to be fuming at the "protecting our children" programme on BBC2 tonight?

[runtybunty]

I do not understand how a young child can be filmed like this. They stated at the start of the programme that they could not identify the 3 year old boy for his own protection. So how can they show his house, his parents and every other view of "toby" other than face-on? You would have to be a complete dimwit not to recognise the child if you knew him in real life.

Mists-animal cruelity can be an indication that the person doesn't 'get' the care needed/should be given towards something that relys on you totally. Your not wrong topoint it out, theparents have the capabilities togoand get a dog but not a bed.

I think it was a thing to say though
Assuming that they strangled or drowned a dog deliberately...

The child issue is shocking but
maybe not that deliberate iyswim? They were totally inept and unable to cope as opposed to deliberately murdering something/one

I hope the dog got taken off them too.

I really can't believe that people think more should have been done
For the family. I mean what else
Could they have done?

On please, they can't afford to budget for a toothbrush for their only child but they would pay to re-home or get the dog PTS?

I live in an place where people just turn their unwanted staffies loose in the estate and then when it doesn't work and they keep returning home, "borrow" cars in order to dump them on the motorway.

Can anyone really not imagine Mike doing that to the dog? I can.

And of course that man was capable of deliberately killing an animal. He had already robbed his only surviving offspring of his childhood and future.

Mrsjay I was responding to this post
"MistsTue 31-Jan-12 15:06:18

The puppy was probably still with Tiffany and Mike (having come back when SS went away and the DC were taken) until they realised that they could not afford to feed it and themselves without the money which was supposed to be for the benefit of their son and his newborn sister.

They probably strangled or drowned it."

charlotteperkins

crashdoll-dont they teach you not to presume that your service users can read?

They were given verbal instructions too. I don't know if Tiffany and/or Mike could read. I'm assuming their SWer did. There are ways to convey messages that are not in the written word.

And my subsequent post was in response to yours. Animal cruelty goes hand in hand with cruelty to children. It us Wellen documented so I dont undetstand why your steht Straße jung oh ffs my iPhone gas Turned Into a comedy Evil Nazi.

You het meine point though, hopefully.

There is lots of support given to parents.

What do you do if they can't or won't engage?

I had a client living in supported accommodation. If he didn't check in with his support worker at least once in 24 hours the police were called as it was assumed (rightly) he would be in the pub having his money stolen.

He desparately wanted to care for his child. An expert wrote a report saying he could care for the child if someone lived with him full time. BUT that inevitably, it would be that person to whom the child would look for care. The carer would become the parent. And what would happen when that carer wanted to move on to another job? The child would have to meet a new carer etc, etc.

The cost would also be huge.

And for those who shriek - it shouldn't be about money! You tell me - which service would you cut to pay for that? How high do you want your taxes to go to pay for that?

Its certainly a debate worth having. But you've got to have it in the real world, not this wonderful lofty Utopia where money doesn't matter and caring sensitive family support workers can be picked off every tree.

And for those who believe that a Judge simply rubber stamps the LA care plan, I repeat an offer I have made now for about three years (and no one has ever taken me up on it) come to court with me and see what happens. See how much paperwork there is, see how carefully the Judge reads and digests it. See how the parents lawyers (paid for by the State) cross examine the LA and other experts. See how the Guardian (representing the child and paid for by the State) reports and investigates. Come with me and then tell me its all a rubber stamp put up job to promote an evil child snatching agenda. The Bar Council told me its ok as long as you promise to keep the details secret in order to protect the identity of the children.

just as the programme is called - "damned if they do, damned if they don't"

Whilst reading the thread, I was going to put on the same list as crashdoll until I saw hers. There was a multitude of issues that had been documented and were ongoing for a long time. The was support offered in every area; where is the line drawn? Too often SW are the ones that are blamed if a child slips through the net but here they are, trying to save a child and the number of people on here slating them is astounding.

The most important thing about CP is the child. You can only allow things to go on for so long before action has to be taken (and if you listened it was explained throughout the programme that this family had been with the department for a long time an every offer/plan had not been kept by the family including medical appointments.

In ten years I have had a handful of cases where I thought the SW was too quick off the mark. The vast majority of cases come with a ten page chronology that you read and weep.

Far too many children are left far too long with parents who cannot or will not meet even their most basic needs.

And those children grow up to repeat the cycle.

And who would like to be the worker who moved in with Mike, and his aggression and antagonistic attitude to any suggestions?

He made me really angry- firstly when he only responded to the dog and secondly when he has the supervised contact and barely spoke to HIS child at all and barely even looked at him.

this has been such an interesting thread to read
haven't watched the programme-am going to watch tonight when the children are in bed

i work with children and i see children who are neglected

stinking of urine, crawling with headlice, dirty clothes, inadequate shoes and clothing

everything gets reported and social sevices have endless meetings with the parents and other outside agencies but the children are kept at home

i do sometimes wonder whether it is in their best intests to be kept at home-whether familial bonds really do trump everything

it's very difficult-i don't envy social workers their jobs at all

I watched the program tonight and haven't read the thread but I think the biggest irony is that in her one selfless act to put the children up for adoption the Mum proved that she could finally put their needs ahead of her own. There is no simpler definition of being a good parent.

