protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

I don't think a programme is ever going to be completely tick boxy though, because in the end it consists of individuals interacting with other individuals. There can be poorly trained or inflexible, unimaginative people working in such a programme but a good manager would normally weed out those people as cases were reviewed if negative outcomes seemed to be the norm for certain workers. You seem to have had a very unsatisfactory experience, and there seems to have been no review process or manageent involved where you could ask for something better tailored to your needs.

The programme in Hawaii was supposed to help families get access to programmes such as various kinds of therapy as indicated (SN, addiction, etc), workers were trained to assess family needs including practical problems like transport and childcare as well as providing ongoing mentoring, modeling best practices such as talking to babies, feeding toddlers at regular intervals, cleaning the home, yet certain families still dug in their heels and resisted.

There was a 'them and us' attitude that was impossible to crack on the part of many of the fathers, a siege mentality. There were also a lot of cowed mothers who didn't feel able to balance the demands of the men against the demands of the programme. The DV or domestic intimidation factor was a problem that maybe could have been better anticipated, but then again, is that in itself a good environment in which to leave a child; while the slow process of sorting an angry man and an oppressed woman goes on is it ok to leave the children there as guinea pigs?

I suppose Math I would be interested in whether the opening question to such families is ever:

'What support do you think you want/need in order to be a better and safe parent?'

Or is it all 'you're failing your kids and if you don't do what we say we'll take them away. This is what we are telling you you need.....'

Having been in the SN world for just a short amount of time, I see project after project after pilot after pilot, after meeting after meeting of unfocussed intervention with no outcomes defined either at the beginning or end of any of them. These are supposedly intelligent people. I like to think I am an intelligent parent, but I'll be blowed if I can see much of a point to most of them, except to give those involved in the interventions something to wow their relatives over Christmas dinner with their tails of do-gooding.

SO much money is wasted in intervention services that have no impact. It is not true to say there is no money.

i feel for you starlight but the situations don't compare. toby's window of opportunity wasn't being missed by not having extra services, tutoring, etc etc but through missing the absolute basics of social interaction, being talked to, loved, encouraged in a good enough home.

Of course they don't compare in the immediate sense. DS had someone fighting for him who was doing their utmost to try to prevent him from becoming one of the 15% with his condition that have either attempted or succeeded suicide by their 25th birthday. This little boy is at risk of death sooner.

But they compare in the sense that we have had to deal with the same agencies, and I do wonder at the competence of some of the people who are charged with 'intervening' and also the 'point' of many interventions or so called 'support'.

YOu can't say someone hasn't responded to 'support' when that 'support' is completely unengaging, irrelevant, delivered by idiots at a level beyond the recipients with a threat of having children removed.

Where is the evaluation of said support?

At one point we had goodness knows how many people involved with our family. They backed off only when I asked them all to submit in writing (several times) what was the outcome to ds or our family of their having been involved?

They agreed jointly that they can't and shouldn't have to answer the questions individually as it was a 'team approach' and pretty much all pissed off into the sunset. They all still get 'funding' for having my ds on their caseload, whilst we don't have a house, or home for that matter as we are living in permenantly temporary accomodation.

why did they become involved in the first place starlight?

The difference is not just that one or the other might die before age 25. It is not just a matter of what agencies are available and how effective they are.

You are actively seeking to improve your child's life and are being horribly let down in the process. Tiffany and Mike ('I don't brush my teeth so why should he?') were doing absolutely nothing for Toby, not even putting together a bed that SW provided herself and Tiffany seemed to think Toby was there to provide unconditional love for her and not the other way round. Mike clearly saw the dog in the same light, with no clue as to the dog's needs.

'You can't say someone hasn't responded to 'support' when that 'support' is completely unengaging, irrelevant, delivered by idiots at a level beyond the recipients with a threat of having children removed.'
You can't assume this happens in every instance or even in the majority of cases. That has been your experience but you can't extrapolate from that that everyone else gets the short end of the stick.

All the agencies or just SS?

All the agencies is just what happens when you get a child with SN. Loads of people simply get your child on their 'casloads'. Most of them you will never even know about. Some of them meet up to talk about you if you start to challenge or ask for services. If you're lucky you'll get to attend one of those meetings where they can jointly gang up on you.

SS go involved when the Ed Psych didn't like it that I was challenging her report and taking the Local Authority to tribunal. I was reported for heating the kitchen with an oven and 'disagreeing with professionals'. I sought out some legal advocacy and was told that this is a common tactic of our particular LA.

