Mother who killed her 3 children visited 50 times by social services (Upsetting content).

(196 Posts)
InsanityandBeyond Thu 23-Jan-14 21:30:50

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544146/Children-kept-horrific-conditions-drowned-pregnant-mother-visited-social-workers-FIFTY-times-council-failed-act.html

Controversial question but should fathers in this situation be prosecuted for child neglect as they have left their children in these situations. Shouldn't they be be responsible in ensuring their children are not at risk of harm even from their own mothers?

Incidents like this seem to be becoming more common. What should be done if families like this 'refuse' to engage with SS? Shouldn't the children's welfare come before the mother's rights? A similar case is this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424335/Amanda-Hutton-starved-son-death-claimed-child-be...

Horrifying sad.

KarmaVersusGeorgeOsbourne Fri 24-Jan-14 12:09:33

So the father was living with the children up until a few weeks before their deaths, yet it's all the fault of SS and his ex partner?

I know the DM is full of shit, but if the quotes about the children 'sleeping in a double pushchair for 13 nights' and 'only being fed biscuits' are true, that was in May 2011. What that mother did was utterly awful, but it's clear that she had dreadful mental health problems. What is the father's excuse?

fifi669 Fri 24-Jan-14 23:22:12

The father may not have done all he could. To hold him responsible for the children's murder though is wrong. Their mum did it off her own back. If you aren't coping you ask for help. There aren't any excuses.

ShephardsDelight Sat 25-Jan-14 00:18:18

As much as these cases are horrific absolutely,
SS did not abuse, neglect , kill these children.
I worked amongst SW they are meant to have about 13 cases loads each at the most and in reality they have nearer about 39.
Many leave, retire early the job is so hard already without aswell having the finger pointed afterwards to add the guilt where often their hands are tied.
But in response to your OP, yes I do.
that poor poor boy.

bochead Sat 25-Jan-14 01:01:33

It wasn't a SW who got a mentally ill woman pregnant every year on the dot like a clock when she clearly wasn't coping. With 3 under 4 and another on the way I'm shocked dear Daddy found the time to do his best to impregnate some other poor soul. There's a helluva lot more to fatherhood than just bumping uglies like a dog in heat.

He should be looking at his own behavior instead of blaming SS. He had parental responsibility and didn't do HIS part as those kids had been malnourished and neglected a long time. He could have queued at the foodbank & made the kids dinner instead of making them eat biscuits, spent the day at the social to get a crisis loan when the cot broke so they wouldn't have to sleep in a pushchair etc, etc.

He could even have worn a sock on it occasionally to prevent further pregancies until she could properly cope with raising their first baby after they were allowed to keep the child despite SS concerns. He could have watched the kid/s while she accessed the appropriate treatment/therapy programme for her MH problems. I'm 100% sure that's what most decent men would do.

If he suddenly found her impossible to live with (but not to knock up every year!) then he could have applied to the court for a residency order for the children himself. There's no evidence he even attempted to do this, (unlike the poor concerned father and MIL of Baby P!)

In my eyes the father is the scum of the earth, and NO right to point any fingers of blame at SS. (Even if SS did make a few mistakes of their own, they weren't the parents! They tried to remove the eldest child legally and failed, this may have made them wary of the amount of evidence needed for a second attempt).

Spero Sat 25-Jan-14 09:11:46

And had this woman gone to see John Hemming MP when pregnant with her fourth he would have advised her to leave the country and not co-operate with SW as they are only trying to steal babies for cash after all.

I hope this case makes some people think about the sheer wickedness of the advice of some.

Because cases like this are the inevitable outcome of encouraging an atmosphere of distrust and fear of Children's Services.

You cannot have it both ways, as the father seems to wish. you can't demand that the State protect your children and yet at the same time refuse to co-operate with anyone who is trying to help.

2tiredtocare Sat 25-Jan-14 09:22:52

How could he leave her to cope all alone, those poor kids. I find it shocking that they weren't removed despite the neglect being uncovered, terrifying

Spero Sat 25-Jan-14 09:34:26

If you read the serious case review you will see that they teetered on the brink of being worrying enough to justify legal proceedings for quite a while and refused to co-operate.

I agree something should have been done earlier, but with hindsight its easy for me to say that.

