Elsie Scully-Hicks

[Elephantgrey]

How can you understand how someone can harm such a tiny baby. My husband knew Matthew Scully-Hicks and said you would never imagine he would be the sort of person to do something like this. When we first heard about it we imagined that he had just snapped but seeing the news report he inflicted so many injuries on her since the day she arrived. It's just heartbreaking.

In which cultures are men the main carers? Genuinely interested

Not sure about cultures but it’s safe to say there are probably thousands if not millions of gay men who raise kids together. I reckon one of them would be the primary carer.

I think the issue of Scully-Hicks sexuality has clouded this case. The fact is that parents of either gender have abused and murdered their children, whether they’re adopted or birth children.

In relationship the childcare is split exactly 50/50 and always has been. There is nothing I do that my partner does not. Both work pt and look after the kids. Wouldn't cross my mind that his maleness would not make this possible. This is 2017 right?

I think the issue of Scully-Hicks sexuality has clouded this case.

The concern is that it was the SWs' eyes that were clouded.

The drive not to bigoted can cause its own blindness m. As we saw in Rotherham and similar scandals.

But we don't know. We'll have to wait and see.

Battleax I really hope that wasn’t the case but it seems that it may have been.

In our relationship obviously

Whilst the Mother of Shayla O'Brien (under the state ordained fictitious identity Elsie Scully-Hicks) was a drug user, the Grandmother was not. A Grandmother who fought for her Granddaughter. Yet the SW decided that SHE would not be able to cope!!!! My God, any adoptive parent who takes a child that becomes available for 'future risk', nearly always having been made available after multiple psychological 'expert witness' assessments of the parents, until one gives a negative (I was told this by SW family member btw) is an absolute vulture. Worse are the ones who won't even allow contact once a year, when those people are deserted when 'their' children vote with their feet - they deserve everything they get!

A Grandmother who managed to escape the LA character assassination, and keep her Grandchild. But of course, there will be plenty of adopters along to say how this stuff isn't routine, blah blah blah. www.transparencyproject.org.uk/a-grandmother-who-wanted-to-complain-and-a-local-authority-that-argued-it-shouldnt-be-named/#comment-15404

Battleax I really hope that wasn’t the case but it seems that it may have been.

It's hard to see what's caused such an enormous fuck up, unless it was something wrong but well meant like that, isn't it?

Strangely enough, I am wondering why when Shayla’s ankle was broken and no reasonable explanation was given for that, why she wasn’t removed? If a child is living with their real family and has their ankle broken, the family get hauled over the coals for it. Why not this family?
Goes to show, you cannot predict ‘future risk’, if you could, then Shayla (Hopefully) wouldn’t have been placed with those adopters, but it’s almost like you can’t tell on the balance of probabilities that a child may be likely to suffer significant harm, like that is a flawed concept or something? or is it just me?
Furthermore anybody would think that the LA who consistently moan about their budget cuts, would be better spending their money removing children who are actually abused or neglected, rather than spending their budgets putting parents in proceedings through repeat psychological ‘expert witness’ tests until one comes up with a negative to exploit, in order for the child to be removed for the ‘future risk’.

Battleax it does seem strange if it isn’t that doesn’t it? I do hope it doesn’t lead to them going to the opposite extreme and making it harder for gay couples to adopt. God knows good homes for kids in care aren’t as widely available as they should be!

I do wonder about some of the "future risk" cases its.

Any official process will have an error rate. Child protection will too. Some child protection work is being carried out by failing departments so denying that mistakes are ever made seems foolhardy to me.

"Future emotional harm" seems, by its very nature, more open to error than other CP concerns.

No adopter or long term fosterer wants to believe that their child was removed or freed in a flawed or erroneous decision, of course, so it's a very sensitive subject.

Battleax it does seem strange if it isn’t that doesn’t it? I do hope it doesn’t lead to them going to the opposite extreme and making it harder for gay couples to adopt.

