Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Another baby killed by parents TW details of abuse.

127 replies

AgrathaChristie · 14/04/2023 14:11

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/14/parents-who-burned-and-beat-baby-son-days-before-his-death-are-guilty-of-murder-18613694/

why? Why did they want the baby back with them if all they were interested in was drug use? Please can someone explain to me why they go to court to then go on to kill their child.
RIP Finley.

Killer parents burned and beat their baby son in the days before his death

Little Finley Boden, who died on Christmas Day, had 71 bruises over his body and 57 fractures.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/14/parents-who-burned-and-beat-baby-son-days-before-his-death-are-guilty-of-murder-18613694/

OP posts:
BertyMyrtle · 14/04/2023 16:36

CremeEggThief · 14/04/2023 14:29

Social Services are almost as much to blame as the parents in this case. They should never have returned him.

Yes, easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but this has happened too much in recent years...

Did you read the article? Social services didn’t return the baby, the family court did against their advice

LakeTiticaca · 14/04/2023 16:39

And yet there are still people who insist that smoking weed is perfectly harmless.
I rest my case your honour

BertyMyrtle · 14/04/2023 16:40

fairywhale · 14/04/2023 15:37

How many of those bleeding hearts supported lockdowns. Social services refusing to come out in person because they were so awfully important and paid to stay at home whereas cashiers or security guards in Tesco being coughed on by thousands of people a day didn't matter and had to carry on, since they were not paid to stay at home.
Everyone who supported lockdowns is liable for what happened to the most vulnerable people in society - children.
In just the first 6 months of the shitshow there was a 25% increase of reported incidents of harm and abuse to children and probably much higher in reality and you would have had to be extremely naive to expect any different. Selfish and vile.

You are completely incorrect. I am a social worker. I was not ‘paid to be at home’ during lockdown. I was out in family’s homes doing visits throughout.

AmyandPhilipfan · 14/04/2023 16:42

I don't think we can go down the road of forced sterilisation. I think that's a slippery slope because where do we draw the line of who shouldn't ever be given a chance to prove themselves as a parent? But I do think that it should be strongly encouraged as an option for parents whose children are in care and who are trying to get them back. I've known more than one who has got the child/ren back and who might have been able to parent well with just that child/those children but who has then gone on to have more and again struggled.

caramac04 · 14/04/2023 16:44

IncompleteSenten · 14/04/2023 14:32

Why did they want him back?
Probably the additional £ eg child benefit. If they were on UC then they would get more. Drug addicts want money for their fix more than anything in the world.

This

SwearySweary · 14/04/2023 16:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Makewayforsummer · 14/04/2023 16:48

CremeEggThief · 14/04/2023 14:29

Social Services are almost as much to blame as the parents in this case. They should never have returned him.

Yes, easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but this has happened too much in recent years...

The article says the court ordered him to be returned to ss despite their concerns.

SS don’t decide when children are removed or returned to parents. This is decision of the court or in an emergency the police can make this decision to remove a child but the case must appear in front of a judge with 48 hours.

emmylousings · 14/04/2023 16:48

CremeEggThief · 14/04/2023 14:29

Social Services are almost as much to blame as the parents in this case. They should never have returned him.

Yes, easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but this has happened too much in recent years...

Social services advised incremental, occasional contact; the family court judge who presided over the case decided to return Finley to the parents.

emmylousings · 14/04/2023 16:57

TightPants · 14/04/2023 16:07

@fairywhale I worked for social care and continued visiting throughout lockdown thanks.
I’m not a SW but worked with children with disabilities.
Fuck off with your generalisations.

Well said TightPants, it so tedious when people who know nothing about an issue / profession but love jumping in with their critical, over simplistic generalisations. The vilification of social services in the UK, is one of the reasons it's on its knees.
Oh, and do you think if a political party said 'we want to considerably increase funding for social services' that most of these people would go 'great, I'll vote for that'? Nope, they would moan about how much tax they already pay...

Spambod · 14/04/2023 17:23

HermioneWeasley · 14/04/2023 14:41

The family courts have 2 damaging obsessions

  1. it is best for children to be with their parents
  2. it is best for children to have contact with their fathers.

these are true where there is no abuse or neglect, but the obsession means that children are being abused and dying.

if instead the general principle was “addicts make poor parents” then Finlay would have been removed and birth and adopted by a loving family.

I hope these 2 suffer in prison. Really suffer. And I hope the judge who returned him to them is tormented by their decision.

Yes this sadly.

Aphrathestorm · 14/04/2023 17:37

But of course cannabis use is completely harmless...

HermioneWeasley · 14/04/2023 17:43

it sounds like the law needs changing so that social services do have power of forced entry under certain circumstances.

Original poster
AgrathaChristie · 14/04/2023 17:45

Are we allowed to know the name of the judge ? And will he/ she be held accountable in any way.
The poor foster parents who cared for Finley for several months must be devastated. I hope they are offered support.
I’m sure we’ll hear “ lessons have been learned” as usual but they never seem to be.

OP posts:
LegallyFit · 14/04/2023 17:49

@emmylousings In all fairness, it is social services own behaviour on many occasions why the profession is on its knees. I've had numerous dealings with them and the ones I have dealt with, their knowledge and conduct is questionable.

