How deprived do you have to be to move in a man into your home a day of ‘knowing’ him on Facebook? *[Content warning: concerns child abuse]

Have these cases increased since the abolition of Sure Start?

Butyou can't catch it all. It's well known that prevention is in most cases better that cure. Yes you may have limited opportunity to prevent evil abusers. But there will be a huge amount of peoplewho aren't necessarily evil or "bad", but who can't cope or don't have the skills to provide a good home life for their kids.

Well understanding is the route to prevention. If we can understand why someone might turn out the way they do in these cases, or the factors contributing to that, we on a societal level might have a chance to reduce the risk of that happening to others.

Help children who are in less than ideal home situations have a chance to make a better future for themselves. Support them to learn the skills they need to take care of themselves and their kids and grow up to be happy and well balanced individuals with good opportunities.

Ok, yes. But you help them by removing them. Your earlier posts seems to be implying that we should try to understand why these parents do this and help them learn skills. They won't. Remove the children so they can be raised in a decent environment and then yes, they will learn very different skills.

The things we are saying aren't mutually exclusive. But you've somehow decided I hate and blame abuse victims for all ills. And I don't know why you are addressing me about single parents, I've said nothing against them (generally) or you as a single parent (specifically) at all.

I am not saying that at all. But this idea that it's "understandable" that some people abuse and kill their children because it happened to them is wrong. It never is. And frankly why they did it matters not. What matters is preventing it and safeguarding children properly which UK society does not do because nobody wants to fund child removal at an appropriate - much lower - threshold. Lola and many like her would still be alive if this was the case. And then fund proper upbringings for those children in care homes fit for purpose and designed to give those children more opportunities than most so that their outcomes can be equivalent to the general population and their trauma treated.

And support for single mothers to raise their children alone without involving random men and considering this the norm. People respecting single mothers rather than disparaging them, given they are the ones who stick around and are doing the work of two people. As I said, not taxing them double on the same household income as a two parent household, just levelling the playing field financially and make it viable for them to provide a decent standard of living for their children alone would be an obvious first step that would more than pay for itself hence other countries doing similar, and make it far less likely they'd get stuck on welfare or shack up with new partners for financial reasons.

And my comments weren't just to you but also referencing many of the other comments on this thread. I'm not attacking you. I'm frustrated with the same comments every time a tragedy like this happens and them people going down rabbit holes trying to dissect the psychology of people who were clearly never going to be capable of raising a child properly, and making excuses for them, rather than actually pressuring politicians to implement policies that would protect vulnerable children.

I could be wrong, but I think parents had to want to be involved with sure start . An acquaintance of my partner’s had social services involvement, and they never took their children to any of the free activities avalible locally .

It feels aspects of society are broken.

I was a single parent after ExH left. Not my choice.

My own moral compass meant I did not ever consider more children with another man. I didn't want two sets of children with two different fathers’.
I put my children first. The more children I chose to have, the harder our lives would be.
I have a good education, a profession and ambition. Hard though it was I could support myself and my children. I had a choice to be independent, a earned enough to make up my ExH’s shortfall. I didn't need to rely on him. Freedom through having a choice.

I am in another relationship. A colleague. We already knew each other. We took it slowly, coffee, lunch, outings in a group. My DC’s met him as a friend from work, a brief coffee, a walk in the park.

He didn't stay at mine for months and months. When he did it was as a guest in the spare room, again, occasionally, over months and months.

I did want my DC’s to see that although damaged by my marriage, I could rebuild myself, I be respected, I could use my moral compass, my independence and education to recover.

I could rebuild our lives.

Butyou can't catch it all. It's well known that prevention is in most cases better that cure.

I know. I've said that, too. But if you care about it you implement policies that will make it much, much rarer.

Yes you may have limited opportunity to prevent evil abusers. But there will be a huge amount of peoplewho aren't necessarily evil or "bad", but who can't cope or don't have the skills to provide a good home life for their kids.

Yep. And they never will. So you lower the removal threshold, substantially.

Ok, yes. But you help them by removing them. Your earlier posts seems to be implying that we should try to understand why these parents do this and help them learn skills. They won't. Remove the children so they can be raised in a decent environment and then yes, they will learn very different skills.

We are saying the same thing. Teach the children well so they don't end up repeating the disfunctions of their parents.

Understanding doesn't mean excusing, and I mantain it's key to preventing. I alsomaintain that the only way we can learn how to prevent this type of things happening in society (not in the individual family with the individual parents) is by understanding the factors for why it happened in the first place. Which, to your point, could also help identify parents that need help BEFORE they do damage. IF this woman had been helped to cope with her life and parenting early on MAYBE she would not have allowed this guy into her home. MAYBE if she had confidentence and support and some opportunity in life she wouldnt' have caused this in the way she did.

Your earlier posts seems to be implying that we should try to understand why these parents do this and help them learn skills

What? That's the precise opposite of everything I've been saying.

Which, to your point, could also help identify parents that need help BEFORE they do damage. IF this woman had been helped to cope with her life and parenting early on MAYBE she would not have allowed this guy into her home. MAYBE if she had confidentence and support and some opportunity in life she wouldnt' have caused this in the way she did.

No.

It is blatantly obvious which parents should not be parents.

Social services do not have the power to remove the children or anywhere appropriate to send them.

Lower the threshold. And provide decent upbringings for them. That is the answer.

The "mother" in question in this case DID have a lot of support. She had the Freedom programme, twice. Social services. A domestic violence worker. She was not capable of being a parent. Social services knew this. They saw the squalid house. They knew she'd subjected her children to violent people previously. They didn't remove the children. This woman was NEVER going to be a fit parent and I highly doubt this wasn't obvious to everyone involved. If it wasn't then they're not fit to be in those roles.

