Child of smoking parents put up for adoption - on Loose Women now

[Devora]

I know I shouldn't be watching, but it's giving me the rage. Anyone else getting their blood pressure raised right now?

No, because I'm not watching I'm working...

... why aren't you working... it would be better for your blood pressure.

I assume there was more to it than smoking?! Otherwise that would be a first!

The media seems to be focusing on the smoking but I've read that the dad tested positive for cocaine use and there was drugs paraphernalia around the house. I think the child had asthma and the house was extremely smokey, so smoking was a factor but not the sole decider for removing him from their care.

I saw that coming up and switched off. That lot rarely have anything intelligent to say at the best of times let alone about something so complex and serious. I'm watching Come Dine With Me-much more high brow

Just caught the last bit of that. He is 3 and living in a fug of smoke fumes apparently.
Adoption is wrong - surely educating the parents is the best thing. I suppose it depends on the parents - they might not care enough or want to be educated.
I used to smoke, and have no problem with parents smoking. I always smoked in the garden - never indoors or in the car.

Flabby the child has already been fostered once to allow the parents time to sort out the problems - moving children around is very damaging.

"On entering the living room Ms Allen described being able to see a visible cloud of smoke surrounding the father and (the boy).

(The boy) was asleep on the sofa and had been unwell for some time by this point.

Ms Allen described the room as 'so smoke entrenched that I had difficulty breathing'.

She immediately expressed concern to the parents as to the impact of such smoke on (the boy), who had already been prescribed an inhaler within the previous month to help his breathing.

The parents seemed unable both at that stage and when the issue of smoking around (the boy) was raised by any other professional, to acknowledge or appreciate the concern and adapt their behaviour.

Ms Allen ... had not come across such a smoky house in many years (she has been a health visitor for 10 years) and never with such a poorly boy sleeping amidst the smoke."

– JUDGE PEMBERTON

And...

"The little boy had breathing problems and needed an inhaler and health and social services staff had also raised other concerns about the boy's care.

The judge was told that the boy's father had mental health problems, that there had been a "decline" in his parents' "engagement with agencies", that the boy's home was "dirty, smelly and unhygienic".
She also heard that "potential drug paraphernalia" had been spotted at the boy's home and she said the boy's father had tested positive for cocaine."

I am aghast that the HV has been named.

Anyone have the link for the full ruling?

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B58.html

The media reporting has been pretty terrible. Completely failing to mention that the parents have been supported but haven't at all managed to make any lasting changes. That they have lost their older 3 children, the last one 4 years ago because of their lack of ability to care for them safely. This boy was removed from them at birth but returned to them in January 2014 following a court hearing in September 2013 - this extended period of transition happened because the parents were failing to provide adequate care from the start of the transition. No sooner was he fully home than major concerns were being flagged up again.

It is simply wrong to portray this as a case of parents who were smoking in the home and unwilling to stop. This is a family with significant issues including failing to provide their children adequate food to eat, failing to supervise their children, domestic violence, cocaine misuse, mental health problems, a filthy house, and this over many years with support failing to change the situation and the family not engaging with services. The child being in a haze of smoke and struggling to breathe without an inhaler is just one of the problems.

Yes, even the DM admitted that the smoking was only one of numerous factors. But it's pretty extreme to be chain smoking over a sick, asthmatic child.

I'm just cross because of course this crass reporting will give rise to no end of misunderstanding, and people thinking that children get adopted because their parents smoke... I know it's probably hopeless, but I do wonder if something couldn't be done to stop this nonsense. Maybe an editorial code with simple commitments on it like: 'We will not present any one issue as THE reason a child is taken into care if the situation is multifactorial" or whatever.

Anyway, Kew you'll be pleased to know I am working - hard- and the TV is off!

I do actually have an old friend who has raised 3 children in a fug of smoke. I mean, really thick smoke - she and her dh are both chain smokers - and they were resolutely political about it. They have finely developed theories that all the smoking research is flawed because it doesn't take social class and lifestyle into account . Compared to many MNetters, I'm fairly relaxed about children and passive smoking - 70s childhood - but it used to really upset me to visit and see their asthmatic child coughing in a thick cloud of smoke. Last time I saw them, several years ago, their young children were smoking rollies made out of garden weeds and the parents were explaining to me that they had shown them how to do this to 'get it out of their system'.

I haven't seem them since. I am asthmatic and can't actually sit in their house anymore. This is smoking at a whole different level from having the odd cheeky one while leaning out of the back door. I found it quite shocking how otherwise competent and loving parents (which they are) would do this.

I knew that this story would end up on MN! The daily fail, Mirror and BBC have used Smoky House as a headline, there was a catalogue of reasons that the child was removed. It is sensational reporting at this worst.

The main being that the parents wouldn't begin to admit to any failings in the first place. The mother denies that they even smoke in the house, during reporting the father tested positive to A Class drugs, the house was dirty etc. Had the parents cooperated I am sure the boy would still be at home.

The Judge was given no choice, I liked that it was stated for the record that the child was very much loved by both parents however they were unable to provide the needed level of care. When this child is an adult and has access to the report I hope that this brings him comfort.

I was brought up in a smoky house and hated it, I hated car journeys with my smoking parents. I went to school smelling of cigarettes. It was horrible. It is scaremongering but if it stops more children being exposed to their parents smoking then it isn't a bad thing.

I agree with ActivaYoghurt- it is scaremongering and smoking wasn't the only reason. However as an adult asthmatic, if I was ill with any kind of respiratory tract infection (cold etc) and had to spend time in a house full of smoke with someone smoking over me, it would probably kill me. Even without being ill, I would be in extreme discomfort and struggling to breathe. If the parents were unable or unwilling to do anything to make life better for their son, then it's a good thing he will be adopted.

I think that's the key thing, SomethingFunny. It's not a judgement about passive smoking per se - but when you have an asthmatic child lying ill on a sofa, and you can barely see him for cigarette smoke, it's getting a bit life or death.

Perhaps the Loose women team would like to go and live there for a few weeks and see how they fare!

Thanks for posting the link, Lilka. The judgment does make it clear that there were several significant concerns and that there was no hope of improvement. The headlines about smoking are indications of lazy/sensational reporting; and does nothing to inform the general public of the various reasons why children are removed from their birth parents. I don’t think many (any?) of the reports mentioned that this little boy was the fourth child to be removed from the parents.

There was obviously money being poured into supporting the parents, including a support worker who was at the home every day, for a long time, but to no avail. That could have been the focus of newspaper reporting, but I guess that doesn’t make for a snappy headline.

Yes, thanks for the link Lilka. Interesting that smoking was number 8 in a list of 12 LA concerns.

What a sad, sad ruling. It beggars belief that an editor or a journlist could skim read that and think, 'brilliant, we can put the boot in to the nanny state here'. I wonder what they think is happening in a household when a child of 2 stops gaining weight, develops breathing difficulties and has gastric troubles for 4 solid weeks.

The papers could easily have gone the other way - the community nursery nurse visiting every day for 7 months is obliquely criticised in the ruling for having done too much. They might easily have done an equally biased reporting job saying that.