Mother 'not clever enough to raise child' has baby snatched by social workers

[Heated]

story
What do we think?

TiggyR, not all of us would damn SWs if they do and if they don't. I wouldn't hesitate to criticise a SW that got it wrong, any more than I have held my hand when it came to criticising the paediatric consultant who got things wrong about dd. That goes for all professionals: they will be criticised if we get things wrong, quite regardless of whether the wrong they did was acting when they shouldn't or not acting when we should. Goes for doctors, too, and for nurses- anybody who has a job which involves the responsibility of other people's wellbeing.

What is not right is the wholesale condemnation of any one profession. We should be doing less of that.

Agree with all you say jollypirate and so glad to see the "voice of reason" on here - also interesting posts from you Cory as usual. Thanks dilemma for providing the Guardian link. The content of that link is a little extreme but certainly gives the flavour of the sorts of things that cp social workers face on a regular basis. I think one of the problems is that unless you have experienced these kinds of parents, you just cannot imagine or believe these things can happen. I am 7 years out of l.a. ssd but it ws bad enough then and I am sure it has only got worse.

To try to "paint the picture" on another thread where I was getting somehwat frustrated, I gave anonymous details of a particular scenario involving child protection in which I had been involved. Th is was met with allegations that I was making it up, one poster asked all sorts of questions and when I responded she began pointing out what she perceived as "inaccuries/inconsistencies" in the details! After this she began criticising the action I had taken - "why did you do this/not do that" ect etc. All this from someone who had aboslutely no idea of how cp investigations are conducted.

Hobgoblin - I think you are underestimating the professionals involved in parents with LD and the abilities of the Judge to make the right decision. The sad fact is that for many parents who suffer from moderate to severe learning dificulties, this disability means that that are not able to meet all the aspects of a child's development through the age ranges. This is not the fault of the parent - it is a sad fact of their disability. I don't understand why people can't understand that. All I can say is that many of these people who are up in arms about this case and others like it, willhave no idea of the major stumbling blocks that parents with LD face in trying to care for babies and children. It isn't fair to them and it most certainly isn't fair to the child involved.

I think people must imagine someone who is "not very clever" as this is what the gutter press likes to talk about. This is nonsense - it is nothing to do with "not being clever" it is to do with a serious congenital disability that prevents parents afflicted in being able to acquire the skills for safe and nurturing parenting. We all know what parenting takes and to expect parents with mod/severe LDs to safely parent is like expecting someone with mod/severe physical disabilities to do a hill climb, if you will accept this analogy.

I feel sad for Leonie as she (like others) will never change her view, based on her eown experiences and so there is little point in trying to engage with her. Agree with you Cory that people have a right to their opinion, but when it does not seem to have any rational base I get frustrated but that of course is the nature of these views, they do tend to be irrational and my trying to be rational of course not only falls on stoney ground but provokes further frustration and possibly anger for the poster.

Poshsinglemum - you talk of support and a mentor for the mother. This would have some benefit as an idea if we were talking about a short term condition, but we arenot. For a parent with mod/severe LDs they will need support on a 24/7 basis throughout the lifespan of the child, through all the age ranges IF this child is to be kept safe, and that is just not possible or appropriate. Again I think people need to be more aware of how a parent with mod/severe LDs is prevented becasue of their disability from offering safe and nurturing care to their chil, which like it or not is what the child deserves.

Have probably said too much...........

There was an absolutely ghastly case about 15 years ago, where a baby died from infected nappy rash because her loving, well intentioned mother had LDs which were so severe that she could not understand when the baby had to be changed.

Like Nana said, she would have needed 24/7 support for all the years of that child's childhood; if she couldn't get the concept of nappy changing, think of all the other things she could have got wrong. And not only would that support have had to be available- the mother would have had to accept it and to do as she was told.

Now there does actually seem to be some evidence in the present case that this mother was not prepared to accept the support offered. If that is so- then what would you do? Leave the baby and hope for the best?

And the baby who died when its mother emptied a carvol capsule up its nose.........
And the one I heard on Radio 4 last week discussing the packed lunch thing, of a child sent to school with a whole uncooked egg still in its shell, between two slices of bread because his mother thought that was how to make an egg sandwich......

The cases are all complex issues of judgment. The problem is particularly in england that the government has looked not at accountability for judgment, but instead for process.

In other words they put pressure on practitioners to make rapid decisions whilst feeding the computer.

One should not be surprised if
a) A lot of practitioners vote with their feet and ...
b) Wrong decisions are made.

The Family Courts then fail to pick up the errors. Hence the wrong children are taken into care.

