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.

that's not even sarcastic, LeQueen, that's really really low.

glad to see another well-educated post on this thread

ah, i see you've confused being verbally articulate with common decency

Its not Social Services. Its Social Care and they do much much good work. Its not always about removing a child from its parents, sometimes it does far more harm.

LeQueen, please carry on sinking as low as you are, its makes fabulous reading on a dull Tuesday tea time.

lequeen read the lamming report and the munro review.

Taking this baby into care will not give them a better life chance, far from it. It is more likely to cause far more damage and harm than being left with this mother.

Social workers have no powers to remove a child.

I can't see the problem. The woman has been punished and I hope she is getting on going support. In fact I think she has been punished very hard. I feel sorry for her. She must have felt desperate. She is not a child, but nevertheless is a young adult. What she did was stupid, but she doesn't deserve to lose her baby. Life in care is pretty grim and the child is probably better off with its biological mother

Two doctors in their late thirties left 3 children unsupervised with tragic consequences in portugal. Yet neither of them recieved a suspended jail sentence. Unlike the young single mother the two doctors easily had the money to pay for a baby sitter. Most sane people would see no point in punishing them further.

I get the feeling that many people in the UK see being on benefits as something that deserves punishing. It is like suggestions that rioters on benefits should be made homeless, but the daughters of millionaires not be punished as hard.

Punish the child more like saving it giving it a lucky escape to be honest this mum is probably know to ss or if now not she would have been at some point

And it's this rumour that all every parent needs is education and support then they can be happy ever after is why children do not get removed and live in danger

Some families cannot or will not be fixed, helped or educated and its this attatudie which leave many children in grave peril from their own parents

Someone who would leave a small child alone to go on the lash is deeply troubled

And FYI care is always better for a child than abuseive parent

I haven't read the whole thread.

"We all know how slow the system drags on"

It doesn't, CP has stiff timescales to work to and for. The child will still be on a 'CP plan' with the view to it going to a 'Child in Need Plan'.

Services would have been offered instantly, parenting assessment would have been done, both announced and unannounced visits will be done. The mother and child will have to engage with a lot of services. the child will have been given a nursery place whilst the mother goes on various courses etc.

Children are removed if things don't improve, as if they are on a CP plan after a timescale, the SW will push for it to go 'legal'.

maypole1, the corporate parent is pretty shit.

I am sure that someone with more wisdom than a bunch of mumsnetters have met the family and an assessment.

Le Queen- the Baby P case was not down to one SW not doing their job properly. A lot of the problems found in the serious review have been solved. There was a particular problem in Harringey. We will also conveniently ignore all of the children on CP plans that don't die every week.

There are many posts on here in anger because now everyone in 'Children and Family' services are 'poking their nose in'.

"She didn't have an option to plead guilty to non-wilful neglect"

Oh yes she did, i have sat with many a parent who won't recognise what they have done, as have the police, also.

She cannot promise to work towards it never happening again if she doesn't face up to what she has done.

It is a shame that more 'success' stories won't come forward (they obviously don't want to embarrass their children, so cannot), because there are many. Even when they have had children removed, they have years down the line successfully parented another child.

I know of one mum who would love to speak to others to say what engaging with services has meant to her, she has a life that she never thought that she could have, with her child.

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

I think perhaps kissing two men on the street and asking them to go home and party with your baby, makes you a person with a fairly lacking strange reasoning faculty at the very least.

www.dailypost.co.uk/.../bridgend.../mother-left-her-baby-to-go-binge-drinking-55578-29518313/

It shows more mitigating factors. After establishing if there was an attachment, you would then make her engage with addiction charities, DV, raising her self esteem and making better judgements.

You would then get her into positive activities and life planning, including education, employment. You would teach her positive parenting and coping styles.

we dont know enough to judge here, and I thought SS try and keep families together

its all fucked up, fucked up and SS cannot win

Birdsgottafly -
""She didn't have an option to plead guilty to non-wilful neglect"
Oh yes she did, i have sat with many a parent who won't recognise what they have done, as have the police, also."

I am sure. However, there still isn't an option for pleading to non-wilful neglect! She could have pleaded not guilty if she didn't accept it, but if she was accepting neglect, the charge is what it is. The "wilful" business which has been cited by a previous poster as some sort of proof that she knew exactly how dreadful her conduct was, is actually just a shorthand term. There isn't wilful and non-wilful child cruelty, in the way that there is intentional and reckless GBH for example. You either plead guilty or you don't.

It was 'wilful' as in she was fully functioning at the time, but with migigating circumstances. It is then these circumstances that will be written into a CP plan and policed, with a view to removal if she doesn't adhere to them.

Neglect can be because of things such as; lack of knowledge, MH, illness etc, so you can have non-wilful neglect.

Wilful means that there has been a decision making process that has caused the neglect.

But the report is on the criminal proceedings, not whatever the CP process is. The wilful bit is just descriptive but has been used on this thread as though it makes what she did worse.

In criminal proceedings there is just neglect/child cruelty - there aren't different offences.

kungfupanda I'd like you to be aware that I did not use that term to make what she did sound worse. I hardly think she needs any help. The term was used in the report. Maybe not by the prosecution, but was in the report. I assumed it was relevant but accept am not a lawyer. I have certainly heard it used in relation to my ss and courts.

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article3401786.ece Its a messy term, no one seems to know it's accurate usage but I didn't try to do what you implied.

Unable to read all posts too distressing. I would like all those who are against the removal of babies from ? inadequate mothers to visit my beautiful adopted son. His birth mother already had lost 2 children into care due to severe drug abuse. When my son was born she was given a 3rd chance only to go on a massive heroin trip when he was 8 months old and was not aware he was virtually dead with pneumococcal meningitis. It is us who fights and howls for him. This could have been avoided if SS put the child first. One error by SW can put a child risk. If an error is made surely it is better to apologise than a dead or severely damaged innocent child

I haven't read the whole thread.

"We all know how slow the system drags on"

It doesn't, CP has stiff timescales to work to and for. The child will still be on a 'CP plan' with the view to it going to a 'Child in Need Plan'.

Services would have been offered instantly, parenting assessment would have been done, both announced and unannounced visits will be done. The mother and child will have to engage with a lot of services. the child will have been given a nursery place whilst the mother goes on various courses etc.

Children are removed if things don't improve, as if they are on a CP plan after a timescale, the SW will push for it to go 'legal'.

I was really referring to her accessing help for some sort of mental health issues rather than the full force of the child protection services, and I've read on here how difficult women normally find it to access counselling/treatment for depression/mental health issues. It's a terrible situation and am surprised that things move so quickly in this way, pleasantly so though.

I must say though, the description of just whats involved in getting this mother patched up and ready for motherhood reads like rebuilding a human. If those resources were directed at child services instead, maybe a time in care for some children who need it wouldn't be the write off it seems to be.

2oldtobeamum your ds is very fortunate, however it does not always work out this way. his BM was given a chance as she should but did not work out. there are thousands of dcs in residential care, that conflicts the stats of waiting adoptive parents I know. but it is not so simple to remove unwanted babies to give to willing waiting parents all of the time.

this young person and her child does deserve a chance

Birdsgottafly sorry I disagree it took 2 years of the us the carers begging for fc mum to get a parenting assement