Talk

Advanced search

To think this is very sad, but not really about smoking

(22 Posts)
InstitutionCode Mon 01-Jun-15 14:02:37

BBC- Smoker's son, 2, to be adopted because of health risk

Stupid headline and so many other things wrong in the little boy's life.

WinterOfOurDiscountTents15 Mon 01-Jun-15 14:03:49

Poor headline yes but reading about it I think the smoking was just the very last straw.

FenellaFellorick Mon 01-Jun-15 14:03:50

I was listening to that on the radio earlier and I knew right away that there would be a LOT more to it. But child taken by evil social services because parents smoke makes for a good headline.

VelvetRose Mon 01-Jun-15 14:06:26

I'm sure you're right but even just the fact that two parents wouldn't limit their smoking to prevent their poor child getting sicker is pretty bad.

Stanky Mon 01-Jun-15 14:08:25

I thought the same thing about the headlines. The father tested positive for cocaine.

SaucyJack Mon 01-Jun-15 14:10:32

Passive smoking will cause a child far more harm than parental drug use. Breastfeeding excepted.

Aermingers Mon 01-Jun-15 14:11:42

There were other factors. But the smoking had to be a big one here. The child had breathing difficulties and was very unwell. The parents were smoking in an unventilated flat in front of the social worker.

There were other factors, one of the parents tested positive for cocaine and they didn't appear to understand the child's needs. But the smoking was potentially life threatening for this little boy, so I'm not surprised it was a big factor. It sounds like the child had asthma and it could kill an asthmatic being in an environment like that.

Soduthen116 Mon 01-Jun-15 14:11:48

Poor lad. Let's hope he gets a better start than the one he has so far.

Aermingers Mon 01-Jun-15 14:13:28

And if you can't even be bothered to get up and walk outside the front door for a fag, it really does raise the question how you're going to cope with more onerous parenting tasks.

fearandloathinginambridge Mon 01-Jun-15 14:16:11

It's a ridiculous headline. There will be an enormous backstory to this and the BBC and other media have chosen to reduce it to this. Very, very, very poor.

tbtc Mon 01-Jun-15 14:16:15

saucy is that really the case? Isn't a child under great risk if the parent caring for them is on taking cocaine?

InstitutionCode Mon 01-Jun-15 14:16:29

There are 1000s of parents who regularly smoke in the company of their children (I'm not one BTW) . There would have been no need to ban smoking in cars with children if that wasn't the case. I agree it's appalling to do it when the child's asthmatic but that alone wouldn't get a child removed.

any1forspareribs Mon 01-Jun-15 14:17:11

I hope he starts to get better now.

UmiSays Mon 01-Jun-15 14:18:07

I read about is earlier, and the summing up by the judge, social workers, medical staff etc all said the same thing, really: the parents weren't able to prioritise the child's health, safety and wellbeing and this was why he was taken away.

The constant smoking around him was one of the ways they failed to protect him. But there were other serious failings - serious drug use in the home, and a generally filthy and unsafe environment.

The headlines never tell the whole story.

DragonWithAGirlTattoo Mon 01-Jun-15 14:24:43

"boy's father had mental health problems and had tested positive for cocaine, the house was "dirty, smelly and unhygienic" and that "potential drug paraphernalia" had been found there."

But lets concentrate on the smoking eh, thats a better headline!!
(not that i think its acceptable to smoke around children)

Aermingers Mon 01-Jun-15 14:26:07

InstitutionCode, it sounds like the problem here is that social services became involved, the parents were told what they needed to do in order to keep the child (including stopping smoking in the house) and they didn't do it. There may be 1000s of parents who smoke in the house, but most of them won't have social services involvement. And if they do and they were told one of the conditions of keeping their child was not smoking in the house they'd do it. It may well be that it wasn't the smoking in the house per se, but the fact that them smoking in the house was symptomatic of a general inability to respond to the child's needs appropriately.

It's a very sad case, the judge noted that the parents loved the child very much but just couldn't meet his needs.

SaucyJack Mon 01-Jun-15 14:27:12

Not particularly tbtc IMO. It doesn't affect judgement any more than a couple of glasses of wine. The worst that would happen would probably be the child accidentally swallowing some.

Obviously I'm not recommending it tho!

Soduthen116 Mon 01-Jun-15 14:30:39

Yes agree saucy the general neglect would be the main cause.

MissMarplesBloomers Mon 01-Jun-15 14:36:28

Best thing that could have happened to the young mite TBH, not bothered about the headline, it could have been the only thing & I would have applauded it , parents who smoke around a sick young child to that extent are abusive.

Save your ire for the justified source not an attention grabbing headline- which after all is what they are there for.

bobthebuddha Mon 01-Jun-15 14:36:43

Guido Fawkes has a piece screaming about the nanny state and all the frothing f**wits below the line are kicking off without actually bothering to check the story further. Fantastic clickbait.

Aermingers Mon 01-Jun-15 14:37:53

Cocaine doesn't affect your judgement more than a few glasses of wine? It bloody does. I should know; I took enough of the stuff in the 90s and have been around a lot of other people who did too.

To this day I think there's nothing worth than being stuck with a coke head at a party when you're not on it. When you're an adult and you know what's happening it's just tedious, boring and annoying. When your a child and somebody is talking a mile to the dozen about random shit 2 inches from your face it would be terrifying. Not to mention the depression and malaise of a comedown, or God forbid it went a bit wrong and they ended up with an adult in the grip of paranoia.

geekymommy Mon 01-Jun-15 15:34:41

Is this like Al Capone being busted for tax evasion? In case you non-US types don't know, he was a notorious gangster in the 1920s. He had done many worse things than not pay his taxes, and everybody knew it, but "everybody knowing it" and proving it in court are two different things. So they sent him to prison for tax evasion.

In this case, there might be an element of time urgency- the kid would be suffering while the authorities try to gather evidence of other problems with the family.

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