Social services taking babies away...

[lookattheshorts]

From mother's with previous mental health issues? Is this true?

Lots of my friends and family seem to be sharing the same story, the one of Kerry Blackaller. Has anyone else heard of her story?

I'll do my best to link the appropriate sources.

www.change.org/p/kerry-blackaller-help-get-lyla-blu-home-where-she-belongs-to-her-heart-broken-mommy-kerry/u/23400921

Are people being unreasonable to say social services do sometimes take children away when it isn't actually the right thing?

Some children might be left and others removed because of their age. If a parent is not feeding a baby enough that is serious. If a parent is not feeding a teenager enough but there is food for the teenager to make a meal themselves, they may be left.

@lookattheshorts

It is utterly disgusting to share photos and personal information of an adopted child. You put this child at risk with this thread. You should be ashamed.

Forceful adoption is wrong, for a child to be removed that easily

Child abuse is wrong. It is not at all easy to remove a child from an abuser. They all claim they were wronged, they all seem plausible, especially the worst monsters.

That doesn't mean SS are perfect or that we couldn't spend more money on early intervention, but the people who work with SS and accept support don't get their kids removed, and the cases of serious wrongdoing by SW are very rare.

Do we wait until children are in hospital having been battered to an inch of their lives?

No, we usually wait longer than that. Sadly most adopted children experience at least some permanent damage from their birth 'parents'. Even the ones lucky enough to be removed at birth are often damaged in the uterus.

It is right that the evidence for such a drastic step should be high and it's impossible to prevent much of this harm; but no dickhead who opines about 'forced adoption' being wrong has had to look after a child who didn't escape soon enough.

Chelle the problem with what you said -^The mother can then argue her case and get the child back if she can show she isn't a risk.

Better that than leaving the child to come to harm^

The problem is that removing babies from their mother/primary carer is hugely, hugely damaging to the baby. It’s not a no or low risk activity. There is every chance the trauma of being removed is worse than the home situation. It’s therfore imperative that the decision is made on facts and on the judgement of very capable people because the risk of getting it wrong either way are appalling.

Havent RTFT.

Yes it's true, infact because of my previous MH issues my daughter was placed on Child Protection (the stage before court proceedings to have the child removed) under the category of Neglect, 5 days before she was even born. They didn't even give me the chance to prove myself. But I was lucky. Some women don't get that choice. And for what it's worth, the support I've recieved from the SS has been very helpful. If anyone is ever placed in the same position, be civil and work with them. Nobody wants to separate families, they just want to make sure you and your child are safe.

@donquixotedelamancha

I agree with you, sadly. I also know the damage that adopted children go through, I'm the adoptive mum of 2 adopted DDs. I've spoken about DD1's issues earlier in the thread. But it would have been far worse for her and her other siblings (DD2 lives with us, but she has 2 other siblings living elsewhere) if they had stayed with their birth parents.

There are no easy answers in most cases, social workers have to make judgement calls. I would not want to be in their position.

Yes sometimes social services destroy families...Permanantly

Yes sometimes they do it immediately, when there have been NO OTHER INTERVENTIONS OR INCIDENTS...over a decades history of parenting...One accident happens and bam, kids are in care

Just one accident is all it can take

Trust me, I know

It destroys lives.

Obviously I don't know the full facts, so what I'm about to say is my opinion from my experience only. Also I follow this lady, if you scroll down her profile to August it would seem she did get her child back, what has changed since I'm not sure.

I have two family members, both had social services intervention. One had severe psychosis due to drug use, yet his children have remained in foster care for four years now and he sees them for full weekends at a time.

The other family member was a full on heroin addict, his child was dragged from pillar to post, lived in a b&b. Family member was off his face 24/7, child was lucky to be fed and still social services only removed the child when b&b owner reported drugs in his room. Still after this he was given chance after chance, social services tried to find him many times to encourage him to turn things around, to be a parent to his child. The last time they knocked on my door I begged them to never give this person another chance, I was only 18 but I knew what I had seen was neglect and the child was finally adopted out. It took a lot for them to remove the child.

I just can't see why social services would be allowed to take children for nothing. Nearly every parent I know has or has had anxiety or depression, including myself, nobody takes your children for these reasons alone and if your very unwell they will try and place the child with a relative.

Momo18 could you not do long term kinship fostering for these children?

Does anybody remember the lady on here who had severe MH issues and had been abused herself as a child who decided to give up her infant daughter because she knew she couldn’t cope and wanted her to have a better life?

