One of the saddest stories in a long time TW: Neglect/child death

[Perjo]

I read this this morning and it has to be one of the saddest, most avoidable child deaths I've read about in a long time. Especially where it says he was still alive on January 2nd.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/47b4c6b2-673d-4c43-8ef0-b8ba05c47f0a?shareToken=39b0f7f8b3c90882aca021214db91159

2 January - The social worker visited the house, but received no answer. She contacted the police and checked other houses for Bronson.

4 January - The social worker visited a second time, and again received no answer and contacted the police.

9 January - The social worker was given access to the property by the landlord, and discovered the bodies of the father and son.

The poor social worker will now be beating themselves up over 2-9 Jan (though they did everything they were supposed to). But I hope they remember that in the time in between, working on other cases and no doubt stretched in terms of workload, they may well have saved other children from the same fate

And yes the shameless mother clearly redirecting her guilt

I can understand having a row with the partner, I can't understand why you'd accept you didn't see your own child for over a month or give them their Christmas present?

With this type of person they could have all the ‘support’ in the world and still make bad choices, it’s throwing money into a black hole frankly. I would rather spend the money on attracting more foster parents by paying them properly and rehoming the children.

People being all politically correct about this are infuriating, she’s a scumbag, they exist. You don’t have to have an excuse for everything. They shouldn’t have been allowed to have children and now one of them is dead because of their neglect. It really is that simple. And guess what? They’re not unique, there will be a ‘family’ like them in every single town.

Actually I don't think so.

Former teacher to 2 extremes – very well taken care of middle-class kids with huge emphasis on character development (note: NOT boarding school kids who are inevitably screwed up), and neglected kids.

Executive functioning, responsibility, etc are sometimes genetically influenced, but overall have so much more to do with one's environment growing up rather than some Victorian ideal of "innate moral goodness".

We know that!

The point we are making is that the resources that used to be a safety net to catch vulnerable children before it got to this stage aren’t there anymore! If there is a child being neglected and the parent is doing fuck all, you should be able to call the police and trust that they will come. It’s not that difficult to comprehend.

With this type of person they could have all the ‘support’ in the world and still make bad choices, it’s throwing money into a black hole frankly. I would rather spend the money on attracting more foster parents by paying them properly and rehoming the children

I agree.

I think that once someone has a child or children removed by SS this should mean automatic removal of any future dc at birth. Possibly unless you're 'signed off' by SS in advance, agreeing that you can have a child.

Have one before this? Contraception failure? Tough. Cry me a river. Any pregnancy before sign off = permanent removal due to your history, no exceptions. It would stop some of the more horrific cases where people have kids removed then go on banging out one after another who are dragged up in shitholes and not even given a chance at a decent life.

Yes I agree that the police should have gone. The people I’m disagreeing with are the bleeding heart types saying it’s not her fault and she must have had a hard life herself. That’s just bullshit

She has 10 children! Unless all the older ones are in care she wouldn't be getting any money for the younger 3

Nah I think there's a middle ground. Absolutely think it's her fault, would love for her to be punished. Utterly shameless for her to try to pin it on the SW too.

That said, I only think it's "fault" in a direct sense, not a wider sense. Actually, to me, "fault" is a stupid word to use because it holds pearl-clutching, prayer-tutting Victorian notions of morality. I prefer a more practical and realistic perspective.

Like I said above, council house kids I've taught are mostly little angels growing up. But later, so many of them turn into mirror images of their parents who often aren't fit to be called human. As a teacher I can't fix their wider environment or even their shitty classroom environment.

The cute little boy in this story might well be copping flack on Mumsnet as a negligent deadbeat parent / disgrace of a human being if he had stayed alive and grown up.

Whereas I have taught so many delightful Charlottes and Georges who stay that way into their teens and young adulthood because they've had a positive and nurturing environment growing up.

Obviously exceptions always exist but in general, there's a reason why lifestyle and family dynamics repeat themselves generationally. Environment matters, end of story. Sorry but only an idiot would think otherwise.

It's probably true that she's had a hard life. Certainly seems so.

The cycle has to be stopped somewhere though. If that means some people who've had a tough time and SS involvement are prevented from having further dc or being allowed to raise them, that's what it takes.

The cycle has already continued with this 'mother'. One of her adult daughters has already seemingly had one child removed as a toddler...yet low and behold, two years later has a new man and new baby. It boggles the mind.

Children should be removed at birth. You fuck it up that badly once, you're done.

I agree with you. It’s a societal failure that people like them continue to have children, who have no chance at a decent life.

Actually no, for me as a foreigner from a meritocracy the problem is your school/class system. Fixing that is the solution, not forced sterilisation. But I won't go into that.

We have to be able to rely on social workers to keep our children safe.

This bit got me. We rely on Schools / Nursery to keep our kids safe but who does she think is responsible for them out of these hours?

She probably did. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear she grew up in the care system herself, but my heart certainly doesn’t bleed for her. The only person I have any sympathy for is that poor little boy.

I’m sure she did have a hard life, and she’s then chosen to give multiple children the same hard life. And their children will / are already doing the same…

And where are all these removed children going?

I agree in principle that if a child is removed, you shouldn’t have the option to have more unless you can show, over and over again that you have made significant changes. It’s rare that this would happen.

I once worked with a young girl who was one of 7. All six of her siblings were removed but for some reason her parents were allowed to keep her. I won’t go into the abuse and neglect she suffered, it was horrific. She is so badly damaged that she is incapable of being a mother. She had her first child removed when he was 3 months old. She had her second removed at birth, and then her third removed at birth. She’s currently pregnant with her 4th.

Exactly, and the cycle will continue over and over again.

But without adequate funding of our social care systems, without early intervention, many of these children most at risk will come to harm. Of course first and foremost it’s personal responsibility, but the decimation of services has contributed to all the cases we read about. It absolutely is political, in part at the very least. The cycle needs to be stopped but how? I don’t know the answer.

I don’t know the answer either, but stopping the cycle is crucial as you say!

From what I've read online she had a "birth mother" who still gave her nightmares, and she's been engaged multiple times between her relationship/s with Kenny, so I think it's fair to say she is a victim of her own circumstances and doesn't appear to feel any sense of responsibility.

But by 43 it will be very very hard to transform her into a law abiding, tax paying responsible citizen. Kids are different, there is still a chance. That’s why I think rehome with responsible foster parents for whom it is a full time (and well paid) job to support the child and mitigate any damage already done.

Again, only removing the children breaks the cycle. I hate to say it because it sounds dystopian but I think child welfare and the future of their descendants is more important than how something sounds.

What I’m imagining is a small house rented by the council, and 2-3 adults are well paid to be ‘parents’ to 2-3 children who live there. They would have to pass courses in child health, nutrition, emotional welfare and play therapy. The kids would ideally stay put until 21 or as soon as they want to leave once legal age. The parents would do 3 days a week each because living in the house full time would rule out too many potential applications. Half a day on top of that would be reviewing the week with a reporting manager, discussing the children and what can/should be done the following week. And for that they should receive a full time wage. I suppose it would suit people who have studied high level childcare, education, social work and so on.

Sadly I think you’re right. It’s break the cycle when they’re very little - and break it by completely removing them from this kind of ‘background’ - or a life of petty crime, drugs, and having their own children removed awaits. Sometimes it’s punctuated by episodes of them ‘staying on the rails’ but that doesn’t usually last long. It’s very hard to explain to people who don’t work in this area or see it on a daily basis.