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.

Shag what on earth is the point of sticking a child in full time nursery cos their parents are neglectful? That's like a sticking plaster on an amputated limb. The child will still go home to the same situation despite 8 hours a day in someone else's care. And what motivation does it give the parents to change, if someone else has to feed and care for the kids most of the day?

On the relationships board, it is often said that love isn't a noun, it's a verb.

Saying you love somebody is effectively meaningless if you don't act as if you love them.

Actions speak louder that words, and it was the action that was clearly lacking here.

Totally agree Morris.

I am sat here absolutely wrung out with tiredness. Me premature baby has been fed on the hour from around 1 am until 9 am and is now asleep, where she will probably stay all day until tonight when she wakes up again and cluster feeds through the night! THe level of hard work and patience involved is huge. She needs regular feeding, changing more often than a full term baby due to sensitive skin which blisters when in contact with wet nappy after a very short time. She is too delicate to be bathed yet. Everything must be sterile, medication syringe etc. she goes through clean baby clothes like nobodys business as she pees every time you take her nappy off!

I am a normally functioning mum who has had children before and I am struggling with the tiredness. It makes my blood run cold to think of mike and Tiffany bringing that baby girl home. They simply would not cope. No matter how much they loved their kids. Parenting is the hardest job in the world and not achievable for everyone. Ptricularly with premature babies, special needs, special educational needs thrown into the mix.

One thing I thought about a lot as I watched the programme was time.

Mike and Tiffany had nothing else to do with their time but look after their child and themselves. They weren't working. That is hours and hours of time in every day. What were they doing with that time?

The social workers in contrast were making time for this case. No doubt even Suzanne had other cases that she was working on, and of course we couldn't see those in the programme. The SW manager would have been overseeing a whole team. All the professionals involved will have had very full caseloads. The programme was edited to give the impression that all of them were concentrating solely on Toby and his family. But this cannot have been the case. It was clear both she and the manager were working late on this case. How often did that happen?

In contrast, the parents had no need to juggle their time, nothing that they had to do but to be responsible for their child and themselves. But in all the time they had, with all the support that was offered (and all the other help they will have had that wasn't shown on the programme), they couldn't do that.

I

I did also wonder what they were spending their money on. Did Mike work? Were they getting budgeting help and had a full benefits check been done?

They only had to heat a two-bed flat and didn't drink, smoke or do drugs. There were Asda value cans in the kitchen so not overspending on food. I don't know much about the causes of obesity but I've heard that people can maintain a size similar to Tiffany's without eating far too much due to health problems.

The evening meal that Tiffany prepared was better than "good enough" I would have thought. It was balanced and healthy with appropriate portion sizes and Toby's size seemed fine.

Maybe it all went on travel. It might have been impossible for them to figure out public transport to nursery / shops and could be they needed to get cabs everywhere. Were they prey to legal or illegal loan-sharks? So many factors which could have put their family into that situation...

I'm a foster carer of a child previously on the CP register and have some understanding of how the system works.

I think it very unfortunate that people seem to think it is almost always possible to address the problems these parents face without first removing the children to a place of safety. In my honest opinion the little boy in the program last night was left with his parents for far to long. The parents problems were severe and it was clearly evident to social services for a considerable amount of time before he was removed that he was suffering neglect in appalling conditions.

At what point did it become acceptable to leave a child in these conditions in an attempt to 'teach' the parents how to care? I have great compassion and concern for parents like those in the program, however, their problems should be addressed separately and the child's needs and safety must ALWAYS come first.

I know from personal experience that even after 2 years of intervention and hard work by SW'S that many parents do not have the capacity and or will to change. It is a problem that cascades through the generations as a previous poster says and the children of today should not be suffering as we try to put right the wrongs of yesterday.

I feel that Tiffany could have made a go of it as a lone parent, with more targeted support, and I have concerns about the outcomes for most children who end up in care. IMO, for years and years the state has been remiss in its duty to provide a better life for children they take away from their families, and if you are going to put families through the trauma of separation, than surely you need to provide them with a better standard of care and a better chance of having a 'good life' than if they remain with their birth families?

