To think that an overweight mother should not have her newborn taken away?

[oska]

Dundee Social Services has taken away a woman's baby hours after birth as she is overweight. I find this utterly disgraceful that yet again, SW are interfering when they should be tracking down real abusers! Poor little baby not able to breastfeed mummy's milk, listen to mummy's reassuring heartbeat and bond. Poor Mum having her new baby taken away to some god knows who foster family. I don't know the detail, but the face of it, it's outrageous!

YANBU but surely there must be something more to it, as a lot of people are overweight these days but babies not taken?

There's been a thread on this and there were a lot of other reasons.

I think they did the right thing. Particularly since they spent a fortune (100k?) trying to help this family first.

Baby has been returned to family - they have had all seven of their children removed " over a series of concerns, including obesity."

Dundee Courier article here

Remember, too, that Dundee Social Services are under extraordinary scrutiny at the moment in the wake of the Brandon Muir case.

"Social workers were especially concerned by the weight of the couple?s 12-year-old boy, who was more than 16 stone, his 11-year-old sister weighing 12 stone and another three-year-old child who weighed four stone."

That's shocked the hell out of me.

The family have had 7 children up to 13 years old taken away over the last couple of months it was just the 2 youngest aged 3&4 at first they have tried to help the family their 13 year old is 16 stone, 11 year old is 12 stone and 3 year old 4 stone the council has spent over £100,000 on trying to help them.

Thanks for all the info and the latest, but the issue I struggle with is taking a newborn away HOURS after birth. This is wrong on so many levels. If there is a real danger, then fair enough at a later stage, but not when there is vital bonding and early feeding to be done. I think perhaps SS need to realise that some families just can't be helped however much money you chuck at them. But weight really is still no reason to take a child away when there are so many other abusers who keep their children. If resources are tight (they always are) then I think they need to look at their priorities.

I just cannot understand how those kids have got to that weight. I am genuinely baffled.

Whilst I do not know the finer details of this case, I am very suspicious of the perfectly rounded sum of £100,000 'leaked' to the press.

Allowing a three year old to weigh four stone is child abuse. Perhaps the idea is to intervene before abuse of the baby can begin? Why wait for the damage to be done when past performance shows they don't seem to be able to parent effectively?

AS for "vital early feeding" I hate to say it but I really really doubt this woman BFs her children. Call me judgy I bet I am right (and no, I don't think all mothers who FF are abusers who should have their children removed).

"I don't know the detail"

exactly.

Children aren't just whipped into care. The SW will have assessed and the team manager will have made the decision. The file goes to court; a judge decides

Yes, there are some mistakes.

But when you clearly, admittedly, don't know the facts, all threads like this do is further batter the reputation of social workers and contribute to a general atmosphere in which social work becomes a career that less and less people want, and how can that help children?

oska the problem is the amount of health problems these kids will get if a child wasn't being fed we would call it abuse overfeeding is also abuse as far as i'm concerned.

"Yes, there are some mistakes".

This is Dundee Social Services we are discussing. Google the Brandon Muir case.

Gentleotter the council has spent OVER £100,000 on the family it wasn't leaked it was during an interview on local radio stations, I heard it when I was up that way last month after the 2 little ones were taken in to care.

Thanks for all the info and the latest, but the issue I struggle with is taking a newborn away HOURS after birth. This is wrong on so many levels. If there is a real danger, then fair enough at a later stage, but not when there is vital bonding and early feeding to be done. I think perhaps SS need to realise that some families just can't be helped however much money you chuck at them. But weight really is still no reason to take a child away when there are so many other abusers who keep their children. If resources are tight (they always are) then I think they need to look at their priorities.

The effects of such extreme obesity will affect them for their whole life, even if they get back to "normal" weight quickly. The lasting effects of obesity are worse then the lasting effects of being underweight. Much worse. It is abuse and neglect but people look and say "well she is feeding them so she cannot be harming them...." which is just rubbish. It is definitly an attitude that needs to be addressed.

A three year old being that weight has been over-fed for a long long time so, yes, I can see just why they felt the need to step in early this time. They clearly have no intention of addressing the issue having had so much support already.

As for early bonding, wouldn't it be wrose to allow the child to bond and then take it away?

Who mentioned it on the local radio? Was it one of the parents or someone from SS, borderslass?

Hello again, thanks for all the views, thoughts and facts. I appreciate SS don't do these things on a whim, but hours after birth is still, I feel, wrong. Even if she doesn't breastfeed, a few days colostrum is still possible, or am I being too optimistic? They could at least wait a few days...

Can't remember but I remember being horrified about the weight of the 13 year old, one of the little girls is also special needs but they weren't specific to what was wrong.

But what good would that do the child Oska? I appreciate you are feeling all maternal for the baby and I do understand where that comes from but, in this case, I cannot actually see how it would help the baby.

erm £100k is a relatively modest sum in the great scheme of SS/ public sector spending, a single child can cost 10k per month in temp sw fees/ transport/ therapist time... very easily.

i collect debt for some public sector providers - you get 3-5k invoices relating to single childrens monthly bills.

In my experience all the midwives and HV's categorically state that at least to give the baby early colostrum or else the child could have health problems later in life... All I'm saying is that they should at least wait for those few days.

Mind you, MW and HV say lots of things...

oska alot of mothers don't care and go straight for the easy option of the bottle.