Yes that's the concomitant concern. CP practice is so very reactive to big scandals. My mind's going that way, I must say.

I just wish they’d revise procedures or do a longer intensive check period or something instead of sweeping gestures which appease a baying mob the DM et al but actually don’t help and in fact hinder!

Yes, quite.

Battleax, as a counsellor, I find it reprehensible that the LA would sex up their claims in the 'future risk' adoptions, because I have witnessed a rejection first hand (SW family member) and it's about as f**king ugly as it gets, it tears through the entire family. Adopters left wondering 'what did I do wrong', well the answer to that is NOTHING. You didn't do anything wrong! I think it's Nancy Verrier that said something along the lines of 'the first step to a successful adoption, is to make sure the child needs to be adopted', so some adopters are being set up to fail. Like my opinion or not, if you walk into that adoption agency, and you take a child that's been made available for 'future risk' and you deny the natural parents contact, and you don't ask the SW some awkward ?'s ie: what have you done to keep this family together? Then I'm sorry. but you were complicit in creating your own rejection!

It won't be a popular view on MN, its, that's all I'm saying.

Personally, I'd favour more open adoption and more guaranteed contact (in whatever form) across the board anyway. For the psychological health of non-relinquished adoptees. But I don't expect that to go down well on MN either.

Battleax, I will call SW a cousin, though they are not. So SW cousin said to me, around May 2009 (Elephant ass-elephant memory to match haha) that anybody involved with social services needed to be careful as they are 'whipping babies away at lightning speed'. Now, put yourself in the perspective of an adopter and say (hypothetically) you adopted from abroad, and when that child that you rescued from an orphanage turns 18 and wants to visit their ancestral land, you actually find out that the child's Mother had a knife held to her throat and the baby was kidnapped. Would you as an adopter, be able to tell her that you are the 'real parent' or do you think that she wouldn't deserve that kick in the teeth? I find it on a level with 'future risk' adoptions, when the LA use repeated psych assessments until they have something to use against Mum. Can you honestly say (on the hypothetical) that if you found out years down the line that the natural Mum had been one of those character assassinations, that asserting yourself as the only Mother/Father of the child wouldn't be a smack in the chops after what the parent had been through. As for contact, and this is from personal professional experience, most adopters don't want to give birth parents contact because of jealousy, plain and simple, they are jealous of the fact that this woman had the experience of being pregnant with the child, or that the child looks like it's Father etc. It interests me greatly, from another thread a while back talking about post adoption contact, that many adopters and prospective adopters would have contact with birth family if that was a condition of adopting, because it would be better than not ever having a chance to parent, but all the while that they can get away with no contact, or closed adoption by the back door -'letterbox' they do it! which only serves to back up my perspectives gained from patients. Jealousy, pure and simple.

The LA are constantly moaning about budget cuts, but here's an idea. Stop with the repeated psych assessments, save that money to go towards identifying children who have actually been abused or neglected, and plough funding into counselling for those children! I have seen the aftermath of CSA, this was about 20 years ago, and the child was never given any counselling, it beggars belief. Stop spending money chasing down parents with ADHD and ASD to remove their children for 'future risk' and help the bloody ones that NEED it. With not enough adopters to go round, surely they should be seen as a vital community resource, only being used when genuinely needed, rather than being handed a child that is quite likley (pro exp) to reject them when it learns of the truth! Makes sense to me, really does.

Millions of gay men raising children?! Honestly people are making things up on this thread and there are some quite odd assertions.

Whataboutmeee I believe I said “probably thousands if not millions”. I think you either misread or deliberately misunderstood to show outrage. In a world of over 6 billion people it’s not unlikely that there would be thousands or millions of gay couples raising kids. It is completely normal for a couple to settle down and want to raise a family after all.

It’s also perfectly normal not to want children too, in case I offend anyone. I didn’t mean it wasn’t normal to want or not want a family.

Have a Not . You're navigating the bear traps so well

Battleax why thank you here’s a for you so I’m not sozzled on my own

Cheers