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.

"do gooder" lucky for the child or he wouldn't have had a bed nursery place or toothbrush.

So what was the need to talk to the parents like they were naughty, bad children? To be heavy-handed (sanitised, with cameras present, I suspect), to talk to them like they were idiots. Not the brightest bulbs, certainly, but worthy of respect, not judgement. The message was clear: we are taking your children away because you are bad. If the best decision was for the children to be re-homed then respect for the parents who did their best to address the shortfall in what seemed to me to be impossible circumstances. the CP team made their decision long before it became apparent, and powered through with it.

I found the psychologist in the room making notes on the interaction between the parents and Toby excruciating. How many of us would function well in circs like that, particularly if we are under investigation for our parenting? How many of us could be natural? There are some things you can teach, definitely. They came at the father, in particular, like a bull at a gate - and he was defensive, naturally: they were threatening him with a terrifying thing!

There was no compassion in the process at all. Absolutely desolate.

How is the parent 'offered' services? I doubt it's with compassion but heavy-handed - which is why there is a slow take-up of 'offered' services. The decision is already made and the parents are set up.

It reminds me of notices in eg A&E which say "Staff will not accept abuse from patients" and I can't help thinking 'then don't treat patients like shit when they're frightened and vulnerable'

I didn't like the way that the SW's came acoss, but many families do engage with services and get their children returned, or avoid removal in the first place.

SS had worked with this couple for quite a while, you have to put time limits before the child is severely damaged and just repeats the cycle.

Just because you can get pregnant or make someone pregnant doesn't mean that you can parent.

All contacts are recorded (i do this) they are very telling and parents will not take advice on board, problems show up, As said that was a snap shot.

I cannot break confidentiality or i could give you senarios about obvious emotionally abusive behaviour, which is subtle and the parent will not recognise or admit.

I agree withspringydaffs, This programme was horrible to watch. They should have offered the parents more support.
The sw's seemed to take advantage of the fact that neither parent was particularly articulate.

It has been with great regret that over the last couple of months that i have had to remove six children, i tried everything, not every parent wants whats best for their children, some see them as possessions. I have had parents not turn u5pfor contact over Christmas or want bus passes before they come, when they live within walking distance.

The difference in the children in the space of months is incredible. Parents get given these little bundles of potential and then their behaviour causes delayed development, disabilities, emotional harm, you have to see it to understand.

Didn't watch but heard on the radio that the makers spend 12 months negotiatig a 50 page document setting out ground rules. This was approved by a Judge prior to filming, so I think the children and family rights were considered, even if you disagree with the conclusion.

Viva- you get that impression until you have the case and carryout the parenting assesment etc or not because the parents don't come for appointments.

Would you have handed your child for the father to bring up when even the need for the child to brush his teeth became an arguement, the child hadn't been fed when the mother was in hospital. Why should a child born into neglectful families be left there. Thats a very 'i'm all right jack' approach.

Of course there are scenarios where parents won't admit this or that and that, ultimately, it is in the best interests for the children to be .. I was going to say 'removed' but imo that is a vast trauma for the child, not least the parents. There is no attempt to inject significant services into the situation but a knee-jerk 'get em out!'. I was horrified at the convo in the office where they casually talk about removing Toby - the awful baby sw visibly upset (big deal - she'll become as hardened as the woman driving the car before long, particularly with the power sw's have to 'remove children'. And how long is sw training exactly? 2 years I heard - put me right if I've got that wrong). I also thought the father was within his rights to request another social worker but he was refused his rights.

The process was appalling imo. On I dont know how many shots, the sw's were standing up, literally talking down to the parents, telling them off, being very heavy-handed (again, cameras were present so I strongly suspect the sw's were on their best behaviour - I dread to think what happens when sw's have free rein, or reign) chiding the parents; having entirely lost sight that they were threatening the parents with the unthinkable, the unimaginable, the terrifying prospect of taking their children away from them.

imo you could build a case against any parent if you so choose. Of course there are severe cases - I have worked for CP. It is a brutal service imo.

Is it not causing emotional harm to not support adequately, maybe through showing and instruction rather than bullying tactics and jargon?

And then to tear a small child away from the only people that he has ever known, torn away by the people that he associates with causing immense stress for his parents?

I couldn't see apart from the cleanliness issues how poor Toby was being "neglected". He looked well fed, he had toys and clothes.

With the right support his parents could have been provided with the skills to be better parents.The assessor stated that his delayed speech could very well be hereditary. Its not the same in every case.
I'm reeling off this programme, I thought they were totally in the wrong. They made a bad situation 100X worse.

I don't know, it was a heartbreaking programme poor Toby and poor Tiffany, I can imagine, being depressed and alone with children already in foster care, just feeling totally defeated and ground down and truly believing that they would be better off where they are . Not necessarily true though, with support I think she could have been a decent Mother, obviously from what we were shown, I do think Mike was never going to be a good father, he visibly recoiled when Toby put his arms out for him after falling asleep on the chair.

I think it does dispel some of the myths about ss though, they don't just march in and remove children. Although this being the BBC the "authorities" are always going to be displayed in a favourable light. I'm pretty sure the sw were on best behaviour, I also doubt that the newly qualified girl would have been offered that amount of support in reality.

