Another breastfeeding mother removed from her baby - please read this and email if you can!

[theUrbanDryad]

here

i have to go out now, but will check back in on this later. thanks.

violent not violet

did anyone see my post where i said that if you wanted further information on this case to email the Victoria Climbie foundation??

she did not walk out of 3 homes. she was in a M&B unit (and i'm sorry, but i've known quite a few young mums who have stayed in M&B units while waiting on proper housing - perhaps it's a regional thing?), then she signed an agreement that she would stay with her mum. she had a row with her mother, then went to a friend's house, then went to her grandmother's house. this was all during one day. her mother phoned the social worker as she was concerned, and that is when they removed the child.

i can only assume that SS put two and two together and came up with 5. they put the earlier child protection order (which was based on unfounded allegation and rumour and has since been ignored in all subsequent reports) together with the phone call from her worried mother, and decided that the child needed to be removed immediately. what should have happened at this point, is that a family meeting and assessment should have taken place, and Baby E would have returned to her mother, assuming that everything else was ok. the trouble is when SS make a mistake they then close ranks and attempt to defend their decisions, rather than admitting their mistake and putting it right.

just received this email:

Some people have reported bounced emails from the eddress for Cllr
Chapman using the eddress from the official Essex CC website.

Please try this one:

[email protected]

...if this has happened to you.

Apologies for needing to contact you again.

Many thanks

Mother and baby units are also used here while young mums await council/housing asosciation accomodation. Im not in Essex btw, i expect it depends on no. of places in m and b units and no of places in council accomodation available.

If your not deemed at risk or vulnerable ( a teen mum is on the council here definition list) so if you were a homeless mum of a baby who was 34 with no medical condition, say you left your partner for reasons not abusive you would be given a list of b and bs and private landlords that accept housing benefit and dont require a deposit.

i obv. dont know the details of this case but just saying we shouldnt jump on the fact that she was in a m and b unit that she was an unfit mother, maybe there was a reason maybe not.

Mrs Pnut, the Rochdale case was a long time ago and the past is another country and we now have a registration process and safeguards, but I think we can be forgiven for not having any faith whatsoever in the safeguards, when the chief offenders in the Rochdale case are still working in child protection and have been promoted.

Every profession has its bad apples of course; but when they have been discovered to be bad apples, most professions throw them out of the barrel. They don't promote them. The Social Work profession has chosen not to do that in this case. It can't complain then, if people draw adverse conclusions about the way it operates.