Johnhemming, what do you think 'the right children being taken into care' would be? And do you know every part of this story so as to know that this is not the right decision?

Oh god JH you are so frustrating. This is the umpteenth time you have linked the ICS (feeding the computer) with the need to make rapid decisions. You have this like many other things "round your neck" and I know from experience that once something is in your head it is immoveable.

The ICS (as I understand it from colleagues) though thankfully have never had to use it,is a lengthy tick box form to indicate what action has been taken and what needs to be taken (wahwah if I don't have this entirely right please help me out) What I do know is it is nothing to do with decision making. The problem is that because sws have to spend 60/70% of their time completing these forms, this seriously diminished the time that they have to spend with families, making observations, doing assessemnts etc which may well have an affect on their decision making.

You are saying what you are always saying in slightly more temperate language here (maybe you do this on a Sunday....)

I thought I had heard the heights of your irrational nonsense until I read the comment about a child being removed because the mother breast fed on demand. What is it that allows you to believe (and try to convince others) that this is really true. No on second thoughts don't bother to answer.

Interesting question Manattee - not that you'll get an answer. I don't think JH even considers for a single moment that there might be cases where children need to be reomved from abusing parents. If he does, he has never said so. I think he is far far too obsessed with his campaign to expose the evil system that snatches children from decent parents and then all the professionals are involved in a conspiracy to ride roough shod over the parents and get the child adopted to meet the targets. He includes socilitirs, barristers, pschologists, psychiatrists and the judge in this. He even includes the lawyers acting for the parents - he says they "roll over" and agree with everyone else (i.e.the conspiracy) because they need to pay their mortgage.

You ask if he knows every part of this story on which he makes a decision. Undoubtedly not. He doesn't have any special priveleges as an MP. The parents will have copies of allthe court documents but they are not supposed to reveal them to anyone (though some do) as they are confidential documents and are the property of the court. SO in the main he has to go on the account given to him by the parents and believe me, parents will almost always give a very biased account (this is understandable as they want to protect themselves and sometimes the truth is very painful)but the real worry is that this politician believes every word they tell him and proceeds to act on the basis of that information. How naieve is that.

There have been occasions when his organisation has advised parents to get rid of their solicitors and there is some woman who works for JH (who is not legally qualified) who was given permission by the court to act for them. We never heard the outcome even though we repeatedly asked JH - the judghement was alwasy "on the way" but he never gives any info about the cases in which his organisation is involved. I think the reason why is fairly obvious.

I try not to engage with him but I just hate to see this nonsense posted on MN.

John - are you actually raising the underfunding of children's services in this country anywhere?
I think that this is a serious issue that needs discussion - the system will remain crap all the while it is underfunded and cases like this one will continue to happen.

I am not getting into the ins and outs of this case as am not privvy to the evidence but if the right amount of funding was there could these parents be supported to keep their child?

What I referred to was a mother failing a parenting assessment because she breast fed on demand rather than sticking to a routine.

The Danish care system is cheaper per capita and also produces better results ... for the children.

Hence arguably the problem is that we waste money destroying the lives of some children whilst protecting some others. Anyone who thinks there can be any more money fed into the system in the current financial climate is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Alistair Darling today was talking about cutting the pay of public sector workers.

What I was reffering to (in my question to YOU John Hemming) was at which point to you think it is ok to take a child into care!?

Regarding the breastfeeding case you keep referring to, bf'ing on demand is no reason on its own, you are ignoring why she was in an assesment centre in the first instance.

So...when is it ok to take a child into care? When they are on drugs? Starving? Broken bones? Or before then when there is a risk of such things happening?

Referring

I think Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights is about right. When it is necessary in the interests of protecting the health or morals of the child.

You are right about the breast feeding case that there is a question as to why the mother was in an assessment centre in the first instance.

However, it is clear that she was in the centre to assess her parenting skills and was failed on the basis of breast feeding on demand.

john hemming - you cannot seriously suggest that social workers would see breastfeeding on demand as a reason to remove a child.

i have been a social worker for quite a few years and i, like most of the social workers i have come accross, know and accept that there is no absolute 'right' way of parenting.

i also know plenty of social workers who breast fed their children on demand. none of them had their children removed. strange that.

and as to cutting social workers pay - are you aware of the pay scales for a social worker? starts at about £20,000 and top of the scale is less than £30,000 a year.

kind of dispels the theory that social workers are in it for the money.

damn it, i really try not to post on these threads! but while i am here i will say that, difficult as it is to remove a child in the UK, it is even harder in Ireland.

this is down to a number of reasons - one being the constitution making it more difficult (a recognised weakness as the rights of the family are enshrined - sod the rights of the child........although there is pressure to have a referendum on children's rights). Also the social work service in Ireland is even more overstretched than in the UK. While some parts of the country have an out of hours service most rural parts don't......so you can't get a sw after 5pm, at weekends etc.

ime the threshold for intervention is much, much higher than in the uk.

actually, that should say ALL the social workers i have come accross. i have never encountered a sw who thinks there is one absolute 'right' way of parenting. and i have encountered some pretty poor social workers.

