protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

have been thinking about this today, and I wonder how much contribution to the break down the filming and involvement had on this family, as far as concent etc, I very much doubt this couple knew exactly what they where consenting to and also to the extent of the interventions, had they known that ultimutly they would lose their children, I wonder if they would have still concented and the fact mike buggered off and never heared of again, the ethics where somewhat skewed, was he given ample oppertunity to remove his concent. Im questioning the bbc and sw departments ethics with regards to this aspect. The preassure of being filmed and the involvemt off the bbc production team on the couple would have been monumental in what they may have initially thought would be a chahance to get their point across in the end could have been a contributing factor in the outcome for this family.

I DONT Agree, i would have thought the filming should have made the dad buck up his ideas. and the mum to. they would most people. they would me

I don't agree either. I think the BBC were very fair. They could have chosen not to show the family or the effect this had on them. But instead it chose to show how vulnerable the parents were. No change to the outcome though

I think it's entirely possible that the filming did make the parents buck up their ideas while the camera crews were there. Which is sobering, if you think about it. They still looked shit as parents, but not shit enough for their child to be so developmentally delayed as he was, especially if he made that much progress in a short time with the foster mum. What I think is this: He obv has some kind of genetic special needs thing going on (possibly inherited from dad?) and as neither parent had any parenting skills nor much between the ears (although I felt sorry for them both throughout) they were unable to deal with his SN. Especially since the foster parents would have access to all manner of services that they would not and fast-tracking to these services.

I read somewhere about a study into parental expectations of 3 yo and how they were so much lower in deprived areas than in well-off areas because of what all the other children were able to do. In deprived areas almost all the children were achieving less and therefore the parents worried less about delays that would cause parents in more affluent areas rushing for medical and behavioural intervention. So people like teachers, SW and HV become even more important in such areas as they are aware of what a "normal" 3 yo should be able to do in a way the parents aren't. In this way it doesn't really surprise me that T&M hadn't sought help sooner for their son. They both had the knowledge (no doubt reinforced by their own (shit?) parents) that they had spoken late, felt they weren't doing too badly despite and therefore expected the poor little mite to work it out for himself eventually.

What I don't understand is why the nursery hadn't flagged up his delays as a matter of urgency and attempted earlier intervention (SALT, child psychologist etc). Or had he only been at nursery a short time? I didn't pick up on that.
Whereas the foster mother was able to provide a much richer and more reactive environment with access to a variety of techniques and services to help him communicate and manage his frustration.

What makes me uncomfortable is that ultimately this is a little bit a battle between bright well-educated professionals, and really not very bright, definitely not very educated poor people. Of course they many not be the best people to bring up a child, but they are the parents of that particular child. Do we propose removing and placing in care all the children of poor, ill-educated and not very bright people?

Having said that, I do agree that these two showed a singular lack of desire to provide a normal and clean living environment for their child, nor to take on board any of the advice given by SW. I do think that the mother made the best and most selfless possible decision for her children and admire her for it.

nailak - agreed, there is something very wrong in the way some social workers treat victims of domestic violence.

Poppercondria - I agree that growing up in foster care is not as good as growing up with your birth family in a caring environment but I'm not sure why you would describe it as awful. Most foster carers are very committed loving people and in this case I would certainly say that Toby was better off with a foster carer.

But would you not think that mike and tiffanys possible inhability to grasp what was going on in their own lives would have been impeeded even more, with the added input of yet other set of people, such as the production team who where also more educated, intelegant and possibly also not communicating on an even level with the family, using language and requests they may not have fully understood.

They would have had more forms to fill in, make consent to terms and conditions etc they may not have truelly understood. I feel it was an added preasure and may have increased levels of anxiety, agression etc. I think initialy mike may have played upto the cameras with his verbal abuse etc, in some ill thought out fantastical concept of what appearing on T.V may have entailed. That would have affected anyone let alone a family who are already struggling to meet the demands and expectations made of them.

Maybe not so much genetically influenced SN as some form of brain damage? This is just speculation on my part, but someone presumably on his best behaviour on camera who still came across as such a volatile person might possibly have inflicted some injury on Toby earlier in his life (and he had those unexplained bruises iirc). There is also the impact on brain development of emotional and physical neglect, of leaving a baby to cry endlessly, of not interacting - in short the failure to develop a relationship with a baby, to take into account.

