Family missing with newborn....

[ChocChocYum]

www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/23233264.bolton-m61-appeal-help-finding-missing-family-newborn-baby/

Where are they? How can they go missing? Hope they are ok

@brogueish - it isn’t for me to judge because I don’t know where they are and I don’t know how the baby is being cared for.

In some cases it is undoubtedly right for a baby to be taken from a mother. In general I would say that a proven record of violence (in some cases) sex offences, child abuse, certainly.

Then there are cases where the mother may be addicted to drugs and just unable to stop taking them, which are just heartbreaking as I think a lot of the time the desire is there but so often people just can’t help themselves when they are on them

Cases where a baby is unsafe because of lack of access to suitable housing I would say is absolutely not grounds for removal and I realise that isn’t what has happened here. That’s why it’s hard because it’s a bit circular.

I wouldn’t do the king Solomon thing myself so I can perhaps empathise with the fact this woman can’t bring herself to. I couldn’t just say to myself well … I’m sure his new parents will love him.

I am concerned that posts on here, without any knowledge at all of the specific situation, are sowing mistrust of social services and pushing a narrative that they are evil to separate mothers from their babies, and that this will discourage people from reporting if they do see them.

I think it's good to be sceptical of SS sometimes. They aren't God and they are fallible like anyone else. Having said that, many times intervention is needed. I have no idea what happened with this couple before but unfortunately they are acting irrationally and this isn't healthy for the baby. So yes, in this situation it is right.

Also, yes, any suspected mistreatment of a child should be reported. Can still misjudge things though. They certainly do attempt to remove inappropriately. Or miss out opportunities to provide support etc

Not in favour of spreading ideas that they kidnap children because I have heard that in real life. But accountability. Not even regarding this specific case but in general they are fallible. No different to saying we can't criticise the police in case people stop reporting crimes.

I disagree. As an adoptive parent I know my impact on my daughters' lives has gone some of the way to counter the damage done by their birth mother. Who loved them, in that she had warm and fuzzy feelings for them. But who has negatively affected them in a way that will last their whole lives.

The 'someones', by contrast, have given them a lifelong gift of care and consistency that has helped their young brains develop on healthy lines.

Some are still in contact, being loving and consistent years after.

But then you see all the surrogacy threads on here saying babies need their birth mum and it’s not the case that any caring responsible adult will do ?

From what I have read there is a connection between the foetus and mother. Sound and smell reach the foetus.

Vastly outweighed by the baby/child's need for attuned care over many years.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘some are still in contact’ - do you mean that you were a foster parent?

Foster parents do an admirable job, but to claim that it’s just as good is misleading. Otherwise you might just as well mix all the babies at the hospital up and let them go home with whoever.

The ideal is that every child is born to parents able and willing to care for them.

No, I mean previous carers are still in contact with my (adopted) daughters, with my full permission and encouragement

Of course, and I think we all agree on that.

Where we seem to differ in our views is that when removal is deemed necessary that it is always the only option, the absolute last resort, the only possible thing that could have been considered.

Thanks for clarifying, @mixedrecycling , that makes sense.

It isn't the case that anyone will do.
All children removed from their mother at birth will have some trauma - for they have lost their mother, and it isn't the ideal....even in surrogacy.
People who are pro-surrogacy often deny or do not understand the loss & trauma because the baby is so wanted.
Looked after and adopted children are vulnerable in a way others aren't, because their life started with trauma & loss.
The outcome stats speak for themselves.

Given the expense of legal removal of children, and that the first choice legally is always placement within birth family, I don't see that there is much evidence for the wanton removal of children just for fun.

No one has suggested it is for fun.

However, I do believe that people can be misled, naive, prejudiced, misunderstand situations and people, and just plain wrong.

We accept SS make mistakes in one direction - Arthur Hughes probably the most recent result of this. Why then, is it so hard to accept mistakes are made on the other side of this?

A lot of the difficulties faced by fostered/adopted children are because of the circumstances that led to their removal from their birth parents.

I recommend 'The Boy Who was Raised as a Dog' for a great read - how children's brains are wired by early experiences, written by someone who is both a neuroscientist and child psychiatrist. How early experiences create the way children respond to the world, and how early patterns can be 'rewired' or not

Yes lots of children are damaged by their environment in the birth home before removal.

But children removed at birth also have trauma. Their experiences in utero is where their trauma starts, then impacted by the separation from mother.

Lots of case now are 'risk of' with unborns being on the CPR and removed within hours of birth (when birth happens in a hospital and not on the run)

I do accept mistakes are made. I see them as the exception rather than the rule. That far more children have their lives damaged because of the high threshold for significant intervention.

That's based on my circle of friends who are also adopters. Whose children have had to be seriously affected by their experiences before removal.

It’s the old debate isn’t it and we’ll probably never know.

But really the level of excellence in parenting is by the by. I mean, if Will and Kate had a very peculiar moment and decided they wanted to adopt a baby I am sure they could offer my newborn a life I never could. It wouldn’t make it right for them to take him/her.

So we only remove babies for adoption when apparently there is no other option. Yet - we’re the only country in Europe who has forced adoption, aren’t we?

That’s worth pondering for a moment I would say.

Well, but that isn’t unbiased, is it?

I mean, no one is going to say ‘actually, I think my child should have stayed with her birth parents.’

I think most adopters & foster carers I know feel children are left too long in appalling conditions while SS get their assessments & evidence together.
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't!

No, it's not true only we're the only country in Europe that allows 'forced' adoption i.e. adoption without the consent of biological parents.

childprotectionresource.online/we-are-not-alone-every-european-country-permits-adoption-without-parental-consent/

Every country has a mechanism for removing parental responsibility for parents who are not fulfilling their responsibilities. The difference is the extent to which each country tries to find a permanent alternative, and the extent to which they are happy for children to grow up in a non-permanent placement, without a family.

Exactly. Every adoptive parent I know can point to the long-term damage their child has experienced from the lack of attuned and responsive care. In DD's case to the point of needing an EHCP because of trauma. Many others with diagnoses of PTSD, attachment disorder etc

The threshold for removing a child is (rightly) high. The process involves the SWs concerned submitting a report to the Local Authority lawyers. If they agree the threshold is reached they apply to the court. The court hears the evidence. The parents have free legal advice to put their case.

The court decides on the basis of probability, but the basis of proof is still on the LA, not the parents. It is not a forgone conclusion. The LA needs to show that they have fully assessed the current situation, and all alternative avenues have been explored.

As I said, in the majority of cases the child lives with the family, even when the parents cannot provide adequate care.

I have skim read the attachment - thank you, an interesting read I am sure. I think though even that concedes that “What makes England unique, however, is the extent to which this mechanism is used.”

I don’t doubt it is true that many children struggle because of their early experiences, but the truth is a lot of people won’t parent in the way you or I would but that doesn’t mean removal should take place. Most of us could probably offer a ‘better’ life to most children from the developing world but overseas adoption has mostly faded out, with good reason.

The reality is that children are removed just as often, but then spend their lives in foster care or children's homes.

They have worse outcomes for children than adoption.