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.

I'm not disputing it ISNT, we do protect those we know about. I'm just saying funding isn't available to go looking for situations where children may not exist.

There is lots that we could be doing to protect children which is not done because there is no money. I guess as a society, we need to decide on our priorities, and spend accordingly. Not likely under the current government.

Wasn't to you poohba, was to the OP and niceguy.

OP clarified her feelings after a lot of posts pointing out that the children in these situations were blameless and in a vulnerable position etc:

"It depends entirely on your definition of 'weak' or 'vulnerable' or 'needy'." ie that the children in these positions do not meet those criteria in her eyes.

Her opening post also stated that in her opinion, if the mothers hadn't sorted out suitable arrangements for the children before they went to prison, then tough on the children, why should the state be expected to do anything.

I find that attitude depressing, and I don't seem to be the only one.

Actually I'm going to hide this one, it's got to me a bit. Threads like this can do that sometimes.

Spotted this thread earlier but didnt have time to respond, its been said by other posters but am so offended by this that I had to post.

Any right minded person would consider a child separated from their mother to be vulnerable and needy, regardless of your politics surely you would also see a role for the state in ensuring they are in safe care when their mother is in prison.

If you don't agree with this I would like to be so bold as to say you are seriously warped.

Its also right that a grandparent or whoever took charge of the child should receive support from the state if they need it. Its not scrounging , if you are already living in poverty then the addtional burdon of child care could be unmanageble.

If I have missed your point OP please clarify

That was quite a restrained response to what I would call a depressing and nasty thread

"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."

Sorry, but that's exceedingly disingenous. You aren't talking all mothers, here. Far from it. You're talking a small and very identifiable minority. Nor are you talking about a failure to trust a parent who has done nothing to deserve that suspicion - in fact it's a bit odd that on the one hand you are criticising a failure to hold these mothers responsible, and on the other you are implying that they don't deserve state intrusion any more than any other parent. Nobody is suggesting running any such checks on anyone, let alone everyone, and the hyperbole of claiming to the contrary is dangerously close to a straw man argument. To equate "checks on people going to jail to see if they have kids, and if those kids will be okay" with "tag every child and run nightly checks on every family" is silly.

I agree that it shouldn't be down to court officials. However when a person is listed as having a sentencing hearing it should be fairly simple to alter the law so DWP automatically advise the parole officer if CB is being claimed, and if so, then CAFCASS or SS could be brought in. The matter could be taken from there. It isn't done, and children are apparently suffering. I think that's of concern.

And this help is not about the mothers - if they are going to jail, then then many will have already failed their kids to at least some extent. Why should the article bother to bang on about the mothers, and condemn them any further? They're going to jail. The system already has comdemned them and deprived them of their liberty. Why waste newsprint when they aren't the focus of the story?

It isn't about the mothers. It's about the kids, who by any definition are wholly innocent of blame... and also needy and vulnerable.

Thank you Spero.
As usual you rspond with more intelligence and analysis than most.

or rather, Spero has sort-of agreed with you

ISNT....you are quite right...

The guy quoted in the article says that in the specific instance of the state removing the liberty of a child's carer, the state therefore has a responsibility to check on the child's welfare.

Doesn't sound THAT intrusive to me, nor does it sound like expecting the state to do everything. The logistics are another matter - once something is agreed to be needed, it's usually possible to find a way of doing it. 41% of prisoner's children 'assumed' to be with kinship carers is quite a lot.

I don't see why a child being left with a 16-year-old is automatically bad though, 16-year-olds being over the age of consent and all.

Are you freaking joking makatai.
To leave a child in the care of a 16 year old is OK.
That's cool.
16 year old is over the age of consent.
How young should the child be.

No I'm not joking. The statement 'the friend [she left the child with] was 16' was put into the article as if the mere fact of the person looking after the child being 16 were enough to cause anyone to . But a 16-year-old is legally old enough to marry, legally old enough to have sex and therefore to have a child themselves. I don't see why a 16-year-old caring for a child is such a terrible idea in itself, that's all.

I love it. You've agreed with the op so the op thinks your response is more intelligent. Ha ha ha ha. Superb and intelligent rationale there.

perfectstorm - I stand by what I said. How else would you propose to guarrantee any child's safety other than by frequent supersion?

wow
am slightly gobsmacked by the OP

yeah, why should anyone worry about the kids of women sent to jail? let them look after themselves, let them starve, let them turn to crime, hey perhaps even prostitution, that would be fun

that'll make society better, oh yes indeedy
bloody hell

Thanks Moondog.

Itsgrimupnorth, no surprise surely that we are usually sympathetic to people who agree with us?

