AIBU to think this mother shouldn't have being given back her baby.(114 Posts)
Sorry i know its The Mirror but at least its not the DM.
AIBU to think an eight-week suspended sentence, a supervision order and was told to pay £85 costs after admitting neglect is just not bloody enough.
I dont think she should have got her baby back.
It reads as less than three hours, not that this makes it any better. Still, it does bring to mind another case where children were left unsupervised in an unlocked place whilst parents went out drinking. They were not fined, so progress of a sort
Thank god the young men had the sense to report it. Makes you wonder if she would have carried on had they not intervened.
too right, OP
throw the parent in jail or at least have her flogged publically
all on the back of a sensationalist news story you found online
i'm not saying the parent was right to do what she did, it is wrong to leave a child alone, but since we have all the facts <eyeroll> yes, let's have a debate on how she should be punished, huh?
Would you prefer the baby to have spent a life in care? This woman was incredibly irresponsible but you know nothing of her circumstances or what work has been done with her since. Presumably the department feel she is safe to rturn to her care and will be monitoring the situation. Removal of children is never a punishment to the parent, it should only ever be what is best for the child. So if the mother is now deemed to be safe then the child is best with the mother.
They state '4 hour bender' then state the times 11.40 - 2.15. That's two and a half hours.
Not that it matters, she should not have left the baby...but I hate sensationalism.
Anyway....I can't see the benefit of removing a baby from her mother over this. The child would be the one to suffer then.
The punishment was probably enough to make the mum see sence I'm sure.
Christ! You think the baby should be left in care?
Maybe parenting classes would be an idea here, but op, what do YOU think should have happened to the child then??
And all the facts won't be there in that report, you do know that don't you?
Well, having read more 'facts' it seems the baby was left in an unlocked house, mother told some men she met to go back to her house for a party, it was unlocked, which they did. She came home later. So, the child was alone with strangers, men who did the right thing and called social services. She claims she thought she was only gone for 15 minutes. How on earth can a responsible adult with care of a child mistake 15 minutes for almost 4 hours?
Damn right she should have lost custody. Can't believe people are defending this. No, care is not a good solution, we all know that, but neither is leaving a child with this level of parenting.
Nobody is defending what she did
I'm saying that there may have been underlying issues (mental health crisis? someone with BPD on a manic episode may do something like this, or sever PND, or anything really) which may have been addressed now to the point where SSD feel that the risk is no longer present. We have no way of knowing. And the child will be better off back with his parent if the risk has been eliminated. Removing a child is not a punishment for the parent's transgressions. A crime was committed and she was punished for that - the issue of the residence of the child is a completely separate matter and the two should never be confused.
Better that the child goes back to the mother (who I hope is being supported by social services, given parenting classes and has learnt her lesson) rather than languishing in care.
Such an idiotic thing to do - I hope that being reported for it has made her see sense.
without knowing all the facts (christ, how many people have been found guilty by process of 'trial by tabloid' on MN recently ) how can you assume the parent didn't lose custody and now after parenting classes/support or whatever has now regained custody?
on the face of it O.M.G what an outrage but my guess would be the professionals who investigated and assessed the situation, being in posession of the FULL facts - decided actually it wasn't in anyones interest for the child to be in care
If none of us commented on news without having full social service reports, none of us would comment ever really. But going by what has been widely reported, she was given a two year suspended sentace and £85 costs, no mention of parenting classes or anything else. Maybe they have set up classes, but I personally think there are some things that cannot be taught, and one of those things is knowing inherantly that leaving a child in that situation is neglectful.
I'm not confused here. I don't think she should lose custody of her child as punishment. I think she should lost custody for the child's sake, for his safety. If she has mental health issues or is simply neglectful, I still don't see why the child should remain at her mercy.
If she was in charge of my child and went out and left him alone in an unlocked house for four three hours, then with random men for one hour, I think I would feel exactly the same. And I think many would too. So, not good enough for our kids, but fine for hers?
there is a very high profile case where parents left their children unattended in an unlocked appartment while they dined out with friends.They were neither charged with neglect or had teh children removed
perfumed - parenting assessment and support would be done by social services. It would not be part of the sentencing and would not be reported in the news as her SS file would be confidential.
Fair enough Eric, but I do wonder how people can have such faith in the parenting classes/support etc run by ss and yet so little in the care system, run by the same people.
oh perfumed there are far more than 'comments' going on here.
please, think about what you've said here - if the parent had 'mental health issues or is simply neglectful'?
what the actual fuck?
loads of people have mental health issues and are fabulous parents. some of them might need a bit of extra support and meds, but so what?
i'm glad you're called 'perfumed' life as it might disguise some of the bullshit you've just written out there.
I have faith in the care system, I work in it. I don't believe it is the best option for children if they will be safe at home with parents.
ClaryScutter, I think you are reading something that isn't there. I didn't say, and don't think, that parents with mental health issues should lose custody of their kids, not for one moment do I believe that. I was responding to a post that the parent may have mental health issues that were not reported. I was saying, whatever the background reason, surely the need to safeguard the child are the important thing.
I think parents who leave their children alone for four hours in an unlocked house to go drinking should have their kids removed to a safer place.
Yes, but the key word there is if Eric. If they will be safe with their parents. How many times has she left the child before? How would anyone know to trust her, when she can't tell 15 minutes from four hours?
Well, EricNorthmannsmistress, clearly THIS child was not safe at home with her parents. She was first home alone, then she was home alone with stranger that her mum had told to go there and party! So, I gather from what you are saying, this child should be in care.
Maybe the childs punishment will be a lot longer lasting than the mums punishments. Who knows.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.