to wonder why on earth this child had not been removed from his parents?

[Bogeyface]

Shaun Binfield, 45, and Sally Dent, 33, of Belper, Derbyshire, had both denied the charges and were convicted after a trial at Nottingham Crown Court.

Two-year-old Riley Pettipierre died in March 2012 after drinking Dent's prescription methadone which had been poured into a child's drinking beaker..............................The court was told that police found evidence of heroin and cannabis hidden around the house and scientific tests showed traces of both drugs in strands of Riley's hair.

Ms Coen said it was highly likely Riley had consumed heroin and cocaine in the months leading up to his death.


Quoted from www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-21064982

Why in the name of all that is good was this child still with these parents? He must have been a heroin addict at birth. Drug abuse should surely be a reason to remove the child at birth?

[andtheycalleditbunnylove]

i taught a girl who had twin sisters, one of whom had drunk their mum's methadone and died. the effect on the mother, the guilt and horror, was real enough, as was the effect on the rest of the family. none of the children were taken away. the bereavement had a more disruptive effect than the drug abuse.

an older girl from another family who was taken away had to live in a children's home where she had to fight (actually fight) to keep her few possessions and where taxi drivers waited parked round the corner from the home to take girls and boys to meet 'friends' who would give them money for sex.

[Birdsgottafly]

There will be a Serious Case Review, which will state what went wrong.

This is happening in another case that occured last year, Jayden Lee Green.

These are not typical cases, it is thankfully very rare that a child born into addiction isn't placed on a CP plan and doesn't have daily visits from Family Support/HV and SW's.

The HV visits are daily if it is stated in the child's plan, children on "plans" do not come under the usual system of MW/HV care.

There isn't a gap in the provision, it is usually the breakdown of services why these incidents happen.

Whilst an addict can be on a Methadone programme, it would be rare (and shouldn't happen at all) that anyone using Heroin would have residency of a child.

[Birdsgottafly]

An ex addict/addict will have a Safeguarding MW assigned to her care and she will visit upto 28 days after birth, then as well as SW's, a range of family Support will be involved.

It looks at face value that this family slipped through the net.

[FarrahFawcettsFlick]

BirdsGottaFly

How cas SS determin if a methadone user is also using/replacing meth with heroin?

Does the parent consent to drug testing? Does meth mark as different to heroin on blood/hair tests?

Q: why do (some) meth users replace/parallel use heroin? Is it to top up their controlled meth dose or does heroin provide a 'better' high. Is it better to use heroin and come off it rather than meth? If so, could the NHS provide heroin or would this be a political no-no.

[Birdsgottafly]

SS orders drugs tests as a standard,if the parents refuse, then it is presumed that they are still using and the baby will usually (or is in my LA), removed at birth.

The parents are put into various projects to address their issues.

The drug tests can tell the difference between Heroin and Methodone.

In this case fromother report that i have read, NHS staff were reluctant to report this couple to SS, the police attended the house 11 days before the child's death.

Police and the health service still think that the Child Protection system is to harsh and puts unnessecary pressure onto parents, so don't follow guidelines about reporting.

As the mother is the patient, her needs are often seen as being above the baby's.

[Birdsgottafly]

Heroin gives a different high than Methodone and Methodine doesn't completely take away the withdrawal sysptoms.

From what i have been told by ex users is that they haven't changed who they mix with and are tempted to still use.

The hardest part is fitting backinto society.

I know of a few ex users who try to join in college courses and groups but are shuned, because of their past.

In a drug user/street worker group there is a sense of belonging and acceptance that they don't/cannot get anwhere else.

The isolation quadruples if they have had children removed. Society is quick to condem drug use but when a user stops, the judgement/condemnation doesn't.

[Goldenbear]

andtheycalledthebunnylove, arguably a small person lost their life and chance to grow up to adulthood as a result of a totally avoidable occurrance. The Mum felt dreadful - that's ok then? I don't see how that is an argument to not take very young children in to care in that situation. Heroin and very young children (especially) don't mix- the desire for the drug is a lot greater than the desire to protect your children. That's what a highly ADDICTIVE drug does to you- it makes you an addict!

