protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

This programme has got me thinking about adoption generally. Do people who sign up for adoption and who jump through all the hoops to be approved then refuse to consider adopting a child with developmental problems? Do people really go through all that to then say "but I'll only adopt a baby/non-troubled child"? Or do SS operate on the basis that it's better for a child to grow up in care rather than risk letting them be adopted by a family that they're less than 100% sure about? I know people on here have said they've adopted older children and those with SN so it does happen. Or is there generally a shortage of adoptive families, so the easy-to-place children all get adopted first, leaving the rest behind?

can I just say it is important to seperate SN and developmental delay. It is important to consider and aknowledge tobys delay was pretty much due to the effcets of the parenting he recieved.

that should be developmenta delay as a result of exyternal factors such as environment

festi The paediatrician stated that his SN were genetic in origin.

But there was no social worker, advocate or Mckenzie friend type person at that round table. Or when mike agreed to Toby going to foster care. Surely there would have been?

Just watching now. Don't think Dad has FAS- he seems to have a fulcrum under that moustache.

I thought they didn't find that Festi? Didn't the paed say something along the lines of there being no evidence of the problems being caused by external factors?

My son has slight developmental delays and I find it terrifying that somebody might think it is as a result of my parenting.

I thought the whole programme was desperately sad. I work with families like this (am on mat leave at the moment) and it made me really not want to go back to work.

sorry I missed that from the pead, was going by the social workers explinantion regarding the six months window for him to catch up. I am corrected. teach me to try and read a thread and watch all at the same time.

festi
I suspect that there was a HUGE amount of editing going on there - the dads face structure telegraphed physiological reasons for his SEN - the programme makers would not have got consent if they had commented too much on his background

Just watched on I player- how sad :( I hope the children and Tiffany can move on.

I thought there was a surprising amount of vagueness about what the issues actually were (1) basic neglect no bed etc (2) the boy had no speech at 3.8 and so had SN that was not being helped or (3) bad parenting causing delay so severe that it looks like SN. The social workers discussed all of the possibilites as if they were all true at the same time rather than different theories. I was hoping a more experienced social worker would give an opinion on whether it is really possible for bad parenting to cause such an extreme delay or whether it would have been better to have approached it as an SN issue from the start. From nothing more academic than other TV programs showing similar families, they don't usually have non verbal children.

I watched this and actually I hope some of the SW bashers out there can see that you have to deal with some very difficult people, meanwhile having to follow procedure to the point of overriding your strong instincts.

It shocked me mike hadn't been red flagged before with so many babies dying :( surely did no-one think [hmmm]

very sad and the fact they had a bed but he did not made me very
If mike had been made to sleep on the sofa whilst Toby shared with Tiffany I bet he'd get off his arse then.

I'm definitely watching next weeks I like how they didn't really show you much I wonder what it is .

massive editing. I was disapointed with regards to the whole editing and message, Our faculty at uni had a letter forwarded from the director of ss bristol, I belive with a synopsis of the filming, why the camearas had been allowed in etc etc, and I am actually disapointed the film did not represent her take on the purpose, aim etc. I think it seemed very confused as to whos perspecive this was being filmed from. if it where the social workers, as I was lead to belive then the back ground and proccess was under represented, if it where the families as it seemed to lean then the very important issues such as sn support represenation, what lead tiffany to make the decission was again under represented. I believed it to have been a fly on the wall of a social work office post peter connelly to represent the magnatude of decission making and engaging, sadly i think it failed to represent this as it grappled from all directions the comlexeties and thus failing to make adequate representation.

My impressions so far are this. These people are fairly deprived intellectually themselves, and as has been pointed out further down, he appears to have some kind of diagnosible SN himself. It is perfectly possible for it to be genetic. I really think that unless this child were literally being kept in a box he would have picked up at least some words by his age- therefore his lack of language may be more related to his SN than to his parents' lack of parenting ability. I would imagine that parents with genetic SN are more likely on the whole to have SN children and therefore find them more challenging for a whole host of reasons. I'm not trying to make excuses for them, but just trying to say that this is why SW have to exist. They blatantly need help with this child. And unless they are demonstrably abusing him, removal may not be the best option for him emotionally.

It was amazing how Toby came on in the short time that he was in foster care-he really blossomed.

I have seen non verbal children due to neglect in RL it does happen and this was in no way as neglectful as toby although there was no parent child interaction,

I dont see how he couldve stayed in the home I know it was only an hour programme and wouldve been edited but i really think this was a case of neglectful parenting and i do think toby needed emotional and physical support his parents didnt seem to be meeting his needs , although mum was slightly better ,

a neighbour used to take in children removed from parents on an emergency basis : sometimes 2 in the morning with no clothes : just having them in a room with no TV blaring started the good work
children WANT to interact. Toby had 'learned' not to.
Hopefully he'll unlearn that - the signing with the foster Mum was a really hopeful image.

