protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

(hoping I'm not going to get flamed for this - please take it in the spirit it is intended rather than pick out specific things I say)

There's only one thing that made me wonder about the programme, and that is that the overwhelming female nature of the social services team and how women use language.

I got the impression that no-one had actually been direct and factual with Mike, because quite clearly that was what he needed.

e.g. "Mike - you have a laptop and a Sky box, but your son doesn't have a bed. How do you think that looks to us, your family, your friends and neighbours?"

Obviously, SS are in the habit of using language that is non-confrontational (for obvious reasons), but I wonder if the effect of this is that sometimes the message of a social worker won't get across.

Because in reality the message is quite simple - if you care more for your computer, Sky, Xbox or dog than you do your child then you run the risk of having your kids taken from you.

It's a crying shame that contraception hadn't been sorted out for Tiffany. If she'd not had the miscarriages, and the difficult pregnancy resulting in her baby daughter, she might have been more able to cope with just Toby.

Hully I think the blonde SW had huge red glittery acrylic nails at one of the meetings. IIRC Tiffany had black acrylic nails at the end, when she was holding her new baby.

sky boxes/bigtvs/consules/ dogs /cats/parrots are common i nfamilies like this I dont think ss are allowed to comment on what the familiy have just what the child doesnt have , so they said toby needed a bed and covers but cant mention the other things in the home , but can tell them to lift the dog poo and keep the dog away from him , It would be simple for them to be able to say oiy sell your laptop and buy food , but they can't

Oneliein, you say that you didn't see the earlier bit in the programme about abuse, and I think that may be why you are sympathetic to Tiffany and perhaps feel she was unfairly treated. If all you saw was poor depressed Tiffany without Mike, you might think that she was indeed capable of pulling back from the brink and looking after her children with a lot of intensive support (e.g. home helpers in every day).

However, I disagree for several reasons:

1. The SS went for a classification of 'neglect' because they could prove it (dog shit everywhere, no bed even when given one by social services, basic care neglected). But, they also suspected physical abuse, Tiffany admitted that bruises on her son were caused by her and a paed wrote a report that the little lad's other injuries were not consistent with the explanation given by the dad. The child was inexplicably bruised. This suspicion was confirmed when Mike clocked Tiffany and they split up. I'm sure the SW were more concerned about this than say, him not being out of nappies.

1. Again, early in the programme, they say that one of the points of neglect was not attending appointments. What are you supposed to do if parents won't go to speech therapy or medical treatments? Send a taxi round for them? Get someone to go with them? He was offered services, they didn't attend them.

1. It's far from clear that Tiffany wanted to be a single parent, given her depression and her interest in aggressive men (Mike may be out the door, but unfortunately history has a habit of repeating itself).

My own opinion is that Mike and Tiffany arrived relatively suddenly in the area/to the attention of SS (they did say they had only observed them for a couple of months), they saw the neglect/possible abuse and decided now was the time to act, given the age and SN of the eldest. It is a terrible shame but I don't see how they could have left the children there.

I did have the same reaction though to the manner of the SW, it was all terribly patronising, and softly softly, and then fake mystified when Mike didn't want to play ball. I thought they could have done with more men, and a more direct approach which was up front, and definitely an advocate. Perhaps a long-term foster placement with parental contact might have been better for the little boy, if that's what Tiffany had wanted.

What made me saddest was seeing that boy improve so quickly after being placed.

I suspect that was what made the mother decide to put them up for adoption. She could see that other people were succeeding where she didn't.

It's a shame she couldn't have been somehow more involved in that process (so she could have learned something herself), but there's obviously reasons for it and as someone pointed out earlier there are some people who simply cannot pick up parenting skills.

The human race would not die out at all, some children might not be born, maybe even one of mine wouldn't be here due to circumstances but would the overall effect be that the quality of life for those deemed mentally and physically fit be massively improved. Is that a bad thing. Tiffany had 8 stillborn and miscarried children, what a horrific thing to go through as a woman.
Who is going to stop Toby becoming a Mike ? And the cycle continuing.

@UnimaginativeDad-The man observing Mike and Toby did come up with useful advice and was less patronising.

But I would imagine that there are more cases where Social Workers are dealing with vulnerable women for whom a Male SW would be inappropriate than cases where a amle view would be essential.

I imagine that the programme showed the junior SW getting alot more support than is the reality. The senior SW would have an enormous caseload and would be unlikely to be able to visit so swiftly IRL.

I got the distinct impression that the SW did not believe Tiffany's explanation of the bruising being caused by her grabbing Toby so he didn't run out into the road. They kept on saying "... but that's not consistent ..."

I think that's why the SW were so concerned that Mike should not even have a single night alone with Toby. Which is why the foster care process swung in so rapidly once Tiffany was in hospital.

That's just my take on it though.

mrsjay, I don't agree that his developmental delay could have been avoided, its not that simple. SNs are SNs no matter what the parents are like but, of course, parents who are supported and able to give appropriate intervention which is then supported by school/therapies etc can make a difference or improvement, but they can't eliminate it if its genuine SNs which it seemed to be

yes i do think he had some SN with his behaviour I was glad he seemed to have calmed down since being in foster care , maybe i didnt explain very well davros but sometimes Developmental delay can be enviromental as well as a sn ,

I also think one of the reasons it all swang in to place so quickly when tiff was in hospital was that the nursery called to report Toby had turned up in a nappy that had not been changed for a whole day, and no one was suprised. His overnight bag was a tshirt and water bottle. No nappies or wipes or food or toys or trousers or jumper or pjs. Despite tiff telling him what he needed to pack. Mike could not cope with the very very basic things and Toby was not safe.