I do think that not having a bed to sleep in is neglect, they even bought them a bed, which was still in the plastic from the last visit. I have low standards and tbvh my house is probably messier than that flat atm , but my children do have a bed and bedding.

To handle a case on CP the training is five years. The process had gone on to long to give the family another SW, they had been in the system until birth. The father refused any engagement.

As i said this was a snap shot. To remove a child you put it to your manager, then legal, then a judge. SW's don't remove children, judges do.

The child would have started on a CIN then progressed so lots of work done.

Can you justify the father not feeding the child? or the child not having a bed? Why is that child not entitled to the same standard of care as your child is?

The child wouldn't have been taken to school, health appointments, he was an angry little boy who had even been denied the ability to learn to speak through neglect. The father wouldn't be taught how to play. They would have been offered Play and Learn sessions etc. If they haven't been the judge would throw it out.

I missed it.

But it cracked me up to read last week on the BBC news website that a single mum in Greece had left her child in an orphanage cos she had no job and no income to support him.

And she wasn't the only one

Living- you are offered that support in CP,the manager has to approve all decisions and go through a reflection process with the SW. There is alot of peer support. This is the problem, everyone assumes that they know.

In all fairness you have to have first hand experience to understand all of it. You have to see the parents who don't want to put the effort in, they have created life because they can,with little thought. Or there is MH/SN and they will not accept support, you cannot leave children to be damaged.

You have to conduct contacts toreally believe the whole dynamics and see it first hand.

The process is damaging but as a society we cannot condone abuse/neglect and there has to be limits.

I think that the toothbrush thing is trivial in regard to taking a child away from his family, absolutely ridiculous. Who ever died as a direct result of poor oral hygene?

He hadn't had his lunch before nursery, I did see that. Maybe circumstances such as stress caused the father to struggle getting into a routine when his dp had been rushed into hospital.

I know any human would find being treated the way these parents were treated by ss extremely traumatic and stressful.
As I already mentioned they Didn't seem like the brightest pair, and there isn't any way that they would have gotten away with treating people from a higher socio economic class like this.

There should be a hands on approach, not hands on to snatch the children away unless in extreme cases, but hands on to show the right way. I think the mother could have been a success, after going through that anyone would feel like a failure and incapable.

Wasn't happy about the physical way in which Mike dealt with Toby hitting Tiffany. The child was three years old. No need to bend both his arms back in a lock! It did make me wonder what else he did when the cameras weren't around. I thought that his leaving would be the turning point in a good way but it didn't happen

I wonder if the best way to judge whether SS acted in the right way is to decide if,as a parent, you'd be willing to let the couple look after your child in the way they were raising their DS. They were offered support. It is an awful situation but that little boy deserved better.

I thought that too Mists I also thought that SS weren't on their best behaviour. IME they acted the way they normally do, however I imagine Mike was on his best behaviour for the cameras and the example you gave is frightening if that was indeed 'best behaviour'

The judge is a formality - s/he will follow the recommendations of the sw's on the case.

I'd be interested to be in on some of the 'training' over 5 years tbh. I also doubt there is support for the parents who have had their children ripped from them: there is none. I know of at least one woman who was subjected to this shit - yes, she had issues, yes, she needed to address them; but the social workers were so heavy-handed she clammed up, terrified. It was very clear that they had taken a dislike to something and from that moment powered through their decision to remove her children - no support on any level was offered to her, they talked to her like she was a piece of shit from the off. She is now walking the streets, hair matted, no home, off her head. I could argue that she could have ended up where she is now but imo with sensitive support she definitely would not have done.

so yes, I have a vested interest in how these things are handled. HOw the parents, in this programme, were held up as Bad Parents. How my friend's children have been clearly told that they were taken away from a Bad Mother, effectively cauterising their relationship with their mother for ever. In the right circs and with the right support, my friend could have gone on to be a foster carer, she was a born mother who was going through a rough time (the aftermath of domestic abuse - she had chucked the father out but was struggling with the trauma of the abuse). I also work with the homeless and most of the women I see have had their children taken away from them and end up in the gutter.

Did not watch, so not qualified to comment on this case, but my view is children are precious and should be taken away much quicker than they are, then moved into adoption with a better caring family. In the end, bring a parent does not give you a right to mistreat children. Stress may cause problems, but not missing feeding any child you are responsible for, or providing a bed.
We are too quick to protect the rights of parents and not of children.
Who here is aware that the NSPCC was set-up as a subsidiary of the RSPCA once they had started to deal with animal neglect - oh, and which one gets the Royal added to it?

There was unaccidental injuries in Toby and then Tiffany admitted that Mike hit her. Would you all have been happy with that baby being taken home with them both.

The toothbrush incident showed that Mike doesn't see Toby as a person in his own right. You have to see the effect of neglect to understand and see the children within a few weeks of being in foster care,the difference is astounding and very often they just settle straight in and love the care that they get.

The father had SN ffs! (not defending him, just trying to keep everything in perspective) They needed support. The Child's father wasn't vocal enough at all, His attempts at play were crap too, but I honestly don't think that anyone had sat them down and told them in a way that they would understand, what they had to do and how.

We all had to learn how to be parents, They both said they had crap upbringings, very few skills so no one to learn from. I would have assumed that was what ss are for. Obviously not.