I agree that when Tiffany went into hospital, it was better for Toby to be removed from Mike's care into temporary foster care, as he couldn't or wouldn't meet his needs. I did actually feel a little sorry for Mike too, when it was clear that he didn't know how to play at the contact meeting that was assessed by the guardian.

I don't think the social workers featured came out very well, but I thought it was a complex case for the newly-qualified social worker, and perhaps her manager could have been more directly involved earlier on. I think they knew that they needed to do more than just signpost for this family. If they had gone to the trouble of buying a bed and a stair gate, why didn't they fit it themselves, when they knew what the family were like? Why didn't the social worker accompany the mother to buy the bedding and the toothbrush, when it became clear she wasn't going to buy it? I know that some people won't accept this sort of help and maybe it was offered, again and again, off camera, but these are just some thoughts that were going through my mind when I was watching.

I think it would be good if we had a clearer definition of neglect enshrined in law, because I think it means different things to different people, and some people need things to be more explicitly spelled out than others. When I was 21, I couldn't understand why my friend didn't leave her 3 year old alone in their flat in inner-city London to rush to the shop 2 minutes away to but bread and milk. To my mind, it was worse to take her out with her in the rain ("Because the poor child will get wet") to do this than leave her for 5 minutes. I needed to have it explained to me why it was better to take the 3 year old along than leave her alone, so then I knew to do this when I had my DS a few years later. I am a university graduate, so it wasn't about intelligence; from how I was brought up, I was used to seeing children as young as 2 or 3 playing outside on the streets for hours without their parents, looking to older children and occasionally, other adults, for company and stimulation. I wasn't brought up with the expectation that children have a right to have adults interacting and playing with them, although I was always fed, clothed, kept reasonably clean and sent to school. Sorry to have gone on for so long, but I hope people will understand what I mean, and why it wouldn't be a bad thing for more clarity on what neglect is, might be, and is not.

Sorry I don't think it was a complex case for a newly qualified social worker. I think it was pretty run of the mill - unfortunately.

There has been in the past lots of parenting support before a child is taken into care. Now the advice is that if it is clear things are really not going to improve enough, then the child should be taken into care.

Also although the help may have been offered, my own opinion is that if the mother needed to be accompanied to buy a toothbrush and bedding, then she really doesn't have the personal resources to parent adequately. Buying these things isn't rocket science, and the reality is that trhere are going to be many other things her child will need bought in the future. Should SS just provide a worker to accompany her every time she needs to buy a new toothbrush for example?

I was also amazed at toby being so recognisable, even though he is now in care.

I was wondering if parenting classes/other outside support do ever really help parents. I have met a couple of families similar to toby's. Cigarette lighters on the floor, slugs in the kitchen drawer, smoking in the bedroom where the baby sleeps. They didn't seem to grasp the severity of it (lighters, smoking, etc. Slugs not ideal but not a complete deal breaker i'd've thought?)

I thought the programme was really sad but very interesting and a real eye opener. Tiffany was extremely brave to make the choices she did ( splitting up from the dad, giving the children up, etc).

Perhaps they could post a toothbrush out every 3 months

I agree lesley. For a person to have reached adulthood and not realise that if a child needs a toothbrush then that means you have to go to a shop to buy one, suggests that that person will not be able to parent alone adequately.

Presumably she would then need to be accompanied each time her child's teeth needed brushing. It is untenable.

I agree I don't think there was much that was very unusual about this case. The SW was very involved in it, probably because she was newly qualified.

A very long time ago I helped, as a union rep, to represent a newly qualified SW on a case where the parents had killed their child. In the team she was working in there were no 'non-complex' cases. All were difficult. And she had too many of them, too -- twice the number she should have.

I suspect SW is a bit like teaching. Everybody thinks they know how it should be done, especially if they have never done it.

I've just watched this on iplayer and felt a range of different emotions throughout the whole programme. Firstly I felt disgusted with the parents and their living conditions, the fact that the boy didn't even have a bed or a toothbrush etc, and why on earth did they have a dog? I did notice the rather flash laptop on the kitchen worktop too. So they can afford a laptop but not a bed for their own child.... :(
Then I started thinking that people like them shouldn't be allowed to have children in the first place, then I felt terrible for thinking such a thing. As the programme went on I started to feel more sorry for them, but then changed my mind again.
Then at the end I was just thinking what a mess :(
I wonder what happened to Tiffany? It did cross my mind that she was maybe suicidal and that's why she put them up for adoption.

