protecting our children

[thekidsrule]

carry on please

in fact they did worse than nothing they went and got a dog and let it shit everywhere.

I've name changed for this post, but I have posted earlier in the thread under my usual name.

Sadly, there will be many more Mike and Tiffanys because the organisations that support and campaign for people with learning disabilities - like the one I worked for until very recently, and still volunteer with - have spent years telling people that they have the right to a family life, including the right to get married and have children.

The reality is that there is some support but nowhere near enough, and I know of a case where the baby was badly scalded because the mum forgot to let the boiling water cool before making up a bottle. Some people needed support with every little thing. Sadly, many of these children end up in care, and it's heartbreaking.

I know it's treading a dangerous path to say that some people "shouldn't" have children - and where I worked, it would have propbably ended in a disciplinary if you suggested that it might not be a good idea. But the reality is that it's not a right to have a child, and if you lack the capacity to be a good parent without support 24/7, then it's not fair on the child.

Feel free to flame me, but I'm talking from experience.

droves, I am glad I am not the only one to raise the ethics of the filming.

But all we saw them being told was "clean the bathroom""put up the bed" "put in the stair gate"

Nobody ever said "look at your child and talk to him" Nobody said "play with him- he's got lots of toys and he's good at playing, but you need to play with them with him"

It was always that bloody bed.

As I said before, I worked closely with a family who eventually had their children removed. (I'm not an SW, I worked at the children's school.) The parents adored their children. They really loved them. But they couldn't stay clean, despite numerous opportunities to do so.

Their son broke his arm because no one was sober and watching him, and another son was molested at a party because the parents were just checked out all the time. I said that I strongly hoped they would be removed, because I didn't want to hear that the littlest one had wandered into traffic again, only this time he'd died. Or that someone else had "touched" the older one, only this time he hadn't been able to run away before it got worse.

They loved their boys and they were heart broken and I was too, but there was too much at stake. It wasn't a punishment, it was "we have got to get these boys somewhere safe."

The bloke supervising the contact told Mike to interact/play with Toby.

But to be honest they would have needed more than a family support worker coming round a couple of times a week and reminding them to brush their child's teeth and play with him.

He was a thw only person to mention it- and that was after he'd been taken into care.

He was the only person we saw mention it in an hour's TV programme, filmed over 6 months.

HVs, nursery workers and family support workers would have been involved with that family way before the SW got there.

But they mentioned the bloody bed about 50 times. The social work didn't mention engaging with Toby once!!!!!!!!

I'm sure it's edited though, not everything that the SW said or did is on film, is it?

He was the only person we saw mention it in an hour's TV programme, filmed over 6 months.

Exactly. You have to remember they had to cut 6 months down to 1 hour for the purpose of the programme. It is blatantly obvious that we didn't get to even know a fraction of what actually occured in that time or what went on before SS involvement which caused them to become involved in the firdt place. They would have just picked out a few bits that they thought made good tv and that is all we got to see.

I think that it was also edited to show the parents in a kindly light. It was quite obvious they had been victims as DCs-they were not evil and that came across. I expect there were far worse things that we didn't see. They wouldn't want the parents persecuted by people when out-they have to be responsible.

And as for not explaining things enough - I'm sure it would be quite a boring programme if all we saw for an hour was about 20 different people saying "you need to engage more with your child" when there were plenty more different bits to show us which gave a more overall idea of what conditions were like for Toby. So showing us just them being told once tells us they were told which was sufficient for the purposes of creating a 1 hour programme on the case.

Of course, as what happens in the real world in these cases is they will be told. This will be noted. It will then be brought up at meetings and discussed again. Then parents receive a copy of the notes from the meeting so not only are they told, they have it in writing. A copy of this also goes to their solicitors who would be fighting in court on their behalf. If there is anything that is unclear their solicitor will making suggestions of what is in the parents best interests.

because they still hadn't put it together for months seeker! even that one basic thing they didn't do. that's why it was emphasised i think. they couldn't even get to the point where the child was able to sleep properly let alone anything else they were meant to be addressing.

Of course the tv program was edited in the way it was to make the point of sw saving Toby from a terrible life.

But it's does not address the fact that two special needs people , who clearly struggle with life , have been left more or less to their own devices. ... And as a result have produced two children who are now in the care system.