[McNewPants2013]

A close member if family will always be in the methdrone program until her son reaches a certain age, she is now clean and isn't on any drugs now and turned her life around.

The police can demand a drugs test at anytime and 1 positive test her son will be removed from her.

[Ifyoucantsayanythingnice]

Police and the health service still think that the Child Protection system is to harsh and puts unnessecary pressure onto parents, so don't follow guidelines about reporting.

Not where I work, please do not generalise. I take safeguarding very seriously and the child is always the priority and paramount regardless of the fact that the parent is my client.
The police in my area are on the whole very well trained in safeguarding and child protection and regularly refer where parents have been arrested/under the influence etc.

If anything it is getting harder and harder to meet the thresholds for social care to assess

[Ifyoucantsayanythingnice]

Methadone and buprenorphine do completely take away withdrawal symptoms when prescribed appropriately and at the right doses. It is taken in the pharmacy, daily, supervised by the pharmacist until the client shows suitable stability i.e negative drug tests, lack of intoxication, regular attendance at appointments.
Our service provide lockable boxes for any take home doses.

I liaise with health visitors, school nurses, the police, social care etc and perform regualr home visits to keep children as safe as possible.

It is a tragedy when a child dies or is harmed and if it is a preventable tragedy the parents and the people that didn't do their jobs properly need to be subject to the full weight of the law.

Please don't tar us all with the same brush though.

Some professionals are dedicated to making lives better and 'addicts' can change.

[determinedma]

Haven't read all of this, but the reaction that a child of addicts should be taken into care is naive. Many addicts function well, many " normal" parents are secret drinkers/dope smokers/abusers.
Dh works in a residential unit for children in care. It is an unreal lifestyle for the children, and hideously expensive to maintain. It cost thousands of pounds per WEEK to keep a child in care. Who is going to fund it?

[andtheycalleditbunnylove]

andtheycalledthebunnylove, arguably a small person lost their life and chance to grow up to adulthood as a result of a totally avoidable occurrance. The Mum felt dreadful - that's ok then?
what rubbish. of course it isn't ok. but if your child drank your medicine and died, would you expect to feel fine about that? and would you expect to lose your other children, into care, if there was an accident at home?
as for the care system, the people working in it are probably working their backsides off, but it still does not work for children.

[Goldenbear]

Sorry but I think you must be naive if you think smoking weed is the same as taking heroin. The kind of individual that would try heroin must be fairly reckless as everyone knows that you are taking a huge gamble in doing so. That kind of personality trait matched with the highly addictive nature of the drug itself, the all consuming nature of the drug, doing anything to get the money to feed a habit that often starts the first day after you've taken it is not a situation a child should be allowed to stay in- it is too much of a gamble. I'm not talking about people that are no longer sick from this addiction but I don't agree that you can be a functioning heroin addict WITH children, without children is a different discussion.

Like I said up thread I was friends with an array of people 8 years ago that dabbled in different things, unfortunately 2 took heroin and were addicted straight away- their demise began that week it all fell apart for them so quickly. They were boyfriend and girlfriend and ultimately this made things worse. They had parents who paid for private rehab but it didn't work the 1st 2nd or 3rd time. I am far from naive when it comes to the area of drugs so please don't patronise me.

In terms of funding you need an alternative to a child being at risk, it is not acceptable as a civilised society to shrug and say, 'who's going to fund it'.

[determinedma]

goldenI don't think I did say that smoking dope was the same as a heroin addiction. And I have no intention to be patronising but it is idealistic to think all children of heroin addicts can be scooped up and taken into a nice cosy care home where all will be well. Most care homes have waiting lists and many of the children in there have huge problems which manifest themselves in violence against the care workers and other children. And while I'm hate to seem materialistic, it really does cost several thousand pounds a WEEK to keep a child in residential care. I'd be interested to hear where you think this will come from? From your taxes?

[Goldenbear]

andtheycalleditbunnylove, so it isn't ok or it is ok, sorry you're not very clear on that one?

[determinedma]

Which one?

