Page 5 | Another baby killed by parents TW details of abuse.

AgrathaChristie · 2023-04-14T13:11:09+00:00

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

BelleMarionette · 15/04/2023 23:27

Surely, when social services knocked and the parents refused to let them see Finley, SS should have called the police for a welfare check? It's completely inexcusable that this child was not checked on at multiple visits because of the parents refusing access.

FrostyFifi · 15/04/2023 23:29

@Nepmarthiturn and even if the case hadn't had this tragic outcome, the foster parents were the baby's primary attachment, what sort of damage would it have caused to wrench him away from them and off to live with strangers, even if they were biological relatives?

He should have been left where he was safe and cared for. Any other course of action is so obviously damaging and not in a baby's best interests.

Say they hadn't killed him, then you wind up with a terribly damaged 3/4/5 year old back in the system with far less chance of adoption, and for what?

LegallyFit · 15/04/2023 23:38

@Lapland123 I disagree. As said further upthread, I know this social services department and have had dealings with them (not in relation to my own children). I have dealt with 6 different social workers on this team and I have yet to find one that take safeguarding children seriously.

All I have seen is vindictiveness towards parents who are trying to do best for their child, they have their own agenda before considering the facts, they refuse to look at evidence, they are easily manipulated by abusive parents.

You only have to look at the timeline in this case. SS visited Finley and his parents after he had been returned home. One time he had bruises on his body, yet they didn't do anything despite knowing the father was a violent, angry drug taker.

"November 19: A social worker visits the family home and notices Finley has a 4cm bump on his head, which Marsden claims was due to him hitting his head on a toy. This explanation is accepted by social services". Why when they know the history?

"December 23, 2020: An attempt by social workers to conduct a home visit is refused by Marsden due to Finley being ill and several other visit and communication attempts are ignored". Is that not a red flag considering the history?

Yes social services are partly responsible. That department are completely incompetent. They couldn't spot abuse if it stared them in the face.

1Week · 15/04/2023 23:51

I hesitate to use the word but aren't these parents, and others like them just evil?
They abused that poor child, its not a case of being drug addicts and failing to cope.

They do always seem to ve substance abusers, are drugs causative factors or mere correlations? Maybe if you're evil and sober you are more likely to be able to cover up

Reugny · 16/04/2023 07:00

BelleMarionette · 15/04/2023 23:27

Surely, when social services knocked and the parents refused to let them see Finley, SS should have called the police for a welfare check? It's completely inexcusable that this child was not checked on at multiple visits because of the parents refusing access.

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check?

Jayinthetub · 16/04/2023 07:57

Another factor we never seem to consider in these cases is that both parents will have had solicitors and possibly barristers in court (funded through legal aid) arguing (in this case successfully) that Finley should be returned to their care. They will have spent time with the parents, probably smelled the cannabis on them, prepared statements to show the court what great parents they are, cross examined social workers trying to prevent Finley being returned etc...

In the blame-appointing game are we considering those people culpable too? They "won" this case on the parents behalf.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:15

Reugny · 15/04/2023 23:00

@Nepmarthiturn it has been alluded to in press reports that there was at least one older child in the household.

It seems in some of these abusive parent cases if there are other children in the household who don't appear harmed at all/in the same way then it's presumed by some agencies all children in that household should be safe.

In this case the 6 month period requested by social services would allow the parents to show either way whether they could parent their baby.

But it's been clear for decades that not harming one child doesn't mean another won't be severely physically abused or harmed to they have no basis for that assumption.

And why should a child be used as part of this experiment? A defenceless baby who can't even tell someone that 57 of their bones are broken. Again, it is parental "rights" trumping child protection.

I also don't believe for a second that the other child living there was well cared for and having a fulfilling chilhood seeing the torture of their baby sibling, hearing their sibling cry out in pain, and even before he was born witnessing the violence as their father punched holes in doors, screaming fights, parents off their heads on drugs and living in a filthy and dangerous home. This is what I mean: the threshold for removal has to be much lower than it is if we want to protect children. That child is probably now so traumatised and too old for adoption that they will grow up in care homes without any proper support to help them recover and have a decent chance in life because the UK can't be bothered to fund those properly, either.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:16

Judges don’t make decisions without considering the evidence presented.

Sadly it appears that in many cases, they do.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:17

BelleMarionette · 15/04/2023 23:27

Surely, when social services knocked and the parents refused to let them see Finley, SS should have called the police for a welfare check? It's completely inexcusable that this child was not checked on at multiple visits because of the parents refusing access.

