AIBU to think this mother shouldn't have being given back her baby.

[M0naLisa]

[[http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/04/mum-ditched-baby-daughter-in-unlocked-house-to-go-on-four-hour-bender-115875-23464987/ Here...]

Sorry i know its The Mirror but at least its not the DM.

AIBU to think an eight-week suspended sentence, a ­supervision order and was told to pay £85 costs after admitting neglect is just not bloody enough. :(

I dont think she should have got her baby back.

I think the potential risks are still there

But with respect you are just average Joe off the street, your assessment of risk has fuck all to do with the child protection plan around this child. There are experts who know far more about the case than you do whose job it is to assess the risk.

Her two oldest have left home now. They dont visit much.
Her youngest is now nearly 18 and has an apprenticeship, having completed his first year of college.

She readily admits it is amazing how well her kids have done, considering they have grown up with her. She is downsizing, and has applied to moved to a smaller flat. I cant wait. It will finally be possible to clear up the front garden, and not have bags of dogpoo and other rubbish scattered across my feeble attemps at growing roses. (I have not lived at the house for 4 years, it is let, if anyone wonders about how I could be two places at the same time)

She is a grandma now. Her oldest son wont take her baby to see her.

I suppose you are right Carty, it just shows there are more sides to any story. I guess my own experience with the cruelty going on in the family, and which was allowed to continue, makes me feel that it is all rather hopeless.

And with respect, my assessment of any situation I read about is just that, my assesment. I don't claim i have anything to do with it or the outcome. This is a forum for opinions, and that's what I proffered. I think average Joes have read enough similar stories to form an opinion. That is still allowed. I have had dealings with the Child protection people, although it was mainly my dh they dealt with, they still had to be involved in my life to look into options for ss' potential residence. I'm not prepared to believe that behind the majority of child neglect cases, there lie mental health issues and that seems to be the thrust of the arguments put across here. We don't know, yes there could be. But also there could be none. It could be willful neglect, she did admit it after all. As did my ss' mother. So, taking it as was reported, it was neglect, and I don't think a mother ill with mental health issues/breakdown or similar would plead guilty to willful neglect.

I know the SS bent over backwards to help my ss' mother, and the kids. It didn't keep them safe.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044714/Bridgend-teen-mother-left-baby-unlocked-house-went-men.html

Crikey QS - that sounds bloody awful, poor ids.

Kids I meant.

Not Ian Duncan Smith

And I'm glad I'm not in it too, I don't think it actually protects the children but focuses on the parents. Only a child herself, but old enough to vote, have a tenancy, a child. She needs to be supported? What about the right of the child to a safe environment? You say she needs to be supported, not punished Altinkum. I don't see removing the child as punishing her, I see it as keeping the child safe. It's odd how differently we view it. You seem focused on her needs, I seem focused on the childs. The child hasn't got 19 years behind it, can't talk, can't fend for itself. She has that over it, surely the child's needs come first.

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this.

she would probably recieve a whole lot more sympathy had she been a middle class GP out for tapas in the algarve....just saying.

festi I think she is receiving bucketloads of sympathy and understanding. When it seems it's not a health issue, it's an age one. Support and help all round.

The whole "wilful" issue is a bit of a non-starter as far as any argument about how culpable the mother was.

Wilful neglect is just short-hand for the offence of child cruelty or neglect. That is what she was charged with - that was what she pleaded guilty to. She didn't have an option to plead guilty to non-wilful neglect, or accidental neglect, or not-as-bad-as-it-could-have-been neglect. The charge was laid and she pleaded guilty. The inclusion of the word "wilful" by a journalist doesn't mean that she told the court that she was deliberately neglectful, or that she was really, really neglectful. It just means that she pleaded guilty.

There is no way of knowing what mitigation was put forward on her behalf, or what arrangements are in place to protect the child in the future and these sort of news reports aren't interested in putting forward that sort of information - just in selling papers.

A 'small' incident such a this. Therein lies the problem. In 21st Century Britain, this is a small incident, when classified next the whole other spectrum of wrongness and evil that goes on in homes.

I don't know the workings of the CPC, don't claim to and thank god, don't need to. I know right from wrong, that seems to have kept my child safe so far. I don't for a minute think whisking kids off to homes is a good answer, or a realistic one. But in this case, neither do I think the solution found is the right one. People do deserve a second chance sometimes, yes they do. But before the needs of the adults, the child deserves a safe, secure home.

I'm repeating myself now.
Kungfupanda I think Eric said they are not allowed to report the background stuff, not that they don't wish to.

that was aimed at the general reporting of this article, not the general opinion shown on this thread by the way.

altinkum, as I said before, I don't have any professional knowledge of the system, but I have experienced it with my ss. I don't need to read stats thanks, I am forming an opinion based on my own reading and my own life experience.

And why are you still referring to mh issues?

perfumedlife - some of it will be unreportable, but an awful lot of stuff is said in court that never makes it to the papers because it doesn't quite fit in with whatever picture that journalist is interested in painting.

In terms of mitigation, there won't be much that couldn't be reported as long as it doesn't identify the child. A general rule of thumb is that if something is sensitive and you don't want it splashed across the tabloids then you try to find a way of getting it across to the judge without it being openly said - it is fair game for journalists otherwise.

SS have been heavily criticised for not taking children into care in particular cases. A key one was baby P who was killed by his parents. Since baby P, SS have been told not to leave DC too long with their parents where there are major issues and to take DC into care at a much earlier stage. Before most SS would try to keep DC and parents together in sometimes quite awful situations.

And since then the number of DC being taken into care has risen all across the country.

lesley that is not strictly true, What ss where critisised for was not for "leaving it to long" but for there being no set process for the social workers taking the lead and having the confidence and authority to questioning what is not the obviouse and relying to heavily on spoken comunication.

Peters mum was a very strong and articulate woman who sadly pulled the wool over the eyes of a not very confident social worker who did not challenge what was set before her amist a very stressfull and weakly supervised and lead team of social workers.

It was not that peter was left too long, it was that sadly an inadequate implimentation of the investigation reviewing and monitoring and intervention proccess left him at risk with out proper interventions.

The interventions that were in place then and now and always in place, The law has not changed but the support, education and culture is what is being devloped as a result of the munro review and lamming report.

What has it come to, and what low expectation do we have of people, if THIS is regarded a "small incident".

It is not a small issue. It is a pretty major issue.

I'm wondering why it is relevent that she kissed two different men? Does kissing men make you a bad parent?

Other than that I would presume SS are working with her and know a lot more about the case than we or the DM and Mirror do.