She was amazing and extremely inspirational. It was very sad she couldn’t care for her daughter, but she loved her so much she couldn’t bear passing on the spiral of unhappiness of her own childhood on to her.

This thread reminded me of her. Sometimes I think when these people with dreadful problems keep on fighting it’s because they don’t actually love them enough to let them go.

I often wonder about both of them and how they’re getting on. I hope they’re both happy.

Separating a child from her parents should only be done in extreme circumstances, IMO

It is. Children are left in abusive situations far too long generally.

It is not at all easy to remove a child from an abuser. They all claim they were wronged, they all seem plausible, especially the worst monsters.

Sadly so so true.

The problem is that removing babies from their mother/primary carer is hugely, hugely damaging to the baby.

It's much more damaging to leave them in a bad situation.

Actually Kelly, it’s not always better to take a child into the care system than to leave them with bad parents. That’s why the courts find it so hard to know if they are doing the right thing. Children aren’t ‘saved’ when they go into care. They are starting what is often a path to another fresh hell. Some are lucky but many are not.

I think that I possibly would have agreed with kelly once.

It is possible to have a pre-conceived idea of a parent who “cannot cope” - who smokes and drinks and takes drugs possibly, who has a messy, dirty, chaotic home, who provides her children with food of a poor nutritional value and lets them watch television until all hours and they don’t get enough sleep and they roam around the streets and so on.

It’s easy to think that, had they been removed from that parent at birth or as a very young baby, and given to a ‘nice’ couple, who provide fresh vegetables and books and lets face it, encapsulate what we might think of as a middle class approach to parenting, all would be well.

This view is rooted in snobbery, but it doesn’t surprise me. Yes, people will protest that it is only when children are actively harmed that they should be removed, but children are harmed in many ways.

People often leap onto extreme examples - sexual abuse, children beaten - obviously removal then is a necessary evil. But I come across numerous cases where this isn’t happening, where the ‘abuse’ is non existent and where the children have been removed due to being, in the opinion of SS, at ‘risk’ of harm.

That is far more nuanced and difficult to gauge. The point isn’t whether or not a child should be able to stay in a home where she is sexually abused - she obviously shouldn’t - but if someone is saying ‘we have reason to believe that if she stays in this home harm will befall her in the future’ then that illustrates a disconnect between the core belief that children suffer all manners of indignities and terrible wrongs prior to removal. In other words, it comes down to an opinion - and that opinion may sometimes align with mine. Other times it does not.

SS are generally dealing with people who are poorly educated and who are instinctively hostile to them as many of them have been through the care system themselves. It is very easy to take advantage of that and present matters in a way that is technically true but puts actions and motivations in the worst possible light.

but if someone is saying ‘we have reason to believe that if she stays in this home harm will befall her in the future’

The 'reason' will be that they have been harmed already. It's impossible to remove a child based on predicted future harm without very strong evidence. So a chaotic, intravenous henoin user or an alcoholic for example neither of whom are seeking any support to manage it- strong evidence of future harm.
But a messy, chaotic house with poor diet, non routines etc is not evidence enough to remove a child.
Children often experience long term neglect, poor school attendance, horrible home conditions (sleeping on a foam mattress on the floor with no sheets, sleeping top to tail on a sofa etc because their bedrooms are cluttered with broken furniture and crap, sleeping in rooms that reek of cat urine, you can't imagine) health needs not met, teeth rotting out of their heads, barely able to speak by reception, and they still don't meet the criteria for care proceedings until many interventions have been tried and failed. With neglect, you HAVE TO let the child come to a lot more harm before you can go to court, because you have to evidence that you've done all you can to help the parents change before you do. It's a total myth that children can be removed just on the basis of hypothetical projected future harm - there MUST be very strong evidence.

Nope, as others have said and myself who've been through it.

Our babies have been under SS before birth. Considered at risk of harm.

Certainly in my case no harm had happened in pregnancy to the baby.... I attended appointments, took vitamins, ate organic, sang to bump etc

I also had a mental health crisis

They could well have decided to remove my baby prior to birth. They didn't, thankfully. But another woman in my shoes yes they may have decided there would be a removal at birth due to my history and mental health crisis

If your mental health crisis meant you were likely to have neglected or harmed your baby then yes. Clearly in your case the evidence suggested not, but in other cases it will. I'm not sure why you are using your example to prove that social services remove babies with insufficient evidence- in your case the system seemingly worked as it should.

