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 don't agree with anything the op has said, but I am alarmed that babies are left in the sole care of known drug/alcohol addicts at all!

I don't understand what your plan is.

Are you saying that in order to receive benefits (which ones? CB? CTC? HB? DLA? CA? IS? JSA?) parents must take their children to the GP to get a tick in the box saying they are not neglected?

There are so many problems with this I don't even no where to start but I can say with some certainty that there would be very few GPs clamouring to support it.

I know lots of people who grew up with alcoholic parents

It's the way it's always been. Unless a child protection issue actually comes to light, you can't just remove children automatically from their homes due to their parent's addiction.

If anything it's because they'd never seek help.

argh know where to start ... took me 20 minutes to write that post between child related interruptions too!

I've not RTFT, but how does withdrawing benefits = less neglected children please?

Surely the less money a neglectful parent has, the smaller amount will be spent on the children?

Because it is well known that GPs are often far too booked up to have 'chats' with every parent, which is why there are health visitors and baby clinics? It's hard enough to get an appointment now in many places with appointments only given on the day to have an influx of people coming in to chat just to keep their benefits. Lacking/Losing ones employment or having low paid employment doesn't mean one isn't perfectly capable of knowing when to take a child to a health visitor or GP or knowing how to educate a child. There are other factors (in this case drugs) that need to be looked at beyond how they get their income.

This is a very sad case, and more likely could have been done, but her being on benefits has nothing really to do with it. People from all socio-economic groups abuse their children, those higher up are even more likely to be ignored than those on the bottom who already have many groups looking out for signs of problems. I personally went to a very posh school that had a group for problem children which was well known to actually be a group to help children cope with neglect/abuse/parents drug and alcohol problems because of problems getting social services involved in the known to be wealthy area. We need to use the limited resources to focus more on known cases rather than chasing for cases among particular economic groups.

My post was never intended to focus on people who claim benefits
It was a knee jerk reaction to the question "how do you motivate people to actually co operate with the help which is out there and not be deliberately and deceitfully obstructive even to the point that their own child dies"

Clearly the benefits thing is a red herring but it is simply a brainstorming type response to the question "what might have motivated this person to capitulate and give up the child even if just temporarily, far far earlier in this sad history in order that she could have got the help she so desperately needed"

Yes obviously linking benefits payments for some very specific people (eg people with a proven history of heroin abuse as is the case here) to a tailored and agreed programme of co operation / monitoring might well not work. Maybe the mother in question would just think the benefits are not worth claiming, i would rather do x y or z to get my money leaving the child even more exposed.

But from the perspective of the state is there not an obligation to try to think of ways of making the system better - does anyone have any other suggestions to make early intervention methods work?

Anyway I have been put in my place by all of the poster telling me I am beyond stupid with this (admittedly knee jerk but entirely motivated by (i) child protection (ii) assisting social workers and the like) suggestion

I see the mother has just been given 15 years in prison so yes - I now stand corrected - this is a far far better way of running society - let the child die, let the mother clearly go through hell herself with her own drug addiction, let all of the external state and other bodies feel a sense of total failure in their ineffective attempts to intervene and then just stick her in jail for what she did
Job done

first my thoughts are with that little boy

but i'm also wondering where on earth the boys father was, why no friends, family or even neighbours were asking questions as to where the boy was

Assuming all drug users are on benefits???what about the famous rockstars/actresses/models who are known drug/drink/prescription drug addicts?

Olympia2012 i never said all drug users are on benefits
I give up

Oh and by the way, thanks for your constructive alternative suggestions

Apparently, redbluered, the dad said in court that Declan wasn't a priority for him, and nor was the mother.

Beautiful.

The thing is, I think she went from respectable to neglectful addict in a short space of time. She had a 28kpa job with Direct Line, her own house and so on, and seemed to be functioning well until her descent into addiction.
If she was also saying the poor boy was at nursery and dropping in little anecdotes about his days....well....I guess most people thought all was well.

What a state of affairs.

really minouminou in that case the dad should be locked up too

Ohm sorry, blackoutthesun, my response then about the dad should have been addressed to you - i registered that there was a colour in the name and confused you with redbluered.

Hello. We've moving this thread to In the News now. We think it fits better there than in AIBU.

I think you made HUGE mistake even mentioning benefits in your OP.
Why on earth would you do that?
You surely cannot expect people to ignore it?

Benefits has nothing to do with neglect and abuse. It is like this ridiculous notion of punishing people by taking away their social housing for offences when someone who owns a house would not lose a thing.

I work with families. Some of whom are really on the edge and will be evasive. It is my job to keep trying to 'get in there'. I am not SS though so I have an advantage. Families are more likely to accept what I have to offer.

Saying that, I have personally witnessed the 'drift' that occours in social services cases. I can see exactly how things get left and a week turns into a month, turns into a year, due to sickness, mistakes in legal documents, not following policies, staff leaving mid case, families moving out of borough, families being 'difficult' and inexperienced SW being intimidated and even worse that bloody awful classist/racist attituded that some families 'just live like that' and the kids 'are used to it'
Its one of the reasons Victoria Climbe died and I am still seeing this crap happen.