I found the program enlightening and sad. We have adopted a child so know first hand what can and does go on. Our social worker was lovely but I wouldn't do her job for all the tea in China.

A really interesting thread.

I watched the programme last night, but finally home from work tonight at 8.30pm (I'll let you guess what job I do!) and caught up with this thread.

I am heartened by the many very sensible and realistic posts above...and glad that the programme appears to have opened the eyes of some people, who don't work in this field, to the dilemmas that face frontline workers in child protection every day, and I second the poster who said 'there are a lot of Mike and Tiffanys' (and worse, so much worse).

I could go on all night about the the downsides and negative perceptions of the work we do, but most posters have already pointed them out!

I had a reaction to many scenes in the programme...but it was a fair, if heavily edited, and time-compressed, demonstration of child protection procedures.

I did cringe at the portrayal of the newly qualified S.W, not at her appropriate concern, but at the bike and big 'satchel'...a bit of a throwback to common perceptions of Social Workers (Hippy'ish middle class do-gooders - circa 1960 maybe). The Team Leader was all a bit too 'glam' for me...style over substance (even though she'll be a Mumsnetter by now judging by that bump)

The puppy/dog/pet amidst a dysfunctional family IS a very realistic depiction (I've lost count of the parents, young and old, who have a baby then get some poor animal...my take on that is that they are trying to recreate a idyllic 'norm'?)

I'm not a child snatcher, my colleagues and I are at the mercy of the Team Leaders, the Area Managers, the Children's Reporter, The Courts, with 'budgets bloody budgets and no resources ' ringing in our ears. We still do our best to support and actually help the children and families we work with.

We had a long discussion about the programme at work this morning, while waiting for our team leader to roll in at 11.30am.

I work on a project with challenging families. tbh most of my colleagues would agree that kids aren't taken into care when we think they should be - rather than the other way around. I know outcomes for kids in care are often poor, but when you see young kids being underfed, having to live in horrible conditions and often being ignored or spoke to aggressively - it does make you want to just take the kids home with you.

Another poster early on mentioned about social workers seeming hard and having a lack of warmth e.g. not being upset about taking kids into care. tbh I don't think you could do that job in child protection for long and not develop a bit of a hard protective shell. It would just destroy you otherwise.

I thought the whole programme was desperately sad and the outcome unhappy for everyone.

A child who is so severely neglected that they are not speaking will not do well if left with the parents. You would be setting the child up to probably have a life long disability as a result of neglect. So yes overall a happy outcome for the children.

Good posts by spero there.

And yes I do agree it was a happy outcome for the kids.

I had a thought today, they made a big thing at the beginning about how he was still in nappies because of his special needs, but I wonder if it was because the parents just didn't bother to potty train him? That would also be neglectful.

Not slating parents of children with special needs at all who do genuinely need nappies. I

Think they were implying neglect re the nappies.

Had already read this thread, but just caught up with it on iplayer. In tears at the end, so very sad.

Both Tiffany and Mike really did seem incapable of parenting well. I know they said their own childhood experience wasn't a good model, but when Toby was playing with a toy telephone in the contact visit, and 'talking' into it, it's hard to comprehend how you would NOT just think to pick up the other phone and saying "hello Toby!". Even if no-one had ever done that for you. (I've never had a cat of my own, but I stroke and talk my sister's... I've seen that behaviour elsewhere, even if I couldn't spontaneously think of it for myself, Mike seemed unable to learn)

I do understand though, that it would be very hard to play in front of a Guardian - I'm sure I'd be totally unnatural and OTT. Although Mike was completely the opposite!

For those who have posted who work in CP... it said at the end that Tiffany had twice a year letterbox contact. Is that normal in that sort of situation?
Is it because anything more has been found to stop children settling? It just seems awful. Perhaps moreso as Toby was in foster care not an adoptive family. I suppose I was thinking she'd still have weekly contact sessions.
I think if I were a fostered adult, I could understand why I couldn't stay with my parents - but I think I'd be angry to have had that contact and relationship stopped.

If this was a case of non malicious neglect, would that be normal to go to letterbox only?

The house was actually much tidier than I expected, based on this thread! If it weren't for the dog faeces and urine (which admittedly is a dealbreaker!) I've been in less tidy houses visiting friends. I think maybe watching on laptop screen and the camera moving made it harder to see the dirt, because the kitchen / kitchen floor looked clean to me, just messy.

My guess was that the smell would given it away in real-life. I have visited houses where the carpet is brown, and it's turned out to be dog faces and wee, on entering you have the desire to throw up, but I guess if you live in it all the time. I have sat on the sofa and drunk tea there, but really it does turn your stomach.

In the case I visited, the previous dogs had actually been removed by the RSPCA, so if it's not acceptable for dogs, it's certainly not acceptable for the little Toby's of this world :(