To think these children shouldn't have had to suffer this for so bloody long?

[GayByrne]

Genuine question for anyone who works in this field of child protection. I know the Govt have always been very keen that children remain in the family unit. But having read this this morning www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Horrific-squalid-filthy-home-suffering-Grimsby/story-27617842-detail/story.html

I struggle to see how these 5 children either slipped through the cracks or, worse, didn't and some board decided that the family could be 'saved'.

What does it take? This is a genuine non-arsey (but incredulous) question.

I worked as the pro-Bono children's advocate at my last firm, a million years ago. Have things changed so much, is it the area, is it cuts?

Will these children ever recover?

wouldn't have been room (not no room- my English is failing me)

Awful. Like Angela's Ashes.

Hope the kids are ok now.

There have been many threads on here where a neighbour describes bad home conditions, filthy children and lots of responses are mind your own business.

Having known people who have had their children removed, I have thought about this a lot. In the case I knew closely, it was absolutely right, though desperately desperately sad. Realistically, looking back, it should have happened at birth. A slow motion car crash unfolded instead, with multiple interventions over five years or so.

I sometimes think maybe we go about it the wrong way though? Sometimes in these cases of neglect and just... incompetence it seems like it's the parents who need fostering. I don't know how you'd work it but maybe putting carers in with the family would be better. I'd be interested to look at outcomes for that approach. I know outcomes for formal care are abysmal.

tiggy some very interesting posts, thanks for taking the time to explain it. From the article I thought that nobody had reported the childrens plight at all as the police, not SS were acting from a tip off.

I started a thread a couple of years ago. It was posted on a part of the board where threads disappear after a month so I can't link to it. Basically I thought I should report a family but posters ripped me to pieces in the thread. I reported it anyway, my concerns were surrounding a Year 1 aged child & a child of between 1 & 2.

I was worried that the little one never wore socks. Ever. Even in winter he had bare feet. (mn response was that some children refuse to wear socks & there's nothing the mother could do, some posters saying their ds didn't wear socks for x amount of time, socks are not important etc etc)

I was worried that the little one was always silent. I saw him twice a day all term & he didn't once smile, giggle, speak, cry or make any sound at all. It was like he was a doll. (mn response was to shout additional needs or hidden disability, how dare I judge)

The little girl's uniform was badly stained, ripped, faded and smelt. She didn't have proper shoes on, she had canvas shoes that were not waterproof. (mn response that the Government were making cuts & the mother could not afford branded expensive shoes)

The mother smoked, I would pass her on the way to school at 3 & she would be standing by the gate smoking. Whilst her little girl didn't have a warm coat to wear. (mn response was that was her only cigarette of the day) I said well I stopped smoking when money got tight for me & I know its hard but I also know its doable (mn said I had no right to take away the mother's one pleasure)

Basically everything I said, I was accused of being judgemental, taking the entire picture from a snapshot of their day, was odd for taking such an interest in another family & so on.

I ignored them & went to the school reception to say I was concerned. It didn't help these particular children as SS were already involved with the family & a couple of months later the children disappeared from school & the rumours were that they had been fostered. I haven't seen them since & I hope they are well. But I don't regret talking to the school. Time & time again on mn threads posters will say that it would have been obvious they were being mistreated during their childhood but nobody helped them.

Yes there is a line between being a busybody and being nosy & interfering but if everyone turns the other way then its the children who lose out, & I'd much rather be thought of as a nosy bastard than not report when children appear neglected.

Midnight, the bit about the little kid being silent is interesting. I took (then) 2 yo DD to a MW appt with me and she was in full inquisitive mode - knocked over a pile of papers, pulled the paper roll that they use to cover the bed between patients, wanted to take all the leaflets etc. I was mortified, but the MW said not to worry, it was toddlers who didn't do any of that stuff that rang alarm bells with her. She said a woman had been in recently with a 2yo in a buggy, and she left the little girl in the buggy for the 15 or 20 minutes appt. The girl sat absolutely still and didn't make a peep, and the MW said that after they'd gone, she went through to the HV to ask if she knew the family and ask her to go out to see them, because she thought that the little girl was scared of her mother and that's why she sat so still. And the HV did know the family and was already making regular visits.

""I'm sure the school will have noticed but there is little they can do other than alert SS.""

That isn't true, there are three "tiers" of CP Plan and Schools can instigate and manage up to a Level Two.

The advise given on here, that the OP, who posts about Neglect, should go and clean the house, is dangerous, so is ineffectual family help. It just keeps the child living in a neglectful house and "puts a sticking plaster" on it.

The over involvement of Family Support and other services, unfortunately doesn't make a Person be the Parent a child needs.

I don't know anyone working in Child Protection that doesn't have the view put forward by Banardos that we need more children to be removed at Birth.