SS (apart from saying stupid things and demanding stupid things) weren't too bad in that it was obvious they just wanted to do their investigation and close the file asap without it having any budgetary implications.

Well it appears to happen in every case I know about of an SN child. And families that include a child with SN are very often 'vulnerable' or 'at risk' and struggle with stuff not directly related to the SN, but indirectly increasing the likeliness of poverty, stress, DV, depression in parents, family breakdown, abused siblings, poor nutrition, poor health generally etc.

It is true that SNs can cause family stress, but in the case of Toby, there were clear indications that nothing would induce the parents to provide even the basics of a clean living environment and adequate personal care in the hygiene or feeding department for him.

Toby's SN (if in fact it was a case of SN or just a complication arising from chronic neglect) was not the tipping point that plummeted his family into chaos and filth and DV -- everything seen in that home arose from basic deficiencies in the parents themselves.

Even the dog's basic needs were not being met.

tiktok mine aren't CP cases 'just' child in need but on average 1/3 of my visits are no shows/no one in/people hiding behind the curtains. This of course doesn't help my time management when I'm trying to squeeze visits into my week
That's not counting the people who tell you to fuck off or that deny the problem.

No, Toby's SN wasn't the cause of their negligence. In fact I hardly think they noticed his SN with their level of 'switched-offness'.

My point wasn't that SN families find it hard, it was simply that famlies who are on the receiving end of interventional services, are often getting crap value for money and a poor deal made worse by the power that is or can be behind them.

I don't think Toby got a good deal. He couldn't stay with Tiff under the current arrangements for sure, but I don't think placing him in what is likely to be a series of short term foster care placements is either.

Firstly, where was Tiff's 'support' as an adult prior to having children?
Where was it when she was pg?

Well, there was probably 'some' support in that people might have had them on her caseloads and written a paragraph on her each time she DID engage with a service. But support isn't about writing paragraphs.

I don't fail to accept that there are some parents out there that can never manage to parent effectively alone, but if the support was targetted correctly then Toby would get consistency of care, regular SN intervention, be known and grow up in a community that understand him etc.

Thanks, Harriet - actually that's not too bad, that 2/3 of your visits are productive in the sense that you do get beyond the doorstep :)

I'm assuming that the families you work with/call on have already agreed with social/children's services to have a family support worker.

How many times are you required to go back after a no show or a fuck off? Or do you use your judgment?

The FSWs I have spoken to do mostly feel they make a difference - they help with the things more confident parents manage ok (like getting the kids to school on time having been dressed, washed, fed; having some sort of laundry system so dirty clothes don't pile up with clean; having a systematic bed time routine so little kids are not running round at 11 pm) . I think maybe Tiffany and Mike were beyond that, though :(

Starlight thats awful .

I have watched the program and although Toby's parents house was disgusting ( dirt on carpets ) I do not understand why the sw did not direct them to the problems.

I was Shocked that sw did not tell them the carpets needed cleaned , or that they had to provide a. Bed and bedding for Toby .
Obviously the father has a sn himself , surely teaching them would have been first effort .

Particularly disturbing was the camera following the trail of dirt and a close up of the fathers dirt covered shoes , whilst he was trying to assemble a stair gate.

Let's film the simple bloke instead of telling him to wipe his feet. Lets film a mother with low intelligence ,sitting about not doing much ,instead of showing her how to care for her child properly.

Disgusting that people with learning disabilities / low intelligence was exploited for tv.
Yes , they are poor parents , yes their kids will be better cared for with adopted families , but have a heart , the parents should have had their own social workers and should have been supported more , instead of being vilified .

Toby's mother had no family of her own , from what I saw . There was no mention of the fathers family either . Two people who are more or less abandoned by society find each other and what do you expect to happen ?

This couple ( or former couple ) have been let down themselves by the very people who have saved their children .

It's very very sad .

StarlightMcKenzie, I'm just catching up with posts since my last one. You were taken to task for warming up the kitchen with the oven door open? Back in the 1940s/50s, when I was growing up, LOTS of families did this - central heating was almost unknown, homes were freezing, REALLY freezing. I am sure no kid during that era ever came to harm from an open oven door, but they may well have done through the bitter cold.
As for complaints about your children wearing sandals in August - how ridiculous. My five year old granddaughter sometimes insists on wearing the most flimsy 'party shoes' to school, even in Winter! I'd better warn my daughter to look out!
By the sound of it, you're having a really rough time - I am so sorry. I do hope things get better for you.

tiktok usually just keep going back until we get in somehow or work with others who can get in(HV doing a joint visit etc). Sometimes swap workers if someone else has a chance. Lots of no shows are due to disorganisation as well so texting pre visit /call the day before helps. As I said before though these aren't at the child protection end which seems to go to extremes either way.

