17 year old found starved to death in Birmingham

[PinkPussyCat]

Just heard about this on the lunchtime ITV news... Apparently there were several other emaciated children found at the scene following a call to the emergency services.
They don't have any more details than that atm.

How can stuff like this be happening in the UK in 2008?

Anyone see The Times yet this morning?

How about this load of piffle...

"She was one of six children aged between 12 and 4, living in a poor area with her mother and stepfather. That alone is enough to qualify her as a ?child in need? ? a status that prompts regular visits from social workers."

Just how much funding would one social services area need to reach this goal? And do we really want society to be like this?

Social services didn't starve this child to death; neither did home education.

The parents did.

Yes, MB, and fair enough that the school don't get flak for it. It wasn't the school's responsibility, it was the parent's responsibility and they are now being prosecuted.

forever, I think you are reading things in my post that simply aren't there. I have not asserted that parents who do this are bad, whether they are or not they are under the radar of the state.
It is not about home education AT ALL it is about the notion that in addition to not attending school some children could be in a situation where they are never seen by anyone who would have any notion about reporting abuse, ie they could be locked a basement for 20 years and noone would even ask a question.
It is quite poor that HE people seem to jumping on a defensive bandwagon about school versus Home educating, this is not the issue at all. My children are privately educated and so I am not here to champion state schools, but I would imagine (and know through friends) that many children's issues are put into the hands of SS by teachers and staff within a school, I wonder what equivilent is offered for children who are home schooled. To reitterate this is not for lovely families who do a great job HE, this is for the few that may not.
It would be prudent to mention that we don't hear about the many children that are saved by the SS and so maybe sometimes the system does work.

Posieparker I am sure that there are a very very tiny proportion of Home edcuated children who do not come into contact with anyone from the outside world. I for sure do not know anyone.

Unfortunately, 'jumping on the defensive bandwagon' is something we have had to do for many years, as ignorance surrounding it by so many, leads it to be thought of as something unlawful, shady, only done by weirdos, or whatever.

I can assure you, we are perfectly normal people who are choosing to take full responsibility for our childrens education.

It's so bizarre that you are still justifying your 'normality' and I can't think that I have questioned the choice of home education at all, if I couldn't afford to send my children to a very homely and small independent school then I may have made the choice myself. It isn't that anyone is weird or more likely to be weird if they choose to home educate, it is that if they were weird in a sinister way who would know??

People are always frightened of people who step outside the box and on one hand there is the fear of the unknown and the other jealousy or disbelief that people have the nerve and conviction to be different. I'm sure you have to converse about how you'll get your child through their GCSEs or whether they socialise enough, and people scrutinise the behaviour of your children enough already. That said I hope you can see that steps need to be taken for the state to ensure all children are well nourished, intellectually, socially and emotionally that state contact should be made on some level that is appropriate for both children and parents.

forever, perhaps if you didn't use phrases like "we are perfectly normal people who are choosing to take full responsibility for our childrens education." you may find people a little more open about HE. I believe you imply that other people don't take full responsibility and just keep their fingers crossed for the best??

I'm still not getting it posieparker. They had a visit from the Educational Welfare Officer who did not raise any concerns.

How is enforcing visits and regulation going to help in cases like this?

Posie, if one is home educating, one IS taking full personal responsibility for their education, and if one is NOT they are relying on and yes, hoping with fingers crossed that someone else will do just as good a job!

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

They were visited once. Perhaps in the first year of being taken out of school it should be every four weeks. Also an interview to explain on what grounds you are withdrawing your child.
Kay, what would you have done differently? Let's pretend you were in charge.

I still wonder ............

If you were a homew educating family or a family with children under 5 years old, how often would you be happy with authorities coming into your home and making judgments about your choices posieparker?
Once every twelve/six/three months?
Once a month?
Once a week?

Forever, with a superior attitude like that no wonder you have to justify your position.

Julie, having nothing to hide... I wouldn't worry. For ease and convenience once a month would be fine. They could come into my home and have a chat and leaf through work casually, I have no problem with state authority and believe they have a duty of care to all citizens but especially those under 16.

Forever, actually I think most people send their children to school because they believe the school can do a better job.

I certainly would not say i have a superior attitude, funniest thing i have heard all day!

I am not trying to get into the wrongs and rights of home versus school, just trying to explain maybe why some of us choose to do it.

Its very simple, If i sent someone along to a shop to buy something for me, I would hope that they brought me the correct thing back. If I go myself I can ensure that I buy exactly what I wanted in the first place.

I shall give up in a minute!!

Let's not get into this, I respect your right to choose.

