Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
kittythescarygoblin · 16/10/2006 11:18

No, not bollocks, true.

nutcracker · 16/10/2006 11:19

I am not 100% sure what I think about this. I do think it was odd that they had another 2 children so soon after Charlotte and whilst fighting to get doctors to keep her alive.
I am ont saying they shouldn't have had further children, just that I don't think it was thought through exactly how they would cope with it all.

misdee · 16/10/2006 11:20

oh god wannabe, i should've forseen all of that and plan meticiously, and not be a drain on the NHS and the local authority

KathyMCMLXXII · 16/10/2006 11:20

From what I read in the Daily Mail today (!), the father really wants to look after her - it's social services who say he can't cope and he doesn't understand why he isn't at least being allowed to try.

ScareyCaligulaCorday · 16/10/2006 11:20

kitty, how do you know the wyatts were irresponsible?

How on earth do you know?

I'm amazed by your omniscience.

BATtymumma · 16/10/2006 11:21

unfortunatly babies are like conservatories, you cant make contingency plans for when the builders dont turn up!

im going to have to parp this thread as i am getting quite angry

PeachyBobbingParty · 16/10/2006 11:21

No, kitty shouldn't be denied benefits if her Dh did leaver her, because the priority is the welfare of her children and I would be happy for my taxes (or rather DH's atm) to go to that.

As in the case of the Wyatts.

kittythescarygoblin · 16/10/2006 11:22

This has got NOTHING to do with SN FFS. All those with Sn children, it isn't about you or your families. It is about couple patently unable to cope with their situation. I get really P*ssed of the the whole " are you saying?" attitude . Make it up why don't you.

kittythescarygoblin · 16/10/2006 11:23

I go by what I have read, just like everyone else. Except we seem to draw different conclusions.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 16/10/2006 11:24

Absolutely Ellbell. Couldnt have said it better.

I am rather stunned that such harsh judgements are being made when it is very apparent that barely any of the facts surrounding this are in the public domain.

I happen to think it was a shoddy bit of journalism to list the estimated cost of Charlottes care - it was only ever going to blur peoples opinions of the case.

ScareyCaligulaCorday · 16/10/2006 11:24

Yeah, what you have read.

Precisely. I think it's very dangerous to go by what you have read. Where have you read it? Mrs Wyatt's diary?

PeachyBobbingParty · 16/10/2006 11:24

Anyway, Charlotte didn't win a repieve until she was 2.

A) Do you really expect a parent to be able to say bye to a child they have loved for two years, regardless of SN?

B) She didn't have to be resusciated in allt hat time, bt she didn't, as fara s I can see, actually need the resuscuitation anyway in the end. So short of witrhdrawinga ll treatment (very cruel indeed) she would ahve presumably lived without her aprents fight? After all the Dr's retaioned ultimate ontrol even after the judgement, according to the BBC

wannaBe1974 · 16/10/2006 11:24

well I shall return. But first I have to go and pick up my project from preschool :O

Earlybird · 16/10/2006 11:25

The father isn't considered a suitable carer because he attempted suicide some months ago. Not sure why the mum isn't considered suitable - but may be as simple as the fact that she's got 3 other kids under 5.

hulababy · 16/10/2006 11:26

kitty - I think you are really living in a different world to the majority of people.

How many people really go into having a baby thinking "what will I do if my baby is born severaly disabled and may die?" or "what will happen to my baby, who may or may not be born severely disabled, and me and Dh split up because of the stress and strain on us due to caring for and fighting for our baby?"

Did you really go through all that?

By your way of thinking there would only be a very small number of people who should be allowed to have a child. Namely, a financially well off married couple, with no history (or fmaily history) of illness and disease or any form of SN themselves, who have extended family living close by who are willing and able, and presumably young enough to expect long life ahead, to help take care of the children should anything happen to the parents.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 16/10/2006 11:27

I think that the only conclusion that can be drawn here is that we dont have all the facts, surely?