It is very hard when you don't have clear cut examples of significant harm such as a broken bone. a lot of it is a judgment call at the time, knowing what you know at that instant.

And where were all the other family members? The serious case review said initially they had family support. Did they reject their families' help too?

gordyslovesheep Sat 25-Jan-14 09:39:18

Also the courts rejected ss attempt to remove the first child due to lack of evidence . Ss don't have crystal balls or unlimited time and resources . If mum was accessing other serviced and deemed to be coping what could they have done?

I am lost sometimes as to what people want from ss who, btw, the scr found could NOT have predicted what happend

horsetowater Sat 25-Jan-14 09:44:41

There was significant harm, emotionally stunted, no nappies, learned helplessness. Plenty of signs of neglect. I wonder whether ss were protecting thechildren from their father for some reason.

Spero Sat 25-Jan-14 09:45:44

Well some people want children only to be removed from parents on proof beyond reasonable doubt of physical harm.

So these children would still have died in their system. But that's ok, they are collateral damage. Much more important to protect parents' rights and family autonomy - some would say.

Not me.

horsetowater Sat 25-Jan-14 09:45:52

There was significant harm, emotionally stunted, no nappies, learned helplessness. Plenty of signs of neglect. I wonder whether ss were protecting thechildren from their father for some reason.

horsetowater Sat 25-Jan-14 09:45:53

There was significant harm, emotionally stunted, no nappies, learned helplessness. Plenty of signs of neglect. I wonder whether ss were protecting thechildren from their father for some reason.

Spero Sat 25-Jan-14 09:46:25

The father apparently said all the SW were 'iiars' as early as 2009 so clearly they didn't have a great working relationship.

FamiliesShareGerms Sat 25-Jan-14 09:46:54

I must save those SCR links to use on the "all SS are baby snatchers" threads.

Does anyone on here think (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) that those children should not have been taken into care , even if only temporary foster care ?

horsetowater Sat 25-Jan-14 09:59:20

Spero do you think he was abusive as well? I can imagine ss preferring to leave a child in neglect than risk giving residence to an abusive father that they can't pin down. It might also explain why she killed them, maybe she knew ehat their father would do.

KarmaVersusGeorgeOsbourne Sat 25-Jan-14 10:31:58

bochead I completely agree.

Spero Sat 25-Jan-14 11:01:04

Sadly, the serious case review says he was good with the children and played with them 'very well'.

But he clearly had his own issues; they were both very young and struggling with so many children and refusing help on basis that SW were liars and there were no concerns about their children.

I don't recall seeing anything about how he was physically abusive to the mother or children but it clearly was not a healthy happy family.

AllDirections Sat 25-Jan-14 11:17:38

I also agree with bochead

caruthers Sat 25-Jan-14 11:22:06

Killing children because she feared what the father might do?

That's an astonishing suggestion.

Anyway....it's a sad crime and one which everyone concerned is living with.

Poppiesway Sat 25-Jan-14 11:40:11

But an accurate suggestion, a lot has not been revealed about this case.
In reply to the fabulous idiot.. within weeks sad and the ow he was with also known to ss!
I learnt a lot from this case, and I discovered just how much is and isn't released to papers.

caruthers Sat 25-Jan-14 11:48:02

It is no way an "Accurate suggestion" she killed her children.

So it was her that harmed them wasn't it?

Where do you get your evidence from?

salsmum Sat 25-Jan-14 11:53:11

On the news last night there was another case where the 'Mother' of a 10 month old baby killed him by banging him off the ??floors?? so hard the ceiling of the person living below SHOOK shock...it was found not only that he had extensive head injuries but that he also had 9 broken ribs, a broken leg and arm sad then the evil cow tried to blame the 2 year old sibling and even had pics on her phone of the baby battered and bruised shock she got 14 years...not long enough for that poor babies suffering.

NigellasDealer Sat 25-Jan-14 11:58:32

that 'father' has blood on his hands

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 25-Jan-14 11:59:45

Careful Salsmum some posters may start suggesting the person in the flat below was in some way to blame.

salsmum Sat 25-Jan-14 12:15:00

ISWYM BoneyBackJefferson in a home with 2 young children the neighbour could quite easily have assumed that it was a 2 year old banging about so the neighbour was not to blame IMO thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now