I would also hazard a bet that Mike had abused Tiffany, that Tiffany (and the children if left with her despite support) would be a sitting duck for further abuse by any man she ended up with, and that the likelihood of her bouncing from abusive man to abusive man would be high. Not her fault, but she was vulnerable and some people have radar for that.

As far as the 'mummy mentors' idea -- there was a Healthy Start Programme in Hawaii where at risk parents were flagged during the course of prenatal care; families identified as at risk were enrolled in what was basically a souped up version of the HV system, with the capability of linking parents and children with all sorts of support services as well as providing an ongoing mentor relationship with the Visitor. Sad conclusion: 'It is challenging to engage and retain at-risk families in home visiting. Service monitoring must be an integral part of operations.'

Festi -- I feel that if there are parents who are so baffled and unable to cope with people who are better educated who come into their lives, be it SWs or medical professionals or teachers or a production crew, then their children should automatically be on the register because parents like that are not going to be able to do much for their children. If they are truly operating on such a limited level their children are going to be in danger.

I think the logical conclusion to the idea that Mike was playing up for the camera is that he was truly clueless as to what an acceptable or normal attitude and demeanour are. Not promising therefore, wrt Toby's chances of receiving even barely adequate parenting. The thought that he has probably gone on to form another relationship and may have more children is a sobering one.

I also think the SWs' conclusions in the case were hardly based on their impressions from the filming, and bear in mind that what was shown was the final edited version too. The case was reviewed at various different levels and well supervised as far as I could see.

it wsa the lack of playing with toby by the dad that was so heart breaking. toby gave his dad the other half of a toy telephone, and he just looked at it!
then he, the dad, went on to play or rather look, with another toy on his own.

poor poor toby, he was so good putting his bag on his back as soon as they said 5 minutes to him.

also the lack of lunch when he had sole care of him, and the not changing of the nappy, i hadnt heard that bit but the lack of lunch. he was so ineffectual as a parent and thus neglectful.

i felt sorry for the mum, i felt she needed a mother herself, and realised that she too, i think, grew up in care. but what man is she going to fall in with in the future? hopefully a man with parenting skills.

DH is a teacher and he has taught in big comps and now in a residential school for boys that have to be educated away form their 'families'. He is so motivated to work with these kids . Anyway he points out that he sees the 'finest' (his term) having lots of children starting at 16 or younger and he then teaches generations of the family. It is depressingly predictable though of course occasionally a character transcends their background or 'destiny'. It is no one's fault per se - we are up against nature here and all she wants is babies, lots of them, and these youngsters don't stand a chance against the forces at work when there are no longer social forces of course. And remember no-one asks to be born!
Whilst devoting his life to them DH reckons that there is no way to stop it short of pushing female contraception - like Mirena which has the added advantage of stopping periods as an incentive. Sadly the lives of many of these parents would be a lot happier without children. (though some kids are simply 'bad 'uns' and their parents despair of them).

A primary headteacher friend says how sad it makes her that so many parents nowadays regard school as free babysitting and are quite open about their indifference to their offspring. It is alarming that there is a great gulf opening between our 'Adored' children and these 'Unwanted' youngsters. Years ago a fellow student was slain whilst walking home in a residential street by a youth who ran up behind him and hit him over the head with an iron bar - for no discernable reason. At his memorial we all looked at each other and we knew that we and our children would be living in this dangerous world. My only conclusion is that they will all need to be competent in a martial art to survive...and vigilant!
Good luck everyone...

This is such an interesting thread - and I'm trying hard not to come down hard on the parents, as I felt extremely sorry for Tiffany as the programme evolved. And a little bit for Mike - what made him how he is? But one can debate till the cows come home on the reasons for the poor parenting - mum and dad having lousy childhoods themselves, possibly learning difficulties, lack of money, missunderstanding of a child's needs and an inability to relate to a child, feeling threatened/inadequate by Social Services - all those meetings, resulting in aggression from the father ... it goes on and on. But it seems to me we're sort of entering the 'how many angels dance on the head on a pin?' territory. To me, the priority was poor Toby, so damaged and obviously uncared for in matters of hygiene, bedding, parental interaction. I couldn't understand how a small child could be allowed to run around a flat where dog crap or the stains of dog crap were all over the place - how COULD the parents not understand that this was just awful?