SS have limited powers though. They cannot march in and whip kids away unless something is happening that can involve the police eg abandoment. Slow, day to day neglect is much harder to deal with.

Poor little boy.

The trouble is op that you are reacting to one case.
As tragic as they are, individual cases cannot be used as the basis for a universal system.

My dd is unvaccinated, has never seen a health visitor. That has nothing to do with her care. Ds1 never saw a gp for about 8 years. That was nothing to do with his level of care either.

Universal systems will never save every child. Parents will neglect their children. Parents will abuse and kill children. Tragic but true.

Ok OhDoAdmit and Pagwatch
Do you have any suggestions for how (if at all) people at risk of neglecting or abusing their children (intentionally or unintentionally and whether or not with mitigating circumstances) can be motivated to co operate with the state more to allow the state to do its job effectively and protect the vulnerable?

Or do we just have to accept that all public services are there with absolutely no conditions (however low those conditions are set) whatsoever - eg it is acceptable to physically assult any NHS staff member safe in the knowledge that you will still be treated for any ailment.

I guess you are going to say yes, all public services should be totally unconditional to all comers, no qusetions asked at any stage.

In which case what motivators are there to get people to accept help in time to save the lives of vulnerable people who are wholly dependent on them (babies, the elderly)
Or is even seeking to motivate people to behave better for the protection of the vulnerable in society an unacceptable notion in your eyes as well

Well that seems to be an incredibly antagonistic response to what I posted.

Any reason? Or are you barking at me and throwing massive assumptions because of what others have said to you?

Dont guess what I am going to say
It makes you look a bit silly.

If you want a proper conversation I will have one.

I cant really engage with 'I bet you think' , 'I suppose you will say' .

You made a mistake, you equated benefits with neglect. Saying you didnt mean it doesnt magic it away.

It was hugely offensive and shows a mindset that I find disturbing. It leads to children suffering due to people thinking that nice families dont do things like that.

BTW there are no mitigating circumstances to abuse and neglect.

I am going to pick my son up now. When I get back perhaps you would have had a proper think and we can continue this debate in a less passive agressive and more grown up way?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that trying to motivate people is unacceptable. What people are saying is that you have to be very careful that any change you make to try to fix one problem doesn't make things even worse. Making laws on the basis of individual extreme cases is not the answer - by stopping benefits you make things worse for the child. By threatening to stop benefits you make people who are struggling even less likely to seek out or accept help.

Possibly, having draconian laws might have saved this child. But if it cost the lives of 3 others, by pushing them further out from help, would that be worth it?

If you read threads on here for a while, you'll find there are about equal numbers saying "Social services should be stepping in and doing something" and ones saying "Social services have too much power". Add in a few of "I'm worried and need help, but so scared that social services will take my child away" and surely you can see that it's more complicated than just saying there needs to be more done?

"Do you have any suggestions for how (if at all) people at risk of neglecting or abusing their children (intentionally or unintentionally and whether or not with mitigating circumstances) can be motivated to co operate with the state more to allow the state to do its job effectively and protect the vulnerable?"

This betrays such a massive lack of understanding of ANYTHING that it would be amusing if the subject of debate wasn't so grim.

Shirley and others
I conclude from your post you are just saying shut the up I (ie myself) have no idea what I am talking about

Infact yes my original post was very much motivated by this specific particular case and its facts to the extent the abuse of the benefit system appeared to be premeditated.

The mother deceived everyone for 8 months after the death - she appeared to be calculated in what she told family, friends, acquaintances, the state, in order to avoid detection and in order to continue as she was living. Maybe she herself was very vulnerable. Maybe she would have been able to continue living as she was without benefits anyway adding to the tragedy if she had turned to other destructive methods to raise money.

My original post was very specifically in relation to pre meditated and calculated situations where there is evidence of deliberate deceit by the offender. Of course it was not intended as a general principal to the whole of the benefits system. Of course 99.99999% of people do not do this type of thing. But in some cases there is a history which might have allowed detection and early intervention and if the warning signs are there and someone very vulnerable is involved (a baby of 15 months old in this case) I am trying to think of motivators which might have meant the mother would have had a change of heart and co operated with the system if only to save her sons life. Maybe the mother would not give a shit about her benefits so it is all irrelevant anyway. Of course I am NOT saying this applies to everyone in a similar situation. My first post was motivated by the facts of this particular story (she avoided detection for 8 months and no one asked anything)

But it is clear from all posts that me even starting this thread was beyond naieve, as shirley says "a massive lack of understanding of ANYTHING"

Your problem is that you are trying to find a way to stop people committing dreadful, horrific crimes against their children.

Unfortunately, there have always been and always will be terrible people who do fucked up things to others. Applying some strange "tick box" of criteria to prevent people doing such things and tying it into the welfare system is ridiculous and offensive.

Getting your back up about getting called out on that does you no favours either.