protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

I think a bed is an absolute basic necessity. Lack of one is a huge red flag, as it's not just the lack of a bed, it's the lack of a bedtime, structure, space for the child in a house etc that it signifies, as Maryz pointed out (and others possibly).
"Rolling" consent was used, which meant the family could at any time withdraw from the process, before, during or after filming. They could amend details which they felt were inaccurate also, and were shown the completed film before broadcast. Consent could be withdrawn anytime up to broadcast, I understand.
This thread is one of the most interesting on here, for me, for ages. I have been educated and saddened, and also grateful at how reasoned it has been. So many different views, all from the same programme.

A lot of people are mentioning Mike's behaviour and it is by no means unusual for parents with learning difficulties, and/or limited understanding to shout in this way. It is the only way they know of disagreeing and panic sets in too, and the shouting gets worse. I'm not even sure that they think whether they are intimidating or not. As a new social worker I was scared when this happened, but as time went by I got used to it, and would just ask them to stop shouting and it was amazing how many times it worked! There is such a huge difference very often between the chronological age and the emotional age in the Mikes of this world. He was probably functioning at a pre-teen level, and if you remember that and think you are dealing with an 11/12 year old it makes it easier. So sad but many parents where children are at risk, are children in adult's bodies.

So so sad to see Mike holding the end of the play telephone and becoming interested in the toy steering wheel.....

The newly qualified sw was of course out of her depth but she will learn - I look back on my social work career of 30 years (now retired) and I think Mike and Tiff were very typical. Most often though they have a much more frightening dog than Mike had. I used to have to visit a couple on the top floor of a block of flats and the father had a bull mastiff (huge thing) that he kept on a lead but the dog would bark at me and I was scared what might happen if he let if off the lead, and I am a dog person. In the end I said the dog had to be in a different room or theyhad to come to the office and after a bit of shouting and huffing and puffing he put the dog in the kitchen and shut the door.

I'm glad that some posters are having their eyes opened to the sorts of situations that social workers are involved in, and yes this would be one case and she probably had another 10- 15 on her caseload.

I felt frustrated by the editing on the programme. They didn't explain enough for me, not enough spelling out of back story - why were they on SSs books, not enough spelling out of who all those people at the case meeting were. They filmed them saying I agree but apart from the paed and the SWs we'd seen they were who?

I do agree a bit about the social worker language but I think it's probably trained into them. You have to react as a professional, not with your guts in this sort of situation. And there was a male social worker (the newly qualified SW's initial port of call in meetings) but IIRC he had exactly the same language.

Someone else said it upthread. But love really is not enough to be good enough parent. And that your child loves you isn't enough either.

I dont know how to explain how I feel about this.

I really dont think a lack of a bed, a toothbrush and an untoilet trained dog mean that the parents are not able to parent a child adequately (what is the standard "good enough"?)) - parents dont need to be perfect.

What if a family didnt have a bed for their child, had all their clothing in boxes or crates due to lack of furniture, had no toothbrush and an incontinent cat BUT the child attended their salt appointments, the parents took the child to rhyme time, to the library, did messy play and taught them sign language.

What then?

Breaking this situation down and saying that, in isolation, a lack of a bed or toothbrush, a shitting dog or all three together make people "bad parents" to the extent that their children should be removed is, I think, quite outrageous and overly simpistic.

I haven't even seen the program or read this whole thread but...I'd take both of them like a shot. I've got lots of experience in SN and behavioral challenges. :( Can't I take them?

cuppatea, one of the SWs on here will hopefully answer, but based on what has been said upthread then if a bed, a toothbrush are missing and a shitty dog is present it would seem most unlikely all the medical appointments are being kept, or that sign language is being taught. Open to correction of course. "Good enough" to me means a warm place to sleep, in a bed, with a duvet, a play area clean of shit and food in the house. Anything else is icing on the cake, tbh.

Maybe I just dont see the whole extra significance of the "bed" thing as well?

In the last few posts, I think people are just expressing what stood out for them in the programme. Of course not having a toothbrush is not the end of the world, but the parents' general antipathy towards addressing all this pointed to neglect. In any case, it wasn't just the physical conditions in the home, it was Toby's lack of speech, behavioural problems, special needs, suspected physical abuse, not attending appointments, Mike's manner etc.......

But why wouldn't a child have their own bed? Where do they sleep if they don't have one?
I'm asking as a co-sleeping parent, and both mine have their own beds.

It really depends, Cuppa. It's not a specific checklist, more a combination of factors.

I know some hippy-type families where the children crashed where and whenever for bedtime, there were some unorthodox ideas toward health and education... but the children were obviously growing up in a safe environment and were well-loved and cared for. It wasn't the sort of parenting you see every day, but social services wouldn't have dreamed of intervening.

And I've known parents who loved their children deeply but couldn't keep shed of their addictions, and their children were not safe because of it. They very often didn't have a clear-headed adult in charge. Those children were taken away permanently and I gave a statement to the judge in favor of it. It broke my heart because the parents did adore them, but I stand by it. Those children deserved better.

Cuppatea did you actually see the programme?

They weren't taken away for not having a toothbrush, or indeed a bed.

They were removed because they had unexplained injuries, failed to attend medical appointments, failed to feed their children (turning up at nursery without lunch, lack of food in the cupboard) and basic hygeine and neglect deficiencies (dog poo and wee on floor, which may well be where the little boy lay down). That's without going into the SN, language delay and behavioural problems, lack of interaction or communication. Or the DV although luckily Tiffany did kick Mike out for that. And failure to correct any of these things, even with the threat of having their children taken away.