So now Lola is dead. And her siblings will grow up traumatised knowing their mother was complicit in the abuse and murder of their sister.

Ok, yes. But you help them by removing them. Your earlier posts seems to be implying that we should try to understand why these parents do this and help them learn skills. They won't. Remove the children so they can be raised in a decent environment and then yes, they will learn very different skills.

That was a quote from you.

So take kids away at birth? Or better yet, steralise them at puberty when it is so blatantly obvious what awful parents they would be?

I am talking much more generally (ref my earlier point), not just about this specific case. I think a lot of people could be helped BEFORE they become bad parents - before the become parents at all - although perhaps you are right, not this woman.

@Itsbytheby yes. Which part of it do you not understand? It says they won't learn skills, the children need to be removed.

No need to be rude.

But I find it quite a shocking concept that you - generally - think SS should go around assessing pregnant mothers and if they think they won't be great parents should remove their children at birth.

Ok, yes. But you help them by removing them. Your earlier posts seems to be implying that we should try to understand why these parents do this and help them learn skills. They won't. Remove the children so they can be raised in a decent environment and then yes, they will learn very different skills.

I really don't understand what part of this is unclear to you @Itsbytheby ?

These people shouldn't be parents and will never be adequate parents no matter what you do. So you need to remove the kids at a much lower threshold, as I've said repeatedly.

You were talking about trying to "understand" the parents and teach them "skills". I said they are not capable of doing so and why they do what they do is irrelevant and the focus should be on removing and safeguarding the children and giving them a decent childhood. And then those children will have a very different life and learn very different life skills because they'll have a decent upbringing away from their abusive parents.

I really don't understand how you could possibly have misunderstood what I've said, it's very clear.

I'm going to step away from this thread now as it's making me so angry and upset and I feel like I'm being gaslit.

But there is no helping some people. Truly. Their scumbag traits run too deep.

I agree with you, @Nepmarthiturn

So take kids away at birth? Or better yet, steralise them at puberty when it is so blatantly obvious what awful parents they would be?

FFS. What?

These children were living in a filthy house, clearly neglected. Their mother had subjected them to random males in their home and witnessing domestic violence and then moved in another random man. Social services had even felt the need to warn her not to move random drug addicts into her children's home yet she did it again and still the children weren't removed. Child walking around with black eyes and covered in bruises.

How the fuck did you get from that to "sterilise them at puberty"?

I'm out.

I’m tired of reading about murdered kids whilst we collectively figure out how to “help” or “prevent” their parents from carrying out such heinous acts. After many years working with “hard to help” families the conclusion I’ve come to is that some people just can’t be helped. The best outcomes for the children in those families is to be removed from their care from an early age and or at birth and allow them a chance at a happier and healthier life away from the feckless adults who continue to have babies they can’t or won’t look after properly.

A lot of women will and do choose men over their kids, a lot of women I’ve worked with prioritise their own needs to feel loved/desired /wanted/taken care of over the needs and safety of their children. You can implement as many interventions as you want, Freedom programme/parenting course/1:1 family and parental support but some adults can’t and won’t choose to prioritise their kid over some feckless useless partner who goes on to kill their child whilst they either look the other way or actively enable it.

So you are proposing removing children at birth then? Even before people become parents?

I am trying to understand what you are saying, because frankly sounds outrageous to me. What's next, we just sterilise them before they even become pregnant? Maybe at 16 SS could visit all girls, assess whether they would be bad mums.

Some will become very bad parents regardless, but I would think many people - with the correct help, support and intervention early on, not just with parenting but with life in general. This woman, maybe if she had had support much eaerlier in her life, her life (and that of her kids) could have been different too.

You are taking what i am saying as some kind of support or sympathy with the parents in these case, parents that abuse children. That's not what it is.

And please don't accuse me of gaslighting. I am doing nothing of the sort. We simply disagree and if you don't want to engage further that's absolutely your prerogative.

So at what stage?

I am talking about help and support for children who did not learn the skills or have a good upbringing. To help them have the skills, tools and opportunity to not fall into a cycle of bad family dynamics. I am talking about BEFORE they have kids, BEFORE they become parents, nevermind bad parents. Which is why I don't get what you were saying about taking away kids "early on". It can't really be much earlier can it?!

I am not talking about understanding Lola's mother, to help Lola's mother with her future parenting. Jeez, even I can see that boat has sailed. I am talking about understanding why to provide the help and support so it doesn't happen to others.

So we are talking cross purposes here.

I agree completely.

I am sick of people making excuses for these people and trying to "help" them instead of prioritising child safeguarding and preventing many of these tragedies by removing the children much, much earlier and - as a society - insisting we fund a good life for children in care.

@Itsbytheby I've explained the policies I think need to be implemented very clearly, several times now.

These are based on international evidence of what works in other countries. Abuse and neglect should always result in child removal. Your comments about sterilising adolescents before they have children are ridiculous and nothing to do with anything I have said, which is that when there is evidence that somebody is not parenting properly children should be removed immediately.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore when your comments show you are incapable of/ haven't bothered to read what I've written already.

As a survivor of an abusive childhood I'm finding this thread very upsetting. I thought it worth engaging in the hope people would listen and pressure for changes to policies but I can't cope with being attacked like this and accused of saying the opposite of what I've said so I am hiding the thread now.

I am sorry you feel this way and for your experiences.

I am not attacking you, I am disagreeing with you on some points which kind of is the nature of the AIBU game. And we are talking cross purposes - you are clearly not reading my posts/ points properly either, but there really is no need to insinuate I am stupid as you have now done repeatedly.

This is so true.