Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Charlotte Wyatt to go into foster care

793 replies

ginmummy · 16/10/2006 06:48

...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.

OP posts:
beckybraAAARGHstraps · 17/10/2006 14:19

Rust, I think the point is not whether there is a bottmloess pit of money (of course there isn't), but rather as the parent of a child who needs highly expensive care, it is possible to be disinterested enough to decide that your child must die for the greater good. I couldn't do that. Could you?

rust · 17/10/2006 14:19

but because of the case she was given more intervention than she would have been if the case did not happen

misdee · 17/10/2006 14:19

starving children in africa have bugger all to do with charlotte and her care, and care plan needed. charlotte needs 24 hour care. the family cant provide this on their own, and the LA cant seem to provide it for the family. the dad has done his training and completed it but is deemed not good enough to care for her (i dont know why).

i have been in a similar situation. i have battled with herfordshire local authority to get care up abnd running for dh. he needs 24hour care. i cant provide it. we have 3 children. the last one was concieved after dh had been dx with a heart condition. he went rapidly downhill during that pregnancy. he has spent over a year in hospital, we had to move to a suitable house. he is now off to hospital today to get a new machine as its nearing the end of its working life. a machine that costs hundreds of thousand of pounds. a machine there is talk of withdrawing funding for

charlotte has proved everyone wrong. she is alive, and is now 3 years old. yes, she deserves to live. and she deserves to have a good level of care provided for her, whether it be foster carers or within her own family.

HappyMumof2 · 17/10/2006 14:20

Message withdrawn

Socci · 17/10/2006 14:20

Message withdrawn

kittythescarygoblin · 17/10/2006 14:20

Saggar, yes it's down to money. I have already said I don't ever want to have to decide how it is allocated. I have 5 children beacause I can afford to, and I am grateful for that. There are plenty of people who carry on having kids whether they can afford to or not, so on top of everything else the money from the pot goes there too.
So presumably you think whoever needs the money should get it. Presumably you consider it to be their 'right' to have whatever they demand and that they should have the'right' to do whatever they want and expect help anyway.
Saggar, where exactly does the money come from to support this utopian ideal?

rust · 17/10/2006 14:20

I would have to....

rust · 17/10/2006 14:21

I posted yeasterday !!!!

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 17/10/2006 14:21

How so rust if there was a DNR order? Crikey you mean they fed her, gave her oxygen to breathe and pain meds. Should she have been denied that?

beckybraAAARGHstraps · 17/10/2006 14:21

Of course. Her parents wanted her to stay alive, so they went to the courts, and the court decided they had a reasonable case. You can blame the judge for that decision if you disagree with it, but not the parents. Their actions are entirely understandable.

HappyMumof2 · 17/10/2006 14:21

Message withdrawn

Socci · 17/10/2006 14:23

Message withdrawn

GreenSepticStumps · 17/10/2006 14:23

Oh look, "the cat came back"

I agree with becky's last point - it's all very easy to sit here on MN making all these "tough ecenomic choices", taking the hard line and banging on about "the real world". If it were YOUR child about to be deprived of the chance to grow up, you might it all became a bit too real and the choices might not seem so black and white any more.

HappyMumof2 · 17/10/2006 14:24

Message withdrawn

beckybraAAARGHstraps · 17/10/2006 14:25

"I have already said I don't ever want to have to decide how it is allocated"

But you will express your opinions quite freely with no accountability.

No, I do get some of your points, but I CAN'T get the criticism of the parents. As I said in a previous post, the courts perhaps, but would you really make a dispassionate decision if it were one of your children kitty?

kittythescarygoblin · 17/10/2006 14:25

Socci, for heavens sake grow up. Is bigot the name you give people who don't agree with you?

Greensleeves, once I did, giving up voting at all now

rust · 17/10/2006 14:25

AND they gave her millions of pain killers and sedatives too, LUCKY HER

GreenSepticStumps · 17/10/2006 14:26

You're not Ann Widdecombe, are you?

kittythescarygoblin · 17/10/2006 14:27

Becky, it's not one of my children so the question isn't relevant to what is being "discussed" here.

griffintribe · 17/10/2006 14:27

I just think the whole situation is very sad and there is no easy answer. I am just VERY GLAD that my dd is healthy and i appreciate how lucky that makes me

misdee · 17/10/2006 14:27

rust, oh dear oh dear oh dear

kittythescarygoblin · 17/10/2006 14:27

I'm far too attractive for that

Socci · 17/10/2006 14:28

Message withdrawn

ShinyHappyPurpleSeveredHeads · 17/10/2006 14:29

Kitty, perhaps you are also missing the point that others a viewing the whole case from an entriely different perspective to because of their experience of severe disability that you admit you don't have. It wouldn't make you less of a person to concede this point.

saggarmakersbottomknocker · 17/10/2006 14:30

But there for the grace of God kitty.

You have 5 children because you can afford it. That's fine. If something happened (God forbid)to one of you children tomorrow and they needed 24 hour care, would you expect it to be provided? Of course you would. You would fight tooth and nail for your child. The Wyatts did just that and now find they can't cope. Should they be berated for it? I don't think so.

Swipe left for the next trending thread