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]

They didn't say children shouldn't be removed, they said that basically it's shutting the stable door after the horse is bolted.

Every single outcome that can be measured is worse for children that have been in care. It's not a case of anyone saying don't remove children, it's saying the damage is already being done and then being in care often exacerbates existing damage.

That poster is absolutely correct that preventative intervention is far more useful in the bigger picture than what currently happens. Which is where children are born into families who are ill-equipped to parent and then we wait until things have become extremely dangerous before those children are removed.

And then those children grow up and because of all they've been through, they are ill-equipped to be parents and the same things happen to their children. And down the generations.

Most cases won't meet the thresholds to be removed and in weighing up the damage caused by staying at home or going into care, staying at home often seems less damaging. So it’s a choice between shit or shit.

Rarely, those decisions result in the death of a child and then everyone wants to blame the authorities for not doing enough. But this is end-stage stuff. The causative factors began years or generations before.

That's what that poster was getting at.

I 100% agree with this and feel it's something that is rarely considered. They prey on these women because a lot of the time they have nowhere else to go.

"Right, ok. So, in your view, let the children who are at huge risk right now continue to live where they are. Don't remove them. Too late for them, tough. Just focus on "removing or improving" the "factors" you listed because then allegedly other people won't also become abusive and neglectful parents."

No. I literally never said or even implied this. The two things aren't mutually exclusive and we should be doing both. Of course there are measures that can be taken to improve outcomes for people in the sitautions I mention.

I find it really surprising that people don't think it's better to do our utmost to try avoid the abuse in the first place than only to intervene once it's happened.

"Clearly you are a public policy genius, sounds like a really effective plan that can be implemented immediately and then we won't even need child protection social workers anymore. 🙄"

And now you are just being rude. I can eye roll too you know 🙄

Every single outcome that can be measured is worse for children that have been in care

That's only because the UK care system isn't funded properly. That's not the case at all in other countries: where it is funded properly where they have outcomes matching the general population. This is not an argument for leaving children in abusive homes. The answer is to fund care properly.

Most cases won't meet the thresholds to be removed

Yes, at the moment. Because the thesholds are too high and need to be lowered. That's what a lot of this discussion has been about.

But the ideal situation is to leave children in non-abusive homes. Prevent the abuse from ever taking place. Again acknolwedging that in some cases it cannot be prevented - in which case removal for the children's safety should of course be prioritised over e.g. the cost of adequately housing them after removal as was mentioned earlier - but in many it can with the right social and support measures.

And now you are just being rude. I can eye roll too you know 🙄

Good for you. I notice that your reply ignored the part of the post where you were asked to explain how you will implement your genius policy ideas.

How are you going to give people with low IQs high IQs?

How are you going to "cure" the psychopaths and sociopaths and make them loving, caring, empathetic parents?

How are you going to convince all of the addicts to stop taking drugs and prioritise their children?

How are you planning to get all of these low IQ people who have no interest in education to engage in it and gain qualification and careers so they can provide decent, stable homes for their children and engage in their children's educations, too?

Very interested to hear exactly how you believe these "factors" that you listed can be "resolved", as you suggested they can?

but in many it can with the right social and support measures.

So explain what they are then please, these measures which will fix low IQ, psychopathy/ sociopathy, etc?

Which countries do not have poorer outcomes for children in care?

Quite a few in Europe have stats similar to the general population raised by parents. Those in Denmark marginally exceed the general population, because they fund it properly. It's a choice to have horrific care homes in the UK.

IQ - well no, you can't give someone higher IQ. But if you identify someone with low IQ struggling you can support the,, educate them, touch base on a regular basis, but them in support programs.
Drugs - there's loads of programs to help people come off drugs, but I assume they are not always easily accessible or people avoid them due to fear or stigma. Also, you can give people opportunities and education to avoid them getting involved in drugs in the first place.
Mental illness - treat it, clearly.

In general, social/ commuity support, education, opportunities to make money, easily accessible health case (including for drugs and mental health), these things - if invested in properly - could make a huge difference. Reducing poverty and deprivation in society generally.

I don't have all the answers (I am not, as you - sarcastically - commented, holding myself out to be a public policy genius). But it's a far better outcome (and investments) to avoid the abuse happening by helping people not turn into abusive parents in the first place, than it happening and then removing children (if it is happening obviously intervention is required).

I'm starting to think you aren't actually interested in the answers, only in trying to catch me out at being "wrong". Which is really rather boring.

Those in Denmark marginally exceed the general population, because they fund it properly.

Are you saying here that in Denmark the outcome of children in care is BETTER than that of the general population?

Those in Denmark marginally exceed the general population, because they fund it properly.

Are you saying here that in Denmark the outcome of children in care is BETTER than that of the general population?

By a small margin, yes. Because they are given such intensive support, therapy and other support to deal with trauma, lots of opportunities, a very good education, a small and stable children's home to live in throughout their childhood with long-term carers and also crucially they are removed at a much earlier stage of neglect before so much damage is done. The approach is to give them even more opportunities and support than the general population might have, to compensate for their early life experience and give them every chance at a decent life as adults just like everyone else. And it works.

That is surprising, but amazing. Shows what good social funding can do. I am sure part of the motivation to make such an effort is also to avoid the societal consequences of the outcome of children are not supported.... kind of like I was suggesting. Obviously not just to do with abuse, but everything else that can stem from a really bad childhood.

IQ - well no, you can't give someone higher IQ. But if you identify someone with low IQ struggling you can support the,, educate them, touch base on a regular basis, but them in support programs.
Drugs - there's loads of programs to help people come off drugs, but I assume they are not always easily accessible or people avoid them due to fear or stigma. Also, you can give people opportunities and education to avoid them getting involved in drugs in the first place.
Mental illness - treat it, clearly.