Posie, well, in our case, with our children never even having been to school, the interview to explain to the school why we were withdrawing would be a bit redundant ;)

The only information we really have is that they were visited by the EWO which had no issues with them. This was a welfare issue, not an educational one, and we know nothing about any previous concerns and there's an investigation ongoing.

I'm not a supporter of an over-bearing state, and believe that the parameters of their responsibility cover prosecuting those who have done something wrong, not putting anyone who does something legal, but out of the ordinary, under surveillance.

This family had more input from the LA over education than we have had, and yet a child still died - because the parents failed spectacularly in their duty of care.

I believe in holding individuals responsible for breaking the law, and leaving them be when they give absolutely no reason to suppose that they are breaking the law.

I suspect that's a point in which we may fundamentally disagree, given what you've already stated about your view of the state.

Trouble is it's hard to predict which families are going to come to disasterous ends.

It's not really about HE or school is it?

It's about what sort of society we want. One in which we are free to choose the way we bring up and educate our children - including the right to say no to visits from the LEA; from HVs; from EWOs or one in which we expect regular supervision from outside authorities.

What would have saved this child? What would have saved that whole family in the Austrian cellar? What would have saved all those pregnant young people in that commune in Texas?

It's easy after the event to say we should have more supervision and social workers on every street corner. And that if children were at school then they would have been saved. I doubt it.

But if social workers or EWOs try and intervene in family affairs the same media that is causing this outcry now will cause an equal noise supporting the rights of parents against the authorities.

As a last point it is disingenious to say that all the children who are being home educated are at extra risk; but it is equally true that there are some children taken out of school for home education who are receiving no education. They will not be known to other HE families because they are not educating!

No idea what the answer is - but it sure isn't easy.

So every family in the country should be having compulsary monthly vists for the time their children are not under state supervision??
Shakes head in wonder
Every family with a child under five and every family during the school holidays.

And you and whose treasure trove are going to pay for this?

And what about the familys right to a private life-enshrined in the ECHR.
Why not move right into 1960's USSR?
George Orwell's 1984 Big Brother state will truly be here.

Will the last person to leave the country if posieparker is elected PM please turn off the light!

While I'm not sure about the finacial 'usefulness' of such a plan, I wouldn't have the slightest worry about people popping in to see my kids.

good posts gagarin and kayharker.

my post about HE was because i had no clue about it untill i read this thread,so thank you julienoshoes for clarifying

i would certainly not be comfortable with regular monitoring if i had done nothing wrong.in fact,im pretty sure the stress it would put me under would have a detrimental effect on my family.

i dont see the HV now as i cant be bothered with obsessing over the wieght of my children,or being harrassed about immunisations.the times suggestion that 3 of my children are 'in need' as they live in a poor area and have a step-dad,and as such should recieve visits from ss,is insulting

I am not worried about people seeing my children.
I will continue to protect my childrens right to a private life and respect their right NOT to have to meet with people from the LA, unless they choose to.

SS already rightly have the powers to walk into any home if they have welfare concerns.

Did they in this case?

Julie, how about we have no checks and noone gives a crap about vunerable families. You asked me what I would find acceptable in my household and I told you.
No treasure trove is available but issues have been raised about the 'freedom' of parents to do as they will with their children, with potentially no contact with the state for their whole childhood, I cannot agree to this. Perhaps I am not as arrogant as you to just assume I am doing a wonerful job at parenting and that everyone else must be, and appreciate the safety that the state could provide to vunerable families.

This isn't about home v school or that home educators are bad. The truth is these children were removed from school suposedly to be home schooled and since then they have been starved to the point where one child died.

I do not believe that parents who starve their children to death would educate them at home!

It doesn't reflect on all home educators because let's face it, they weren't home educating!

They did when someone reported the family, by then it was too late.

They can't guess at who is at risk. If no one told them - the ESW didn't report finding a problem, we're told - how are they to know?

They can't just walk into any home either, if parents that have been reported refuse to let them in they have to get a court order and a police escort.

Just because you are treating your children well, doesn't mean everyone does and, as this case shows, some people use it as an excuse to keep their children out of public eye so they can abuse them. I went to a girl's school in Birmingham and the amount of girl's who left the school to go to Pakistan was amazing. The question from teachers was always "Pakistan-on-Sparkbrook?" there are a lot of girls that go to "Pakistan-on-Sparkbrook"and a lot that really do go. How do SS know the difference?

Oh, posieparker, I do enjoy a few ad-homs thrown into a debate. Makes everything so much clearer

TinkerbellesMum, you're absolutely right, this is not a HE issue, which is why HE parents are getting a bit defensive about the suggestion that they need to be stringently monitored because someone starved their child to death.