Keep thinking about this.

Dealing with a non verbal child with [undiagnosed] SN is hard work.

It would be hard work for 2 intelligent and resourceful parents, so its not rocket science that 2 parents like Tiffany and Mike would struggle is it?

Dealing with [diagnosing] Tobys SN, finding ways to support his parents in behavior management techniques for him, full time LA nursery place. all of those things would have made a big positive difference to the family, if those things had been done trust between SS and the family would've been built up, thus proving Mike wrong in his 'you just want to break up the family' stance.

He was right wasnt he? I dont think there was ever any intention to support that family in staying together, or at least I dont think they did everything they could have.

It is quite puzzling about the SN - It seemed that Toby was in a full time placement at an LEA nursery so presumably in a fairly good environment for language development most of the time (the day nurseries don't really go on holidays like the schools)

How on earth was it ever going to work? The family staying together I mean.

Mike - and to a lesser degree Tiffany - DIDN'T CARE.

Honestly, what else could the SW have done? Physically gone round every night and cleaned the child's teeth? Put him to bed? Cleaned up the dog shit?

Should the state provide a cleaner, to pick the shit off the carpet?

What else could they have done? Genuinely interested to hear what you think, because the couple were uninterested/unable to manage picking shit up and putting their child to bed.

Nobody was expecting them to teach the child advanced geometry - just give basic care and they were physically able to do that BUT CHOSE NOT TO

he was in nursery and they didnt take him im assuming because of his age it was preschool and this is where his language delay was flagged by nursery I think his attendance was irratic , meaning if they coul d be bother to take him ,

Charlotte Perkins Starlight - I maybe mixing you up, but I think it was CP who said a child should not be removed from a parent with whom he has a bond. What exactly do you mean by a "bond" - children whose needs are met in all respects with a nurturing, responsive parent grow to have "secure attachments" with their parents, which are a protective factor for the child throughout the life span. Conversely children whose needs are not met and are neglected, learn that adults are not to be trusted and then have "insecure attachments with their parents" and this can cause problems to a greater or lesser extent throughout the life span. Toby was insecurely attached to his parents. The most important part of a child's life are the first 3 years - they lay down the foundation for the rest of his life - sadly Toby experienced neglect (even if the parents didn't really realise this and I don't think they did) during those first 3 years and he is also developmentally delayed, and is very likely to have Learning Difficulties himself as this can be inherited from the parent.

Someone (not sure who) says that Toby will be "psychologically damaged" because he has been removed from his parents - yes he will be, but not because he was removed, but because of the neglect he endured during the first 3 years of his life.

Starlight - not sure what planet you are on but I don't think it's planet earth! You talk of nannies going in full time - Mike and Tiffany would have needed the nanny will Toby was 18 and they actually need someone to parent them because they are functioning at a very young age emotionally.

Someone talked about adoption (sorry can't remember who) and wondered if there were adoptors who were approved but would not take a child with special needs etc. Yes yes and yes again...........most adoptors want a baby and the chances of getting a 6 week baby are practically nil. So they can be "pushed" up the age range and will think of a child under 3. Sometimes a match can be made and by the time the child is 5, adoption becomes more and more a remote possibility as the months go by. It is going to be a very special family who would adopt Toby and that may happen, but if not, he will be moved around foster carers. However even that has to be better than living with his parents. It is sad that there are not more people out there who are willing to care for the Toby's of this world, but that is the reality.

Oh and someone mentioned they should have been known to SS because of all those still births and miscarriages. I was 99% certain that this was Mike making it up as he went along, to add a bit of drama to the situation. I have known families tell all sorts of very odd tales e.g. babies being born and slipping down the toilet, twins and one dead one left in the womb, and of course numerous miscarriages, deaths etc.

Anyway still glad to see that there is very little social worker bashing and even some compliments about social workers - wow - that has to be good!

But if they don't want to care for him, surely getting him to nursery would be the one thing they would do.

CalamityKate, I disagree that they didnt care, I think to a large extent they didnt know how to care for him in a way that was of an acceptable standard.

That can be taught.

Ah yes the nursery, it was the nursery that flagged up Tobys bruises to SS wasnt it?

Maybe the parents felt they couldnt trust the nursery after that? not saying they were right in thinking that way, but it would possibly explain it?