Did this mum really have her children removed for ignoring advice about co-sleeping, or must there have been more to it than is stated here?

[Trifleorbust]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/12/mother-allowed-two-boys-sleep-bed-has-taken-family-court-judge/

It obviously wasn't just the co-sleeping but ignoring the advice of professionals about sleeping arrangements seems to have been a major factor, which I find quite shocking

AIBU?

Reading the article I think it was more about the physical abuse with the sleeping as a minor side issue.

The story doesn't give the whole picture. Broken wrist and loss of control of the parents temper probably had much more to do with it.

The article states their parents were rough and forceful, that their was strange bruising and a broken wrist, that they had concerns over her feeding of them and that a judge was convinced that adoption was the better option than returning home to birth parents. I grew up in care for my first ten years and am pretty certain these children weren't taken away because their mother co-slept with them. They were taken away because of all the other factors.

I don't think it was a major factor - they were injured. The headline is focusing on it because that's the most click batey thing about it.

I get that, and I probably haven't worded my OP very well, but in that case why would the judge mention the co-sleeping? Surely it is advice and only advice?

The boys had bruises and at least one broken bone.... And ignored professional advice (of which co-sleeping was just one example...). Id say this is sensationalist journalism and you fell for it.

No. Mothers don't have their children removed for simply co-sleeping.

What I think I am trying to ask is, is ignoring professional advice some sort of 'red flag'? And if so, why?

I acknowledge there were other issues.

I don't co-sleep, btw. But I would be flabbergasted by someone raising it as a CP issue if I did!

Its says several times in the article that the boys were bruised and one had a broken wrist. Also mentions that the dad used excessive force and the mum was abrupt and rough with them. Plus there's a mention of ignoring feeding advice. I think there is an awful lot not being told in this situation and that the cosleeping part has been empathised for sympathy. Sad really that the family has had to be split up though.
FWIW a nurse told me to co sleep and a hv (not mine a stand in) gave me a booklet on how to cosleep safely because it was the only way me and DD could get any sleep.

Ignoring ongoing advice from Social Services would be considered a red flag. I co-slept, most of the parents I know did at one time or another. It's not a red flag on it's own. Ignoring the advice of those dedicated to protecting your DCs is a red flag, though, and a child bruised enough to cause concern is the red flag.

LoveMyLittleSuperhero:

Again, I get that there were other issues. But why would co-sleeping even be considered contributory to those issues?

What I think I am trying to ask is, is ignoring professional advice some sort of 'red flag'? And if so, why?

Yes, in the context of a litany of other parenting failures such as physical abuse and neglect. I'm not sure why you are struggling to comprehend that part? If you are causing harm to your children plus you don't give a shit about taking on advice or accepting you are causing them harm then that's clearly a risk factor.

Maybe they've been advised not to co-sleep because they smoke and drink to excess.

Gallavich:

Because I believe there is a difference between advice and orders? I just don't get why someone choosing not to follow advice would ever be part of a CP case against them. Co-sleeping isn't dangerous to a child (not even a newborn), so it baffles me why this would ever be used against someone in this way, even alongside other evidence or concerns.

Anyway, seems I am BU.

I'm a very slow typer sorry
Ignoring large amounts of advice can be a red flag, considering they are said to have been ignoring feeding advice and sleeping advice I would think it is an issue mixed in with everything else. Plus we know nothing of parents circumstances. I know that co sleeping could be incredibly dangerous if the parents were on certain medications or drank etc, there's no mention of if they did or not.

Not having the option of a safe, warm, clean, and private if the child wishes, place to sleep is a child protection concern.

The headline is making it sound like a co-sleeping issue but the details suggest that wasn't it at all.

It's clear from the article there were other factors.

The co-sleeping... I remember reading you must never co-sleep if you smoke or if you have been drinking or taking drugs. Maybe that was the issue?

catiscomfybutIneedapee: That isn't the suggestion, though.

Co-sleeping is very dangerous if you take drugs, or even sedating prescribed medication. Or drink alcohol. It is also more risky if you're not breastfeeding, for a small baby.

Well, I suppose the answer must be that it was a complex case with many other factors. Odd wording though.

X-post with others who have mentioned smoking, drinking etc when co-sleeping.

Ok. So if you were given advice by your health visitor and you chose not to follow it, fine.
BUT if you had failed to properly supervise your kids and they got injured, or you had got intoxicated and they got injured, or you had handled them too roughly and they got injured...THEN you are asked to follow advice from the health visitor to prevent future injury plus reassure children's services that you were going to make changes AND you refused to follow that advice...not ok. See?

Co-sleeping isn't dangerous to a child
Unless parents drink/smoke/take illegal substances/take certain medications/have certain health issues. It's safe if done safely.

I suspect their co-sleeping wasn't considered safe (due to alcohol, smoking, etc).

And they ignored the advice, thus continuing to put the DC in danger.