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.

Again birds I would not say after a Childs been removed they successfully parent another child usually in my experience they just about meet the minimum requirements to have the others removed

My fc mum has custody of the other children she has I would say she is sucsefull more doing the bare minimum to not have them removed

festi yes it is sadly the courts are to ready to give proven neglectful parents chance after change then after, years of the child being on and out of care then they try to adopt out the child sorry but most people don't want to adopt a damaged 14 year old

Plenty wanting to adopt babies so not sure what your on about

PEople want to a dot babies, babies are being neglected but due to this obsession with flogging the dead horse children either stay with broken families or flit in and out of care

This is more damaging than removing the child from the start

If this has happened in the last 2 years then your LA has broken the law.

A 14 year old can choose not to be adopted, so that is usually what blocks it.

More children than ever are being removed pernamently. Under the the law pernamency plans should be sought after being on a CP plan for a time period. The LA is no longer happy for children to flit between CP and CIN, like they used to be. A lot of children wouldn't have to be removed if the services that you were supposed to sign post to actually exsisted.

You sound as though you live under a pretty shit LA, tbh, if you know of any SW's who work under that system i will gladly argue it out, as what you state happens, doesn't happen where i work.

I have worked under 3 LA's and some are better than others, but they cannot ignore the guidelines.

I have experienced people going on to parent very well after engagement.

"maybe a time in care for some children who need it wouldn't be the write off it seems to be"

If a child has an attachment to the parent and it is very unusual for them not to, then there is going to be damage done, regardless.

Perfumed and kungfu- when CP plans are being written they have to state why a section 47 under the Children Act is needed, hers will be because of the potential for physical abuse or death, by wilful neglect. That means, as said, she made a deliberate decision to take a course of action that could cause this. As opposed to being disabled say which could need still a section 47, but it wouldn't be wilful, it would be circumstantial.

The plan will set out 'cause', 'action', 'who does it' and in what 'time scale' (simply put), in this case she will have to attend programmes so that she understands why she was wrong (i know this seems like 'common sense', but it isn't), what she needs to change, how to change and ideally what time scale.

This is backed up by visits from a SW and a family support team, as well as the child being seen at nursery etc.

Terms make up the CP CIN plans and make sure that they are not vague. Everyone knows what they should be doing/looking out for.

im not going to engage with rubbish like that but not many 14 yr olds up for adoption to be honest.

any child attaches to any parent why just for the sake of adoption rip that apart. not for the childs need!! most children of school age want to remain with BM and why shouldnt they. why is that child better off with a new family?

I do take your point Birdsgottafly (great name) about attachment, of course. However, it surely needs to be looked at on balance, the very tender age of the child, chance to re form attachments, safeguarding the child etc. It may already have insecure attachment to the mother, wouldn't be surprising given the chaotic situation described. Yes, it may have been a one off, but also it may have been the last of many she got away with. The damage could already be done.

I just struggle with the almost kneejerk rush to explain bad parenting as either mental health issues or inexperience when it seems pretty unlikely in this reported case. Whats to say the mother didn't send two random men to her unattended child in order to put them in the frame for some neglect or harm? I dare say they were all too aware of how bad it could look when they found the child. Had they been a bit less aware and a bit more drunk, who's to say what allegations could have been made against them? That womans actions put a lot of people in potential harm and is costing a lot of time, effort and money to put right. It doesn't matter that professionally I don't know the ins and outs of CP procedures, I can see this state of affairs is not a quick fix and a child is damaged whatever happens.

Last point, I know parents who lost custody of their kids as the mother had drug issues and the father has severe mh problems when the drugs thing came out so couldn't cope. The children were deemed at risk and were placed with the grandparents. With these kids, it seems to be a very workable solution and they are re establishing contact with their parents.

I dare say things like this will have been considered in this case, for all we know? Just wanted to make clear, I don't think the whisking off of kids to care homes is a good solution, or that it should be the default setting, but I do think that some cases appear to warrant it rather than the status quo.

And where the hecks the OP?

Hi festi i do see where you are coming from I am usually on the side of the down trodden however giving ds's mum another chance he is left deafblind, cp , epilepsy life is crap for him and it could have been avoided if someone had the guts to remove him.

Birdsgottafly - I get that you are talking about the use of a term in the CP process. I said that in my previous post.

But it is still not relevant to what she pleaded guilty to, which is the point I was picking up on.

Perfumed life - i was simply responding to your posts, more than one of which referred to the issue of wilful neglect, highlighting the use of the word and setting it against other possibilities. I accept this was clearly a misunderstanding on your part, but it was still inaccurate and leading to an assumption that can't be made based on the information available.

have you been watching Jeremy Kyle again LeQueen?

you're very angry this morning