[determinedma]

Sorry, wrong post

[Goldenbear]

You suggested normal people drank and smoked dope in the same sentence as addicts functioning well, that suggests they are akin to each other and they are not. I don't think an alcoholic is a 'normal parent' or anyone who smokes lots of skunk is going to be anything other than neglectful as their life is motivated by an addiction. DP's Dad was a 'functioning' alcoholic. He worked in a profession which wasn't affected at first but the addiction is more drawn out. His every thought was concerned with where he could get a drink and it was too the detriment of his children's safety. DP said once he drove them for 3 hrs back to their Mum's home and he was totally pissed. 9 year old DP was telling him to look out for things on this journey or they would've crashed! He was an addict and the alcohol came first. That is not normal parenting IMO.

I think an overhaul of the entire system is needed if it is considered idealism to take children away from incredibly dangerous situations.

[Spero]

Those of you who want to take children away from all drug addicts, regardless of how they are functioning, how they are trying to deal with their addiction, how much support they are getting from family/professionals...

seriously, where are you going to put these children? How many care homes are you going to build? with what money? How many foster parents are you going to recruit? From where?

its no good fulminating. There really is no where for most of these children to go. Even children removed from situations of dire emergency and immediate risk of really significant harm can get bounced from one placement to another.

[SashaSashays]

It is so naive to say just remove all the children.

Firstly none of us are perfect parents and if children started being removed based on there being a potential for harm hardly anyone would be with their children. It would include those suffering mental illness, those in financial problems, the obese, smokers etc etc etc I think some posters don't have a full understanding of quite how many children do suffer levels of neglect and abuse.

Secondly I understand the concept of worrying about the cost being not good enough, but the money does make a difference, its not something you can ignore. The NHS could be state of the art and amazing, drug education and prospects so people felt less driven to drugs would be perfect, so many of our services which contribute to children being in these situations are dependent on funds. The difference with care is that as well of funds it needs very specific people. Even if you could offer much higher wages or financial incentives for working in SS finding the right staff who can handle and work in such a challenging situation isn't that simple. Then you've got the foster parents, where are they all coming from. Despite all the vetting and checks you've still got a good few shit ones.

As an individual, if you feel strongly about 'our children' try and make a difference or try and make changes.

[Birdsgottafly]

I think that the Serious Case review will show that the child should have been removed and that he was let down by services.

Every child living with addicts who is subject to the neglect/lack of care that this child was, should be removed and funding etc doesn't come into it, in this case.

As in the baby P case, i think that there will be all departments that are found wanting, it won't be just SS that fault is found in, but in the health service and police, also.

[determinedma]

WhatSasha and Spiro said!
The system does need an overhaul and until we are equipped to remove the children from poor parents - all of them?- then stamping your feet and saying they should all be in care is pointless

[Spero]

there are things you can do as an indvidual. You can consider training as a foster carer or volunteer as a mentor to a vulnerable child. You can get involved with your school, after school clubs etc, etc - anything really to provide a life line to a child who may be suffering at home, but just not suffering 'enough' to provoke immediate State intervention.

But a wholesale revamp and restructuring of the system I am afraid will never, ever happen. It would require massive public investment, which will never, ever happen because 99.9% of people will not even contemplate higher taxes to fund it and thus no politician will push it.

As a family law practitioner we are currently undergoing a 'modernisation' of our system and urged to be more efficient. All of this is going to be achieved on zero extra money. rather, money is being removed from the system and it will shortly be flooded with self represented litigants when funding is removed from private law cases. social workers are repeatedly demonised in wider media and told they were wrong to intervene and remove children.

I am sorry, but I think we have ended up with a child protection system that clearly reflects our priorities as a society. And vulnerable children don't make the list of what we really care about and what we will spend time and money on.

[annoyednow]

Is there any level of support that can keep a unit with heroin addicts functioning? I'm thinking of Eva Rausing and her husband. Their wealth couldn't keep their unit functioning. They were lucky to have good supportive extended family to take the children. Unfortunately this safety net just doesn't exist for lots of people. It's not simply wealth, it's the human capital that some people are lucky enough to have.