Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to not understand why people how have children removed are not charged by the police

90 replies

Bogeyface · 31/03/2014 14:21

Can someone explain this to me please?

I know of someone that has recently had a child removed due to neglect and lack of medical care. The child has a life limiting condition and the parents did not attend appointments and didnt get and administer the (free) prescription meds. Their actions have shortened his life, there is no two ways about that.

The other children are being removed but will go to a different foster carer so they will be split up :( This is due to neglect.

I was under the impression that neglecting a child was a criminal offence, so I dont understand why the parents havent been charged with anything. Is that normal? Surely the fact that the childs life will now be significantly shorter as a result of their actions should be punishable?

OP posts:
MiscellaneousAssortment · 31/03/2014 17:16

Good Lord this thread has some strong opinions on it.

I guess for whatever reason it was decided it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute. Or it's happening slowly?

MrsDeanAmbrose · 31/03/2014 17:33

In the neglect cases I've generally dealt with that have ended up in court, it's a drip drip drip type of neglect, where vast support has been offered but no or little change effected. Police will attend CP conferences/strategy meetings but report to find these ones difficult to prosecute.
Sometimes, for example in cases where there have been horrendous home conditions, or a young child left home alone, I have known police action re neglect, but it's generally a police caution issued. Or, I've known other charges be pursued that are "easier" to evidence and prosecute, eg drink driving prosecutions.

YNK · 31/03/2014 17:40

No ghost and fusedog - neither of you are really reading my posts since you are misquoting me.

I think the SW and the courts will be best placed to decide if rehabilitation is the most therapeutic course of action for the child, not the FC who are often not in possession of all the history and legal issues. If you cannot support this, your attitude is NOT therapeutic

Fusedog · 31/03/2014 17:42

What were did I say that I or foster cares were best placed to decided if rehabilitation is best

Also you didn't answer my question why do you think foster carers are profiteering?

ghostinthecanvas · 31/03/2014 17:47

YNK
I read your posts.

This thread is about parents that neglect their children to the point of them being removed from the home, being charged with neglect. Neglect and child endangerment are criminal offences. Why don't more parents get charged?

YNK · 31/03/2014 17:52

I didn't say FC's were profiteering or that they were cherry picking!

Fusedog · 31/03/2014 17:56

Add message | Report | Message poster YNK Mon 31-Mar-14 17:06:20
I said paid FC's to differentiate from 'family and friend' carers.

Do you need salt and vinegar for that chip on your shoulder fusedog??

You point the finger at parents/carers unjustly for profiteering, but are very quick to deny the same yourself.

yes you did
See your post at 17:06

Fusedog · 31/03/2014 18:01

So please answer how are foster carers profiteering

YNK · 31/03/2014 18:07

Again......(yawn).... I said paid FC's to differentiate them from (unpaid) friends and family carers!
What part of that says I said FC's were profiteering?

YNK · 31/03/2014 18:10

Touchy, no???

Fusedog · 31/03/2014 18:11

Add message | Report | Message poster YNK Mon 31-Mar-14 17:06:20
You point the finger at parents/carers unjustly for profiteering, but are very quick to deny the same yourself.

Fusedog · 31/03/2014 18:11

It's ok I understand why you don't want to answer

YNK · 31/03/2014 18:19

None of those comments say FC's are profiteering, ffs!

You did suggest that about (specifically) birth parents though!

I'm still left wondering why you are so touchy about this tbh.

Original poster
Bogeyface · 31/03/2014 18:33

YNK I have read all of your comments and I have to admit that I havent got a clue what you are going on about!

Would you mind putting your point across in an easy to understand way please, because I am clearly missing something!

Morethan Thanks :) I do know them personally, and I am angry yes. Its what they have done to the sick child that makes me so mad at the fact that they will probably not face charges. Surely shortening someones life considerably by refusing to allow them their medication is illegal? Its just a slow murder in my eyes :(

OP posts:
YNK · 31/03/2014 18:43

bf sorry you cannot understand me!
The situation you describe is not emotional abuse, it is neglect. Legislation already exists to prosecute neglect.
I think I have said this before!

Spero · 31/03/2014 20:14

Sorry, I have skimmed a bit so someone may have already said this.

As far as I understand it, the police/cps may not proceed for a number of reasons. the basic test is that a prosecution will only go ahead if there is good chance of getting a conviction. This can be hard when the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. the burden of proof for care proceedings is lower 'the balance of probabilities'.

