protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

Not always.

That's the thing...foster care may be detrimental to Toby, but his birth home surely is. SW have to make that choice.

That would be lovely, wouldn't it Grandmama? I've often thought of a program like that before, because I've known a lot of parents who truly, truly loved their children but did not know how to parent them.

I'd like to have that job, actually.

what happened to the scheme (related to Sure Start?) where volunteers from the community were assigned to families to help them with small children? Home Start? Does it still operate?

My guess is that it would still be extremely difficult to get individuals like Mike to engage with such a programme. He came across as someone profoundly unable to see any other point of view but his own or to look beyond his own immediate interests -- even to the extent of not feeding or changing Toby.

Home start operates in some areas. My county has none although my families who live on the border can access it if they cross over & go to a centre but no one to come & help them at home.

Also groups like that are volunteers and unlikely to work with volatile(potentially) in their homes.

the sort of people that grandma do exist but they are thin on the ground and mostly not paid volunteers like harriet said and only have a few hours a week , Again you can go in help these families advise even do a bit off housework try and motivate but its not all as cut and dry as it seems , some people live so chaotically (sp) that they never change never do things on their own and want others to do it for them sadly

grandma suggested sorry

but the mikes of this world just wouldn't be interested in that kind of support. This was a bloke who confirmed that toby was now brushing his own teeth - a three year old with no speech, and seemingly little interactive skills, and you're telling me he was brushing his own teeth? the parents couldn't even be bothered to do that for him.

And actually, the bed is relevant. Because the bed is an indicator of what the child was in relation to them. Bet they had a bed, and yet their own child was not worthy of one. He would fall asleep on the couch and they just left him there. This is a child who fell asleep on a table in the ss office a child who was used to just having to drop and sleep wherever he was. Did the dog have a bed? Did anyone see?

Home Start in my area won't work with people who have Social Services involvement.

really, IB? that seems a bit counter-productive

And I was told (at the interview) that the point isn't to do someone else's cleaning, either. It's to be a support to the family, not a dogsbody.

of course not to do it for them; but to teach them how?

it seemed pretty clear from the programme that Tiffany & Mike didn't know where or how to start

most of the families in our homestart area have ss involved its rare ss are not involved and they are also supporting families ,

Why do fostered children get moved on from family to family every so often? What is the logic to it? Can anyone comment from a fostering perspective - what happens if you say you would like the child to stay with you?

Agree that the bed is relevant in them having one and Toby didn't. Using Mike's logic of 'I don't brush my teeth so why should he?', well, at least by that line of argument, Toby should also have had a bed. This has made me sad intermittently all week - I thought of it when putting my DS to bed and looking at his bed and toys. However many downsides there are to foster care, at least I'd expect Toby now to have that.

I think it's because it's hard for them to be legally free for adoption, so they move back with the parents, then move out again to another foster home, etc? I guess I don't really know!

Lots of issues and it's hard to remember them all. MrsDeVere you disagree that it almost impossible to break the cycle of deprivation. Yes I agree that not all parents who have suffered abuse in childhood will go on to abuse their own children, but in the main, that is what happens, at least in my experience. You say I must have seen thousands of parents who were abused and do not go on to abuse (atleast I think that's what you said) and there is no knowing how many people fall into this category because SSs do not become involved with children who are not abused, except in the way I mention below.

At the risk of repeating myself, we parent our own children in the way that we were parented, in most cases. I have known of situations where parents have been abused by their parents, but there has been someone in the childhood in whom they could trust (a granny or aunt) which has enabled them to be good parents. I have met these people through assessment of prospective foster carers and adoptors.

I would be very interested in your proposals for breaking into this cycle of deprivation? Thus far no government has been able to do this, though they have had many notions (most of the ill thought out) The last one I remember was Tony Blair deciding that children (even those in utero) had to be identified of the probability of them getting an ASBO in later life!! He was a bit vague on what should happen next....I am old enough to remember Keith Joseph ( Tory Home Secretary) in 1974 deciding that classes 4 and 5 (lowest in the pecking order of the General Registrar's analysis of social class) should be prevented from breeding - hmm that one never got off the ground thank god. Wonder if he had the slightest idea of how that could have been worked!!

There's been quite a few posts about the fact that the parents were not taught how to do things, and the sw observing contact didn't help Mike to play with his child. As others have said, it wasn't a parenting class, it was to observe what actually happened between father and son. The sad thing is that people with learning difficulties, in the main have to be told over and over again how to perform a simple task, because they forget so quickly. This is another reason why there is little use in trying to "teach" good parenting, and why people with LDs are usually unable to effective parent their own children, which of course is not their fault in any way.

I was surprised that Toby wasn't afraid of his father, which suggests he wasn't actually being abused, rather ignored, and we could see Toby "bouncing off the walls" (almost) by his frustration, and then to see the change in him in being properly cared for in a few weeks.

The other thing is that many are saying that Tiffany should have had more help and were critical of the fact that sws accepted her decision for the children to be adopted or fostered. The thing is as someone else pointed out, Tiffany would not remain single and devote the rest of her life to caring for her children. She will meet another Mike (I think she probably already has) and then a step dad would be on the scene and how would he cope with Toby - there will probably be a series of Mike type men and the children would be more damaged as the years went by. I know I can't see into the future, but I have seen so many Tiffanys in my sw career.

