protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

mrsjay- I specifically stated that I didnt believe in forced contraception. Can you please not mis-report me?

Something else which hasnt been picked up on by anyone is the knock to a parents confodence of having SS involved. Once a parent stops believing in themselves as a potential good parent then the game is over.

I think the best outcome for Toby is for his mum to be given intensive support to keep him. I'm sure she would have accepted this and he would have thrived if they had morning and evening helpers/carers and full day nursery.

Some parents arent capable of being full time 24/7 childcarers but that doesnt mean they should have to give up all rights to them FOREVER. Imagine the outcry if you applied this to NRPs? (not suggesting they are abusive/neglectful btw)

So ideal may not happen. It doesn't mean its better to put a child back to live in a situation that most of us would not let our child be in for 10 mins

I was very struck by the scene where Toby's bed was still standing against the wall & Tiffany "tidied" (?) by kicking her way through the toys on the floor as if she literally didn't know how to pick them up & put them away - like a small child, who you have to tell what to do step by step, because "tidy your toys" defeats them

I'm guessing nobody has ever showed her how to tidy up properly

Agreed

I mean agreed with what Ranteetheranter said about even not ideal would be better than leaving him there.

This is a long thread, so difficult to keep all the posts in mind. The thing is that the SSD have to be 100% certain that they have the evidence to present to the court when applying for a Care Order (which gives the LA parental responsibility) or a Placement Order (which "frees" the child for adoption, only requested for very young children, where there is a certainty of finding adoptors. They also have to prove that they have offered the family sufficient support, prior to requesting of a court that the children be removed. I don't think this point was underlined enough - i.e. that sws cannot remove a child without the consent of the Court, by making an Emergency Protection Order, as so many people think it is sws who have the authority/power to remove children.

Some posts talk of Tiffany having Toby back if she improved. When the LA are going to court for say a Care Order, they have to tell the judge what they intend to do with that child, if the Order is granted, - it is called a care plan and has to be a plan for the child's life - quite rightly in my view - children need permanence and stability and don't have time to wait for parents to improve in this way or that way. We want to know where we are going to be living next month, next year etc and this is even more important for the child.

There is a lot of sympathy for Tiffany and it is easy to see why, but sws have a duty to act in the best interests of the child and not the parent.
MrsJay I think you said that Tiff would soon meet another Mike and the whole cycle will start all over again - couldn't agree more - I think she has already met "another Mike" - poor woman. She is looking for the love she didn't get as a child. Mike is probably shacked up with another Tiff and the cycle will continue. The cycle of deprivation and No-one knows how to break it. An impossible task.

Other posts talk of lack of finance available for support and it is true that finance is a problem, but all the money in the world is not going to teach the Tiffs and Mikes of this world how to be emotionally available to their child, and this is absolutely necessary for a child. Neither of them knew how to play with the child, let alone cope with his emotional needs - because they had never experienced this themselves.

Love is not enough.

I am surprised (thought I shouldn't be) at how many of you are so upset for Toby. There are hundreds of Toby's out there being brought up by Tiffs and Mikes and we only know about the ones where SSDs become involved - tip of the iceberg I reckon.

Anyway glad to hear that there isn't a great deal of social worker bashing!

Nana, that's a really interesting post.

One poster said what would be best for Toby would be for his mother to be supported in looking after him. That's true. But she was already pregnant again with the next child even though she hadn't got a bed/toothbrush/had a child with SN/admitted hurting the first child and my guess is that she will get pregnant again by some other Mike, even though she chose to give those two up for adoption. People don't make sensible choices, they just keep in the same cycles. It's rather pie in the sky to imagine she would have just dedicated her life to meeting Toby's needs from that point onwards.

'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'

I agree Toby couldn't wait, but why had the situation reached the critical status? Why had Toby been failed by the services thus far?

Ultimately I think ss did the right thing '

'tiffany and mike failed their children m yes its sad and tiffany looked devastated but she had support in place'

MrsJ - she didn't have appropriate support in place. Support is only as good as the outcomes it reaps. Support is not generic in nature.

Star - because the parents wouldn't/couldn't co-operate

Me again! Just wanted to say that I agree with posters who are talking about case conferences going over the tops of many parents' heads. It used to be the Case conferences were held without the parents being there, but it was agreed some years ago that parents should be there, as this was all about them and their child.

Yes, it would have been explained to Mike and Tiff what would happen, but that would not have helped one iota. They are amongst 14 (or so) professionals and don't stand a chance. They could have brought someone with them for moral support and I hope they were told this.

I also agree that words and phrases are used in case conferences that the parents simply don't understand. I made quite a big thing of this when I was a sw and they way in which reports were written, because many parents either could not read, or would not understand what was written. I was supported by snr mgrs who agreed that sws should make more effort to write and talk in plain and ordinary language that could be understood by the parents.

I remember a particularly long case conference and the mother had brought her friend along, and I happened to be right behind them as they came out of the conference room and the mother said "What were they on about" and the friend said "It's your last chance with the babbby" and the mother said "well why didn't they just say that".......says it all really......the Paediatrician in another case (a very nice man) asked the parents at one point if they felt "the process was invasive!" and they stared blankly at him - I said "he means x do you think we are being too nosey" and he said "yeah in a way sppose."

Just watched it on iPlayer. Very upsetting.

I agree about the language used; although I don't think it was excessively formal. I think the couple in question were quite capable of understanding the vast majority of what was explained to them.

But I do wonder, as someone's already said, why certain things weren't laid out in black and white:

"Ooh, another dog? That won't help you to keep the carpet clean, will it?"

"Mike, maybe you could think about showing as much interest in Toby as you do the dog?"

