To wonder how bad a childs home life has to be before they are taken into care?

[SerenYWythnos]

I obviously can't say too much, but really how bad does it have to be before social services step up the plate and actually fucking do something?!

I'm talking about a specific case here which is why I can't say too much, but SS, teachers and other professionals seem to be pandering to the parents who quite frankly couldn't look after a gold fish properly let alone raise a child. Think exposure to violence and severe neglect. It's the worst I've ever seen in all my years working with kids.

I'm absolutely aghast that these children are still with their mother, I really am. Just how bad does it have to be before they are removed?!

lurked social workers are truly crap if thats their agenda because system (around 68,000+ kids in England alone) is choc a block full of "screwed up teens" with a very low proportion of cute babies

5% are under one, the biggest single group (37%) are 10-15

But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

When I taught (1990s/early 2000s so ages back) my observation was SS never acted. Only child I had in care had watched her mother slash her father's throat. And the SS were always boasting they were about to put her with new foster parents, as the ones she were with were from Caribbean island x, and the child's parents had been from island y.... So if any prospective fosterer popped up from island y - they'd move her. Even though she loved her foster family and was settled there.

Other kids I taught in all kinds of horrific home situations, were left in situ. Usually in terrible situations. I would like to think things have moved on. I doubt they have.

Am aware of very young children in this village who have repeatedly had Children's Services and the police called out and still they remain with parents who call them "fucking cunts" and who have had loud, graphic sexual conversations right in front of them. I do wonder what it takes before anyone acts.

Tonight I was shopping and heard a child ask her 'mother' for something. The woman turned to the child, quite calmly and loudly, said "Fuck off!" I think there is a world of appalling parents out there - people who have had kids for the housing points or whatever. I'd imagine there'd be very little damage done by taking such kids into a place of safety and away from abusive, vile parents.

You can escalate upwards. Keep reporting each concern. You could go to the local Child Safeguarding Board with your evidence; ask them for guidance. But please don't throw hands in the air and do nothing.

here is guidance from Salford, picked at random

It takes guts to pick up that phone, I know it does but yup, if you feel the child or children's situation is untenable, do it.

But the child does not know that Tween.

We know that a mother moving a known sex offender into the home is not safe but the child does not if they haven't been targeted.

We know 'meals' of chips and sweets aren't healthy but the child may love them.

We know not going to bed or school isn't on but to the child it's normal life.

Do those of you who work in the system think that outcomes would significantly improve if children were removed from bad parents much earlier?

The sad thing is that life doesn't improve for many children once they are taken into the care system though, especially if they are older when removed. For lots of children, historically at least, things have got worse

Outcomes for looked after children are pretty shit. I'd imagine that their home life would have to be pretty diabolical for a place in care to be preferable.

FWIW I often sit at case conferences and core groups, and my experience is that SWs wimp out at the "Rottweiler" parents and are harsh and unforgiving to the weaker ones.

From my recent experience children are lecture far too long. I bet it all comes down to costs sadly.

Problem is, many parents disengage when the child is taken into foster care which is devastating.

Then there is the problem of having to adjust to rules and social niceties you weren't aware of (imagine how uncomfortable you might feel in someone else's home no matter how kind they are) and schools and friends knowing you're the 'looked after kid.'

My mum ADORED me - she was dire at looking after me but I felt safer and happier with her than any foster carers I stayed with.

XP Tendon. I do think where it is obvious very young (babies) that the child will ultimately need to be removed, that probably is in the child's best interests, but those situations are rare.

In the vast majority of cases the best outcomes for the child will be achieved if the parents are supported (or pandered to, depending on your POV) enough so that the child can stay, even when to most of us that child's life is still far from "right".

Things do have to be beyond awful for the child-and as an adopter I can tell you-and have done on here a few times my kids were not placed for adoption because they are the most gorgeous children in the looks departments, but because they suffered what would be described as torture if it happened to a grown up, but it gets down graded to the term abuse.
Yes life long scars- yes being taken away does mess with them barley but leaving them there will also mess with them-and you know what at least this way they get a chance to make it to adulthood.

Sometimes social workers can be emotionally involved with the parents- they can either have been connected as the parents skirted the care system or they can invest a lot emotionally and professionally in trying to make the family work and it is going to be hard to pull back from that.
Social Workers don't go in to break up families they try all they can to keep families together-and sometimes in my mind this is wrong.

