To think that there should be a lot more support offered for parents who lose their children through social services?

[FedupofbeingtoldIcantusemyname]

I've seen many articles about the fact that quite often parents who lose their children through social services (adoption) will go on to have more and more children, who are usually then removed again. This means the whole cycle goes on and on and more and more children end up in the care system.

I can understand this is often due to the parents trying to replace what they have lost, many of them may have either diagnosed or undiagnosed mental health problems that might have caused them to struggle with parenting in the first place.

IME, social services don't offer enough, or any, support to stop this cycle from being repeated over and over, parents have their children taken and then just left with no thought to what happens next.

I know that their focus is the children, as it should be, and that they have limited resources but Aibu to think that something should be done to help these parents rather than just removing any more children they have?

But where do you draw the line at where a parent should be given support to keep future children? Where there has been neglect? Abuse? Serious harm to a child resulting in the removal of said child?

My DP was removed into permanent foster care at the age of seven, along with two other siblings who were placed in care and another who was taken for adoption at birth. But prior to this, the abuse of my DP was such that he now has a permanent disability, acquired when he was just a baby.

SS were involved from the very outset, yet the abuse the children suffered was unmentionable on here. And both parents were involved.

And yet, once his birth mother left her partner and moved to a different area, she subsequently had three children by someone else, all of whom she was allowed to keep.

In my view no-one who has been responsible for their child obtaining a life-changing disability should be allowed to keep any subsequent children. In fact DP should have been removed as soon as the incident occurred and all subsequent children should have been removed at birth IMO.

It shouldn't be SS' job to try to allow these parents to continue to have children until such time as they have learned enough to not be able to abuse one.

What about baby P's mother? Should she be helped to keep future children if she can show that she has changed and taken on board advice and help given?

And what about the siblings born into these messed-up families? How do you Rreconcile the fact that your parents abused your previous siblings to the point they had to be removed into permanent foster care or placed for adoption? Surely no child can grow up in a normal family that way?

blue I STRONGLY disagree that parents receive appropriate support to make changes and only lose their children a result of making 'wrong' choices. I cannot believe that anyone in your field could think that economically deprived and often mentally unwell people in our society are receiving adequate support.

What is LARC?

LARC is long acting contraception e.g. implant

Educating, I believe it is long acting reversible contraception (such as mirena coil, etc).

Totally agree MrsDeVere. There's a lot of 'being seen to be offering support' but often not a lot of real, actual, practical help that the parents need.

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean in terms of 'support' wannaBe. I don't necessarily think that those who have lost their children should be supported to be better parents to future parents (although they should if appropriate rather than doing nothing and allowing the subsequent children to be adopted again), rather I meant that parents who have lost children should be supported to grieve for their loss and know how to move forward in life without the need for more babies to 'replace' them.

My Dsis, as I said has made the decision not to have any more children. But she could easily have been pregnant again by now or already had another baby which probably would have been removed as well. My point is that she has received no support at all either way.

I also question whether social services always wish birth parents to be supported to keep their children.

I've recently seen a baby being adopted by extended family (of the baby) who, despite having perfect jobs and perfect children, met with huge and unfair resistance from SS to the point that the judge strongly criticised their professional behaviour. It was clear to everyone involved that SS were determined that the baby would be adopted by another family and would stop at nothing to achieve this.

If it was so difficult for my friends to keep this child, with their ideal blend of professional expertise and experience of parenting, what chance did the baby's mother (who was vulnerable) ever have?

You are not giving birth parents an opportunity make changes when you tell these poverty stricken people that they have X number of weeks to find different housing (not within their power) and complete a rarified form of counseling that they couldn't begin to pay for, would take longer than X weeks to complete and which isn't offered on the NHS. That's not support.

It is so very easy for SS to decide which outcome they want and steer towards it, or put up a hoop that no one could jump through, whilst giving every appearance of going through the motions. This system disadvantages the very disadvantaged who have often held the worst cards from day one and may have been deprived of a supportive family to grow up in themselves, possibly due to inadequate support by SS.

Social services was never supposed to be about this. It's got hopelessly lost and is still not obliged to be accountable to service users.

There has been much said here about the effects of the removal of children on the birth parents. IME whole families are affected, children, parents, siblings of the parents, cousins of the children, grandparents and great grandparents and in the future the children of the removed children and children of the siblings and cousins.
While I know that in some cases there are good reasons to remove children I also know that sometimes SS have very strange expectations of the birth mothers. In a case I knew the father was abusive and very violent to the extent that two SW were present at all times the father was present and every home visit and one SW had to be male, yet they expected the mother (and other people) to be able to stand up to this violent man, when SW clearly were so afraid that they paired up and insisted on a male SW being present. That is double standards.
This was only the start of how awful SS conduct was.

Gone, I couldn't have put it better myself.

It's like asking someone in a wheelchair to swim the channel, and providing a training programme for them in France, which they have to pay for and complete within 2 weeks. The challenge is there but it is not achievable.

