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.

And "Tiffany" apparently grabbing the child's ankle and bruising it to stop him running into the road? Why not a shoulder or wrist? She couldn't even bend over the pick up his toys. Very strange.

Still think she could have done with more support but we don't know what was going on. She could have been on the verge of letting Mike back and SS had put their foot down, especially after the DV incident.

Springy- i offer advocated etc to all of the parents, as part of CIN plans parents are signposted, the ones that lose their children, don't follow the plans.

Again you are looking at it from the parents POV, they have choices, the children don't. If a parent clamsup,you cannot help, and you cannot leave a child to end up in the gutter with the parent.

Viva- you don't think but you don't know, either. Play sessions would be on the CIN plan. Practical parenting courses are offered, if the parent doesn't accept the problem, they won't do anything to overcome it.

The child had non accidential injuries.

The Dad not knowing how to play WAS very sad to watch. He was examining the toys in the way that a chimp might. It came across as defiant and surly but he genuinely didn't know what to do.

Springy-sorry about your friend, that's very sad. Although, the concern here was for the child and their interests must be put before those of the adults. I think that is what the SS and CP are there for. In an ideal world there would be unlimited support for everyone but as there isn't then surely the children's need take priority?

I suspect the parents clam up because of the way they are treated by SS. CP sw's, by definition, are trained to protect children - but imo can be too narrow in their focus. Separate advocates for parents should be in place, not a CP sw. For the benefit of all, not just the children, but the entire family - which, ultimately, is in the best interests of the child/ren, who want to stay with their parents and suffer considerable trauma when removed (often stealthily sneeked away - told they'll see 'daddy and mummy tomorrow' when they simply won't see daddy and mummy tomorrow).

An awful lot of parents see their children as an extension of themselves. But if you're thick/foreign/have MH issues, then apparently that tips the balance too far. Keep the kids in the toxic, rich households, remove the kids in the poor, messy households.

In most cases if the parents had a supportive family there would be no need for SS to be involved, other relatives would fill in the gaps. The SWs would have looked to family members to take the children, none came forward,so the children had to be placed outside the family. There are lots of cases were mum with LD's moves in with sister/mum etc or they have the baby and mum has daily contact.

The father possibly had multiple problems, unless he allowed support, it may be that he shouldn't have sole care of a child. You cannot force an adult into accepting help, you have to then just remove the child.

I didn't actually believe her when she said how he got the bruises. Toddlers do get bruises all the time though. They (ss) magnified everything and made it look so much worse.

Toby did display some extreme behaviour but young children do act up sometimes. It is quite normal. Who here has never been hit by their toddler? I think those that haven't had to deal with tantrums are in the minority.

You can help a parent that's clammed up imo, I didn't see them do much helping other than giving Toby a bed and stair gate. Threatening to take children isn't help. Criticizing depressed hopeless people isn't help either.

What kind of real learning based support would these parents have got? Would they have received hands on help with cleaning?

How is it proven that the injuries (bruising to his arm, two fingermarks if I recall) aren't accidental?

Springy-all of the sevices offered are not conected to the CP process including the advocate.

Fair enough Birdsgottafly, I have that impression from other posts on other threads, I don't have first hand experience.

I kind of shuddered at the finger print bruise thing, because I found these on dd's arms once, she was reluctant to tell me where they were from but turned out to be a boy in her class being overly rough. I mean how rough can a six year old boy be? I did speak to her teacher, but 2 small bruises on a child do not indicate physical abuse to me .

Who hasn't accidentally harmed their child? Mine are constantly farting around on the sofa or bed for example, having to grab an arm to stop them falling could cause a bruise, they barge through doorways I'm passing through causing a pinball effect, they constantly have a couple of bruises on knees or legs, it does make you a bit paranoid.

I DO think that, given the RIGHT support - a mother and baby unit perhaps - that the mother in this show could have been given more of a chance to improve her parenting skills once she had split up with the father. But by that point, no-one in Social Services was prepared to listen to her.

Why was a placement in a supervised unit not suggested to the mother? And why did Social Services WAIT until the mother was admitted into hospital to start care proceedings. And it WASN'T voluntary. They played on the father's distress at the mother being absent, and his obvious learning difficulties, to 'suggest' that he put the child in 'voluntary' FC. When he got to the SS offices, he changed his mind. And was then told that they would be taking him to court straight away. That is NOT voluntary. And why, if they were so worried about the boy being left in the sole care of his father, did they not place BOTH of them with a Foster Carer (There ARE FC's that do this for both teenagers AND parents with SN in an emergency). Why did they not treat this more sensitively, like setting out both verbally AND in writing, what the father would have to undertake that night to prevent the child being taken into FC?

