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

[Heated]

story
What do we think?

Mother's intelligence I mean.

Poshsinglemum, that's not how it works. It's ALL
about the care that is/ will be given to h child by parents and their family, friends and support network. I have seen a number of learning disabled parents care very well for their children with support.

At least they are in a country where the pregnant mother has not been assaulted by a social worker.

There is quite a bit more to come about about this case.

As those who have met me on previous threads will know, I have no reason to believe that professionals always get it right and the "damned if they do" argument doesn't cut much ice with me either.

But that is absolutely not a reason to jump to the conclusion that they have got it wrong in this particular case about which we know nothing.

There is such a thing as keeping an open mind.

That's an interesting snippet , JH, I'm assuming that's in the public domain, but how does this appalling behaviour impact on the Irish decision and do you now think you were wrong to help them flit, given the outcome would likely have been better (I imagine) had they stayed and addressed the concerns?

Neither they nor I (and I spoke to them about 5 mins ago) believe that they made a
mistake in going to Ireland.

Well I'm surprised that they don't have any regrets given what's happened. That's a very high price this apparently very vulnerable young woman has pay. Why do you think it's the right decision?

The Irish Constitution protects legitimate children against adoption under Article 41.

This means that as long as they get married the state cannot remove their child.

So are they getting married then?

I suppose what I meant was that if they had stayed and cooperated to reduce the assessed risks, then perhaps their child wouldn't have been removed. However, it appears that they ran off and the concerns were not reduced so another country had to step in and take Ben.

Does this mean if they stay in Ireland and Ben cannot safely return to them or their friends / family then he is denied adoptive parents? That would be a bit of a pyrrhic victory, I think.

I have more figures for England than Scotland.

Of the 1090 babies taken into care in 2004 aged under 1 month by 31/3/7 600 had been adopted and 190 returned to their parents.

Personally I expect Ben to be reunited with his parents relatively quickly, but even if that is not the case the pressure on the authorities is to return him to his parents. In England children are more likely to be adopted (particularly as a result of historic pressures, partially as a result of structural processes). A very high proportion (but not a majority) of those children then return to care as a result of a disrupted adoption.

I have a question about this particular aspect on Monday.

What happened to the other 300 children?

Wonderful sidestepping, John. I'll bow out now I think- nothing good can come of this!

60 residence order, 30 special guardianship, 70 other reasons (left care), 320 in foster care, 220 placed for adoptino, 70 placed wtih parents (but still in care). The figures may not add up because they quote them to the nearest 10.

John - just a quick question - do you know the full concerns of social services with regard to this couple and what they say are the risks to the child? I imagine they will have shown you the paperwork to date.

That still lnly adds up to 770 kids.

God I don't know the whole story so couldn't possibly judge but based solely upon what is reported here I'd say two things

Firstly, that the Mail has hyped the story up as ever.

Secondly, that it seems heartbreakingly wrong and made me cry.

Message withdrawn

I very much doubt that the only issue is this mother's learning disability. If that IS the case then John is quite right in raising hell if she could be helped to raise her child with support. Supporting people with learning disabilities to raise their children is problematic because at the end of the day children's services are woefully underfunded in this country. In short most of these parents could raise their children with support but in practice that doesn't happen because the resources are not there to help them do so - that is a tragedy.

In this case the Mum has a partner to support her and yet SS are suggesting that the baby needs a full care order ....... you don't need to be Einstein to work that one out... there is a problem unknown to us or the media (but probably known to John). I honestly think we to remember that this baby cannot protect himself and that for whatever reason the radar is buzzing about what his future might be in the care of his parents.

I work with a LD mother at the moment and she is raising her baby with the support of her partner (and doing a very good job) - no SW has suggested removing her baby which makes me suspect that there is much more to this newsworthy case than we know.

"This means that as long as they get married the state cannot remove their child." and that is good how exactly? Presumably then if the state cannot remove their child (assuming this means the child cannot be placed for adoption) then if they are deamed not suitable parents that child will be forced to spend the rest of its life in care. Given your clear condemnation of the care system how can you possibly believe that is a good result?

Message withdrawn

Sorry I quoted from the wrong year on the second set of figures. The right year is:

1,060 190 600 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 110 0 70 20 30

where 110 is "other". I get a bit wound up about "other". That is where they lose children.

v bad.

Given your clear condemnation of the care system how can you possibly believe that is a good result?

Because in this situation the outcome for the child is likely to be the best.

I do know more than is in the public domain.

JH, given that you know more about this case than is in the public domain, and without compromising any confidentiality issues, is it the case in your opinion that the child's best interests are served by remaining with BOTH parents?
Article 41 does not preclude a child being removed from its parents btw.