This case is different, in the sense that we don't know when the addictions started.

SS do turn around many families and undiagnosed MH/PDs account for most of the families that need intervention.

If adult MH services were better, there would be less neglected/abused (through Mum being vulnerable) children.

I go onto threads about children that are shouted at, but "play up" etc because it is true that children who are silent and toddlers who are "blank" are the ones that you look out for, the children that are often posted about on here, aren't "suffering behind closed doors".

Yet the things that we should be reporting, are being ignored.

It's true though that outcomes for children in Care are poor and one third of adoptions fail.

The conditions described in the article (and the photo) are pretty much the conditions my DH as described how his upbringing was. Him and his brother lived in their school uniforms (slept in them, wore them at weekends), never bathed as bathroom was filthy and no hot water, starved as their mum spent all her money at the beginning of the week on god knows what. They lived in houses without electricity, houses where their mum had knocked walls down (for no reason) and they all slept on dirty mattresses in the same room.

They had intervention by SS and spent time in foster homes and children's homes several times but were always returned to their mother. To be fair to their mother she had pretty severe mental health problems (schizophrena and possibly other undiagnosed conditions) which she refused to seek help or take medication for. They were abused physically, mentally and emotionally by her.

Why SS didn't do more I can't possibly understand? They both had no education as they never went to school. Now both DH and his brother struggle to hold down jobs (as both struggle to read and write) and both have on/off depression and anxiety and other physical problems which probably stem from the malnutrition as children.

It makes me angry that a lot of children who are already known to SS keep being returned to their parents to live in such squalour. Granted it was in the 70's and 80's when DH was going through it, but it doesn't look like that much has changed from reading the article.

If Barnardos had their way and children were removed at birth then such a high instance of failed adoptions would be history.

That woman had a nasty black eye.

I'm not sure that's completely true Gay.

""Why SS didn't do more I can't possibly understand? ""

Because the threaseholds were lower, in the 80's and 90's, but up until three years ago, threaseholds still varied a lot between LAs.

There was a SW that used to post on here, who said to me that EA wasn't on her LAs radar, then it became apparent that she had only worked on the Crisis Team, but what was shocking was that according to guidelines, it should be SWs with three years experience making descions, not newly qualified staff, which she was.

The Police have only just put strict guidelines in place so they are working more effectively to tackle CP cases.

SS work with the law and guidelines, if they aren't in place, they can't act. Although some SWs aren't performing as they should and it's not because of funding.

Tbh though, I'm surprised that this couple were charged and taken to court, very few parents are.

The woman whose neglected baby died, was spared prison, recently.

Part of me wonders if this couple have been an easy target, because of their addictions.

I hope the Mother opts for the implant, so she is unlikely to become pregnant again, because she will be fertile for around ten more years.

She may have fell during an alcohol induced stupor. Or she may be a victim of DV.

Attachment issues are cited as a cause of so many failed adoptions. If children are taken and placed earlier, attachment problems wouldn't be so entrenched in those children. There'd be a better chance of staving off any long term damage to the child.

I think I'm right.

So there

I'm surprised how quick people assume that teachers/schools aren't acting on abuse or neglect suspicions. Society isn't based around schools alone. There are neighbours, friends, family, doctors and other medical staff etc etc.

I really do honestly think that some HV/SW spend a lot of time unnecessarily sticking their noses into families where nothing is wrong to get an easy time. I was the victim of this, I had 2 visits and a grilling/assessment from a HV because I had moved a child under 5 "out of area" and this was a red flag . The houses I moved from and to were clean and tidy, the family unit had not changed, there was nothing at all to suggest anything was amiss.

YANBU.

As an aside, I lol'd a bit at 'pro-Bono'legal work. I mean, Rattle and Hum was quite good, but their more recent work is pretty boring and he's just a bit up himself these days.

Oh yeah, me and old Bono are good mates...he even sent me his new album for free - ner ner neh ner ner...

It's not a case of the parents being 'poor'. They were drink and drug abusers and steering their money towards funding their habit instead of providing their children with food and a sanitary environment.

I am so glad the authorities intervened and the children are now being cared for. I would suspect and hope that the older children are being given regular contact with their siblings as it sounded as though the older two were their lifelines.

I think there's an idea that if children are removed into LA care then everything will be better.

That's not always the case and as a PP stated, global outcomes for children in care tend to be poor.

And children on the whole are desperate to stay with their parents no matter how awful things are - and of course they shouldn't be deemed as making a capacitous decision but it's the reality. And their desperation not to be taken away and placed with strangers but wanting things at home to be better and wanting to keep their family together has to be part of why SS try to do that.

