Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

This is soooo typical of the bloody Guardian/Observer

79 replies

moondog · 02/01/2011 19:48

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.

OP posts:
jkklpu · 03/01/2011 14:28

Yes, OP, it is typical of The Guardian and Observer to express concern for the most vulnerable in society. Thanks goodness someone does.

reelingintheyears · 03/01/2011 15:53

Maybe moondog doesn't think children are vulnerable,needy or weak.
Maybe some of them aren't.
But i bet the children of incarcerated parents are in all of these categories.

It's hardly their fault if their parents screw up.

perfectstorm · 03/01/2011 17:52

"There is no database which tells us who has children and who doesn't, and where those children normally reside."

That rather shocks me. I appreciate people have the right to live their lives as they see fit, and there are genuine concerns about SS in some areas being overly active, but no wonder the Wests got away with killing 2 of their kids, and nobody twigged the 8 year old had vanished and never reappeared anywhere.

edam · 03/01/2011 18:02

so how come the government knows where to send national insurance cards when children turn 16? One bit of government clearly knows where they are...

TheCrackFox · 03/01/2011 18:14

The govt also seems to know where to pay child benefit.....

tinierclanger · 03/01/2011 18:19

I think this is one of the most uncompassionate OPs I've seen on mumsnet. I despair to think people really have such opinions.

perfectstorm · 03/01/2011 18:19

You have to fill in forms for CB, though. Having said that I can't imagine it would be too hard to cross-refer sentenced women with their CB claims, no, if the facility were allowed to SS in that situation.

Spero · 03/01/2011 18:27

I was recently told that my child had a 'number' allowing her to be tracked through the school system because of concerns about children who go missing. I was a bit taken aback by this, never heard of that before.

So, taking that together with Child benefit, national insurance, it seems a bit bollox that the criminal courts aren't better able to check that people going to prison do or do not have the care of a small child. Surely a pretty simply matter to check some computer for whether or not they are claiming CB or share an address with a child at school.

I did feel a bit uneasy about the tone of the article; of course it is not the children's fault their mothers go to prison but I didn't get any sense from the article that it was first of all a shame that their mothers didn't take proper responsibility for their welfare after their arrest - i.e. tell social services if you don't have a responsible family member to help out.

To that extent, I agree with the op.

SauvignonBlanche · 03/01/2011 18:36

I would define young children, as described in the article, as vunerable.
Did you actually read it? It made an interesting point, parents can be incarcerated with no checks at all as to who is looking after their children.

Spero · 03/01/2011 18:38

But SB, if the parents actively lie when asked about whether or not they have children, I can see it might be difficult. Just surprised it isn't easier to get that information by other means.

WinkyWinkola · 03/01/2011 18:38

Of course it's a "shame" the jailed mother didn't ensure the welfare of her child. Nobody is disputing that at all.

But when that happens - and an awful lot more could be done find out why and prevent it from happening - what's to be done? Impoverish gps even more? Leave kids to scavenge and become "feral"?

Can't see any Big Society inclinations from the OP! Do these mothers just happen to be that way? If we are talking about shirking of responsibility then we ALL guilty of that by looking the other way from time to time. That's not a way to break cycles of crime and deprivation. Which cost us so much money in both the short and long term.

unfitmother · 03/01/2011 18:39

tinierclanger it's even more sad when the OP claims to be an SALT working with children! Hmm

Spero · 03/01/2011 18:41

WW why is 'shame' in inverted commas?

I can see where the op is coming from because the article did not, in my view, seem to ascribe any shame to the parents.

And it is a shame. Responsibility for children should lie first and foremost with parents. It is going to be difficult for any state apparatus to keep track of every child at all times, and nor should it.

WinkyWinkola · 03/01/2011 18:44

I was quoting you, Spero. That's why it's in inverted comma commas.

WinkyWinkola · 03/01/2011 18:45

Yes, it is a shame. I agreed with you.

Spero · 03/01/2011 18:48

WW thanks for the clarification, I usually interpret words in inverted commas as indicating lack of agreement and denoting sarcasm.

That may just be my interpretation.

Spero · 03/01/2011 18:50

WW thanks for the clarification, I usually interpret words in inverted commas as indicating lack of agreement and denoting sarcasm.

That may just be my interpretation.

WinkyWinkola · 03/01/2011 18:59

I'm not being sarcastic at all. Perhaps you're right - that is the common use of inverted commas. I should find out before I do it again. Soz.

edam · 03/01/2011 19:14

Quote marks indicate you are quoting. If someone misunderstands and assumes a different use that's unfortunate but not your fault. Yes, they are sometimes brought into play to indicate sarcasm but the primary use is as the name suggests.

tinierclanger · 03/01/2011 19:21

The kind of people who tend to end up in the prison system are likely to come from chaotic backgrounds. They well make reasonable arrangements for their children which then subsequently break down. Where is the 'shame' in that? I imagine the options for sorting stuff out and monitoring things are fairly limited for them once in prison anyway. Regardless, the state should at least be responsible for monitoring their children's whereabouts once they are beyond the control of their parents. Why would these children not be deemed deserving of that limited check on their welfare?

ItsGrimUpNorth · 03/01/2011 19:23

Apparently they are not worthy.

As so many aren't.

Because they're not lucky enough to have done well in our country.

And luck is, I'm afraid, a large part of success here.

Grandhighpoohba · 03/01/2011 20:08

The problem is bureaucracy. SS have no access to things like CB records. You should see the hoops that have to be jumped through to get to see the criminal record of someone who has committed a crime. If you ask the NHS for details on someone, it takes them a fortnight just to confirm that they are aware of their existence.

We have two members of staff permanently based in our small Court which runs three Court rooms. There is no way you could run checks on the 40-50 people who come through the door each day, so you would have to wait until after sentencing, to see who was going to jail. Then you would need a staff member in each Court room to do the actual checks, which would be time consuming - first to get a hold of someone who was able to access the CB register, and was free to do so, then to establish where the children actually were and who they were with, then to check if that person was suitable, do a home check, criminal background check etc. All this does happen when someone tells us that they have children, and it can take hours, and can require two staff members to do a home visit if there are concerns. All this on top of all the other work needing done in the Court. It would require the formation of a whole new team to do this for all the female prisoners going through all the Courts in a local authority, and you would still miss all the children cared for by male prisoners.

Given the massive cuts to our budgets, we are struggling to cover our basic duties. There is absolutely no chance of this being funded. If the children are already known to SS, then the social worker involved should have organised care in advance. If they are not, we are reliant on the prisoner being open and honest.

edam · 03/01/2011 20:48

I'm sure you are right, Grandhigh. It's just appalling that we - given the state is acting on our behalf - can't organise things better to make sure vulnerable children are protected. Good grief. You'd have thought funding for essential checks on the welfare of prisoners' children would be there and would be protected. Guess most of us don't stop and think or realise what is done in our name.

ISNT · 03/01/2011 21:02

What an utterly depressing thread. Of course children are vulnerable and should be looked after. That anyone would dispute that is beyond me, frankly.

Spero · 03/01/2011 21:11

I didn't get the impression that anyone was disputing that children are vulnerable, need protection, and can't be blamed for their parents' bad behaviour.

I thought what had got up the op's nose (and to some extent mine) was the whole tone of the article seemed to put the blame for the whole situation on the shoulders of the 'state', without recognising any of the huge logistical difficulties of chasing around after people who can't or won't be honest about their situation or who won't trust social services and leave their children with friends or relatives who let them down.

We all have a responsibility for children but the only way to guarranttee their protetion, if we can't trust parents, is to tag every child and authorise nightly spot checks by social workers and police.