Protecting our Children, Part 2

[Lilka]

Thought I'd start a new thread because the other one was so big

Anyone else going to be watching?

I think so. I almost like to think he could have had a better chance in life had he met someone stronger.
But then she must be so traumatised from having given up her other children.
And now she actually had some time with this baby before it being taken away.

I felt guilty watching like I was invading their privacy, as he said at the beginning that he's being treated as 'some kind of animal'.

Although I watched the programme I have mixed feelings at having been allowed in to their life.

I doubt it might even have occured to them that they had a right to say no to their life being broadcast on national tv, which is why it didn't feel quite right.

Taped it and have just watched, and skimmed through the thread. I really thought Marva was going to succeed. What a crying shame that she didn't. But the SW were fantastic, and made absolutely the right decision in taking away the baby.

I'm sure Shaun & Marva will have more children. If they could sort their lives out without the constant upheaval of pregnancy/birth/baby taken away, it would be a start. Someone upthread mentioned payment to addicts for contraceptive usage. Can't help thinking it might help in cases like this.

Dragonwoman Yes, when I think about it, you are right. It is easy to understimate the amount of mental strength needed to raise a child to adulthood.

Good point Dragonwoman. I think it was the best outcome for the baby, but how sad for Marva and Shaun that their life has turned out like that, and what an unfair, cruel world.

Agree with mostly everyone on here except LondonAnnie - you say there should have been a sw for Marva, but this is not the case unless she was involved with the Mental Health Team in Adult Services, which I think she had refused. Social Services have no responsibility for Marva, neither do the Local Housing Authority as she is a single person and not in priority need because she does not have children or other dependents. But this is all academic really because Marva was going to go back to Shaun - it was fairly obvious from the start. I too have been involved in cases where the parents "split up" and almost always got back together, sometimes in a matter of days.

I agree with everyone who is saying that Shaun was an abused child who grew into an angry young man which is not surprising. Underneath the anger he is hurt but anger is the only emotion he knows. He has no other demeamour at his disposal. Marva was something of an unknown quantity I thought, and as someone has already said she seemed very "spaced out" and that could be the result of her alcohol abuse. However it did seem clear that she was reliant on Shaun and could not keep away from him, which is unsurprising really.

I too thought the baby was lovely, and I know Foetal Alcohol Syndrome has been mentioned. The baby was small for dates (as I understand it) not premature, and I did think he had one facial feature of FAS, and that was a very thin top lip; both possible symptoms of FAS. I placed a baby with FAS some years ago and had no idea about FAS - her mother was a very heavy drinker. I happened to meet up with the adoptor some years later at a Fostering & Adoption evening and she told me about all the trouble they had with xxx and she was placed at 7 months, and been fostered directly from hospital. The adoptor was very clued up on FAS and said it manifested in very bizarre behaviour in the girl.

A few months later when working independently I was assessing an aunt and uncle to care for the aunt's sister's child who had been removed at birth. The mother of the child had a long history of alcohol and drug abuse and had had 3 children removed at birth. She apparently had gas canisters with her to sniff on the labour ward! I went to visit the foster carers and as soon as I saw the baby, I was immediately reminded of that baby I had placed years before. Very tiny baby (7 months - coincidentally the same age as the other baby was when placed with adoptors) with a very thin top lip giving the mouth a kind of "fishlike" look. The fcs were very experienced and I just mentioned this to them and they both said that this baby reminded them of another child whose mother was addicted to alcohol.

Obviously the baby had been examined by the medics and a HV was involved and I contacted her and expressed my concerns, but she was very dismissive. The guardian in the case was concerned and we got a specialist in FAS from Edinburgh to come and assess the baby for FAS and he was quite certain that this was an FAS baby, but explained that because it is a syndrome there is no way of telling where the child will be on the continuum, between normal and severely affected, and this would only show as the child grew. The aunt and uncle backed out after hearing about this and that as the end of the matter for me so I don't know what happened to the baby.

I went on the internet and found out all about FAS and apparently 80% of babies in the UK go undiagnosed and their difficult and bizarre behaviour as they grew was simply misunderstood. Needless to say the Americans are far ahead of us in this respect. I always remember a book title "FAS - the hangover without a Cure" but never read it. The thing is with FAS is that the alcohol can get through into the placenta and damage the cells of the foetus in utero, whereas babies born to heroin addicted mothers, can be withdrawn with no further complications.

Sorry I didn't mean to go on for so long. I think the right decision was made, and felt Shaun and Marva were victims of their own childhoods, as is almost always the case.

oliverreed liked your posts and many others but can't remember their names. Incidentally I have been retire from social work for 3 years and enjoying retirement!

The baby is beautiful.

I thought the baby was beautiful too EightiesChick and half expected to be taken to task, I was simply pointing out the possibilities - the babies I referred to were beautiful too - like little dolls.

NanaNina My comment wasn't referring to any of yours in any disparaging way (did you think it was?) - was just feeling sad that after all that, such an alert and cute baby gets to start life at such a disadvantage. Another desperately sad story for all concerned.

Not that less cute babies would 'deserve' a poor start in life, either, but hopefully people will understand my feeling.

just marking my place - watching it later on iplayer.