Nepmarthiturn · 14/04/2023 17:54

That baby should not have been returned by the family court but at the same time if all children for whom there was a slight concern were kept in care forever more there would be an outcry that parents who were trying to change weren't being given the option to look after their own children.

Maybe, but come on, in this case just look at these people, the fact they knew even before he was taken into care that the father was violent, look at the state of their house. In a million years they would never have been capable of being decent parents. And in any case the rights of the child should trump the parents' right, every time.

User98866 · 14/04/2023 18:03

I do think there does need to be more accountability. Every one of these tragedies is passed off as being the fault of a broken system but then nothing changes. I’ve no doubt the system is broken, and that lockdown contributed , but in this case they were well aware that the parents weren’t capable of providing a safe home. Why wasn’t that shown clearly to the judge who ruled the child be returned?

piedbeauty · 14/04/2023 18:07

He survived six weeks with them. Six weeks.

The poor wee boy.

Those two should be hanged. There are no words to describe how vile and inhumane they are.

piedbeauty · 14/04/2023 18:09

CremeEggThief · 14/04/2023 14:29

Social Services are almost as much to blame as the parents in this case. They should never have returned him.

Yes, easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but this has happened too much in recent years...

No, they're not. How can you say that?

The only responsibility lies with the 'parents'.

Social workers tried to visit but were fobbed off. Presumably they can't force entry?

And generally dc do best with their families than in care.

Easy to say with hindsight.

piedbeauty · 14/04/2023 18:09

HermioneWeasley · 14/04/2023 14:41

The family courts have 2 damaging obsessions

  1. it is best for children to be with their parents
  2. it is best for children to have contact with their fathers.

these are true where there is no abuse or neglect, but the obsession means that children are being abused and dying.

if instead the general principle was “addicts make poor parents” then Finlay would have been removed and birth and adopted by a loving family.

I hope these 2 suffer in prison. Really suffer. And I hope the judge who returned him to them is tormented by their decision.

I agree.

Florenz · 14/04/2023 18:18

It's time we took a hard line and made the welfare of children the priority instead of the "rights" of drug addled parents.

Sterilise anyone convicted of a drug offense and permanently ban them from having, or living in the same household as a child.

We need to crack down on drugs in general. We've been pussyfooting around it for far too long to the extent that drug use is seen as "normal" in many areas of society. It's time to lay down the law and get tough.

Atethehalloweenchocs · 14/04/2023 18:24

Always when social services are mentioned there are the posts of people who are completely innocent, and victims of incompetent social services. In reality social workers try to help the people that most of us would cross the street to avoid, who take no responsibility for their own actions or the welfare of their family, and who will flat out lie or delude themselves about the consequences of their poor choices. All the time social workers are working knowing they will be held accountable if anything goes wrong. The people responsible are the parents. End of.

Endlesssummer2022 · 14/04/2023 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SecretVictoria · 14/04/2023 18:27

HermioneWeasley · 14/04/2023 14:41

The family courts have 2 damaging obsessions

  1. it is best for children to be with their parents
  2. it is best for children to have contact with their fathers.

these are true where there is no abuse or neglect, but the obsession means that children are being abused and dying.

if instead the general principle was “addicts make poor parents” then Finlay would have been removed and birth and adopted by a loving family.

I hope these 2 suffer in prison. Really suffer. And I hope the judge who returned him to them is tormented by their decision.

About 20-odd years ago I went out with a lad whose dad was a senior SW. We were having a discussion one evening about a case that had been in the news (can’t remember which, may have been local to us). He said these exact words “Alcoholics and drug addicts can actually be very good parents”.

That is the attitude from a person who was in charge of a department/area. I know in this case SS weren’t to blame but having those attitudes surely stops them protecting the child. Contact at any cost seems to be their priority.

Laiste · 14/04/2023 18:30

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Agreed.

cire · 14/04/2023 18:30

As has already been said it was a Judge who ordered Finley was returned to his parents against the recommendations of children's social care. There will have been reports from midwifery, health visitor and any other agency involved with parents and this baby. The information sharing from these professionals will have helped inform the social workers report to the court.

The parents are totally accountable for their actions.

The Judge is totally accountable for their decision to override the recommendations of the social worker.

The social worker and every other involved professional will likely be distraught about the outcome and feel helpless in the face of a decision by a Judge that they didn't agree with.

The only agency with a right to force entry are the police. If the parents were manipulative and told a good tale on the doorstep, the health visitor and social worker would have had no grounds to call the police and the police would not have attended given what the professionals were being told on the doorstep.

Covid restrictions absolutely contributes to him being hidden from professional. The same with little Arthur where concerned relatives were threatened with arrest if they attended his home.

I hope any covid public enquiry has a section for the deaths of vulnerable children. Kaylea Titford is another one where lockdowns and restrictions contributed to her death. More will come out over the next couple of years.

Get angry with the family courts, get angry with the lack of funding, get angry with these highly deviant and manipulative parents who actively aim to deflect scrutiny. But unless there is clear proven dereliction of duty by the practitioner at the coal face, don't get angry with them. They are managing awful levels of risk all the time, making decisions about who is a bigger worry out of a very worrying caseload.

I am going to get shot down for this but I think people like this should have as part of their parole conditions to have no ability to parent a child again. Don't agree, serve your full time. Don't agree, sentence extension. It will never happen and it's a complex issue with no easy fix.