I think SW are probably all too delighted to turn up at a house, find there is no toothbrush, or deliberate co-sleeping arrangments but the children are well-cared for, played with, and given food/clothing/toilet trained. That wasn't the case here, very sadly.

very ture dontlaugh, A family engaging as cuppa has described, would mostly see the need to provide a bed, a toothbrush etc and accept and work through change in those areas. I believe an adequate and appropriate approach would also be adopted to support and affect change. You can not prescribe any given situation and intervention. But the social worker would hold the same regard a check list of harm, risk, an understanding of child development and duties to assess and powers to interveen/support within legislation and moral duties to the child. Wether it would hold the same out come possibly, possibly not. The fact is cases are and can be very typical but people by nature are very unique.

I dont think it was the lack of a bed, more the lack of somewhere to sleep.

He had no bedding and slept where he dropped.

Now that might be ok in a happy, loving and safe home. As part of a bigger picture - in a home that is chaotic, stressed and where there is the strong suspicion of violence - it becomes more of an issue.

and the child was not removed because he did not have a bed.

I am clearly too sheltered. Does lack of a bed not mean a lack of somewhere to sleep? In houses where there are no allocated beds to kids, can someone tell me where they are actually sleeping? I feel daft that I can't grasp this.

The little boy had bruises. Repeat bruises.

it is conceivable that babies or children sleep in bed with their parents. But that was clearly not the case, it would be obviouse in many circumstances of otherwise stable families that a co sleeping child would have a routine, his needs for appropriate sleep and rest are being met.

hardgoing - have you read the thread???

"Now that might be ok in a happy, loving and safe home. As part of a bigger picture - in a home that is chaotic, stressed and where there is the strong suspicion of violence - it becomes more of an issue."

"I know some hippy-type families where the children crashed where and whenever for bedtime, there were some unorthodox ideas toward health and education... but the children were obviously growing up in a safe environment"

These two examples above illustrate what I think would be my concerns, - surely the difference between the 2 scenarios mentioned above and those warranting intervention are highly SUBJECTIVE and in fact JUDGED by the SW? Exactly how does one ascertain or decide whether the whole picture looks okay with a few oddities in the mix? This must surely be coloured to a large extent by professional's own personal background and expectations.

Not toilet trained at 3 - so what? As far as I can see there is no longer anything unusual or remarkable about that.

Delayed speech - the paed said it was genetic - in fact I dont recall her suggesting it was environmental - what she said was that prompt intervention NOW would give thge best chance for the child to overcome it - she did not say that the parents had caused or compounded the problem (unlike lots on this thread!)

2 fingerprint sized bruises on the child - really??? My children often have bruises like this and I have no idea where they are from - half the time they have no idea either - some of the time I expect they were caused by me

without a bed a child could sleep in parents bed, on sofa with teddy and duvet (especially in a small house or flat), on a fold out futon or sofa bed (small house or flat) - I am just not getting the preoccupation with beds (all mine have one by the way)

But, the little boy didn't have bedding (or food provided regularly, or nappies changed regularly).

Toby didn't have a teddy and a duvet. He had very little. He had problems and he had unexplained repeat bruises.

No-one in child care proceedings judges on a bed alone. They really don't.

cuppatea2 One 'minor' reason alone, of course is no reason to remove a child from their parents. Social workers would be putting together an overall picture of the childs life. In this case, it was not just a case of not having a bed and toothbrush, and the cleanliness from parents. It was due to many other reasons also - not having their child attend nursery, bruises being reported on the child (of which his mother admitted to doing herself after it came to light they were finger marks from someone grabbing him), their lack of following instructions from professionals who were telling them what their child needed in order to be safe and comfortable, the fact that their child was clearly suffering due to extreme nelect on their part.

I would imagine that a 'good enough' parent who didn't have a bed, toothbrush and dog mess on the floor, but good enough in every other aspect would probably not even be noticed as their child may appear quite 'normal' and happy and therefore no reports should be made to highlight a concern in the first place. They don't just check out anyones house without any initial concern being reported in the first place.

However, if it was reported, Social Services would not just remove the child, just as they didn't in this case. Instead they would assess the whole situation - either decide that no further action was neccessary or make recommendations on what that child needs. If it comes to light you're really struggling to buy what they consider to be an essential piece of furniture, as with this family, they may even buy it for you and then expect you to use it. Providing you follow this advice to do what was best for your child then, at some point they may be satisfied and leave you to it. If there are still concerns they will continue to follow up as and when required. But, they work with you in every way they can before taking such drastic action.

I would imagine that most parents who are 'good enough' in every other way would be more than willing to follow professional advice - especially when it's clear your children could be removed as a consequence of not doing so. Even if you do not fully agree with the recommendations, you'd surely do anything to keep your child? So therefore, clearly not an issue.

I sort of see what you are saying Cuppa but we are discussing this particular case/programme, and anyone could have walked into that house and seen/felt immediately that things "weren't right".

"Standards of care" has very definitely come up before in other high profile cases, i.e. what I think is good enough isn't what someone else thinks is good enough at all. But there are basic standards of care which are universal, pretty much, and when these aren't being met I'd imagine they're straightforward to spot, things like no food in the house, no bedding, no engagement with services, non attendance in school/not being home schooled, no clothes. Surely those needs cross every culture?

sorry, my bed answer was to dont laugh and i assumed it was an actual question