'Having children removed' is not meant as a punishment for parents. It is meant as a means of protecting the children from harm, therefore about the children and not about the parents. When parents are reminded that that outcome is possible it is done in order to impress upon parents the gravity of the situation in hopes that they will start behaving as if their children's welfare matters, not as part of a dynamic of misbehaviour and punishment.

droves, the programme televised was a tiny sliver of hours and hours of filming and negotiation with the parents and SWs (explained on the BBC website). The parents had SW contact for a long time.

Just because it was not shown on TV does not mean it didn't happen - so advice on bedding, wiping feet and other basics may well have been given but not shown. The parents had to agree to everything that was shown and could pull out at any time. So filming being told to 'wipe your feet' may not have made the cut....but it's perfectly likely that these things may have been raised.

In particular, we know they had been specifically told to improve hygiene and they did not. It would have been crazy to permit a tiny vulnerable pre-term baby back into a house where the floor and surfaces were dirty, quite apart from anything else.

But is IS punishment. It is punishment for having been let down so far.

Harriet, thanks for the info. I have worked in the past with families in difficult situations and I know the lack of organisation that can mean appointments and arrangements just don't happen.

'Well, there was probably 'some' support in that people might have had them on her caseloads and written a paragraph on her each time she DID engage with a service. But support isn't about writing paragraphs.'
Starlight, you are making assumptions about what may or may not have happened in Tiffany's life to that point.

The whys and wherefores of it could be traced back to the year dot and Toby would still have been sleeping on a pee-soaked floor and turning up to nursery in a sopping nappy without being fed. At least now he has a chance of getting the good outcome Starlight sketched.

Droves, it wasn't about the dirt. Mike's own words and tone of voice did him in. You complain about Mike and Tiffany being abandoned by society yet expect society to leave their children alone, or leave their children in their care while supplying helpful suggestions such as 'feed your child', 'clean the dog poo off the carpet', 'eh, your child might need a bed there dude' (and when a bed was provided nothing was done about setting it up). To me that would be akin to abandoning Toby.

It is absolutely not punishment for the parent. It is not punishment for the child. It is intervention to save the child. It has to be looked at from the pov of the child. A parent who saw it as punishment and approached it as a cause for self pity about the unfairness of it all or who saw themselves as a victim when their child was taken to safety and care from danger and neglect hasn't understood the idea that children are not a parent's property that can be confiscated, they are a responsibility that a parent must accept.

I am making assumptions Math, but one thing is for certain, whatever DID happen in Tiffs life before now, didn't work.

And from what I have seen, I'm frankly not surprised. I am not denying Tiffs incapability, but I get cross at the suggestion that it is HER fault that the support didn't work.

they were told they needed a bed, they were told they needed to clean the carpet. the visits we saw were clearly follow ups where they were being reminded of these goals (and checking up on them re: 'what about the bathroom floor have you done that yet?') that often they had done nothing about.

and by the stage they were at actually it wasn't really about support it was about ensuring basic safety and provisions for a very vulnerable young child who had been massively neglected (they were his social workers not the parents) - they were told things they needed to do to achieve that and didn't lift a finger to do them. they were given opportunities to make things better very simply - re: pick up the shit and put the bed together but they repeatedly refused to take those opportunities.

they were not so incapable that they couldn't understand 'pick up the dog shit' and 'get a bed' yet they just ignored and didn't do even when faced with the possibility of losing their child. i don't know what realisitically people think you can do at that stage - parents have to be able to show willing to make some basic effort for their own kids or those kids have to be removed. because children deserve at the very least to be with someone who can be bothered to feed them, keep them clean and give them somewhere to sleep and play safely. if they're not willing to do even that at the point the child is on an at risk register then???

You don't know if she resisted whatever support she was offered or if what was offered fell short of what was needed, or if a parent got in the way of effective support by SS. None of us has any idea what may have been in place for her or what circumstances led her to the point in her life where she and her two children were parted.

I feel very sorry for her as a person and I hope she will one day be a whole, functioning adult. Her emotional needs are enormous. So are Mike's. However, while she is the way she is for whatever reason, there are unfortunately two even more vulnerable people who have both physical and emotional needs to be taken care of and who were not having those needs met by her or their father.

starlight can you list anything they did to show the social workers they were willing to improve their child's living circumstances and care? in months they did nothing. they left ss with zero choice.