Even with the breastfeeding on demand, are you sure that there were no other issues concerning the way she was doing it? Breastfeeding on demand isn't always enough; sometimes outside help is necessary.

When dd was little, I breastfed on demand. I thought it was working well, but actually it wasn't: dd was not getting enough milk, so was getting weaker, so was not able to demand milk as often as she should... When the medical practitioners realised what was going on, we both had to come into hospital together, and when we were later discharged we were assigned a regime (involving syringes and pumps) supervised by breastfeeding counsellor who visited daily. Now supposing I had refused that help and insisted that I was doing alright because I was breastfeeding on demand? What option would they have had except to take dd into care? Should they have left me to permanently damage her health, maybe even for her to starve to death? Of course not.

I am grateful to the people who refused to listen when I said I was doing fine. And if I had still refused to listen, then I hope they would have taken dd from me.

ceres john hemming - you cannot seriously suggest that social workers would see breastfeeding on demand as a reason to remove a child.

I have said that someone failed a parenting assessment because she did not force a routine on the new born baby, but breast fed on demand. I have seen the assessment myself.

It did also mention the dangers created by allowing two babies to play on the same mat.

Johnhemming you are obviuosly a very busy man. I am glad my local MP doesnt spend his time mumsnetting.

well if you have seen the assessment yourself then i believe you are not giving the full context. what was said to be inappropriate about breastfeeding on demand? what were the dangers highlighted about two babies playing on the same mat?

Okay - so now breastfeeding on demand is a reason for removing a child according to JH. Forgive me but - what a load of rubbish.

Sorry John but you have just lost any credibility in my eyes.

I wonder if the baby was unwell or something and therefore did not often demand to be fed!?
In those very early days babies are often so sleepy that they will not feed often, ds went 8 hours when I was in hospital, the midwife told me it was definitely time to wake him up and make him feed now! What if I didn't and said I was feeding on demand and he had not demanded???

Apparently children have also been removed for parental epilepsy and calling a social worker fat, if you believe JH.

I think vulnerable families are best directed to the FAMILY RIGHTS GROUP, who do not have a massive personal agenda to act out imo.

Can I also be very clear that I knew nothing about Jh before Mumsnet, he did not register on my social work radar and I have therefore not had anything other than these personal experiences to form my opinion.

Imo, he sounds as if he knows about things as he has the politician's ability to pick up key words and phrases (and I'm no belittling that skill) but there is no depth or substance. For example, ICS 'pushing practitioners into premature decision making'-he doesn't get that ICS merely underlines the timescales set out in the assessment framework many years previously and allows this information to be gathered more easily. Now there are issues about this process and about ICS, but they are not necessarily the same thing.

A little knowledge seems to go a long way and this is where some of us practitioners come unstuck as it is difficult to explain it all and it sounds as if we're just saying trust us, we know what we're doing', but we do tend to see the bigger picture.

That's not to undermine people who bring an open mind, intelligence and common sense to these threads, such as Cory, as they can see beyond this, but sometimes this is where others get stuck and the namecalling starts.

Sadly, I usually know when a thread is going to expire or become zombie (let's hope this is an exception) and that's when JH turns up and starts moving from one allegation of baby snatching to another. It's a shame really, because I think JH has something valuable to offer in terms of looking at the process.

It is not the ICS itself that pushes people into doing assessment, but the national targets set by DCLG. (in consultation with DCSF I presume).

I can give a link to the relevant indicator set if you wish.

So jh someone failed a parenting assessment solely on the basis that they breast fed on demand?

I'm sorry but I don't believe this story anymore than the one where you said children were taken into care because their grandmother called the social worker involved 'fat'.

I feel sure that your well honed approach to side stepping/ignoring valid questions on mn also enables you to ignore what the pertinent issues are in the cases that you describe.

I really do question your motives as your concern seems to centred around parents and not what may be best for children

Am I right then JH? Is that why you ignored my post? The baby did not demand to be fed and was therefore being starved?