'snatched' by social workers

[DuelingFanjo]

oh ffs

I know it's the Daily Mail but Social workers don't snatch children!

She looks good for 48 mind!

Must. Not. Engage. Supposed to be going to bed.

Can probably predict how this will go anyway.

they didnt snatch this little lad the parents agreed and I'll bet this is what was said we could put him with another family for a bit to see if this will help, parents at the end of their tether agreed to it. The rest hog wash.

God I hate the DM for this kind of story with half truths in it.

Pity the SS cant say their piece as I'll bet it would make it a non story.

What a massive big ball of absolute shite. What complete and utter..hang on.. SHE'S 48?????!!

My ds is being treated at the same hospital for lack of weight gain. I cannot praise them highly enough. I would like to know what the definition of 'junk food' is because our dietician is ace. There is so much focus on healty eating atm that some people have lost sight of the fact that an underweight child needs food that would be ludicrous for an adult. I would be terrified by this article if it wasn't in the DM.

She didn't exactly sound as if she was willing to cooperate with them over the diet.

There is an article in the Telegraph that may be more believable: www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6713838/Couples-son-2-taken-into-care-by-social-workers-after- they-refused-to-feed-him-junk-food.html

I think the 'snatched' allegation comes from this: "The couple... were told that if they challenged the decision, social services would ?go straight to court? where ?all your parental rights would be taken away?. Sounds depressingly believable to me and yet another reason not to get involved with SS.

she's actually 28 and the father is 48!

My dd2 was about 16lbs at that age and so tiny I was desperate for her to eat, whatever it was. Underweight children need calories, wherever they come from.

Their mistake was agreeing to the foster care in the first place but I guess taking proper legal advice is costly

Eldon - it's free when it is an issue of child care law. And there is no financial threshold.

Litchick - how many people know that?

this part of the story is horribly frightening:

"?They kept saying, ?if you love Zak and you want the best for him, then you'll agree to this voluntarily?.?

After he was placed into foster care, they were later able to negotiate, through lawyers, to spend three hours a day with him during the following week, but only in the presence of social workers.

?I thought I was doing the right thing going to the best people for advice when Zak began to lose weight,? Mrs Hessey said.

?Instead they basically accused me of neglecting him and implied it was all my fault.?

Eventually they went to court to try to get Zak back, and after four months, he was allowed to return home after gaining less than a pound in four months.

Social services eventually said they were good and caring parents. "

I didn't know it was free

Is it free even before court proceeding begin?

The irony is that other children have been removed for being fed junk food.

This is the S20 ploy. Give us your child or we will go to court and we will win.

Actually duellingfanjo "social services don't snatch children" is demonstrably untrue. Cleveland ring any bells?

I think it is pretty normal for nutritionists to recommend high calorie food for children who need to put on weight. The child needs to put on weight really by whatever means and then you deal with healthy eating. When ds was underweight I fed him anything he would eat simply to get calories into him. He doesn't have that sort of food now other than as an occasional treat and it wasn't hard to wean him off it.

NanaNina - that personal attack looks like stalking, I've reported your post. I REALLY hope you are a troll.

All mine have been hgy cal dietsat somestage for lowweight- ds1 still is. I can honestlysay thatrefusing to feeda child who needs it calorific foodstuss is imo harmful, and seemingly odd- I would feed ds whatever it took to tget him past 4 stones (he is ten today, so no toddler).

there is nothing at allwrong with a baby ortoddler or any active child having decent quality cakes etc anyway, calorific foods include pancakes, pasta in olive oily sauces (a ds1 staple), cheeses- hardly the maccyd every day scenario

Avril I am not sure that is a personal attack is it? Just seemed like someone who disagreeswith someones PV strongly

I dont encounter JH enouggh so hve no opinion but agree strongly that when ssd are unable too put their side over it is hard to judge

MollieO, I was told the same thing as this couple, wrt to dd1 and her weight. Just like this couple, I had reservations. She had a ridculously healthy diet at the time, and would eat little other than fresh fruit, veg and yoghurts.

I didn't want her to grow up thinking it is accpetable to eat cake for breakfast, or pancakes everyday. Plus, as this couple have pointed out, it is not actually adressing the issue. Dd1 has now put on weight and only borders on being underweight, as opposed to dropping right off the charts. But she still has issues with food and gets obsessive over healthy eating when they cover it at school. Any sign of illness and she stops eating. It can take months to get her appetite back to normal. She is terrified of becoming fat. I believe that as she gets older she will probably develop an eating disorder. Food has been such a big issue in her life, it worries her now.

If she had been reffered to a child pyschologist, when I asked, rather than a dietician, she probably wouldn't have these issues anymore. Because she is no longer severely underweight, they won't refer her to anyone.

At the end of the day, if a parent cannot be bothered to feed their child, then I doubt they would bother seeking medical help for their dc's weight issues.

Incidentally, I have also delt with SS, for an unrelated issue. They did tell me they would take away my children, despite assurances from my HV that the children were healthy and loved. They didn't give any information about their procedures, or what would happen if they did take them. Just that if I didn't comply with their ridiculous requests of me, they would take the children.

I ended up having to get my ad's upped and was prescribed anti anxiety drugs too, due to the fact that I wasn't eating or sleeping. I lost my job, because of the stress I was under I felt unable to go in.

I don't think SS helped me or my children. They made things worse for us at an already stressfull time. They never once asked about my health or my family's circumsatnces.

SS can't win in some cases, really. What if they hadn't taken the child into foster care, and then it turned out that the parents were neglecting the child, who ended up in hospital later on with malnutrition? Then SS would be criticised for not acting sooner.
Also, very biased journalism doesn't help

All I can say is that this is a good example of what I have learnt: Do not under any circumstances seek help.

This couple sought help, they tried to do the right thing by their child, the upshot was the child was removed. SS now say that they are excellent parents - wouldn't it have been wise to establish what sort of parents they were before they removed the child.

Legal advice is free to parents even pre-proceedings ( though slightly trickier for the lawyer to process) but it's a fair point that not everyone might know that.

I think that when SS come into contact they should advise people of their right to legal advice like the police have to.

But this has been rejected because it's felt that it might make the situation even more adversarial than it already is.
Money might also come into it.
I ofdten think, though, that it might save money in the long run, cos you wouodn't have all this he said this and she said that. What the police used to call 'verbals'.

But to be fair, this rejection had nothing to do with social services. Twas the governemnt.

Ooh AvrilH - I'm soooooooooo scared - reported my post, oh no HOW am I going to cope with that. Boo Hoo