Along with the fact that it is a very sad situation. How you can glean much more than that kitty leaves me absolutely stunned.

How is this NOT about SN? Isn't it how this issue came about....her standard care involves the fact that she has very particular, special needs?

kittythescarygoblin · 16/10/2006 11:27

It's interesting that many of you appear to regard having children as a bit of a lottery as to whetehr you can cope or not . No of course you can't cover every eventuality, but you have a duty to that child to cover as many as you can.

ScareyCaligulaCorday · 16/10/2006 11:27

I find this "you have to cover all eventualities" mentality really bizarre.

If everyone thought like that, nobody would ever have children and the human race would have died out long ago.

The fact is, living is such a gamble that any amount of contingency planning won't be enough when the unexpected strikes. Far safer not to engage in life at all.

misdee · 16/10/2006 11:28

life is a complete lottery. dh mum didnt expect to have a child on the heart transplant list, and costing the NHS a fortune in care.

kittythescarygoblin · 16/10/2006 11:29

hulabay, yes we really did do all that considering. I hadn't realised, honestly that it was such an unusual thing to do.

FreakyFloss · 16/10/2006 11:30

i think it speaks volumes that for a couple who have sought media involvement throughout their various battles they don't seem to be very prominent atm - split or no split.

hulababy · 16/10/2006 11:32

I have never met any body to think like that kitty, none at all. I think you are very unique to have gone into so many ossibilities for your child. I am suprised after all those thoughts anyone would ever have any children TBH.

I am not sure I could cope at all with losing my 4yo DD to some form of accident or illness. I am not sure how I'd have coped had she been born severely disabled, having to live in hospital for most of her life attached to wires and machines. Does this mean I should not have had her?

BATtymumma · 16/10/2006 11:35

I know i parped but i have been made so angry by this i just couldn't stay away.

How on earth has this got "nothing to do with SN" ????

the reason their child is being placed in social care is BECAUSE her SN is so severe her parents aren't able to manage her disability.

her parents are splitting up (i assume mainly) becuase of the stress of her SN and the relating court case to keep her alive.

NO way on this planet can any parent plan for the eventuality of living the Wyatts last 3 years.

I am beyond trying to be polite now, Kitty your attitude disgusts me. its people who share your opinion that would point at people with DS or CP or LFASD and tell the mother that the child should be in an institute. they shouldnt be out in public.

i don't know what colour the clouds are on your planet but i wish i lived there, its obviously a perfect world!

HumphreyComfreyCushion · 16/10/2006 11:35

Well, they obviously needed publicity in order to gain public support for their fight against the DNR order on their child.

Who wouldn't?

I don't find it odd that they are not keen to be in the public eye during the breakdown of their marriage, and the sad situation whereby they are now unable to care for their daughter.

I think they have always fought for what they believed was in the best interests of their child.

I don't think they want to be celebrities.

PeachyBobbingParty · 16/10/2006 11:38

I know that we did a lot of planning , and indeed that we took a risk (DS was conceived after only 4 months together, though we were engaed and living together) but I still maintain that it is impossible to understand how a child with SN affects the family until you have one at thome with you day in day out for years. How tired you can become, how individual they all are, and sometimes most difficult: how much you love and adore them.

And indeed, how impossible it si to get the little bit of hwlp that might just hold the family togerth, and stop you needing the major help.

Dha nd I are together still thankfully, but lots of people in seemingly more stable relationships aren't.

And my Dh did try and kill himself too,a s a result of depression brought on by aspects of Sam's SN, a few years ago now. At no point was he a consciously abd aprent to Sam, but I wouldn't have wanted him having sole responsibility at that point either. Had I not been in a place where I could care for all my family then I don't know what would have happned.

Once we know that Mt Wyatt tried to kill himself- surely we can understand that pressures must have been immesaurable, and find pity, rather than criticism in our hearts?