Now this is interesting. Why did Sean get so much sympathy on this thread, and Mike very little on the other one?

good luck swallowed tis very

that was quite the rollercoaster.

this one made me wonder on earth you have to do to be hospitalised in this country now. schaun was considered to be at moderate risk of completing suicide but released to go home alone anyway. marva had two suicide attempts in a short period of time and wasn't offered a psychiatric bed.

both schaun and marva (?) disclosed being suicidal without any action taken which surprised me due to my counselling training and the course of action that is supposed to be taken when someone discloses suicidal feelings - obviously that doesn't apply to sw - i would have thought at the very least they were obliged to contact the person's gp and inform them of the risk so they had at least handed on the concern. just telling them, 'go to the doctor' is inadequate and i would have thought there would have been consequences to someone revealing suicidal feelings and no action being taken and the person ending up in hospital.

very sad to see how contingent marva accessing any help, support etc was upon the baby - once they were to be separated she just had to move out and there was no support as to where she'd go which of course meant she'd go back to schaun and of course meant the whole thing was over till the next time

foster carer was brilliant, putting her in with a foster parents was a wonderful idea and it's a great way of doing things i think. however if marva's suicide attempts had been properly dealt with she could have been in a mother and baby psychiatric unit getting proper treatment for both her depression and her substance issues and wouldn't have been in a position of temptation so soon and before having a lot of psychiatric help.

desperately sad that societies response to severe mental distress and suicide attempts is just to dump people back into the community (in reality the isolation of their lives and all the stresses that led to the attempt anyway).

seeker WRT the relative sympathy given, my take is that Mike had had three years in which to successfully parent Toby. I think the scene with Mike failing to play with Toby was the deal-breaker, along with the fact that he hadn't fed or changed Toby before taking him to nursery.

Shaun seemed to be fairly intelligent - without the alcohol, probably no reason why he wouldn't be a decent dad. But he had his one chance and blew it.

sorry, what on earth you have to do.

S doesn't have learning difficulties to it easier to see his failedness and to empathise. He's just like us but more hurt and sad. Mike's behaviour was harder to empathise with and understand.
FWIW, I grew up in the East End of London and knew a number of Shauns. I also worked for a homeless charity and met more. These men are NOT lazy benefit scroungers, they are very very troubled young men with no reason to have aspirations. If you took away their benefits they would become more and more involved in crime to access what they needed to get through, food, companion dogs, alcohol etc.

yep can't stop thinking about how they had perfect grounds for sectioning her - she was a risk to herself and her unborn child, she was totally disengaged from mental health services and had a history of refusing to treat her mental health or manage it in anyway and so was clearly at risk.

trouble is that sectioning people is expensive, we're constantly cutting psychiatric places and services and she would have been a good little complacent girl telling them what they wanted to hear as they guided her to say it at assessment so they could tick boxes saying she was fine for release.

we're in no way taking care of people. what more do you have to do to get sectioned than try to kill yourself whilst pregnant in a public place and refuse all involvement with mental health professionals? it's utter neglect.

Nina do you think the possibility of fas or other unforseen circumstances causes sw to act more quickly. Logically an undiagnosed baby has a far better chance of adoption than a diagnosed child or 1 that is missing milestones.

If they had of sectioned Marva she wouldn't have had the chance that she did with her baby. Shaun could not have been stopped from visiting her. It wouldn't have changed the outcome for the baby being adopted.

The MH Act states that treatment in hospital has to be available that wouldn't be in the community, for sectioning to continue. Marva wouldn't have received any medication because she ws pregnant, but the stress of being sectioned could have caused a still birth, so it is once again weighing up risk.

If the police had not of gone to remove Marva and the baby from Shaun's flat at 3am, the outcome could have been the death of the baby by the next day. Or brain damage through dehydration, baby's cannot go that long without fluids without being disabled.

rant- in th case of most children that are removed a diagnosis under the age of 7 would be difficult because you have to decide on what has been caused environmentally and what is organic.

Adopting parents are made aware of these risks.

Oh I didn't mean for that to be a negative thing at all. I think it is in the child's best interests to be adopted quickly. A child with fas deserves to be an environment suited to give him/her the best opportunities.

I know adopters are warned of the risk but adopting a child who may have sn is a very different thing to adopting a child they KNOW to have sn.

Time limits have been set in CP so that children don't linger in the system without good reason. Once decisions are made things move as quickly as possible to give the child the best chance of having a sequre attachment with a stable carer.

It means that the SW and all involved have duties under the law and excuses cannot be made as to why things are not moving along.

to Elaine. Whatever she's paid - it's not enough. Bankers bonuses really do look obscene when you see what this woman was prepared to do.

To who ever suggested Marva have contact at Elaine's house - did you realise she has her own DC?
Would anyone here want Shaun turning up on their doorstep?

And Annie was marvellous - but I don't imagine she would have continued in SW had the baby died that night.
The Press would have gone for her jugular. She would have been branded naive and over optimistic.

that's bs i'm afraid - medication for depression can be very safely given during pregnancy and most certainly an obstetrician would have recommended it and approved it given the balancing risk of suicide and self neglect through depression that had already been demonstrated.

it is bs also that sectioning would have meant no chance with the baby - mother and baby units are available that could have made that a safe and supported opportunity for mother and child to bond and get started whilst martha's mental health was being taken care of.

and care wasn't available in the community because marva was unable to conform to keeping appointments or voluntarily using mental health services.