Charlotte Wyatt to go into foster care

[ginmummy]

...because, according to the news, her seperated parents can't give her the care that she needs. It so sad, I want to cry. Poor, poor Charlotte, poor, poor parents.

theres another thread Here

sorry

I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a child in that situation and to be a parent in that position, but now, to expect the state to pick up the pieces is pretty sh**ty behaviour. I'm sorry but I think it's wrong . Resisitate their child against all medical advice child and then get someone to look after her?
They should be made to deal with the consequences of their actions. They fought to keep her alive and now they must care for her.

It's not so black and white though is it?

They fought to keep her alive when they were together. I don't imagine many of us would have acted differently. And the stress of that fight pushed them apart.

Dad has had the required training to look after her at home so I don't think that they are 'expecting' the state to look after her. It's just the logistics of doing that as a single parent are huge.

I think it's really sad for all concerned.

I think you are right, but what about the mother?

Can't say, but they have other children too.

I would assume that she's caring for them, plus visiting the hospital. I can't tell you how stressful that is even for a few weeks, never mind months, years even. A child like Charlotte, cared for at home, probably needs 24 hour waking care, an adapted home, all manner of equipment. It's a massive undertaking.

I expect that when they were fighting to keep her alive they didn't really grasp the long-term issues of it, thought they'd be togther too.

I agree - it is tragic isn't it. But I couldn't imagine going through what that family has gone through.

According to newspaper reports, the couple split in January. They have 3 other children (4, 2, 11 months) and he has 3 children from a previous relationship. He is unemployed, and lives alone in a 2 bedroom council flat. Both parents survive on benefits. Because of his suicide attempt, he is deemed unsuitable. The mother is reported to have a new boyfriend, and has not commented publicly on the foster care issue. Is she deemed unsuitable because of the demands of 3 young children?

I haven't read the article today yet but am so sad that after the support and training the couple have had to enable them to care for her at home , with her siblings, it has come to foster care.

Sorry I'm not happy with this whole thing, Alot od public money has been ploughed into this whole debacle, not good at all.

Kitty

Perhaps you have NO IDEA what ti is like to care for a child with SN? I don't know?

I do know that my son has relatively moderate SN, yet I would JUMP at the idea of respite care at the cost of the public purse for him if it were offered. The effects of the SN on his brothers are at times huge, and constantly balancing DS1's needs with theirs is frankly impossible and soul destroying, I cope because of my DH but if separated, can't imagine how I would do so.

Charlotte's parents fought for the life of a loved one; her going into foster care doesn't alter that one bit, the little girl has (in my opinion and theirs) a right to her life. Public money shouldn't come into it; ALL children are equally valid and worthy of support however it is required.

kittythescarygoblin, even ignoring the fact that the parents were together at the time that they fought for their daughter to be kept alive, is it not possible to believe that your child has a right to life irrespective of whether you feel capable of looking after him or her? Her medical treatment must have gone well beyond what her parents could afford to pay for - would you also say that was wrong?

I have to agree that foster care does not mean that the child is 'unwanted.' It means that a family cannot cope, for whatever reason, at a particular time.

I saw this in the Sunday Times yesterday and was in tears. The article was going on about how much Charlotte was costing the taxpayer, and I know it's complex, but the poor baby didn't ask for any of this. The article said she needs more stimulation at home, but there is no stable home so she had her 3rd birthday party in hospital

Agree with Peachy, I feel very uncomfortable about this idea that "they've made their bed so let them lie on it". That child had the right to the same medical care as any other child and they had the right to fight for her. They also have the right to have the support of the state to look after her, just as all parents have.

Foster care may not be the ideal, but I'd hesitate to make snap judgements about a family I really know nothing about, except what the media tells me. And I'm not one to believe things I believe about families or individuals in the meejah. We don't know what other options the family were offered or how realistic the support options for them were.

It is a very difficult area, neverthe less, these people need to take responsibility for their actions. If you fight to keep your child alive, as nearly every parent would , then you have to know that you can shoulder the consequences of doing that. These people, as far as I can gather, are not in a positon to do that. I don't think this makes me heartless, it makes me practical. There is only so much ,money in the pot. I am in no position to say how it should be spent, but I can say when I think that bad decisions have been made and I think they were made in this case.

kitty, none of us know if we can shoulder the burden of caring for children when he have them.

That's not true. Every person who plans to have a child should consider VERY carefully whether they can support that child both emotionally and finacially. It is extremely irresponsible to create a life that you are not sure you can support properly. It is not fair and it is not right.

tbh I think there is more to this than we are being told. I'm not going to go into the right to life issue, because imo it's a huge minefield and is something that there is no right or wrong answer to imo, but the Wyatts' conduct throughout this whole time has been very questionable. It was they who chose to make public the fact they were going to court, even to the extent of publishin their daughter's name/picture etc, they appeared on this morning to show off their new baby who had been born just 10 months after the birth of Charlotte, not to talk about charlotte, but to talk about their new baby, and about how they had moved on etc, and yes of course Charlotte was mentioned, but she wasn't the object of the interview. Earlier this year when doctors went back to court to try to prevent resussitation when Charlotte was seriously ill and not expected to survive, they had a lawyer on the radio who was saying that this case has been about far more than just a parent's fight to keep a child alive, that there have been many many question marks over the conduct of the parents throughout, but that these cannot be mentioned for legal reasons.

kittythescarygoblin, I'm interested in how far you would take that position. As Caligula says, none of us know whether we are capable as parents before having children. What about those who decline abnormality screening because they would not contemplate an abortion in the event of a positive result - should they be made to pay in the event that they have a disabled child and cannot cope?

... and in the light of your last post with which I cross-posted, what about those whose children have an unforseen and unforseeable disability (or they themselves have)?

kitty I disagree with you.

I have a friend who has MS, who found she was pregnant and had the dilemma of knowing she might not survive to bring the baby to adulthood (or even teenagehood). She considered very long and hard about whether to have the baby. I think she had the right to make the choice she did. But doubtless lots of people out there would say she was irresponsible and selfish, just as they would say the same about mothers who have cancer, AIDS etc. having babies when they don't know for sure they'll be able to support them.

Life isn't black and white.

life certainly isnt black and white

It is a very difficult area, neverthe less, these people need to take responsibility for their actions. If you fight to keep your child alive, as nearly every parent would , then you have to know that you can shoulder the consequences of doing that

OK, so if you have Severe pnd and need support for a while to care for the baby after a split, then you shouldn't get it? Or if you develop say, cancer and are a single aprent, tough, you should ahve been prepared for it all along?

How far do you take it?

I've nursed paeople with autism in the past so consider myself relatively well rpepared, but that was shite; I had no idea what it is like living with an autistic child. It doesn't detract from their right to life though.

What was Mummy Wyatt supposed to do, exactly? say 'well I love my child and think her potential is beings eriously under estimayted; however I might split with my DH at some point and I might struggle So, OK, don't worry about the resusciatation?'

IIRC the Wyatt's are / were exceptionallyr eligious, so I doubt any marital aplit was taken lightly. Loads of marriages with SN kids involved break up. Hardly surprising from where I stand.

The whole point of social services is to help children when they need it, nothing to do wth the aprents anyway. So, what do we say? @sorryc harolotte- you need extra help but we don't approve of some thngs your aprents did so stuff you'

bugger that.

sorry, first paragraph was a quote for got to put the "