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?

Anyway, thanks, all.

The not co-sleeping with drugs and alcohol thing is common sense. My AD has mild sedative affects, if I'd co-slept with my DD's I would of been putting them in danger.

I would probably class that as putting my DC at risk of harm.

Reads to me like they were removed because they were at risk from their utterly shit parents Op. not sure why you don't get that?

Trifle, why are you determined to see this as "child taken into care for co-sleeping". It's clearly not that.

Yes but there is the advice given by a HV when there are no CP issues and the advice given by a team of professionals when a child is on a CP plan. They are different. The co sleeping advice will in all probability been part of a ten point plan that the parents were ' advised' to follow if they didn't want to loose their child.

wouldn't it be mentioned in the report if they were routinely not in a fit state to care for the children?

I suppose that depends on the agenda of the Telegraph or the journalist. If they're pushing the "social workers steal babies" line or they're anti co-sleeping for some reason they might well omit some facts.

AyeAmarok: I'm not. I was just confused by the relevance of the co-sleeping to the case for reasons I have explained.

birdsdestiny: That makes the most sense.

YouHadMeAtCake: I didn't say I didn't get that. I specifically said I did get that there was other issues.

It's really best not to draw conclusions about legal rulings without reading the actual judgment. Journalists are notoriously dreadful about accurately reporting legal reasoning. Without reading the original judgment, we have absolutely no way of knowing what part co-sleeping did or didn't play in the decision making process. I don't see that anything is to be gained by speculating.

OP, this can only be understand in context, not as a stand-alone issue. I think in most CP cases there will be a number of factors presented. Some will be obviously red flags - non-accidental injury, not feeding a child etc. And then there will be others that in themselves don't justify taking a child into care, but may together tell you a lot about what is happening. For example, home schooling, messy house, not registered with a GP, NC with extended family, persistent nits, refusing access to HV. None of these factors necessarily indicate bad parenting, and they would not trigger a CP investigation in themselves, but you can see that in an abusive situation they may take on a new meaning. For example, no problem with home schooling - but if children are being abused their parents may not want teachers (or GPs, or HVs) to see bruising.

We have so many CP threads on MN where people react to a single factor and shout indignantly, "Well my children sleep on a mattress! Does that mean the social workers will take them off me?" No it doesn't. And of course parents can refuse advice. But where there are serious concerns about the standard of parenting, and they are refusing to engage properly with professionals, and acting recklessly with regard to their children's welfare - then yes it's pertinent to CP. And with co-sleeping, if it is happening on a filthy mattress with parents who are addicted or violent or bringing new partners into the bed - then yes it would be a big red flag.

And now I have read the judgement, and it is clear that the main issues here were a series of unexplained injuries.

More to the point, a series of unexplained injuries which the mother tried to blame on the older baby.

I was holding out some hope that other papers might pick up on the case and present more balanced reports, but nope, the Independent has simply pretty much copied the Telegraph article, citing it as its source. Ditto The Sun, which prefaces the sensationalist headline with "Mother's Nightmare"

The coverage in the Sun is bizarre. Half way down the article they just drop in that one of the boys - at a few months old- had a broken wrist? The antisocial worker slant is so strong that they are willing to present parents who broke a baby's bone as the wronged party?!?

As others have said, the co-sleeping was a minor issue here, although commonly co sleeping is a dangerous factor in the lives of childen who are abused or neglected. Lay over deaths are still not uncommon, most children's social workers in my team have seen at least one in their careers. Common factors -drink drugs, parents with other health problems, parents who are very overweight.

As others have said the refusal to take on advice here is why this was mentioned in the judgement. Its important to understand how parents will engage with professionals generally when thinking about whether they an change their abusive /neglectful behaviours.

Why was co sleeping cited at all? I don't get it. I co sleep (out of necessity in order for us all to get some sleep) and will do for as long as needed and hate the implication that I am doing something wrong.

Agree with everyone else, the signs of violence were clearly the main issue. I think for co sleeping to have been mentioned there must have been more to it, i.e. substance abuse or children not having a bed of their own or something.

I co sleep (out of necessity in order for us all to get some sleep) and will do for as long as needed and hate the implication that I am doing something wrong

Well have a word with the Telegraph then.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2016/B109.html

Above is full report.

The Times mentioned the co-sleeping issue in their coverage of the case too.

Thank you Wits

So down to neglect and abuse then. Thank goodness they were removed. Awful bloody people. Those boys lives have been saved.

The issue that I see there is that it gives to people he idea that co-sleeping is the work of the devil and should never happen.
Most people won't read the whole article or won't read it with a critical eye so what they will remember is the fact co-sleeping was a reason to take away a child.

I think it's lazy journalism. And give co sleeping a bad name.

The reports detailing the parenting and abuse issues would be long and complex and backed up by evidence. Reports by not only social workers but the guardian and doctors and probably psychologists etc. Judge will have had case before him numerous times so would know the case well and would have made rulings previously. Final decision will also have been lengthy and would have covered every concern previously raised. Newspaper will have edited this down to what the reporter feels is most sensational or what parents felt (often mistakenly) are the key issues. The co-sleeping in this case was probably just evidence that the parents refused to change their neglectful parenting which had led to the children suffering harm.
Case I heard of child 15 months suffered broken arm. Everyone denied knowledge but evidence pointed to mum who was volatile. Told grandparents (who lived with family) needed to supervise child and mum not to be left alone with her in the meantime. Mother found to be co-sleeping with child. Father refused to intervene and threatened to kill any SS staff he met. Child removed

What a surprise, there was more to this case than initially reported.

The co-sleeping and problems with feeding were evidence that the mother was unwilling to listen to advice about how to feed and look after her children. But they were removed because of the traumatic injuries she gave the baby. Attachment issues or disorder is highly likely in this situation. Basically fucks up the child's brain development and they never truly recover from it, fearing people and not being able to trust any adult so that they can't be educated well. Sounds like the mother may have attachment issues herself.

Also, the slightly older child was scapegoated by her which was emotional abuse and again likely to lead to mental health issues in him.