These are just the basic questions that sprang instantly to my mind as I watched this. Because if ONE SW comes onto this thread and says 'It would cost too much money', I will SCREAM. Money should be NO object, and if someone could be a good (or good enough) parent with the RIGHT, TAILORED support, then money should be no object, and that support should be put in place. I'm sure that the RIGHT TAILORED SUPPORT would cost SS no extra than it would cost to pay for an emergency FC. I mean, why the FUCK didn't the SW HELP the parents to take the plastic off the bed and get and put bedding on it, and then tell them how often it needs changing? FFS, guidance and PRACTICAL help was what these parents needed, not censure and being treated like vermin!

It was a snapshot, not a documentary. You know what acidents happen naturally,medical opinion is sought, I have gone and done a deep clean and offered cleaning services, parents don't want strangers in their house, but if you haven't got family and cannot cope, you need strangers.

Nursery places are funded as well so the parents can attend cookery classes etc, often they put the child in nursery but don't go to the classes. Most people don't realise the extent of services, i think this will be covered with success stories.

John Lennon, apparently, couldn't play with his children, had no idea how to do it. Suggests childhood trauma/whatever in John Lennon and we all know he wasn't the best father. But did ss beat his door down and remove his kids?

I appreciate I'm looking at it from the parents POV and that is ultimately not balanced. I don't doubt that CP policies etc are generally sound but the brutal way they go about it, demonising the parents, treating them like shit, sneaking their kids away, not showing the parents even basic respect - that, imo, shows more of their core attitude than their policies.

It seems to me ( I have ten minutes left to watch) that the bruising was not the main concern. His development and living conditions were more cause for concern. I am certain they would have been offered help with cleaning. Absolutely certain of it. I also feel desperately sorry for Tiffany. I think with Mike out of the picture the story would have had a very different outcome.

Well said HuntyCat
.

I thought it was his ankles, which made the explanation seem odd and unlikely.

DD bruises very easily due to a medical condition and she had fingerprint bruising when she was a toddler just from changing her, picking her up and keeping her safe.

Yes, children do hit out and throw things but the last thing you'd do with an out of control child is to pull their arms up behind their backs. He could have squirmed in temper and dislocated them! I was actually quite frightened watching that.

Parents don't want cuntish jobsworths in their houses, if the sw's dropped the superiority complex and treated their service users as humans with a little empathy and maybe compassion then there wouldn't be resistance I guess.

And they DID take advantage of the father's obvious LD's, and where was HIS advocate? He SHOULD have had a SW FOR HIMSELF present from the Adults with disabilities team. WHY did the CP SW not ENSURE that the father had a SW advocating for HIM?

(Getting more the more I think about this, actually).

I make the recommendations but if the parents refuse, they have that right. I pushed in one case daily, this family i had a relationship with but they still wouldn't have an advocate or keep health appointments for hemselves.

Do you not accept that people refuse help when offered?

There would have been family support workers going in,unless again the parents refused.

All these points would have been put together when it was on a CIN, the parents would be signposted. There has been alot left out on the programme. You can offer the services but they don't have to accept them.

I wonder if the junior got pulled up off-camera for marching into the office and saying that the child should be removed? Her boss didn't look best pleased when she had to say, "er, well, it's only been a few weeks and we have to offer support first"

It did highlight the fact that there was an agenda from the outset.

I had to pause the programme on Iplayer to go for a spliff, It takes the piss that vulnerable people are treated this way by authorities.

There are a few videos on youtube of sw's in Leeds attempting to take a child unlawfully with the police. It's shocking.

Hunty do you think the mother should have stayed with the dad after he hit her,does only his rights count.

Who then should the children be given tothe mother or father?

I hope she did mists, Their mistake for leaving that in the programme.
Its obvious there was an agenda. Its evil.

Exactly Hunty.

A friend of mine was a volunteer on a project run by CP sw's in a deprived area. The project was, apparently, to teach the women 'how to make friends' (in a middle class way it would seem).

As the project progressed, one vigilant SW noticed though I suspect that was why they set up the project, to spy on the mothers that one of the kids had bad bruising on his legs. The CP machine swung into action, the mothers terrified, caught in the headlights, realising too late they'd been set up. The 'bad bruising' turned out to be ink from the kid's named wellies, which had rubbed off on his legs.

And so it goes on - shit social workers, appalling, naive, heavy-handed claire in the community attitudes, the stasi in our midst (and now she's getting hysterical and needs to go to bed)