Sometimes SW's actions can be very questionable indeed. I know they have a difficult job but still.

In a case I knew the father was abusive and very violent to the extent that two SW were present at all times the father was present and every home visit and one SW had to be male, yet they expected the mother (and other people) to be able to stand up to this violent man, when SW clearly were so afraid that they paired up and insisted on a male SW being present. That is double standards.

That's not double standards, bouquets that's expecting SWs to not put themselves in an unnecessarily dangerous position.

There was an article in Wednesday's Telegraph - a woman has given birth to 17 children over 20 years and every single one has been taken into care. It doesn't give the reasons for their removal but I can't begin to understand how the woman feels or what social services could do for her.

This is what I mean Rorty, maybe if this woman had been supported a long time ago she, and her children, would not have to have gone through all that. It is too late now.

ftw - if SW (estimated ages 50+) with years of job experience and more years of general life experience, who also deem it necessary to have 2 of them present how can it be at all reasonable to expect a slightly built young female barely out of her teens to cope with a violent man?
The problem was the violent man not the female or anyone else. I would suggest multiple police officers to deal with a violent man.
It is reasonable to assume that part of a SW job is to deal with difficult people and they really should not have unreasonable expectations of others.

I've thought about this a lot and my view is that these mothers (and fathers) are often suffering personality disorders due to trauma suffered in their own childhood.

If they had been supported in childhood and had their mental health issues dealt with at an early stage, with their own parents possibly being supported too, then maybe the cycle would not continue.

I think the answer lies firstly in in child mental health support as early as possible. Preschool onwards.

Once someone has a personality disorder it is much harder to treat because they need to want to do it and engage in order for the treatment to work, and often they simply don't want to.

And I was only saying the other day this world would be a lot more trauma free if violent men (and women) were dealt with properly eg given sentences rather than allowed to intimidate and harm so many people like a pebble dropped in a lake - their ripples extend far beyond them.

TheBouquets - social workers are not perfect, the system is not perfect but very often women choose to stay with violent agressive men and often do little to protect thier children. I obviously can't comment on the case you are talking about and funding for refuges has been decimated BUT many women continue relationships in which they and thier children are at risk of violence every day.

LittleHelper2 your DD sounds lovely. I hope she Is getting the support she needs. I so recognise the perception that even the appointments and 'busyness' would seem appealing.
I've experienced at close hand two removals at birth. Both times the women were at their happiest and healthiest throughout the pregnancy. It was heartbreaking, but probably the right thing to do.
MrsD ah yes that misunderstanding of the role of the SW. One of my clients had a SW for her unborn baby who had been hers'.

Mellowautumn - I am only too aware that you are correct to say that some women chose to stay with violent men. They are also bullied by these violent men into staying with them. They will even defend the violent man if someone does decide to try to do something. It is horribly frustrating. I do think though that a show of others standing up to the violent man is better than everyone showing fear of him. He was violent to someone he thought he could scare but got the shock of his life when his bullying was handed right back to him. The relationship is over now but no-one is 100% sure the new man is a good choice, still abusive but in a different way. There are also females who seem to think that any man is better than no man at all.
Sometimes I think it is a constant losing battle.

It is reasonable to assume that part of a SW job is to deal with difficult people and they really should not have unreasonable expectations of others.
Lots of professions have to deal with difficult people. But they take steps to make it safe (including doubling up). Police don't go single handed to arrest violent men on the grounds that their wives are sometimes alone with them.

I'm really not sure what point you're making and your first post was vague, but SWs shouldn't be expected to put themselves in harms way. That helps no-one.

Are you saying SWs should help the woman leave the violent man?

TheBouquets - sorry to say it is - unless we are willing to overrule people's Free will. Can I ask just exactly what you expect the police to do - move in with her ? They cannot just come and randomly 'imtimadate' him. Unless you want much more state intervention there is a percentage that will call through the gaps

ftw - What I want to make clear is that the SW were obviously worried about coming face to face with the violent man. A lot of people were scared of him. His violence was totally crazy, some of the things he did were almost unbelievable (cant be specific as it might out some people). He was very out of control. He did buckle in the face of some people but they were very strong people (not Police). Given the conduct I do think it was unreasonable to ask a young mum to stand up to this man. He was threatening her wider family too. He was a problem and not dealt with well or properly.
Unfortunately no matter how many people family or official agree that the best move would be to leave this violent man no-one can force an adult woman to leave. More understanding would have been better.

Mellowautumn - I don't know what the answer is. The problem goes on despite WA and other such organisations. I would love to have a way of stopping abusive men but they are such weasels that they can wiggle round anything. Women need courage and a belief in their own abilities.

Unfortunately no matter how many people family or official agree that the best move would be to leave this violent man no-one can force an adult woman to leave. More understanding would have been better.

I just don't know what you think should have happened. 'More understanding' doesn't protect the child.

I'm not trying to say I think it would be easy btw I'm just not sure what you think SS/anyone else can do about it.