I agree.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:18

FrostyFifi · 15/04/2023 23:29

@Nepmarthiturn and even if the case hadn't had this tragic outcome, the foster parents were the baby's primary attachment, what sort of damage would it have caused to wrench him away from them and off to live with strangers, even if they were biological relatives?

He should have been left where he was safe and cared for. Any other course of action is so obviously damaging and not in a baby's best interests.

Say they hadn't killed him, then you wind up with a terribly damaged 3/4/5 year old back in the system with far less chance of adoption, and for what?

Exactly. I agree entirely. The foster parents who cared for him for most of his short life must be devastated.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:19

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check?

Refusing access to a child who was so at risk he was taken into care at birth? Hell yes they should have called the police.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:22

@Reugny there's also the question of why the other child was left in their care when Finley was removed at birth. Or maybe both were removed and then returned, who knows. Either way it's clear that thresholds for permanent removal need to be much lower, that is the only way that fewer of these tragedies will occur.

DollyDoofer · 16/04/2023 10:32

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check

The SW is tasked to carry out a welfare check. That’s the main reason they visit on a regular basis. If the SW is denied access to the child they need to see then yes they call for police assistance to enter the property.

Again, this SW failed in her duty to protect the child.

Reugny · 16/04/2023 13:11

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:19

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check?

Refusing access to a child who was so at risk he was taken into care at birth? Hell yes they should have called the police.

You do realise there aren't enough police officers?

This means by the time they turn up to a week later- as they will be called out all the time - children will still be injured or dead.

Oh and the chairman of the Tory party came on the radio this morning at 7:15 and said our public services weren't falling apart....

Reugny · 16/04/2023 13:14

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:19

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check?

Refusing access to a child who was so at risk he was taken into care at birth? Hell yes they should have called the police.

The judge decided the child wasn't at risk as s/he returned him to the parents, so the SW calling out the police what have got them reprimanded.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 13:16

@Reugny a child in danger should be pretty near the top of police priority visits.

I'm not sure why you're criticising me for there not being sufficient police when I've stated that all of these services need more funding? I'm not personally responsible for the Government taxing people more than they have at any point in the last 70 years but wasting on that money and not paying for the things that matter.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 13:17

*wasting a lot of that money

Reugny · 16/04/2023 13:20

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 10:15

But it's been clear for decades that not harming one child doesn't mean another won't be severely physically abused or harmed to they have no basis for that assumption.

And why should a child be used as part of this experiment? A defenceless baby who can't even tell someone that 57 of their bones are broken. Again, it is parental "rights" trumping child protection.

I also don't believe for a second that the other child living there was well cared for and having a fulfilling chilhood seeing the torture of their baby sibling, hearing their sibling cry out in pain, and even before he was born witnessing the violence as their father punched holes in doors, screaming fights, parents off their heads on drugs and living in a filthy and dangerous home. This is what I mean: the threshold for removal has to be much lower than it is if we want to protect children. That child is probably now so traumatised and too old for adoption that they will grow up in care homes without any proper support to help them recover and have a decent chance in life because the UK can't be bothered to fund those properly, either.

Show quote history

Children are the primary responsibility of their parents not the state.

So unless the older ones are sacrificed by being killed/severely abuse
then younger ones aren't protected.

Btw there is a picture of the family bathroom in one of the online papers.

TooManyAnimals94 · 16/04/2023 13:29

Why, when a family refuses entry to SS on multiple occasions is there not a process in place to return with police and force entry? Sick of seeing this.

BelleMarionette · 16/04/2023 13:53

Reugny · 16/04/2023 07:00

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check?

Show quote history

Yes, as if social workers are checking on the welfare of a child, there is a good reason for this.

Any social workers here want to elaborate what is the process when parents refuse to allow social workers to check on a child where there are significant concerns (as was clearly the case with this poor baby)?

userxx · 16/04/2023 14:07

Heartbreaking.... again.

girlfriend44 · 16/04/2023 15:23

Reugny · 16/04/2023 07:00

So every single time parents refuse to allow social workers in the police must conduct a welfare check?

Show quote history

The dad refused access and slammed the door shut. The SW noticed the mum doing a drug deal nearby.

The police should have been told and I assume the baby will still be alive. He also had a brother but not sure where he was.
The mere fact the house was such a state should have rung alarm bells. You can't bring someone up in a house like that.

We are far too soft on people. We should have a zero tolerance to any child abuse and if a child is taken from its parents it should not be returned.

The person who made the decision to hnd the baby back, should be named and sacked.
As for the parents they are an underclass and should be put down. The country does not need them. If you do that to a baby you don't deserve to live.

