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?

Maybe the parents were smokers, drinkers or took drugs.. This would definitely make cosleeping dangerous.

Co-sleeping can absolutely be risky to babies. When the attachment relationship between mother and child is severely lacking, and the mother is inattentive to the child's cues and needs then co-sleeping can be very risky.
That's not even factoring in alcohol, cigarettes or drugs.

Are you not a teacher? Surely you realise that the co-sleeping was not a "major factor"?

I saw this article. Stupid headline from the telegraph. I'm surprised they're regarded as a reputable paper imo. Why emphasise that in the headline and not the injuries? It's just scaremongering.

I'm assuming the co sleeping advice was a minor issue, but probably related to something like being very obese or drug taking. Or maybe even something like keeping the children awake whilst watching TV in bed. But that wouldn't have been the major issue in the case.

We don't know anything really about this case other than a few lines in newspaper. It's an attention grabbing headline.

Ime of working with social workers, SS would not get involved purely because of cosleeping.

However it would be expected that children have a clean and safe bed of their own each.

co-sleeping advice is simply that ; advice....in any context, if it's CP or otherwise. It's not the law. And that advice applies under one year, the article would suggest these are slightly older children.

These children were removed due to broken bones, force and I would think advice about feeding not being followed is more of a factor, as neglect can be proven if they are underweight etc. It has bugger all to do with co-sleeping.

It appears that she continually went against advice that she was given about co-sleeping, but we don't know what that advice was. If she was advised not to co-sleep after drinking alocohol, or while smoking, and she repeatedly ignored that advice, then it fits with a pattern of abuse and neglect that resulted in broken bones.

Complete conjecture but maybe they said the injuries were from the young baby falling out of a bed in which they were co sleeping.

Maybe she ignored advice on how to make it safe i.e.: mattress on floor or side cot?

WayfaringStranger: I don't know what that has to do with it. It is mentioned as the judge's concluding comment, so clearly worth mentioning in the opinion of the judge.

Lots of posters are wondering (fairly, I suppose) whether there were issues with drugs, drink, etc., but given that these aren't mentioned in the article at all, I read it as the issue being with co-sleeping itself.

I may of course be wrong because there is a balance of facts that is slightly distorted by the reporting, but I don't think my reading of it is ridiculous. I think and hope we are missing further context on the co-sleeping.

Oh come on! how would they know about the co-sleeping?
Because she is using it as a cover story for the bruising 'oh they fell out of bed, accidentally kicked one another, rolled on him etc.SS know's full well its a lie but tell her not to so she can't use that excuse.Bruises keep appearing so she says they are still co-sleeping.

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.

There is a difference between advice and orders, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore advice. Cosleeping is obviously tricky because there's no one universal consensus, but think about baby food: there's no order or law that says you have to wait until 6months to give your baby puree, but if a parent was advised to wait and then fed a 2 day old baby puree and the baby choked, wouldn't you expect them to be asked why they ignored the advice?

I think this thread is scaremongering, nevermind the Telegraph article.

ConfusedCod: That may well be it.

There is a difference between advice and orders, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore advice

If you can't ignore advice, it's not advice!

They aren't going to tell them not to co-sleep unless there is a good reason for this. The article doesn't give very much detail at all about anything so it's unsurprising that this information isn't included.

My HV advised me to co-sleep when I needed to build my milk supply up, after being ill. In this case, though, even realising that the headline completely misses the point Iie the physical abuse), the article doesn't state why this mother was specifically warned against co-sleeping. For all we know the parents might have smoked or routinely been drunk or high, which are all absolute no-nos for co-sleeping, even to the most understanding of HVs.

I was a CP SW, the part that stood out for me was "the Mother thinks she knows best", I think that is in regards to the feeding issues.

That is beside the possible physical abuse.

I've known babies to be on solids at weeks old, bottle hygiene not adhered to etc.

They've probably been offered Parenting classes etc, but refused them and possibly non engagement.

There isn't a need for details, the children are going for adoption.

It's the Telegraphs reporting that's confusing.

It takes a hell off a lot more then co-sleeping to have your children removed.

It's never a decision children's services take lightly either.

(Personal experience im not a SW)

It's the whole context OP.

My eldest has had a SS care assessment or two (he's severely disabled). There's a 'red flag' question on there about whether vaccinations are up to date. Now my youngest kids have never been vaccinated and his are not up to date but it's not seen as a CP issue as I can a) explain why & have good reasons b) have spoken to medics about it and c) take the kids to routine and emergency medical appointments. If I just hadn't had them done because I couldn't be arsed or was refusing jabs while giving them a diet only consisting of yak's milk or it was part of wider neglect then it would be an issue.

So the co sleeping thing will be similar. Co-sleeping is fine unless it's part of neglect & children just having to find a bed space where they can or adults drinking/smoking/drug taking while the kids sleep next to them. Then not so much.

SS are fairly liberal in their views of what can be good parenting but they work on risks. So if a parental behaviour is putting children at risk it will be picked up - not for reasons of morality or style of child rearing- but to protect the children.

""If you can't ignore advice, it's not advice!""

You can ignore advice for yourself, but if you continually ignore advice in regards to your children and they are coming to harm, then SS will step in because they aren't yours to injure/kill.

I wonder why the headline just states they were taken from the mother when clearly they were taken from the father too.

It's only advice that you shouldn't wean before 6 months. It still doesn't mean you can feed Maccy D's to a newborn and not expect a knock on the door from children's services.

HV gives advice, you ignore it and do things your own way; HV doesn't know you've ignored the advice because no harm come to your child - no problem.

HV gives advice, you ignore it, your child presents with further bruising as a result of the advice being ignored - problem.

If not following someone's advice is likely to seriously injure or kill my child, it should be a law. If there is debate around a practise, like there is with co-sleeping, weaning, breastfeeding, it is advice because no-one can tell you for certain that doing X or Y is categorically the best way, even when they believe it is personally.

So if the HV advises me not to give my child solids until 6 months and she chokes on a carrot stick at 5 months, that's not neglect. It was only advice.

PickAChew: Maybe so, but wouldn't it be mentioned in the report if they were routinely not in a fit state to care for the children? I'm not being argumentative, I would just be surprised that the co-sleeping warranted a mention and the drug abuse didn't!