protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

it was! thanks. I think the word "bed" has taken over, really "place to sleep" is probably more accurate.

Re the bed thing - I think it is the fact that the bed was finally provided by SS but was propped against the wall still in the cellophane. Now we don't know how long it was there for, but most parents, had they not been able to afford one before, would surely take great pleasure in setting it all up etc. They just could not see why it was NEEDED - I think that is what people don't understand.

was there a pre occupation with the bed? did not take that from the program my self. discussed early on up thread as the program was running people where pointing out what was being unearthed as they watched, but that was not the case of the social worker.

The child was not sleeping any where with teddy and duvet, he was left where he fell asleep and quite frankley in the state of that home that is not adequate. social workers do no go by own expectations and instinct alone, it is the infromed, educated judgemnts and collaboration that enables social workers and other proffessionals, teachers, medics, judges police, psychiatrists, gp etc etc.

Festi - no not in the programme, on this thread. As dontlaugh said, I think it is more about lack of a "place to sleep" rather than lack of a bed.

You're right, festi.

There aws no preoccupation with the bed in the programme. It as one of many factors.

There have been posters on here though who seem to be suggesting that there is a possibility that co-sleepers could be looked at by social workers. I do not believe that social workers have any remit to do this.

dont laugh - yes this is what I am getting at I think - i would agree about universal basic standards of care, but I really doubt very much that the nature and form of this "basic" provision would cross every culture.

Example - travellers and non school attendance.

I know families who only buy second hand clothes for their children, the clothes become very well worn, marked and holey/patched before being replaced. I suspect that most people including professionals would take a dim view of this, but the families concerned do not consider it to be in any way detrimental or inappropriate otherwise they absolutely would not do it.

There are lots and lots of families in the real world in the UK whose children dont have a bed each, due to space or cost issues - perhaps 3 small children share a fold out bed. Some by virtue of their culture, in their home country it may be bizarre to separate children into single beds. They are meeting the basic need for a place to sleep that is dry warm and clean, but going by reponses on this thread I dont think this would meet any cross cultural standard.

Cuppa, No social worker would recommend care proceedings under those circumstances.

line runner, sorry which circumstances?

I think it is about contextualizing the situation that is being presented cuppa. And social workers would very much do that. maost social workers are human beings with human lives them selves, who have an understanding of the different ways people live and choices they make. If they took a dim view and removed non school attending travelers, then they would all be in care, clearly they are not.

The removal of a child is the very very last resort and not a decission made by the social worker.

Does anyone remember that poster a few months ago that had a visit from Social Services and was told her house was too dirty and to clean up? She was absolutely horrified, but admitted it was quite bad (doors off hinges, holes in the wall, I also seem to remember they had issues with their bed). The difference was that she was so upset, she took on the chin the criticism and started immediately fixing everything, so when they returned, it was no longer an issue.

I do know someone who was reported to SS, her house was indeed an unhygenic tip including cat poo everywhere, but her children were delightful, ahead in their development, went to school on time, clothed and fed appropriately and just loved by their parents. SS spent about 30 min in the house before discharging the case. They are not interested in one or two 'signs', but a package of serious neglect or abuse.

Cuppa, sharing beds and wearing hand-me-downs. That's totally normal and healthy. (In my view, anyway.)

tiger lilly i see your point - I am a "good enough parent" in every way as far as I am aware, but if there were issues raised as you mention, I would actually be furious beyond belief that I was to be expected (threatened) to change my life in order to better provide for my children (according to someone elses perceptions and standards) when I already believe that the job I am doing is better than good enough.

HOWEVER, you are absolutely right that I would put my best face on it and go along with it through gritted teeth in order to keep my children.

Do we know what alerted the social services in the first place?

seeker, I think Tiff was already known to ss because of her own sad background, poor thing.

That's it hardgoing, it's the "package."

I think the lack of any sort of regular sleeping place is indicative of not making room for the child in your life. I've known families like this, where the child is more of a hanger-on and treated like a nuisance. No provisions were made for the children at all.

It was not divulged seeker other than a move to the area, I would suggest they have been on the raidar for sometime and the cross over betweens LAs prompted monitoring, I would suspect that the nursery placement was LA provision already in place and being monitored and possibly the non attendance prompted investigation. I would say from my experience and knowledge this family would have had alot of input prior to what we seen on film, I dont think it was a new referal as such just a spirraling break down..

Someone upthread was saying that the paediatrician said Toby's lack of speech was genetic and not caused by the parents. Children learn to talk by copying the parents and that means that the parents have to talk to the child, naming objects, counting steps, looking at picture books, whatever, it doesn't really matter so long as there is on going communication between parent and child. Tiff and Mike had absolutely no notion of how to do this. Sad but true.

I remember the 2 year old child I placed in a foster home who was removed from parents, and all he could say was "F* Off" and screamed it right up against the carer's face. Now I wonder where he had learned that.

Another child aged 5 kept asking the foster care if she was going to sell various objects in the home and she was really puzzled why he was asking about this, until he finally said "well how are you going to pay for your gear then" .........she didn't know that gear meant drugs either!

I am moving away from Toby I know but I think many MNs would be incredibly shocked at how damaged some children are by their parents, who of course were neglected or abused themselves as children. In 30 years of social work I have never met an abusing parent who wasn't abused as a child.

I've said it before on this thread, but it is indeed the cycle of deprivation and there is no known way of breaking that cycle.

I cannot any circumstance in which SW would take an interest because the children all wore hand-me-downs or shared a bed. It depends very much on the welfare of the children. Nobody, but nobody is harmed by wearing 2nd clothes, and as long as the children are able to get a good nights' sleep it does not matter one jot how that is arranged.

A friend used to work with families in crisis and at one point worked with a large family where no child had an allocated sleeping space and all fought for the best spaces every night. One child chose to sleep on the landing as she knew that at least she had her own space there. Now that is not so healthy.

If SW's point parents in the right direction and the parents take it seriously and make changes, then that's wonderful and the best outcome.

But if they don't....well, they had their chance. It's terrible and it's heartbreaking to take children away from people who love them, but sometimes it does need to be done. Basic love for a child isn't always enough.

would any of the posters that are critical of the social workers and supportive of the parents let their dc's go to a playdate at Tobys former home???????

theres no way i would

intrested in others views

Cuppa, I don't think the lack of a bed and that alone was the problem here. I got the impression that it was a case of multiple issues, including bruises, which I think were the threshold that made SS pay closer attention. If the bruises were on the upper arms, shoulder area or neck of Toby then it would indicate being held forcefully and possibly shaken.

As for the initial alert -- I have a suspicion that the nursery may have been keeping an eye on him. It's just a suspicion and no indication was given afaik.

My own DCs have always worn handmedowns. The 4 DDs pass clothes along to each other, and with DS I have always welcomed bags of clothes from friends and family, even things that are somewhat the worse for wear. I take care of the clothes and hand them on to friends with similar-sized families when we are finished with them. (I see a big difference in the attitude to handmedowns on the part of smaller families).