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 think what has actually happened is twofold

Firstly you received some negative responses so you became massively defensive and stopped reading what people posted choosing instead to assume they are all just being rude.

Secondly you are responding to everyone else on the thread as if they are a group not random people with varying opinions.

Which is kind of funny because it makes my point.
Some people have been rude to you.
You respond to that by being rude to everyone whether they have gene rude or not.

See how pointless it is thinking that one response can be all things to all people?

People are way more complicated than that

More PA ranting.

Poor you.

The reasons why children continue to die at the hands of their parents are many.

Drugs, drink, previous abuse, learning difficulties, mental health issues, adults who can only think of their own needs, domestic violence, childhood disablity, twisted ideas about religion and/or culture..... the list is pretty much endless.

That is why there is no one plan that can sort it all out.

I expect those children found in the back of their mother's car last year had all their jabs up to date and where wearing nice clothes when she killed them. I dont remember hearing she had any previous contact with SS or the law either.

I dont understand why you think poster who actually work in the pubic sector are in favour of services users being allowed to assault us without any punishment.

You are free to post about what you want but all this foot stamping is a bit childish. Do you REALLY want to know what people think or is this just one of those 'I am care so much about this I had to post to tell you how upset I am' threads?

I spend all my working hours looking out for signs of abuse, neglect, stuggling parents, ways I can help. It spills over into my off duty time too. Once you see and learn you cant unsee it and unlearn it.

buggered if I know how to stop people killing their kids but its got feck all to do with benefits.

"Applying some strange "tick box" of criteria to prevent people doing such things and tying it into the welfare system is ridiculous and offensive"

Not suggesting a "tick box" approach
Not suggesting something which would apply to everyone in a class or even everyone who has a history of any type of behaviour. In this specific case the mother had clear history of being a heroin addict. The father was a heroin addict who she met on a methodone programme. The mother appeared to be doing well on a methodone programme immediately after the birth of the baby. For the first year she appeared to be a good mother. The photos available show toys. Reports suggest a first birthday party. But then the baby is not seen outside by anyone in the public from 15 months until he was discovered dead and rotting in his cot 8 months later. During that time mother maintained a facade which no one questioned. No one uncovered this situation or asked enough questions notwithstanding the history of heroine addiction.
During that time she was going out to "get" things - selling baby clothes and toys for money to buy drugs and claiming benefits.

This is a case with a history known to the authorities - someone put her on the methodone programme and someone decided she was well enough to need absolutely no monitoring whatsoever for a whole 8 months.

None of my posts suggested a tick box approach, all of it was wholly motivated by the facts of this particular case and the issue of early intervention and how it can be done

She just got 15 years but it's scant satisfaction when a little one died needlessly.
Evil people do evil things no matter what their financial situation is.

Everyone wishes this case, and others like it, did not happen.

But all of your solutions seemed to me to be based upon ways of forcing compliance with service agencies.
Forcing people to engage with govt agencies will increase suspicion,distrust deceit and is more likely to result in other children being neglected. This is particularly true if you use benefits to apply pressure. And I doubt many gps would relish the breakdown in confidentiality if they had to sign off on their patients.

It's not that people don't want a solution. It is that the solution can't be to make support conditional or more children lose out

Agree with Hectate