In general, social/ commuity support, education, opportunities to make money, easily accessible health case (including for drugs and mental health), these things - if invested in properly - could make a huge difference. Reducing poverty and deprivation in society generally.

Sigh. These people all have access to education just like everyone else. They do not want it. They spent 14 years of compulsory education wilfully not engaging with it. Social services and in this particular case domestic violence programmes had engaged with the mother and tried to support her. She had the Freedom Program twice then stopped attending and ignored what they'd taught her. No cure for low IQ as you admit. There is so much support for these people already. Benefits, their rent being paid, social workers, free education, free adult courses offered, support offered to help them find work or retrain, offer to pay almost all of their childcare if they work, charities offering support with life skills, free healthcare and on and on. You cannot teach psychopaths who prioritise men over their child, who hear their child screaming in the middle of the night and do nothing about it, who see them covered in bruises and do not care and actively cover it up rather than seeking medical attention, to be good parents. Nothing you have suggested is new. None of it would change anything, as we have seen by doing exactly what you suggest for decades.

Someone always says a Scandinavian country 🙄

They can't be compared to the UK. They have smaller populations, better standards of living, have higher incomes and pay more tax.

So better healthcare, less crime, better schools, fewer drug problems, better and more accessible housing, better and more affordable childcare, better parentl leave and on and on. Plus there's cultural differences too.

Denmark in particular is rated as one of of the best places in the world to have a child.

So of course there's less social care intervention needed and it's better when it is needed because there's more money available to cover a smaller number of cases.

It's incomparable to the UK because the need for social care intervention is greater because of poverty, poorer healthcare, housing, more crime, more drugs etc.

We have more social problems so public funds are spread more thinly.

While I've heard that about Denmark having better outcomes for care children. And they focus on care homes rather than Foster carers.

I also wonder if Denmark has the level of deprivation, poverty, drugs, alcohol abuse, generation after generation who don't work, who are disengaged with social services.
People living in deprived areas with little work, and no hope of being able to pull themselves out of it.

The UK needs to do better for kids in the care system before raising the bar.
How often do you see FB posts looking for the same teens who are in care who've tried to go home. That tells you all you need to know for lots of these kid they'd rather be with mum than in care.

Oh come off it - and no need to sigh in exasperation. We all know that access to those services aren't universally great in the UK but are much much more difficult to access in derpived areas of if from a deprived background.

And I am not talking about psychopaths. I've ackonwoledge that some people are just bad, there is likely to use helping them. But loads of people will not be inherently bad, but will become abusive due to the factors I have already mentioned makign them struggle with parenthood, and life in general.

I would be interested to know if the threshhold for removing children in Denmark is lower. I would suspect not. I would also be quite certain that a lot less children are removed because their parents have the social support, eduacation and health care that I mention. Those elements are priorited and the provision is good. Poverty and deprivation is also lot rarer than in the UK. For full disclosure I'll tell you I am Danish, so despite not knowing about this subject specifically I have a rather good insight into public policy there and how the welfare provision is prioritised.

Yes, agree with all this. And in particular this:

It's incomparable to the UK because the need for social care intervention is greater because of poverty, poorer healthcare, housing, more crime, more drugs etc.

When I first came to the UK many years ago I was SHOCKED at the level of poverty and deprivation I saw. I am am in the sunny south. There are of course problematic pockets in Denmark, but it's just not comparable. Not even a bit.

🙄

And just one last thought from me here @Oneiros - for all your sarcasm and insults, sighs and eyerolling all I actually want is for children not to be abused in the first place. That doesn't happen by removing those that have already been abused. You need to address the route cause, and prevent the abuse from happening in the first place.

So how do you do that? You could take all children away at birth - putting them in lovely Danish style homes - so noone is at risk. Or given how controversial and extreme that is, maybe only those prospective parents who are indicating risk factors and remove at birth? Or prevent them having children in the first place? Again, not great from a human rights angle. So then the only option left is what I have suggested. Investing in and doing what we can - as a society - to make sure that those parents who are not evil sadistic child abusers by nature, are given the support and circumstances to be the best parents they can be. So they hopefully raise children who have the tools, skills and circumstances to be better parents themselves.

Most of us get exactly what you meant.

I work with the demographic of families described here. And have often called for children to be removed far earlier than they are.

But that doesn't mean that I think the problem is then solved and the children will go on to have great lives. Because in most cases they don't, and then I see those children getting older and having their own children and the cycle begins again.

Because we're not talking about 'psychopaths' who just sprang from the ground and had every kind of resource and benefits thrown at them and they couldn't be arsed to engage.

I can say 100% that sometimes they have been offered everything available and my compassion and patience runs out. But that doesn't mean I don't know that often, the people involved have been failed by social care/education/healthcare etc for years previously and often, their parents were and so we're dealing with generational issues caused by the social problems we have in the UK.

There are very, very few incidences like the one described here where it's a family who are middle class, earning, in adequate or good housing, well educated etc.

Same as there are few individuals in prison from those families.

And before anyone jumps on to say what a shit childhood they had but they still wouldn't do x, y or z. We know that having a shit childhood or life doesn't mean it is inevitable that means a shit adulthood or being a child abuser or shit parent.

But it happens. Often. The correlation is undeniable.

I didn't click the link above. I already know far more about child abuse than I ever wanted to know. I am as angry as all of you. And no, I am 67, and I am not going to be the person who intervenes and rescues a small child. I could be, but I am not going to. We. have. done. our. bit.

@TruffleWaffle is telling everyone the truth. There are people who do not even begin to follow normal standards. And they will disproportionately (by number) fill prisons and occupy social services.