This is soooo typical of the bloody Guardian/Observer

[moondog]

Moaning about the 'scandal' of children whose mothers are in gaol

Shouldn't they have thought of that before they actually got sent down? Why is it a 'scandal'? A grnadparent is complaining that 'without us, he'd be in care-it would be much more expensive if they were looking after him'

This is today's Britain-oine where al lresponsibility is relinquished to the state and one in which peopel are generally outraged if 'the State' doesn't do absoulutely everything for them.

I despair.

The article isn't expressing concern for the women, is it? It's just pointing out that there's no systematic checks on their kids. Given a mother who goes to prison is possibly not going to, you know, have her life together magnificently well, it seems reasonable to think that social services should automatically check to make sure that arangements are in place and are adequate. It's not the kid's fault, after all.

And it isn't good enough if a kid is just left without any care provision at all because their parents are shite. It's also a worry if the grandparents are, as it says here, often so useless that's a large part of the reason the mum is a mess - cycles of deprivation, and all that.

I dunno. Seems reasonable to think that if a family are seriously and dangerously crap, the state needs to step in, and if a mother goes to prison that should raise alarm bells about potential problems in the family. The kids haven't done anything wrong.

The grandparents you quote wanted their grandchild, they just say they couldn't afford to care for them without that money. I can believe that. Pensions aren't huge. It's a fact that it would cost the state a hell of a lot more to keep a kid in care than with family and the go didn't choose the situation. They are stepping up and taking the kid - fifty quid a week is not exactly coining it.

Yes, what Perfectstorm said.
Moondog - maybe read the article again, Perhaps you got the wrong end of the stick, or do you really think it is illigitmate for the state to look out for the welfare of a child when a parent goes prison?

I understand that the mothers dont really have much right to complain, it is their fault the child has been 'abandoned'

But we as a civilised soceity do have a chance to complain that SS/prison service/whoever dont just make a phone call/visit to check where an inmates children have gone on admittance to prison. We owe it to the children to check that the parents havent left them with a 16 yr old friend/a known drug addict.

SS referal should be automatic.

It might even be a bit of a deterrent to some mothers if they knew this would happen.

Having read the article earlier today, I don't think it's unreasonable that maybe someone ought to say, hey, you're going to prison for six months, where are your kids going to be?

It's hardly the kids' fault if their mum's been shoplifting/not paid the TV licence/whatever.
Or are you arguing that it is the kids' fault? They should be taking more responsibility for family life? Not leaving it to the state?

I mean, you can argue about the extent of Social Services' remit, but surely we'd all agree that potentially abandoned children fall within it?

Moondog, I know from previous threads you are socially right-wing, but blaming children for the sins of their parents is going a bit overboard, don't you think? And a mother who is sent to jail is forced to relinquish responsibility for her child.

This is today's Britain-oine where al lresponsibility is relinquished to the state and one in which peopel are generally outraged if 'the State' doesn't do absoulutely everything for them.

are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?

I am right wing and I also agree with the article. The children should be tracked and looked after, that is only reasonable and right.

I am staggered by your lack of compassion. These children are vulnerable and deserve to be supported and cared for. If they are not getting that from their families or communities, i strongly believe the welfare state should help.

Also, there is a strong financial argument (let alone moral and ethical) for interevening early. What life chances have these kids got if just left to fend for themselves? What are the chances that they are going to go to school and do well, eat properly, learn respect etc., let alone growing up to become an active and contributing member of society?

niceguy2 - I expected better of you. You don't normally agree with stigmatising people and their kids. People with these views are often the ones demonising single parents and we know how far that is from reality.

Try putting yourself in these kids' shoes. I grew up with neglect and abuse - I don't believe that makes me a bad person nor scrounging off the state.

Obviously this is all a waste of money, and the children of imprisoned mothers should be rounded up and kept in some sort of kennel until their mothers are free to care and pay for them again. With a bill for thier kennel fees too.

Some children will be luckier: their mother's will have set up a trust fund for them to be used in the event of their being sent down - they could be placed with kindly foster carers, or a special wing built for them at centerParcs, with nice nannies. If only more criminalparents thought ahead like this.

I'm honestly startled that there is no statutory system for making sure children of jailed mothers are in a safe environment for the duration. I've never had to think about it, but would have guessed that social services would always be told and would have some authority to make sure they were with someone at least adequately able to look after them. Or to put them into a childrens home or short-term foster care if needed. Not everyone has family or friends who can just take in one or more children for as long as it takes.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where inequality is both created and sustained. Obviously inequalities exist between people in every kind of society.

The mark of a civilised society is one that makes sure the vulnerable and needy are both cared for and enabled to care for themselves in the long term.

I think it's a rare person that thinks the State should do absolutely everything for them.

The hysteria of those who think we have a nanny state makes me laugh. I would love those same people to have grown up with some of the disgusting disadvantages many have in this country just to see how successful they would be.

Wasn't there a 2 yo who spent 3 weeks alone in a flat after her mother was jailed?

Well, I think that's quite right, Blu. We simply can't allow these little children to think anybody cares for them and their futures when their parents are woefully not up to the job. It is after all, all their fault. And how can we possibly expect them to stand on their own two feet if we keep doing "everything" for them?

Big society MY ARSE! Revolting, mean spirited, short sighted, idiotic view points as demonstrated by the OP.

whatever the faults of the family the children are not to blame and it is our duty to look after the vulnerable in society

and it is not like they are set for a life of luxury and great prospects being in care

Quite, Blu - hence my echo of Mr Scrooge's words in A Christmas Carol. Kennels, workhouses...it's all one to me. The main thing I don't want any of my hard earned taxes being squandered on kids of crims. I don't mind my taxes paying for MPs expense claims though, nor for funding wars in Afghanistan or iraq.

Excellent post, perfectstorm.

sorry OP - you're missing the point - social services should at least check the DCs of prisoners - both male and female - are being cared for by someone suitable.

Anyone suffering under the illusion that the state will merrily pick up any responsibilities it actually has, let alone those it hasn't, will be sadly disillusioned if they ever do need help. Residential placements, speech and language therapy, social services, anything you care to mention, often have to be fought for - even when someone IS clearly entitled. And even if they do get some help it's often the wrong kind - there's a current thread where a poster has pointed out her disabled husband was offered a place in an old peoples' home. So she's coping on her own.

In fact my sister's just been assaulted by a patient who didn't like his placement and worked out the quickest route to get out was to be violent so the police would come and remove him (not the first time he's attacked people - mild learning disabilities but knows full well what he's doing although possibly not the implications for the other person). That's where relying on the state gets you, sadly.

Mahatma Ghandi who said, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

It depends entirely on your definition of 'weak' or 'vulnerable' or 'needy'.

I work in a Court, and it isn't always as easy as people seem to think. When someone is jailed, we interview them to check on their mental health, and whether there are any dependants who need care. If they say that their children are at home alone, the obviously the top priority is to go and find those children and arrange suitable care. If the prisoner is previously known to SS, this will often be arranged in advance. However, the prisoner can refuse to speak to us, can lie about whether they have children or who they are with etc, often because they do not want SS involvement. There is no database which tells us who has children and who doesn't, and where those children normally reside.