traumatizing to read this news item and impossible not to

[redbluered]

find oneself wondering about the horrendous pain, loneliness, physical and mental suffering and abandonment that child must have suffered before he died.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16514512

AIBU to wonder how the man in the street "distances" themselves from this type of news item?

I know there are reasons why the two should not be linked but remind me why people should be entitled to state benefit payments without any obligation to co operate in any way (eg let social workers into their flat, visit the GP regularly with their child, send their child to school) with authorities?
For some people can payments of benefits not be subject to an absolute condition that various authorities have acknowledged in a formal process (eg child is confirmed in writing as up to date with immunisations in order for you to get your benefits payments). It seems this woman wanted the child related benefit payments to continue for her drug / alcohol habit and she got them without too much verification by authorities for 8 whole months.

Or is this the slippery slope to big brother and everyone should be allowed to receive benefits with no intervention or too much questioning in terms of child protection? I guess I am suggesting something stronger than "intervention and questioning" - I am saying "in order to receive your benefits the GP has to sign off on your child's wellbeing not less than every 4 weeks etc" (for problem cases only, not every child in the UK)

Maybe I am just getting emotional in response to this news item. It is not that the baby was left dead in a cot for 8 months - it is the level of neglect which must have been involved in his death (although no one will ever know for sure how he died due to the lapse of time brought about by the mothers deceit)

I really think in this day and age it is proven again and again that people don't have the safety net often required for their childrens safety whether in terms of extended family (increasingly fragmented and weak) nor in terms of state/government structures (social workers etc) So making the one thing they want / need (state funding in terms of benefits) expressly linked to measurable behaviours (and I am not being clever her, I am just thinking "you must feed your child" "you must not abandon your child or leave them alone" "you must take your child to the GP when they are ill" " you must allow social workers into your home and co operate with them") - if you want your money you must do these basic things.

I totally get you but it would lead to genuinely concerned parents maybe becoming targets. Ie baby struggles to feed or has in diagnosed condition meaning they may suddenly lose weight or can't put it on.

They may be suspected of neglect etc when they aren't. Then the parents might not work to help care for said sick child... Then to have their (much needed) benefits stopped BECAUSE their child was sick and not
Signed off by GP would be terrible!

I don't think if they are beig looked into they should always be able to turn the sw away or whatever but I feel your solution would actually be terrible for a lot of desperate families

But what would you make the rules? Further up you say "make sure child is up to date with immunisations" - but some parents choose not to immunise, for reasons that are important to them. You can't say its not compulsory unless you are poor. And taking your child to the GP - who decides that they are "ill" and needs to see a GP? There are threads on here from caring competent parents not sure if they should go to the GP or not. So do poor people have to take them for every sniffle just to be sure?

I agree it's terrible, but what laws do you put in place to prevent one terrible thing, without limiting the ordinary freedoms of everyone else?

I agree with the 'you mush allow social workers into your home' though 8 months of trying? Shocking. I get sometimes people aren't in or it's a good time but they should not be allowed to never let them in when a child could be at risk (or in this case worse)

God, no , you can't link well-being to having had all the immunisations on offer as some children can't have some of them.

It's a terribly sad story though - poor little chap. Awful

That's like saying everyone on benefits is a bad parent which is crap tbh.

I think it is highly likely that the mother in this case was suffering from a mental illness.

Why would being signed off by the GP be so terrible?
Clearly the GP would not be saying "yes you can have your benefits" "no you cannot have your benefits"
All the GP would be saying is "yes this is a genuinely concerned parent who regularly agrees to (and does) bring their child to me" - tick - you get your benefits. If the parents bring the child regularly in order to get their benefits but their is suspicion of (willful or innocent in terms of ignorance of the best ways to parent) child cruelty and neglect - these GP visits just allow the authorities the best chance at catching it early

There seems to have been no chance whatsoever at protecting Declan Hainey - and yet society says that is ok that Declan was not protected - and his mother was able to avoid detection and receive state funding not just for her but for her "child" for 8 months after he died

I really dislike this kind of misery-spreading on AIBU.

That aside, I don't even know where to start with your post. Child benefit is received by every parent of a child, regardless of whether they are on other benefits or not. Does this mean that every single parent should have to prove that they look after their child properly in order to receive it?
Or just the parents who receive other benefits as well? Do you think that parents on benefits are more likely to abuse their children?

I have no idea what your AIBU actually is but your whole post has made my blood boil.

OK Winter
Maybe not immunisations
But why not regular visits to the GP
Is it against some people's culture to agree visit the GP with their children just for a chat and a chance for the GP to see the child briefly?
All it is saying is not "I am a bad parent and I need monitoring" but "I want the state to have the chance to help me and offer me the best support possible for my child and I acknowledge that agreeing to contact with the state is the only way that can happen"

Why do you think being on benefits means being a bad parent? You're talking nonsense!

I can see where you're coming from but why are you basing it around benefits?

Do you not think families who are not in receipt of them abuse/neglect their children?

No Memoo I am absolutely NOT saying every parent on benefits is a bad parent
Totally and utterly NOT what my original post was saying

Where was the Health Visitor? Surely the child can't have been living like that since he was a baby? Do they not do home visits any more?

i did not say every parent who is on benefits needs to do this
it just seems this story demonstrates perfectly how easy it is to play the system if you want to
and that is accepted as ok even if your child dies in what must have been the most horrible way

How old was the baby when he died?