Etc etc. Why the pussyfooting around the fact they'd got dogs, and sky boxes, and could afford false nails?

TBH I found some sympathy for Tiffany by the end, but not much. I found none for Mike.

You can go on as much as you like about them not knowing any better - but the fact that they were TOLD, clearly, exactly HOW to do better and still didn't do it points to one thing: they didn't care. That's the bottom line.

I don't believe they were so disadvantaged/under-educated/whatever that they didn't understand that it was completely out of order to have a carpet sodden with dog piss and covered in shit. They KNEW that before they were told. They just couldn't be bloody arsed to do anything about it.

Ditto the bed. Ditto every other failing that ensured that poor little boy had a worse time of it than the dogs.

Mike did not care. Tiffany did not care enough. I'm bloody glad the kids were taken away but I am also sure that Tiffany will meet some other Neanderthal and get pregnant again, and Mike will no doubt continue breeding.

Very sad.

'Star - because the parents wouldn't/couldn't co-operate'

Yes, but this is too simple an explanation. Why wouldn't/couldn't they co-operate? Is it that the method of communication was unaccessible? Is it that the process was too frightening? Is it because they have disabilities that prevent them from understanding what is required? Is it because they are innately evil?

What is it?

Lack of cooperation alone is not a good enough reason. The SN boards is full of parents that don't cooperate with professionals for one reason or another. You have to get to the root of why and tackle that.

It's drilled into us in my team that all plans must be in simple language so it is clear to parents and they don't get put off by the jargon. Unfortunately the more professionals you get in a room the more it gets jargonised

Star, I can only say what I think (and I have worked with similar people in th epast). There are some people who are so damaged, through their own neglect/abuse etc etc, that no matter what you do, they are unable to change. They have drifted away into an empty space, a kind of no-person's land and they can't come back.

Please excuse the lack of proper terms!

What a sad program from many angles. There were no true winners in this situation.
Mike evidently had SN's of hos own, Tiffany did not seem to have a clue on being a parent.
Toby had no bed , but Mike had a laptop.
It would seem that the animals had better care than the children.
What a difficult job SW do, I don't envy them one bit but applaud every family they support.

Hully, - of course not everyone can be a parent no matter what. But I suppose my issue is really with what has been done to enable a chance, to be absolutely certain that it would be impossible.

Agency involvement is not the same as 'support' and is often felt by the families to be the very opposite of support. For this reason, they might do as they are told to get them off their backs but their goal is only this, they are too frightened and intimidated to be able to use the resources in a positive way to improve their parenting.

I suspect with the cuts, courts are lowering their expectations of what SS and agencies are expected to do before removal. I know the courts are lowering their definition of 'adequate education' in the SN arena.

There isnt the option of going back to what we saw becasue the situation has now changed. Mike and the dog and the grubby flat have all gone. So thiose factors are now irrelevant in a new assessment.

Mike was violent to Tiffany, on average this happens 33 times before a woman leaves so it was probably going on the whole time but no-one ever asked! It would be easy to see how being a victim of abuse could have rendered Tiffany at that time to be incapable of childcare but the situation has changed. Tiffany and Toby deserved a fresh start. He is DEFINITELY going to be psychologically damaged by being permantly removed from his primary caregiver at that age. He will have very little resiliance and is likely to be vulnerable for the rest of his life.

I have also just watched this. I definitely think the right decision was made. I think the one good decision as a parent that Tiffany made was to give her children up, and she deserves credit for that. She clearly could not give them what they needed. She'd had nearly 4 years to get it right and hadn't. I just can't understand why it took so long to get to that point.

NanaNina
*Other posts talk of lack of finance available for support and it is true that finance is a problem, but all the money in the world is not going to teach the Tiffs and Mikes of this world how to be emotionally available to their child, and this is absolutely necessary for a child. Neither of them knew how to play with the child, let alone cope with his emotional needs - because they had never experienced this themselves.

Love is not enough.

I am surprised (thought I shouldn't be) at how many of you are so upset for Toby. There are hundreds of Toby's out there being brought up by Tiffs and Mikes and we only know about the ones where SSDs become involved - tip of the iceberg I reckon.*

You are so right - I work with children with home-lives like this, and sadly it is extremely difficult to get SS involvement and support as (in our borough, anyway) they are completely snowed under. It is really only obvious physical abuse and disclosures of sexual abuse that get acted upon. And even then the process seems woefully slow

Star what support would you have given? If someone cannot and will not grasp that it is not ok for a child to live and play in a space with dog mess and urine that has not even attempted to be cleaned up. They will not clean up even when told that their children will be removed if they don't. When a bed is bought for them and delivered to them they won't take it out of the packet. What support could have helped?

Having a child taken off of you must be awful but there has to be a point where the child comes first.

Star what support would you have given? If someone cannot and will not grasp that it is not ok for a child to live and play in a space with dog mess and urine that has not even attempted to be cleaned up. They will not clean up even when told that their children will be removed if they don't. When a bed is bought for them and delivered to them they won't take it out of the packet. What support could have helped?

Having a child taken off of you must be awful but there has to be a point where the child comes first.

The person who I feel sorry in all of this is Toby. No toothbrush, no bed, no area for Toby to play, house not fit to keep a dog in, faces and urine everywhere. No food in the house. This is just so The dad seems like a bully tbh, sorry he does

NB
the bit where Mike said that he had fathered 7 children of which Toby and the baby were the only ones who had survived.
He clearly had significant genetic issues having children with Tiffany. Them splitting up was for the best of all
and hopefully the baby got a good set of chromosomes
and Toby's difficulties will be dealt with by attentive adoptive parents.