protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

but realistically this is a man who couldn't be arsed to put a bed together or wipe his shoes and clean up dog piss to keep his child. there has to be some sign of will and interest to be able to effect change.

if you can't get anywhere on absolute basics you can understand why you don't get to move on to higher things.

Help the Dad?

The priority has to be help the child!

I watched this today and was :( I think the SW did a brilliant job in really shit circumstances, I dont envy them at all!

The Dad terrified me, I can only imagine how he would make a 3 year old feel.

Toby should have been removed much sooner. I was glad they got the baby before her life was ruined.

I've just watched this on iplayer and tbh I am that people think that these people could have been good parents "with the right support." Tiffany maybe, but Mike?

Seeker: "The trouble is, the programme gave the impression that the absence of a bed was one of the main reasons Toby was taken into foster care." No, the reason Toby was taken into foster care was because his mother had gone into hospital and SS felt that his father was unable to care for him adequately on his own. A fear which was realized by the fact that he had shown up to nursery the next afternoon having not had his nappy changed or been fed. This isn't about a lack of a bed, this is about a lack of basic care. When taking him to the ss office to be put into care Mike had put in a t-shirt and a water bottle. no clothes, no toys, nothing. And he was utterly devoid of emotion. No explanation to Toby that he'd be going to stay with the other lady for a while, just "right by then." and his reaction when Tiffany was in the hospital and saying about the baby "Well if it survives then it does, if not then well..."

The sw was clearly supportive of Tiffany's with to be a good single parent. She said that she hoped she would be able to do it, so I'm not sure why people seem to assume that adoption was SS's agenda rather than her's. It seemed clear to me that she had made the decision to give the children up for adoption herself and that she felt that was the best for her kids, which IMO it was. Sometimes as a parent we have to be selfless and do what is best for our children, knowing that it might not be what is best for us. I think Tiffany should be given credit for making that decision, rather than people assuming that ss made her do it, and again making her seem as if she had no control. I think she took control at the end and made that decision for her kids, and maybe for herself as well..

And I think no contact is a good thing actually. How confusing must it be for a child to only get to see their parent for such short periods of time like that? Adoption is supposed to be so a child can move on, can have a new start and a new life.

The dad didn't terrify me- he made me want to weep. And the child showed no signs of fear. And people are imagining that he will be quickly adopted into a lovely family with a Labrador and a cottage in the country. But he won't. He'll spend the rest of his childhood in the care system- foster family after fost family, then on his own own at 18.

I think the social workers probably did an ok job. But we didn't get enough background. The programme just skimmed the surface.

Wannabe, I know that, of course. But the way the programme was edited didn't make it clear. And it didn't explain why the children remained in care after Tiffany recovered. And why the baby was taken away immediately. And what support Tiffany got over her decision.

A childhood in care has to be better than a childhood with a 'family' who can't even be arsed to buy him a bed!

That bloody bed again!

Yes, that bloody bed again!

The SW bought them the bed and then next time they visited it hadn't even been unpacked, had you noticed that?

Yes I had noticed that. Do you really think that the bed is the important thing here?

No, I dont but I think it is a big indicator of their inability to provide a normal, stable life for their child. I am sorry to say it but no bed, no toothbrush, dogshit on the floor = shit parenting. They needed a kick up the arse and they got it and they didn't improve at all, what else were the sw supposed to do?

The worst thing I saw was Mike generally. People with that level of problems cannot care for children.

A childhood in care has to be better then a childhood with Mike as a parent.

Methe, I hate to say it (as think in general it was the right decision to put Toby with foster carers) but a life in care may well be no better, or worse, than with birth parents.
The stats for all indicators for a successful adult life are, in general, terrible for children who grow up in the care "system". The likes of Toby who are not going to be high on potential adopter's wish lists may well spend the first few years with foster carers but as their needs become more difficult to manage with the onset of hormones, increase in size and the teenage years, foster carers often find it increasingly hard to cope.
At which point residential care (children's homes) kick in and believe me, once you're in those your life chances really start to disappear. There are some good ones but there are many, many residential units where the combination of inadequate resources and living alongside other very troubled young people can be a lethal cocktail.
So yes, probably better off there than with Mike I would agree. But without a well supported and supervised Tiffany - I'm not sure.

