up.

 

It matters hugely what jurisdiction - I'll put some quick thoughts here from a UK perspective, but I'll try to keep it very general because you'll need to check these things with a practitioner from the same setting as the story. Internationally, the theory base and research is pretty much universal.

The first half of the description, for child protective purposes, sums up to "man broke up with partner+kids, met new partner, had baby, new partner died, he's now sole carer of the baby" And probably it would only start to be looked at in more detail once they've got to the crux of the referral.

Which is actually the third of these points I've picked out, but this in is the same order as they appear in the passage.


"The other children and stepchildren have long feared that their father/stepfather is abusing the youngest." - the way the description leads with this seemed massively far from what I'd expect a child protection investigation to respond to. In any jurisdiction the initial referral (or report) would come into the system with much more information on what the other children have disclosed (what exactly do they fear has happened, and why). The system would start responding as soon as it gets the first report - so where multiple people have held concerns for a long time, usually the first one would trigger an information-gathering process bringing in the others.

It's possible that their "fears" are really prejudices arising from the manner in which he has left their lives.


"the hermit has rebuffed/ignored all attempts at in person correspondence," - if the evidence from the other siblings and step-siblings was credible, some jurisdictions have processes for the response to be police-led. Potentially they could get authorisation (which in the UK comes from the Family Courts) to just break his door down if they have reason to believe a child is at risk of harm - but in this story I don't think that's the case: it's going to depend on the quality of the evidence and the extent and nature of the risk.

A possible explanation for his reclusiveness is grief at separation from one partner followed by the death of the other.


"makeup on his face, and sunglasses indoors." - this is the crux of the referral - if this meeting is being reported by someone in the sibling group it would be noted, but I don't think it would carry all that much weight. If he has been seriously bruised by the "hermit" (or recluse) that will still be visible for several days and they would either find it in school, or respond to the child's non-attendance. A crucial detail for this story is whether the hermit is lawfully home-educating his son, and if so the jurisdiction's procedures for child safety would apply, and I know these have been in flux in many countries due to serious abuse cases occurring (I think the Turpins in 2018 in the USA involved this). It's difficult - but physical abuse doesn't tend to be isolated incidents: the services in a way don't need to pick it up the first time so long as it's picked up fast enough.

A possible explanation for the unusual clothing might be poverty, or the hermit having difficulty coping with housework. The detail that makes it concerning is the make-up.

But the child might be hiding that he has been in a fight with another boy from the hermit because is worried about being disciplined, or because he is trying to protect the hermit who is already coping with grief. If the sibling was concerned, she might have got him to take the glasses off, or looked round the sides of them. Or (depending on jurisdiction) there might have been physical chastisement to an excess that the family wants to conceal but that wouldn't result in the child's being removed.


"the Hermit’s house is very run down" - this definitely varies hugely by jurisdiction, but housing fortunately can be extremely poor before it begins to damage children's development. So social services interventions, I'd expect in all jurisdictions, are looking mostly at:- is there sufficient heat, is there food, is there a bed, is the environment safe (for a hoarder it might not be - but it's normally cheaper to clean the guy's house up than take him to court)... and if not, then what services can they put in to make it safe, given that removal is a last resort.

This might also just be normal grief. Around the world, social services aim to be non-judgemental and work from an understanding of how human beings function, so I think any social worker would have this alternative explanation in mind while they are listening to the siblings' report. It's always also evidence-led, and I don't think the evidence is here: however well-intentioned and sincere it may be, it is just hearsay and suspicion.

======

The title says it's "smoke, but no fire", so I think the protective services in this case would probably find that although the other family members are very concerned, when they check all of their other information sources (including the hermit's criminal record and past social services involvement) there aren't enough other indicators of abuse to justify an intervention, so they would close the case. If the child is attending school and medical appointments normally, that gives them 1/3 of the day during which they can find out lots of information. In the UK those plus the police are the three largest channels for referrals - concerns from family and neighbours are a surprisingly small proportion.

If the hermit is home-educating the child, that can very much reduce the professionals' window into the household, and the story might want to expand on that aspect - but I think in most cases the protective services work with the window they have, rather than infringing civil liberties. Sadly sometimes children are harmed and killed in home-education contexts, where this lack of access hasn't helped matters - but on the whole the state's other information sources are still going to be sufficient most of the time. Jurisdictions strike their own balances between surveillance and liberty, and home-education isn't a predictor of abuse. Far more children who do go to school are killed by e.g. substance-misusing parents.

Contesting the hermit for custody is something we don't have here - so that's a jurisdictional difference, but I'd be surprised if they have anywhere near the evidence they would need in any of the "common law" jurisdictions (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc).

 

Legally? They are not in any custodial or in loco parentis relationship with the teenager. Therefore, legally there is nothing they are required to do.

"Should" is not a mandatory word. I've spent many years writing architectural specifications and both drafting and working with building codes. "Should" means "It would be nice if you would, if you care to ... but you don't have to."

"Shall" is mandatory language. "Shall" means "Do it!"

So none of these adults have any legal requirement to say or do anything. Anything they do is going to be based on their consciences, and what they think they "should" do.

 

On what basis would they sue for visitation "rights"?

 

As far as I know siblings can sue for visitation rights if denied - or they can at least file an application to the court to set up visitations. But given that the siblings are older who knows. I know of mostly younger children doing this or grandparents suing for the right to visit their grandchildren. I wouldn't go that route straight out the gate though. I'd try to work with the father as much as possible. Most of my suggestions are to talk first and find out what's going on before rushing into anything.