What people often ignore in these posts is that judges make that call- they decide if there is enough evidence to remove a child-and then after lots of work if there is enough evidence to place the child for adoption, social services play a role in that, and on the whole they are taken seriously but a judge decides

dream I base it on experience. Thank god not my own. I also have no reason to disbelieve plenty of babies are taken for good reason. Nor did I mention conspiracy theory's, I do not have any reason to believe babies are being taken for the benefit of adoptive parents or any black market type scenario. But to a degree you can say I suspect its about money. Take a 10year old into care and chances are it will cost hundreds a week till they reach adulthood. Take a baby and it costs very little because it will become the adopters financial responsibility. Same for the cost of support, it's cheaper to dump an unsupported teen mum to sink or swim then take the baby if it looks like it's going wrong than it is to provide mother and baby units and adequate support. So taking babies makes more sense financially than taking older kids

Oh I don't disagree with you turquoise. I think - I know - children do sometimes have to be removed.

But I think it's more humane to remove very young children for adoption than to subject older children to going in and out of foster homes. That's torturous too.

Keeping parents "on side" might make them more likely to engage with services and therefore make changes to their lifestyles (and able to keep their children safe). If successful it's far cheaper and easier than removing a child and finding a placement for them, plus the child gets to stay with his or her family. Win win. I suppose it must work sometimes or they wouldn't deem it to be a worthwhile risk.

Sorry barley I didn't read your later posts. Have you read the book Primal Wound, I think it would resonate with you.

Tendon Some work has been done to suggest that if birth parents haven't engaged within six months then they wont. But the threshold of when to intervene is still very high/low depending on how you look at it.

I don't think social services think about it like that lurked from my experience but children aged 10+ are often left in poor situations because there is nowhere to place them and, sadly' for some their emotions and behaviour have been so badly affected by that stage that they are hard to place. At 10+ the victim-blaming starts and they are seen as "difficult" rather than needy kids.
Hand on heart how many of us would foster an adolescent with challenging behaviour or severe emotional difficulties whist bringing up our own kids.

Unfortunately research has repeatedly shown, in the UK and elsewhere, that children do better when left with birth families however shit they may be. Then they grow up, have breakdowns and pay for their own therapy.

I should have been taken into care but wouldn't have been better off. If you're born into an abusive family you are potentially completely fucked. Thanks, society.

I have read about it but it doesn't really apply to me because I was in and out of care rather than being removed on a permanent basis for adoption.

The problem is that while I hesitate to bring class into it, 'good' child rearing often has very middle class connotations - cleanliness, bedtimes, clothing - and these just aren't always adhered to or even recognised in the worlds some children are living in.

The problem with that is when the child is taken to foster care they are not grateful for

Drat!

They are not grateful for teeth cleaning, hair brushing, vegetable eating in a non smoky kitchen.

My mum took drugs, would sometimes sleep with men to get money for these drugs and they would sometimes fight with one another in front of me. I saw horrible gory horror films all the time, wandered around unsupervised and ate cornflakes for tea.

But it was my home and my mum and it was all I knew. It was utterly petrifying being wrenched from that and having my hair brushed and watching cartoons!

Excuse my ignorance here, but why do children who are fostered seem to end up being moved from placement to placement? What is it that prevents them from staying in the same family until they are 16 or 18?

Sometimes they do.

When they are moved it can be because they become too old (some foster carers will only accept under 5s or over 12s) or because the situations the foster carers are in change - made redundant, die, get pregnant - or the relationship breaks down.

In my case I was moved to foster carers then back to my mum then back to care.

As an adopter, I have realised that it has to be really extreme neglect or abuse in order to remove the children. As PP have said, the situation has to outweigh the huge emotional and attachment issues that removing children from a parent leaves.

Reading through an amount of in depth reports on potential adoptees was absolutely soul destroying. Some of what was written absolutely unbelievable that a child was left in that home for a further 6-12 months.

in my experience building a case in order to remove children is not easy, and takes time.
reading my adopted children's files is heartbreaking - and i cannot believe the things my older child lived through. SW knew what was happening and still couldn't take him out of his situation until the hoops were jumped through and the case was presented before the courts etc.
finally the crisis came and he was removed by police and SW etc

incidentally lurked - it cost my children's SW team more for them to be adopted by me than to remain in foster care until they turn 18.......there was no financial benefit in removing my 2 cute babies and having them adopted in my situation.

Actually Buttonboots not all of them grow up to pay for their own therapy, some of them grow up to continue the cycle.
Barley is right what is considered normal for us, is terrifying and different to children who have been living a different life
They want their mum- whether she beat them burnt them or left them lying in their cots whilst she went out-or just didn't feed them or leave them feeling safe.
It may be what they want- what we as humans are programmed to need, but no way can you say that they are better off there. Daniel Pavelka and Baby P might have grown up with their own issues from their treatment had they been removed, but at least they would have been given the chance to tackle those issues
Attachment and adoption parenting has changed so much since the study groups that you refer to that they are out of date now- every few years through biology sociology psychology we learn more about what they need to be able to move forwards.
And that Buttonboots is the nicest thing I can say about your studies- yes messed up children will struggle in life.