It won't happen though, they won't even get locked up forever.

Nepmarthiturn · 16/04/2023 17:39

Children are the primary responsibility of their parents not the state.

No. Once the state is involved with a child it has a duty of care which it manifestly failed to fulfil in this case.

So unless the older ones are sacrificed by being killed/severely abuse then younger ones aren't protected.

And you think this is ok?

Also living in a filthy house, neglected and brought up with a kitchen and bathroom so trashed you could never be cooked a proper meal or given a bath, subjected to drug addict parents smashing up the house, etc is abusive even if the other child wasn't physically attacked. And all of that was the case before Finley was even born. Neither child should have been living there.

Btw there is a picture of the family bathroom in one of the online papers.

Yeah I've seen. Not surprised. People like this cannot ever be even adequate parents. This type of tragedy will continue to happen as long as the state continues leaving children in the care of such people. Again and again and again.

girlfriend44 · 16/04/2023 18:20

AmyandPhilipfan · 14/04/2023 16:09

SS are damned if they do and damned if they don't in this type of situation. They did try and see that baby and were turned away at the door as 'the baby was ill.' It's all very well to say SS should have demanded to go in but imagine a mum in here saying 'we got our baby back and have been trying our best, our baby is loved and looked after but the SW practically barged past me to wake up my sleeping child.' Everyone would be shocked and appalled that SWs were overstepping in that way.

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.

I'm a foster carer and I feel for that poor baby but also for the foster carer who probably loved him from birth and who had him taken away against SS advice and who will have been devastated by what has happened to what was essentially his/her child.

The social worker had the door slammed in her face and also saw the mother doing a drug deal at the end of the road. The police should have broken the door down. This was just a day or two before he died.

girlfriend44 · 16/04/2023 18:23

anunlikelyseahorse · 14/04/2023 23:49

The only people responsible for the wee lads death are his parents.
Saying they are evil isn't helpful, wanting them to swing by the necks makes us as base as they have been even though it's understandable
What needs to happen is to examine and answer the question 'why'. We really, really need to understand why a parent would do this to their own offspring, because until we understand why, we can't stop this from happening.
Before anyone jumps on me, I want to make it clear that of course the parents need to be punished, but if we (as a society) really want this to stop, then we need to look at the causes of infanticide. Because once we find the cause(s) then money needs to be put into stopping it. If parents are addicts, then they need to be given compulsory rehabilitation and only monitored visitation rights.
If there is domestic abuse, then the abusive partner needs to be lobertermised rehabilitation and anger management and only allowed supervised access. If parents are living in squalor then only when the house is an acceptable standard of cleanliness are they allowed to have their child at home with condition of daily followed by weekly, then fortnightly etc visits.
Social work needs a much bigger budget and social workers should always always do double up visits, 1) for their own safety 2) two sets of eyes are better than one 3) a devious manipulative character may 'pull the wool' over one set of eyes, less over two 4) being able to discuss a joint visit with a colleague is a very useful 'tool', especially if one of the workers has that 'nagging doubt' but can't quite say why. 5) if there is any teeny weeny concern about a child's welfare a social worker should have the right to enter, 6) by having two social workers, there is less chance of a 'bad' social worker abusing their power (and unfortunately there is always going to be a bad apple in every profession, giving the profession a bad name, so I'm not having a dig just stating a fact).
I don't know how much training a family judge has, but do they ever have to do visits with a social worker?
I don't want to make this a political argument but the labour government understood that getting in there to the early years has a really big impact in later years. We know this, the evidence is clear, we really need to put much much more money into the first five years of a child's life. We need much more support for parents and their child. Ironically, though, as our society becomes more insular so we risk alienating and isolating a very, very vulnerable group: mothers. How many mothers have suffered as a result of lockdown birthing and having absolutely no groups to attend with their newborn? How many mothers are frightened of leaving an abusive partner? How many mothers are suffering from postnatal depression, but are too frightened to get help? How many mothers or fathers for that matter are struggling to bond with their child? How many times do we hear and see parents being criticised for this that or the other?
We can stop so much of these awful events, but only if we are willing to look at the cause and spend money of the prevention. Prevention and cure.
But demonising and blaming, is just useless, ineffective and just causes more issues to be brushed under the carpet (and it's not even that cheap, because surely it costs more to the taxpayer to incarcerate two people, than it would to pay for the services that might have prevented this, and saved a little boy from such terrible suffering).

Stop paying the underclass to breed for one.

They were paid benefit money to batter a child to death and take the micky out of social workers and family courts in the process.