And presumably even less of a surprise to find out that most people are not swayed from their point unless you try to offer at least some kind of argument.

The only point I am trying to make is that NO state can protect all children all the time, and even trying to do so would involve levels of instrusion and monitoring that would make even a labour gov blench. Therefore I am always in favour of stressing that first and foremost children are their parents' responsibility.

I do think that sometimes this gets a bit lost in quite understandable and very well meaning sympathy for people with crap lives who are having a crap time.

Well, I agree with the OP.

What we need to do is go back to the pre-welfare society, where people like this were left to die out-- shift for themselves and decent people with jobs and nice homes (who all work jolly hard) didn't have to trouble themselves with such things.

Why don't these feckless children sort themselves out, eh? Idle buggers.

"perfectstorm - I stand by what I said. How else would you propose to guarrantee any child's safety other than by frequent supersion?"

But child protection law is always a balance between intrusion and safeguarding, no? And in this instance, any child whose parent is going to jail is clearly facing additional risk factors; at least one parent has their life out of control, by definition. So at that extreme (and thankfully rare) point, state intervention - or at least checking - on the welfare of exceptionally vulnerable children becomes wholly appropriate, surely.

Of course in an ideal world children would always be the primary responsibility of parents, but reproduction is a biological possibility in some very much less than ideal situations. A civilised society will surely seek to ensure that a child's care doesn't fall below a bare minimum? I would say this is a situation where basic checks should be automatic, as the article is arguing.

Sorry, but I maintain that equating "checks should be run on kids whose mothers are jailed, to ensure adequate care arrangements are in place" with "all kids in the country should be tagged and subjected to nightly checks" is a very flawed reductio ad absurdum, because nobody is suggesting any such thing other than yourself.

edam, I agree: Baby P and 000s more to mention. Some people don't even want to be old and in the hands of the NHs/state. Some move out and away.

perfectstorm - I thought one of the problems identified in this thread was what happens when parents can't or won't tell the truth about their family situation? It appears that the court can't check child benefit records etc.

It is hardly the state's fault if parents can't be responsible in this situation? 'Basic checks' won't help if parent simply lies.

I am suggesting that the more control you want over irresponsible parents, the more instrusive monitoring at all times we all have to accept. I don't agree that is a reductio ad absurdium argument.

I suppose it must make me 'right wing' if I get pissed off with the the assumption that I must first feel sympathy for people who abdicate their responsibility for their children by committing a criminal offence so serious that they are looking at custody. Sympathy is sometimes on the list, but it is certainly not the first thing.

Money for welfare is essential but where it actually goes is another matter

Spero, I stated earlier that I think the parole officer should have the ability and obligation, prior to a sentencing hearing, to be advised by DWP as to whether or not the person in question was claiming CB. That would let them know if dependent kids were in the equation, and enable them to alert either CAFCASS or CFS.

I also stated that a parent jailed is therefore less likely than the average to be a fit parent, therefore IMO the state has cause to become involved. How you have converted that stance into sympathy I don't pretend to know - it's more condemnation that anything. The parents have, by committing an indictable offence, crossed the threshold into state interference in their kids' lives. That's not exactly an accolade, is it?

My sympathy is for the children, not their parents. I simply do not comprehend how you can think sympathy for one is automatically sympathy for the other. They are wholly unrelated. This article, and the concern within it, is for the children, not the convicted. Your anger at the assumption that you should pity these parents is therefore misplaced, because the only person making that assumption is you. (And moondog, but - well.)

Perfect Storm, I don't agree I am the only person making that assumption. The whole tone of the article, the comments of many of the posters, support me in that assumption. I do get the impression that some people and some newspapers seem to view the argument that we should all take responsibility for ourselves with deep suspicion, which I don't understand. It also seems to make them angry which also leaves me baffled.

So to that extent I do agree with Moondog that it is annoying to see another example of potentially offloading onto the State something which ought to be the prime concern of the individual.

But of course I accept that some people aren't fit to have care of a gerbil, let alone a child and we can't leave their children to suffer.

But it seems that we have discovered the solution to this particular problem - just let the court staff/probation officer/sentencing judge have access to the Child Benefit records and take it from there! I am shocked that this isn't done, I guess Data Protection will be cited again.

Maybe this could be a subject for one of David Cameron's proposed petitions? It does seem crazy that some simple check can't be done.

I agree with smallwhitecat... This has literally never happened before!

Thinking about it though, surely any (non-crappy) criminal lawyer should be mentioning in court that their client is the [sole] carer for however many kids? I'm pretty sure the judge would take that into consideration when sentencing. And if it's down in the official court record, not beyond the minds of men to alert SS?