As far as I know there is no "system"-couple of MW/HV visits & that´s it.

And why would you regularly take a child to a GP if it´s not necessary?

Its hard enough to get a doctors appointment at times, so I honestly dont see it working on that practical level alone.

And you also risk that those who are very anti-nanny state etc (for want of better term) not bothering to apply for much needed benefit and the children ending up in an awful state for no other reason than the parent is scared that the child will be taken or something similar, when in reality the are a good parent just in need of a bit of financial support.

There is always loopholes too. How long was the twin who died impersonated by the surviving twin in that case a few months ago. All you would need is an overworked surgery with alot of locums and a child you could "babysit" and you could still screw the system.

What about the neglect of children whose parents are NOT on benefits, gabby?

Not every parent who is on benefits is a neglectful one, you accept. But not every parent who is not on benefits is not a neglectful one.

If you make receiving benefits conditional upon allowing people to keep tabs on you, that is giving the clear message that you can't be trusted.

But how many children of working, middle class families are abused? physically, sexually?

How do you propose that the same safeguards you are proposing to people on benefits be applied to the wealthy?

winter just what I was writing & then lost the post, grrrr!

This sort of completely unacceptable level of long-term neglect does not happen overnight surely? SOMEONE somewhere must have a record of that child and that said child has not attended for check-ups/vaccinations/HV appts? If mother was a registered addict then that should have been recorded too. If she was unregistered then at some point red flags should have gone up with some adult. She would have had to be signing on or visiting some figure to get the benefits, if she was living in such a state her mental and physical state would have been obvious and the poor woman offered help and support. If she then refused it there should have been a link somewhere between her and the child.

It's such a sad sad case and no bloody "joined up thinking" by anybody official, as they slipped through the net.

There will be ANOTHER bloody enquiry, ANOTHER finger pointing exercise and cries of "this must never happen again, lessons will be learned" but it will and they won't.

Why would you take a child for 'regular visits to the GP' if they're not ill?

I can't remember the last time my 9yr old saw our GP...it was probably around 3yrs ago because he's not suffered from anything other than the odd cold.

I know what you're trying to say (in a way) but you're coming across as saying parents should be blackmailed into wasting their GP's time/agreeing to immunisations they might not want, otherwise their benefits will be removed.

How on earth would pushing the child into even further poverty help?

How would they feed, clothe and keep a roof over the child's head with no income?

What about working parents who don't do this? Are you suggesting their wages should be taken away?

Is there to be a serious case review?

The mother was a known drug addict, had been on the books of Renfrewshire Drugs Services, and had missed appointments. Surely, in these circumstances, and when she is known to be looking after a child, this should trigger intervention (including mandating a home visit) straight away?

Why the hell should regular visits to the GP be linked to benefits?

I'd be stuffed if I was to claim benefits under those rules. I think ds last went 18 months ago when his eczema flared up and I couldn't sort it via the usual methods. Since then, he has only had the odd cold, one bout of sickness over in 24 hours and chicken pox. None of which require a GP visit.

Are you seriously suggesting that every well fed, cared for child needs to regularly visit their GP? If everyone with a child had to show up regularly whether ill or not the system would clog up whilst those in need would be unable to see dr's.

Sound like a classic case of ill thought out over reaction to me. The trouble is that people under the radar in cases like this will only likely attempt to dodge any new things put in place. It would most likely be those of us least likely to need the monitoring who would happily go as we have nothing to hide. I honestly think it isn't the answer, which is more to do with following up to check on those who fall between all the cracks, not just GP's.

Agh another benefit bashing thread..... By stealth!!!

So op, if the same had happened to a non benefits family, how would you secure participation if you had no benefits to dangle/bribe/coerce the parents with??

The most staggeringly ill thought out part is that removing benefits would be punishing the child.

OP how would you suggest someone could raise a child with no income?

Are you insane? There is so little logic in your OP that I really don't know where to start.

Perhaps with your G.P. obsession? My 7 year old has not seen a G.P. since his 6 week check. He is never ill. It's a good job I'm not reliant on benefits in your little world, I'd have had the children confiscated years ago.

We're not on benefits and I feel that we are looking after our daughter fine, but I did turn round to dh the other day and say how surprised I am that we're just left to get on with it - that nobody is checking that we're looking after her properly. It was only tongue in cheek but does make you think that if you're struggling or neglecting a child then it could possibly go undetected.

Going to sound very old fashioned now, but due to communities and families being different now and people being more isolated/lonely, means vulnerable people are more vulnerable - although obviously abuse has sadly always happened so it may not be due to this.

I don't think you can really link it to benefits but there should be more support. Maybe children should all go to children's centre groups regularly, or something similar, then non-attendance or wellbeing worries could be flagged up and investigated.

Agree a very very sad case, lessons should be learned but I'm at a loss to say exactly what lessons and how. More support for people is obviously desperately needed.

I suppose as well we have had 6 week check, 3 month HV visit and immunisations so someone has been checking to some extent I suppose.