Even if the evidence is there the prosecution has to be 'in the public interest' - so if you have already had your children removed there might not be much will to put you through the criminal courts as well.

And often in these cases, the main or only witness to the criminal act will be the child victim so that is going to make it very difficult when it comes to a criminal trial. Generally I wouldn't have thought children under 6 would be able to cope with a criminal trial, even if handled very sensitively.

The focus of police and children's services are different - the police have a child protection role but they are more interested investigating and prosecuting crimes, care proceedings are about protecting children, not punishing the parents, although I appreciate it may well feel like that sometimes for the parents involved.

Original poster
Bogeyface · 31/03/2014 22:41

YNK I got that bit, thats what I said in my OP, the legislation exists to prosecute neglect so I want to know why it isnt used if the neglect is so bad that the children must be removed from their parents care.

I dont see what emotional abuse has got to do with it and I am still at a loss over your comments about wealthy people using care as a free boarding service, and the other rather odd things you posted!

OP posts:
FlockOfTwats · 01/04/2014 00:47

Because although you can be pretty sure a child is being neglected or abused and would be safer away from the household, You cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt who is causing that and whether they are doing it wilfully.

You can't prosecute both parents for abusing a child physically for example, when you can't prove which did it. That would be like, if your husband murdered someone in your house, them just prosecuting you both for murder because it happened in your house.

Parents are charged with certain criminal offences in some circumstances though, but it often relies on the child growing up and being able to give evidence themselves.

YNK · 01/04/2014 00:58

I have answered that several times bogyface.

You will have to tell me what "odd things" you refer to in order for me to clarify.
Strangely my power of telepathy is letting me down today!

mumminio · 01/04/2014 05:55

Would it be awful to wish that parents who have been fond neglectful were sterilized?

(yes, I know, but I am thinking it anyway)

Spero · 01/04/2014 08:46

Its awful, but its understandable. I have had clients who have a baby a year, either because they like being pregnant but can't cope with babies, or are simply desperate to keep one but can't.

It is horribly sad and pointless and I do find myself thinking 'wouldn't it be simpler if....'

BUT it is a dangerous slippery slope to the kind of society where I would not want to live. Who makes those decisions? Do we really want to live in that kind of world? Would my mum have ended up being sterilised for giving birth to me, a disabled child?

In the clear cut cases of evil, sadistic abuse such as the murders of Victoria Climbie and Daniel Pelka, it would be an easy decision to make. But the vast majority of cases are not so clear cut, they exist in a murky, ambiguous area where very often the parent perpetrators of abuse were/are victims themselves.

MiscellaneousAssortment · 01/04/2014 12:52

^I am still at a loss over your comments about wealthy people using care as a free boarding service^

Im also at a loss to understand this comment and haven't seen any comments on it since although alot of questions. Unless the comments on 'paying parents' to visit are supposed to be an answer? But I can't see how that's connected... I guess I'm hoping someone can join up the dots on this as its such an extraordinary statement.

I really don't think this happens as it doesn't make sense within the foster care system or the results for families.

As the result of this 'free boarding service' is having a child taken permanently - so who would decide to use fc as this free boarding service? It makes no sense, unless the parents don't actually want the child in which case there would be no need for boarding as they'd be open to adoption.

jay55 · 01/04/2014 13:59

Surely prosecuting the parents can lead to further distress for the kids and make it even harder for them to move on.

YNK · 01/04/2014 14:23

Misc - I can assure you ime many families seek to have children placed with FC's and then wish to retain PR status, which means they think they can then dictate terms and conditions (contact, school issues, pocketmoney, punishments, therapeutic interventions etc). They are often highly critical of the steps taken to help or listen to the child.
I often hear children being blamed for bad behaviour in terms of "why should we be expected to put up with it"!
Families often refuse to follow sound advice from professionals to address the issues because they don't see themselves as part of the problem or that they should have a role in working toward change.
Often the expectation is that the child should be taken away and fixed before they should be returned with a greater respect toward the family/carer who have rejected them. In fact the families/carers often see this rejection as just punishment!
I'm afraid it's not a very perfect world out there!

justmyview · 01/04/2014 20:51

YNK Can I ask - do you have professional experience of foster care or personal?

I agree that many birth parents are in denial about their own shortcomings, but otherwise, what you describe does not ring true to me. IME the families whose children are accommodated are often desperate to keep a child, or resigned to the idea that they cannot. They are not actively seeking to have their children looked after by FC, whilst maintaining PRR themselves