I have seen the effect a crappy upbringing has in people even in situations much much better than this and ss have not been involved. Without action you are signing these kids up just to have kids of their own they are unable to care for and the cycle of damaged kids goes on and on and on.

Oh and I agree what tiff did was a very brave and selfless act. Toby did not have the time for her to sort herself out. I hope that she does find a supportive environment, can literally clean up her act and go on to have a happy and fulfilled life and know that she did what was best for her 2 children regardless of her own feelings.

Hully, the reason the budget is low and shrinking is because instead of screaming the sw reduce the need for more money by taking the easier decisions.

Blimey Starlight - not the sw depts I know!

Unimaginativedad - that's a really interesting point you're raising there, and a valid one I think.
Communication is one of the cornerstones of a good working relationship with anyone, vulnerable or not and there are differences in the way men and women will communicate, let alone once you bring in issues of education / class and professional jargon.
Not only could a male worker (from any setting) have potentially been able to communciate with Mike in a different, possibly more suitable way, but he could also have acted as an alternative role model of positive, appropriate masculinity.
I job share in a not unrelated field, with a man, working with often very vulnerable young women. It is often said by them that he's the first man they've known who has shown care and concern for them and challenged their other stereotypes of adult men.
that's not to say that only men can work with men and women with women but I think more balance in early years / child care / education / child protection work would go a very long way to building better relationships with BOTH parents and therefore better supporting the children of couples like this.
Having said all of that, a neglected child is a neglected child and his best chances in life were going to be through a safe and supportive family, not the one he was sadly born into.

The sw should be writing a report stating what was needed for Tiff to succeed, including the cost of the provision. It should have been circulated everywhere and higher and higher until a senior bod says, in writing, no, it is cheaper to take her kids off her.

Records like this should be created.

Oh I also agree with unimaginativedad straight talking should be used. The reality of that situation should have been drilled home.

You complain about cramped conditions and are unable to clean your house. How is a puppy going to help this? Get rid of the dog. Wash up, Hoover and clean and feed your child. Basics.

I know what you mean Starlight, but in this case I don't think Toby could wait, and it was her decision to give the kids up.

toby had care plans which were not followed these wouldve been in writing for evidence . tiffany and mike failed their children m yes its sad and tiffany looked devastated but she had support in place , to take care of her children im in no doubt she loved them but love isnt enough sometimes , I dont think these children were stolen i think they were saved and tiffany made the decision , I hope she is being supported ,

I guess there was a lot that wasn't shown for whatever reason, and I missed the first 20 minutes or so (switched over as they brought in the bed for Toby) but I did feel that Tiffany was manipulated and coerced into handing the children over for adoption. She was clearly struggling with her own past and admitted she was suffering from depression (possibly PND) and she seemed to suddenly have a crisis of confidence after Mike had left and decide that adoption would be the best route. She also seemed to believe that the children would have a "better life" - clearly the social workers didn't explain to her that this might not necessarily be the case, and that Toby in particular may well just languish in the care system until he reaches adulthood.

I haven't been able to stop thinking about this programme since it finished. The Dad was clearly incapable, but I really feel that Tiffany, with some support for herself and for the children, would've been able to look after Toby at the very least. Toby clearly had an attachment to his parents and did miss them when he didn't see them. I feel that SS and Tiffany both owed it to him to try and make it work, but no, apparently he would have a 'better life' being handed from pillar to post his entire childhood.

I'm usually quite pro-SS, but the whole thing just seemed terribly unjust. I know there probably isn't the money for the support Tiffany needed, but who is going to explain to Toby when he's 18 that the reason he had such a fractured childhood was because there was some national debt that had to take prioroty?!

I agree with that Starlight.

You really don't think long term foster care would be better than what Toby came from? There are some poor foster carers out there but most are amazing and fantastic people who care for the children as if they are their own. Adoption for Toby may be difficult but is far from impossible and much more likely at his young age than when he is 9 or 10 if tiff was still unable to cope.

I think tiffany will find another mike and the cycle will continue i did feel for her , but i do think she did what was best for her children , he was nearly 4 and she wasnt coping meeting needs what would happen when he was 10 /15 and she couldnt control him .

Mackerel, I do think if you had watched the first 20 min, as I said to 'One' then you might have felt a bit differently, as it was then that we saw the paed reports about the physical problems (which may or may not have indicated abuse). It also indicated they didn't attend appointments, so how was the little boy going to get to learn and speak and have his SN's and developmental delay treated if they didn't turn up?

The whole point is not that it was all Mike's fault, although he wasn't a very nice chap, Tiffany was just as responsible for the dog shit, the lack of bed, the lack of care, the lack of attending appointments, and did admit the bruises were down to her grabbing the child- what else went on before this incident? Mike may have been hostile, but as one SW said, Tiffany says all the right things (I'll do it, I'll change) but actually nothing changed in nearly four years.

It's easy to say poor Tiffany, but actually, at what point does Tiffany have to be responsible for protecting her child (from physical abuse and neglect and from men who commit DV- in fairness she did split up from Mike at that point)?

Ideally a good foster home and adoption would be best for Toby, ideally