Very sad and upsetting, and to think that I have wanted to be a social worker all my life.

Heswall - and that posted toothbrush may be used for themselves or left in the packet like the bed was...

There is only so much they can do (and it's
Often too much) before they have to say 'you know what? You are unable to cope and a pisspoor parent'

There's been cases where parents have had residential assessments- which means living in a supported environment with professional staff- and it's STILL not safe to leave the children with them. Some families would sadly need 24 hour care and supervision- and if that is what is needed you have to wonder is the situation really tenable and can we afford it?

I did laugh at the SW sitting on the floor. A collegaue of mine went out to a house and sat on the sofa. After a while, she noticed a suspicious dampness. 'Oh yes' said the mother 'We let my 9 year old sleep on the settee as he's a bed wetter' .....

That was the thing - I could understand Mike not ever brushing his tooth but surely he must have been aware at one stage of his life that dental hygiene was important? Bullying? Horrible comments? To deny his son the chance to escape that shows a lack of empathy which is not what you expect in a parent.

And the bag which he had packed for Toby's "overnight" stay in care. No nappies, no clothes, no toys. Nothing familiar, no wash things, pjs, just a spare t-shirt and a water bottle

:O they let the social worker
Sit on a piss
Covered sofa!

Haven't read the whole thread but after watching the programme I think the social workers did the right thing removing Toby. There were just too many incidences of neglect and suspicions of non accidental injuries to put up with any more. Two words - baby Peter, we have to learn from history.

Its not just the toothbrush as well. The child will need many things bought for him throughout his childhood. A parent has to have the ability to go to the shops and buy things for their child, otherwise they are never going to parent adequately.

I can see that some very poorly parented parents may not realise they have to buy a toothbrush for a young child - but if they are ever going to be okay parents, then someone telling them to go and buy a toothbrush should be enough.

Er, Mike not brushing his "tooth" was a genuine but probably subconscious typo. Sorry.

IIRC one of the outcomes of the horrible Shannon Matthews situation was that she was delighted to be given her own toothbrush when in foster care.

Surely the main point about Toby's development was his lack of communication - and as the social worker pointed out, there wasn't much time left to do anything about that. Without intervention at an early age the opportunity for children to learn to talk can be lost forever, as the necessary brain development hasn't taken place.

Even if he never gets to be adopted, I think he is still better off in foster care than with parents like that.

It would surely have been cruel in the extreme to leave him in a situation with parents who appeared unable to have a basic conversation with him, let alone respond to his problems. The scene where the dad had a supervised play session was heartbreaking. In the edited scenes he barely said a word to Toby.

I felt sorry for the mum as she had obviously had a bad start herself, but I couldn't understand why there hadn't been more serious intervention at an earlier stage.

But the programme did draw attention to just how demanding and thankless the job of a SW is, particularly having to work with people who are beyond help. Let's face it, most of us couldn't face having one Mike to deal with, let alone a whole caseload of them.

I have children's toothbrushes in my house and I have no kids! Just in case a neice should descend or I need to emergency babysit

I read through the thread again and saw a couple of people commenting on the 6 month window. I wanted to add that there is a critical period of language development and this part of the brain needs to be stimulated. That said, I think the 6 month window was an education estimation rather than a time limit set in stone.

I am very wary of "windows". When DS was first dx with autism I went on a course run by two very mc women and they said as if it were fact that our autistic children didn't eat well because we had missed the "window" at four months to offer different tastes because of silly government weaning guidelines

I pointed out that BF babies experience many tastes through mother's milk and a range of consistencies and temperatures. Also that BM has over 200 live ingredients which cannot be replicated so where this missed window was I have no idea.

My DS was weaned at six months and ate everything and anything until he had his MMR. They didn't like that and were very defensive with the, "all the studies have shown", which they were presenting to vulnerable mothers when they couldn't name any of the research.