Just read through the whole thread and I'm appauled that some posters believe Toby should not have been placed in care.At least Toby is now safe, which in my eyes the family home wasn't. I even felt sorry for the dog.

The odds are Tiffany will find another "Mike" character and this terrible situation will be repeated.

Cuppa, all of the huge amount of support, etc., that could have been provided for the same cost as fostering, would have gone out the window as soon as Tiffany had found another man like Mike, which is the most likely outcome there even with support. All the ADs, the parenting support etc., can do is put a plaster over problems that run very deep.

If fostering in a stable home with people who are making the investment of their time and human 'capital' (for want of a better term) costs the same as placing Toby back with his mother then imo it is money well spent (not that the cost should be the deciding factor).

I think Toby's parents were emotionally stunted, probably by having parents just like them. The amount of support required to try to turn back the clock and reparent them would be staggering. Removing the children, hopefully before it's too late, had to be done for the sake of the children, to prevent the cycle from getting going again.

Seeker, the problem with having to tell the parents absolutely everything they should be doing is that you have to tell the parents absolutely everything they should be doing.

In other words -- it is not the solution , but an indication of the massive extent of the issues everyone interested in Toby's welfare was up against. Maybe that is why the man with the clipboard was there taking notes? What he was seeing was a slice of the reality of Toby's life and the reality of Mike's utter incompetence.

I know- and if I thought for a moment that Toby would have a stable, loved life in the care system, I would want him there in a heartbeat. But he won't.

It seems that most of you believe these is no point teaching Mike to be a better parent. So what is the solution? Should social services then stop him from fathering babies? Because basically that is what you are saying. You are saying that people like him should not have children.

So what will happen next time he gets a woman pregnant? The cycle starts again.

I agree that if a child is suffering from abuse, if the parents are drug addicts, if the parents are criminals, then it is best to remove the child from the home, but in this particular case I don't think there was abuse involved and I think the social workers had already decided early on that there was no hope and no improvement could ever be achieved. I didn't see them move a finger to help these parents. The type of help these people need goes beyond the occasional visit to "check on things" and the written plan of action! These people need to learn basic skills, why its important to brush teeth, why its important to keep a clean floor, basic parenting, housekeeping, planning, budgeting.

seeker the dad didnt scare me and I felt very sad for him. I think he felt humiliated and put upon. That doesnt mean I think he was a good person to be around those children though.

I think the boy not showing fear was not necessarily a good sign. Most children would freak out if their dad started getting angry and agressive. I know mine would and our home is a fairly noisy one.

But that boy didnt take any notice and that is bad sign. It could mean he is used to it, desensitised, zones out.
That is a big red flag.

I used to see kids like that when I worked in A&E. They would come in with parents for various reasons, not always because they were injured/ill. Sometimes they would be dragged along because a parent was ill/od'd/injured. They would sit still and passive whilst their parent's raged and ranted, screamed and cried.
That was awful

I don't know how much teaching it would take to make someone who has basically never been parented himself a good enough parent. They do not need skills. They need an emotional hole filled that no amount of involvement by social workers, anti-depressants, classes telling them to feed their children or change their nappies will fill. They themselves were also content to live in the filth, the dog poop and the pee soaked home after all.

There is no easy solution and only one that honours the right of the children to live a decent life and that is to intervene and do what is best for the children when it is plain that they are suffering -- and I disagree with you about whether there was abuse involved. Chronic neglect for an entire lifetime (which is what Toby experienced), what CheerfulYank called the failure to make room for the child in the parents' life, becomes abuse at some point, and the bruises point to actual physical abuse narrowly defined. The Mikes and Tiffanys of this world seem drawn to each other sadly, and there will always be children involved. In the long run, starting again with the children at least interrupts the cycle in one particular family.

Working with Mike, identifying his needs and assessing whether he can ever be steered in the direction of maturity might help him, but surely not while using the children as guinea pigs or props that he could try out his progress with?