Because I challenged inaccuracies

Because being a "middle class couple" meant accepting my husbands excuse for slapping me round the face and using him as a "protective factor" against the harm they supposed I would cause to my child due to my MH

I had to give birth IN FRONT OF a bloody mental health nurse (or it was a social worker)

Social services were alerted the moment I went into labour

My baby was already on a pathway to possibly being removed from my care.

Due to my abusive husband they weren't

I do agree with @immortalmarble that there is clearly more likely to be SS involvement with lower income families, especially among those who have been through the care system. This is because they're known to SS, whereas 'nice middle class families' are not (unless you're an adoptive family).

Obviously abuse is as likely to happen in 'nice middle class' families. I was from such a family and my siblings and I suffered horrendous abuse. But who was going to notify SS? The only people who really knew were employees (they owned a language school and we lived in as a family for 2 years.

Also, middle class people are able to pay for legal advice, which is a significant advantage now that Legal Aid has been abolished. They're also able to navigate the system more easily, keep up with the paperwork and speak up for themselves at the conferences.

I saw this very clearly when our DDs' birth mum showed up at DD2's final adoption hearing in a last ditch attempt to stop the Adoption Order going through. It was a very scary time for me personally, as it would really have delayed the process if she had made a formal application. But I could also see how the system was stacked against her; DD2's social worker really wanted to help her fill in the forms but he was told that that wouldn't be appropriate as the care plan was for DD2 to grow up with her birth sister, who had already been adopted.

I thought it was all very wrong; there should have been help available to her to help her fill in those forms, even if not the social worker. She was given 3 weeks to make an application, and in the end didn't show up at the rescheduled final hearing. Hardly surprising really.

Hideandgo I'm well aware of the darkside of being in care. The sister home to the one I was in was a bad place, thankfully closed and knocked down now. I've also known kids be pushed round multiple foster parents, separated from siblings and things like that.

If they were taken from abusive parents earlier, then they have far more chance of being placed and hopefully adopted.

The kids that passed through the home I was in, if they were 4-5 years old then they got adopted. The kids 6 years+ had no chance.

I personally think I'm alive today and a good mother bonded with my kid due to excellent support I had in an MBU

I feel that if other women were given more access to such things - many children would be saved the care system in early years.

It costs a fortune though. But if they rolled out some of the sessions I had with a baby psychologist and perhaps offered it as a day treatment service I think a lot of women would be able to cope far better

The process of a child being freed for adoption is a long and complicated one, and the ultimate decision is made by a judge, not a social worker. Social workers have to provide evidence that all options have been considered, including placing children with kinship careers under a Child Arrangements order or Special Guardianship Order which allow a parent to keep PR. The child will have a guardian and a solicitor, both can and do challenge decisions by social workers that do not appear to be in a child’s best interests. The parents get legal representation. Judges make a decision based on extensive evidence and reports, and they do go against recommendations, and criticise social workers publicly, if they are not happy. Children are only adopted because they are at risk of significant harm, and fortunately in this country a child’s safety and welfare is more important than the parent’s needs and wishes. Whilst it is always incredibly sad when a child is adopted, society has a duty to vulnerable children who cannot protect or care for themselves.

fortunately in this country a child’s safety and welfare is more important than the parent’s needs and wishes.

It would be fantastic if it was true, but sadly often not.

The process of a child being freed for adoption is a long and complicated one, and the ultimate decision is made by a judge, not a social worker.

Absolutely. SW don't just take children away for nothing.

SS are generally dealing with people who are poorly educated and who are instinctively hostile to them

Actually I think you would be amazed how often middle class, comfortably off, well educated people come on to the radar of SS. They tend to be better at hiding the skeletons in their closets though and smart enough to realise what they need to do to get rid - which is cooperate.

Poorly educated people tend to be the ones who think they can argue with the social worker that bedtime at 2am with a donner kebab for dinner and pizza leftcout overnight for breakfast and living in a house with six Akitas and four pit bull types whilst their parents drink and take drugs is a perfectly, healthy, stable and safe environment for a 3 yo.

Nobody is arguing for anyone's right to neglect their children

The point is being made that for some it's easier to engage with social services and not assume you have to fight them because you hear lots of long words and scary suggestions that you don't understand and don't know how to obtain support and advice in the same situations as those who've been blessed to access more education and more money