There are some wonderful foster carers out there (members of my family among them) but there are some really awful ones and some that are abusive in their own right. And that's if enough foster carers are available or willing. Older children may well end up in children's homes which may be brilliant or may be fucking dreadful. Even if the staff are great you're often living with damaged peers. I've known young people get into drugs or sex working because their new friends in the home are doing it.

I think it's shit from start to finish but I've known too many people who were in LA care tell me that experience was far worse than being at home.

And LA care has an age cut - off. I've seen too many people leave care and be housed and left to it. My family member who's a foster carer has often wanted to stop fostering because they've spent years (sometimes over a decade at a time) loving, supporting and encouraging the kid they've cared for to watch them go back to their abusive and neglectful families when they're adults and the state can no longer say their family can't contact them. It takes two minutes for a young person or their family to find each other on Facebook. I've even known kids that were adopted, surnames changed etc find their biological parents that way and return there.

Because it's their family. The pull of family is strong even when horrendous abuse has occurred.

And I've seen some awful parents turn things around with social services intervention.

I would always advocate earlier removal of children if I had confidence that they were being removed into a better situation. Sadly, in my experience of working in MH for years with people who have been in care and hearing the shocking tales of some foster carers from social workers; I can't believe that's always the case.

And in no way am I saying well, leave the kids in an abusive situation. I'm saying that given the reality of what can happen to kids in care - trying to keep a family together is not simply a case of not being bothered to intervene or prioritising parents over kids. It's being realistic (very sadly) of what can happen after a kid has been taken into care.

If every kid went to a lovely home, didn't have to move around because of limitations of the foster carers or because their understandable disturbed behaviour caused otherwise brilliant FCs have to ask for them to be moved ( extreme violence or sexual behaviour towards younger children for example), if they never had to experience being approved for adoption but no-one wanting to adopt them or worse...being adopted and that failing.

If none of those things ever happened to kids taken into care I'd have a different point of view.

I think part of the problem is that people think that they need to be certain that abuse or neglect is happening before reporting it, rather than letting trained experts decide.

A suspicion or concern is grounds enough to report, in the same way that concern about a persistent cough is grounds enough to visit the doctor; you do not have to be sure it's lung cancer before consulting a doctor. In the same way, you do not have to be sure it's abuse or neglect before reporting.

If the parents could come through rehab, and show they've changed, would children be allowed to go back to them? Or have they been given enough chances that that ship has sailed?

I'm an adoptive parent. Believe me we know that being in care is not universally great and that a percentage of adoptions fail. Kids never get to live those years again and for some of them they will never recover in terms of their MH.

When people quote that outcomes for children put in care are "worse" - is that worse than if they'd stayed in their own family situations or being compared with the wider "happy family" population as a whole? Outcomes for children who have been in care or adopted are poor often because they have had abuse, neglect and numerous traumatic moves of primary carer in their early childhood and have to live with the fallout of that all their lives. It would be more correct to say "outcomes for children whose experience severe neglect and abuse to the point they are removed from birth family home" are poor. Which is not exactly a surprise.

I am not sure both my kids will do as well with me as they would have if they'd been born into a happy stable family and had no attachment/health issues. But I am 100% sure they will do better than if they'd stayed in their birth family's home which was TBH just like the situation in the OP.

It's creepy but I'm going to keep that picture and article for DS to read when he's older.

I happen to know two people teaching in primary schools in extremely deprived areas in two different parts of the UK and both talk about the same things - children who only eat anything in the morning because of the school breakfast club, schools where the children are made brush their teeth every day in school because a significant number won't be brushed at home, children where the school actually washes their uniforms for them because no one else does it. Apparently the parents concerned then cheerfully respond that they don't need to fix their children breakfast or brush their teeth at home because "oh the school does it" . In both cases I get the impression that a degree of neglect has almost became 'normalised' - so a degree of dirt and hunger doesn't stand out that much . I think a lot of those parents were very poorly parented themselves and really don't have a clue. As someone upthread said, they're almost children themselves.

Can't get over schools regularly washing childrens uniforms. What are the parents excuses for not doing it? I don't always iron (always last priority tbh), usually just a good shake when took off line or radiator, but ds never wore same uniform two days in a row (nursery and always came home messy and covered in lunch). When he's less messy hopefully i'll get two days out of a uniform. When I was young, knew kids who wore uniform after school until bedtime and the odd weekend but uniforms were obviously washed regularly, shoes cleaned etc.

Is it really a case off their parents didn't do it for them, so they don't know to do it for their kids?

Poor kids! I had the experience of visiting a house like this once in an (education) professional capacity. The family in question were not known to any services at the time. The urgent (tearful and shocked - we weren't used to that experience) report filed by myself and my colleague within minutes of leaving the house got them on the road to support, new housing etc and I'm proud to say, years down the line, as a family they are thriving! Our intervention was a vital first step.