Seeker a family down the road does foster care. They adore their little ones. They have had a family of three (ages 6, 4, and 18 months) and they loved those children like nothing you've ever seen. They have four of their own, and I always saw them out and about with all 7 of them. The DC are now with their grandmother, but still stay with the foster parents some weekends and whenever their grandmother needs a bit of a break. The same family has just taken in 4 little ones all under the age of 7 and are already thinking they will go through the process to adopt them if they can.

Loving care in the system is possible, and when it happens, it is awe-inspiring to see.

Many foster carers are superb. I think Toby's were pretty good-he blossomed in such a short time-he was a different child.

I have only experienced a few foster parents, as a teacher, but the ones that I have come across were doing their best for the DC and in the school quite a lot,being supportive.

The main problem seems to be the number of moves a DC has, once in the system.

Please don't forget that most foster carers are amazing people. Imagine having a child/children brought to you, often in the middle of the night. In an awful state. No clothes or toys, dirty, a dirty happy on them, scared unable to communicate properly, malnourished and with no idea what a bed is for for them. You take them in, work extensively, make the child feel safe. They start to improve over months, you see them smile and learn new things. Then one day they are taken off you and returned to the place they came from.

You telling me they aren't amazing for opening themselves up to that possibility and doing it anyway because they care.

The main problem seems to be the number of moves a DC has, once in the system.

Couldn't agree more. When a child is removed from their parents, they need stability and permanence right away in my opinion if they are then going to go on to lead a near normal life.

It's bad enough that one attachment has been broken and therefore need to start building a relationship and new attachment with their new parent(s) immediately. This doesn't happen - if no adoptive parents are found quickly they are then likely to be 'passed around' different foster carers which I think has more devestating effects on children than the effects of being removed from their parents does. Therefore, quite often our children are not only failed by abusive parents, but then failed again by the system. Our system needs changing and only then will "a life in the care system" not be such a bad thing for these children.

This is all not to mention the amount of time these processes take and certain rules they have in place which prevent some, possibly extremely good carers/parents coming forward to take care of these children.

It's all very messy.

The statistics regarding problems children have upon leaving the care system and becomming adults aren't very good though. We have to remember that the vast majority of children who live "a lifetime in care" are most often older children when they enter the care system and therefore have already experienced many years of severe abuse. Younger ones who spend more time in the care system often have SN. So, whether it's down to that abuse or SN or down to the care system on which has had worse affects is arguable.

What would be more interesting is how many of those who were adopted very early on or at least quickly go on to lead 'normal' lives and function adequately in society. Does anyone know?

Foster parents can be fantastic, of course. But you can't form healthy attachments if you're always moving on. Which children in the care system do.

I can't get this out of my mind. I'm very impressed with the level of debate here - especially as it demonstrates that Mumsnetters are compassionate, realistic, thoughtful, sympathetic. I'm now thinking of what, were I God, or Dictator, or somesuch - how I'd deal with a family such as Toby's. Given unlimited funds (!) I'd arrange that a really nice, understanding person, probably a woman but could be a guy, would visit the family every day to give them a hand. Along with tactfully suggesting better parenting practices, showing how to play with the child, gently suggesting and demonstrating Toby's need for interaction with his parents, especially in talking, she (or he) would also roll up their sleeves and, telling the parents to join in, would do some cleaning up. The bloody bed (!) would be erected, the dog problem resolved by suggesting that the mutt is walked (sorry to go off on a tangent, but it seemed a very nice and forebearing dog, given its circumstances) and Tiffany and the helper/mentor/whatever, doing some simple cooking - even better if Dad could be included.

This helper/mentor/whatever would call most days - but she/he would NOT be there to 'do everything', a sort of Social Services appointed slave, because it would be part of the deal that Tiffany/partner had to pull their weight. A time limit would be imposed - say, two weeks or a month? At the end, the family would be left to get one with it. And if they reverted to their old ways ... well, then maybe social services have to consider more difficult options.

I know, I know, don't come down on me hard - this would cost. There isn't the money. But like I said - if I were Dictator, PM, Queen - and had unlimited cash. It'll never happen.