I suspect no one ever showed these people how to clean a carpet , or make up a bed . It all very well telling , but some with learning difficulties do better in understanding by being shown. This is particularly true for those who unfortunately have suffered neglect and abuse the self.

Toby's father is most obviously special needs himself , and his anger and violence ,are a byproduct of that . It's so apparent that his sons problems were inherited , and tragic .

My heart was breaking for the mother , she seemed to understand in the end that her children were better off without her .
I don't doubt that the kids will have a better life now ,but it is wrong that these people did not get the help they so deperately needed .

And it is wrong that they were exploited for the sake of tv propaganda .

And what's the opinion of tv company who convinces a couple with learning difficulties to give consent to a documentary about social services interaction with their family ?

Surely they didn't fully understand what they were signing up for ?

I'm half expecting to read in the papers that vigilantes have been making tiff and mikes lives hell.

I disagree Droves. I don't think it was edited in the way you describe at all. In fact, I think they showed the parents in a light that'd make the public feel sorry for them, and it worked. They didn't make them out to be bad people at all.

And as for the parents level of understanding, I just don't buy it. Tiffany clearly managed to understand details about her pregnancy and the risks associated with pre eclampsia and explained to the cameras in some detail the risks using some medical terminology. In the meetings, both parents nodded their heads in certain parts, put their heads down when something negative was said and smirked when the person assessing Toby's SN's said that she thinks it might (not definitely) be hereditory. They understood perfectly well.

If they did not know how to clean up at all their flat would have been in a far worse state than it actually was. Yes, it was horrendous but it would have been much, much worse had they not been able to do anything the whole time they've been there. I'm sure they've eaten - and managed to wash up or they'd have run out of cutlery etc. Tobys father managed to follow instructions to put a stair gate up (something I would be a bit unsure about approaching!!). The child managed to pull it off through not having boundaries and being left to do it. But then he clearly showed the social worker where he needed to pull holes in the walls in order to secure it again. He just hadn't bothered. It was laziness. They did what they felt they needed to and if they couldn't be bothered or didn't see the point, then they didn't.

I am not questioning that they didn't have problems. But those problems were more emotional problems and problems understanding why their child needed to live in some degree of comfort. They did not have severe problems following instructions, understanding what was being asked of them and knowing how to move a mop across a floor and pick up some toys. Gosh, Toby was 3 in the programme. They certainly managed to follow instructions when it came to the, somewhat more complicated task of a baby's demands. I know of someone who couldn't even grasp how to make a babies bottle, despite being shown several times and sterilising completely went over her head - yet manages with cleaning, other household duties and otherwise lives her life quite well! I don't think these parents were so bad they couldn't even manage that task - or Toby would most likely have had problems and taken much, much sooner.

I don't think they had problems with physical tasks at all. They didn't need to be shown how to do something. They just failed to understand why. And if they did understand why, they were then incapable of prioritising their childs needs over their own.

I totally agree droves and did post simialar comment way up thread but it was unheaded. People who are defending the filming proccess know no more than you or I who have questioned it. Mike disapeared never to be heared of again, thefore ethically they did not have his final permission to air this program, I would say that is pretty questionable consent.

And I remain to be convinced that Toby will have a better life as an in care billiard ball....... The baby probably will, of course.

I know I keep banging on about the bed, but it seems to me that it is a ridiculous thing to focus on. The crucial thing was the parent's lack of engagement. The crucial thing. And that was mentioned once, in passing, three quarters of the way through, and by a bit part player.

This explains about consent. All the adult participants had to be happy at all stages, including with the final edit of the whole programme.

ok wooly but im not sure mike was able to fully do that , plus at the end of the programe it stated mike had left and had not been in contact, so did he really give his concent, I wonder???

patronising load of drivel once read fully.

Didn't it say he'd not contacted the children/Tiffany? Not necessarily the production crew. Maybe I've misremembered .

The legal definition of being incapable of giving consent for things like medical procedures is quite stringent. Not sure whether that's relevant to this sort of consent, but I would of thought he was well within that definition.

I found it a fairly well balanced, yet very sad programme for all kinds of reasons.

I didn't feel the point about the bed was laboured at all. There was clearly a lot more than that to this case.

"We showed everyone who took part the final film and agreed to change anything factually inaccurate and listen carefully to other objections"

Suggests he will have seen it.