I've been thinking about Toby all day, ever since I joined this particular Mumsnet debate. I'm coming round to thinking I'm quite surprised the Social Workers left him in that squalid, sad environment so long, giving the parents the benefit of the doubt and hoping (surely with scant optimism) that Mike and Tiffany would get their act together and at least clean up the place - that would have been a start. And put that damn bed together and walk the poor dog, stop it crapping all over the place!

Oh dear - I am now sounding harsh and judgemental. The Social Workers gave the parents every chance and good for them. As was stated in the programme. Social Workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But I've got Toby in my mind. Poor little boy.

Festive - it wasn't the playing up to the cameras or the aggression that got Toby removed it was the neglect of basic human needs such as food, clothing, a place to sleep and basic hygene. If the camera crews altered that in any way it would mean they would have done more than normal so that was the BEST Toby got.

Personally I think the point was made many posts ago that maybe, and it's a big maybe Tiff could have been helped with her parenting but it would take a lot of time and money (which really isn't there) and in the meantime the children suffer until (hopefully) she becomes the parent she needs to be for those children. The children do not have the luxury of time to thrive. There is a small window up until around 4 that they need the right care and guidance. The sw's did what they needed to do for the children. Let's hope that Tiff gets the help she needs before she has another child.

This is such an interesting thread. I watched this morning and I have to say, this programme has stayed with me all day. All this teaching the parents "how to parent" is all very well but when we get to the nitty gritty, Toby was a little boy being failed by his parents. Nobody wants a family to be separated like that but Tiffany and Mike couldn't even provide A BED for him, let alone care for and nurture him. I agree that Tiffany seemed to love him but she or Mike couldn't grasp, or couldn't be bothered, to do what was required of them. Sooner or later decisions have to be made for the safety of the child. How long were SS supposed to leave him there, waiting for things to improve.

I don't know how SW's cope with that on a daily basis. Whilst I am sure they try to be emotionally detached, I wonder how many nights they have spent worrying about children like Toby. When Tiffany was in hospital you could see that the blonde social worker was petrified of Toby going home with Mike (I thought she looked quite tearful actually).

It's funny, isn't it- the different things that leaped out of the programme at different people.I wasn't really bothered by the bed thing. I suppose he should have had one, but what's really wrong with sleeping on the sofa? What struck me was how very good Toby was at playing, even without any real input from his parents. When Mike was incompetently putting the stair gate on, did you see him getting his toy screwdriver out to help?

Surely the other major problem with aiming to teach Tiff (and other parents like here) adequate parenting skills is that by now Toby is in many ways so damaged by his early years that he will require highly skilled parenting as he develops which actually very few parents/carers possess - let alone those who really struggle with the basics.

It was dog poo on the floor that got to me and I wondered if she would have moved it as promptly without the cameras.

It was the dog poo and not taking the bed out of the plastic. I mean even of you were a co sleeper if someone said your child needed a bed or he would be taken away. Here is a bed and here is a bedroom with space for it. You would damn well put it up wouldn't you.

I agree with everything you both say ratnee and mathan and only too aware of how mike and tiffany where functioning, but I just think to add the crew and all that went along with it imo ethically was something that did not sit right with my own moral judgemnent. I know it did not ultimatly lead to the removal of the boy, but I cant help but think it may have compounded the outcome and impeeded the already swamped couple from engaging, however I do agree that he would have been removed anyway, but . Regardless though for me it is the ethics regarding consent from someone like mike and tiffany.

Festi - re: consent. The couple's ability to consent would have been established - in cases like this, esp. when they go to court, the ability to consent is established and advocacy / support accessed needed. Neither the BBC, not the actual LA involved would take chances on something like that - both parties legal teams will have been all over it.

To me it was the demeanour of Mike that raised the biggest red flag.

agree math .... i'd say 'brooding' scared me a bit