We need your thoughts for BBC Breakfast...

Just noticed the smacking is not borne of lost temper but is a pre-meditated from of discipline.
Horrid.
Do they have special canes for the purpose I wonder?
Horrid horrid horrid.
Ugh.

These parents must be spectacularly stupid to think that they have been hard done by.
The right decision was made, thankfully.
People who not only admit to smacking their own child, think that somehow that is acceptable and that they will be able to smack their own child when they lose their temper but not a fostered child if / when he / she misbehaves should not be fostering at all.
It's shocking that not only do they believe they are right, but they believe it so much that they have gone to such publicity seeking lengths to corroborate their dim-witted views.
Shame on them.

I agree that SS were right, for reasons already given.

and smacking in the way this couple describe it is a pre-meditated, agreed form of discipline, which also seems as wrong to me as the volatile and impulsive violence that a loss-of-temper smack might be. What kind of message is this sending to children of this couple (birth or not), that they can calmly and coldly approach the child and give them warning "I am going to hit you now". It actually turns my stomach. There are many many more effective ways of teaching a child right from wrong.

I've always thought I was ambivilent to the idea of smacking children ('as a last resort') until I realised that I have never smacked the dds and it would never even occur to me to do so, whatever the situation. So I guess I'm not ambivilent at all - I think it's wrong wrong wrong.

and SS are right.

(and the DM is nasty, narrow-minded and bigotted)

I'd don't think smacking is a good thing. Have done it once or twice but not something I want to do, or would defend to SS if I was fostering another child. And ridiculous of them to claim they would smack their own daughter and not the foster child.

How on earth would that work? Wouldn't it just distress the foster child, seeing someone else being hit? How could the child be sure they wouldn't be the next target? They might well be fostering children who are escaping violence or abuse. Some poor kid who has seen his mother beaten up by his father isn't going to be terribly reassured that they are 'only' hitting his foster sister...

Even the smallest show of aggression to a child who has had to go into care for whatever reason could have an humungous effect on them, whether it be at them or at other children in the home.

SS were right IMO.

Actually, the DM did state that
"They live in a four-bedroom semi-detached house in Taunton, Somerset".

On considering this unbelievably useful piece of evidence for their case, I think that they have been treated in a most shocking manner by the council... who cares about the odd slap here and there when you have a semi-detached house...

SS are far from perfect but in this instance, yes i think they made the right decision.

I don't think anyone thinks social services made the wrong decision do they? Not on this thread anyway.

Someone once told me that the only acceptable form of smacking was in temper (not put it very well but bear with me!). I do think that cold, calculated "Come here and I will smack you" is far worse than "AAAAAAARRRRRRGH i've lost control and don't know what to do now".

not that either is brilliant and i don't agree with smacking but i hope you see what i mean.

If you still have to discipline your 9 year old child with a smack then sorry but something is wrong

I think that even the best parents can at times feel tempted to smack their children.

However to consider smacking to be a legitimate tool of discipline seems to be very outdated, especially when many foster children come from extremely challenging backgrounds and what they need most in a fostering environment is to feel safe.

Whatever your views on smacking, I think that it is fair to say that it is not a method that makes children feel safe and secure.

I don't believe in smacking. I believe that if the only way a person can control and educate their children is by resorting to smacking, even as a last resort, then they are lacking parenting skills that make such actions entirely avoidable. I was smacked as a child and although it did not necessarily do any lasting damage, I also don't think that it revealed any fantastic parenting ability on the part of my parents.

I do think that, if you still feel the need to smack your child at age 9, then you have failed somewhere along the line.

I think the council was right as they have a duty of care to the child and that child should not be exposed to being smacked or seeing another child being smacked.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I just read the daily mail article...
"Their local council was so desperate for foster parents it said even single mothers and criminals would be considered."

and surely it is obvious that looked after children need to be protected from violence. If you can't agree not to smack than you can't foster. Simple. people are weird.

It is ok to be homosexual etc and not ok to hit children. Very simple really.

Really don't like the insinuation, "even gays can foster children, but good old fashioned smacking isn't ok - it's political correctness gone mad!" which is what this article is about.

i think SS have made the right decision. s child who has been placed in care will have been extremely tramatised already - either by their past experiences or by the removal itself. a child is not going to be able to make the distinction between their foster sibling being smacked and the potential that they might be smacked one day.

i do not think it is appropriate that a child be placed in a foster home where smacking is deemed acceptable, regardless of whether the foster parents actually smack their own child or not.

I have smacked my children in the past in frustration, and instantly regretted it. I know it is a fault with my parenting, not with my children, and over time have worked out strategies to stop us ever getting close to that situation again.

If this couple think there's nothing wrong in including smacking in their parenting methods then I think the council have made the right decision.

I think the right decision has been made
smacking is never justified as a form of discipline there are much better strategies available and I think a lot of christians would about the in line with their beliefs bit

I initially thought that they had just been honest with the council and had admitted to having smacked their daughter in the past in a stressed moment. However, it appears that they actually do think that you need to smack a 9 year old. I would agree with the council. This does not make them suitable people to care for a child who has presumably already had quite a few ups and downs in their life and may be in foster care because they have come from a violent home.

Very at DM: "[the council] says on its website that foster parents can be homosexual, disabled, on benefits, have a criminal record, be of any age, religion and gender, and be married or single" as though any of these things would in themselves make you a worse parent than somebody who smacks!!!!!

I think that Social Services made the right decision.

Hi, I've posted on the other thread but my view is:

• No, they weren't treated unfairly. Smacking is against the law. Yes, there are 'rules' around not making a mark on the skin and so on but the fact remains that HITTING children is illegal on the whole. Quite rightly imo.

If they haven't found other ways of disciplining a 9 year old then I think they are spectacularly lacking in parenting skills and imagination.

Social services were right imo and I'm first in the "line em up and shoot em" queue when I think they've got it wrong