I think it's because it's hard for them to be legally free for adoption, so they move back with the parents, then move out again to another foster home, etc? I guess I don't really know!

It is not to do with legallity, once a child is placed for adoption they are placed for adoption, no loop hools.

The reason is as you say, often the child is placed back with parents, once that breaks down again the original foster family have a new child and so no longer able to take them back.

Many placements break down sadly due to a high level of need and realsiation of permanence. Im not saying that in a critical way, but for many foster parents who are viewing that they will provide short term care and it seems to be longer and longer that will affect their desires or ability continue to with what was once a short term basis.

Often they lack statutory support and many childern require resourses and longer term comitment that is difficult to provide when entered into with a short term commitment.

However that is not to say that many really do run with this and provide longer term care and support, But many foster carers have not been signed up as adoptive parents through choice and owmn circumstances and so that is understandable that they view their role and attachment as short term, it is a very emotive role that can become difficult once a child has been in your care for a long time and then removed after say 10 years.

Many foster careres are set up as emergancy, there for the child will arrive with the view of over night or over weekend and still remain in that home months or years etc down the line if they have high needs whilst sw seek other carers, that may not materialise.

Sounds very sad for the child but also very difficult for the carers.

That is not forgetting any normal unforseen change in circumstances, illness, redundancy, loss of job, family commitments, old age, new baby etc etc.

tinking of many more scenarios for moving from placement to placement..one more...many children who have formed insecure attachments find it difficult to "fit in" especialy with the already uncertanty of fostering whilst waiting for adoption, and so it is not unusal for children with attachment disorders to find it difficult to relate to a family and this can often be transferred into behaviours such as targeting a foster carers or other children violently and abusively and so the placement breakdown due to risk factors or criminality in extreme but certainly not unheard of.

I think that is the only time intelligence comes into play...sometimes someone has horrible parents, but can look around and be intelligent enough to say "I want better for myself", and go get it. My best friend is this way actually.

And there are many who are not, for lack of a better term, all that bright, but grew up in a safe and loving environment and so know to provide the same.

It seems that a lot of the real problems lie when the two bad situations (not that bright AND badly parented) intersect.

My parents were very very poor when I was younger, and had my older brother whilst still in their teens, but I witnessed them working hard and being too proud (for better or worse) to "take anything off of the state." They could not afford much, but they could afford to grow veg and feed us well. They couldn't buy a TV, but they could bring us to the library every week and read us book after book after book. They could, and did, tell us every day that we would grow up to work hard and be smart.

I've seen so many families in my parents' exact situation who told their children that working hard and being smart was for people who "got above their raising," that books were for snobs.

Why my parents were different, and what I'd be like if they weren't, I'll never know I guess.

Growing up the way I did taught me not to count out young poor parents (and teaching preschool were I met many who were excellent with their children further hammered it home) but it also made me intolerant of those who do not give their children a fighting chance.

lots of people who were abused/neglected as children do not go on to abuse their own children. they're invisible of course because you only get to see those who end up back in the system and on the stats etc but it's an awful thing to say that most go on to abuse.

lots of factors come into play - for example the child may have had abusive parents but a stable loving grandparent, or a good school, or a teacher or a youth worker etc etc. one good, safe, adult in a child's life can make all the difference and show an alternative way and instil a sense of the abnormality of the home situation by being 'different' and treating the child differently.

and like yank says intelligence plays a part.

it's probably a more narrowing focus to say which abused children are likely to go onto abuse because i would argue that most do not.

in that would come learning difficulties i guess, maybe having children very young (re: no healing period of normalisation between their own dysfunctional childhood and having their own children), social deprivation, never being employed or engaging with further education (re: integration and socialisation into other institutions/cultures than that of the birth family) etc etc etc. i'm guessing that having been abused beyond the family in addition to by the family has pretty dire impacts on future health and capacity too. when i worked with abused teens it was those who had been abused by outside figures as well as their family who seemed the most... lost.

to make that a bit more concrete - on a couple of occasions i had girls confide in me that they had clung onto the idea that it was their family who were wrong/messed up etc until it extended beyond the family to family friends or an authority figure etc at which point they realised it was actually them and this is what they were for and it was their own fault

sorry to go on with mad multiple posting but my head keeps processing stuff. what i'm saying is that the family provides one culture and the world outside of that which the child comes into contact with can either challenge and counter that and a child may be lucky enough to be seen, validated, encouraged elsewhere, or it can end up reinforcing it if they are bullied at school, their issues ignored by authorities or badly dealt with, if their vulnerability ends up seeing them abused outside of the home too etc.

i'd say for the majority of people there is enough counter experience that given normal spectrum cognitive ability, not getting pregnant at 15, not being further abused elsewhere and having the opportunity to move on into work or education and other 'cultures' and frameworks, then allows them to construct and live differently to their parents.

from looking at this family though it is clear that when you combine learning difficulties and developmental issues with deprivation you have grave difficulties because it is so hard to relearn what hasn't been learnt or to effect significant change in ways of thinking and behaving to the level required to be effective parents. hence the need to get toby out when they did really. certainly to get him out of the mike centred home.