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?

and it's 'have' not 'of' - sorry if that is pedantic. if she would have gone not if she would of gone.

I get what you are saying Birds but it might have been safer for her and the baby. If there had been another attempt that succeeded - well, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Thank f*ck I don't have to make decisions like these.

Why would sectioning mean that Marva could not have had a chance with the baby? Women who develop severe mental illness following birth are sometimes housed in specialist mother/baby units aren't they?

yes they are barbarian. they could have been together and safe and intensive work could have been done with marva.

The programme was about Bristol CP social workers, not other departments. I have a relative who is a specialist health worker with people 'in transition' - she works for a charity and their funding comes from the local authority. These are not statutory services, though, and they are vulnerable to cuts.

Anyway, Marva is exactly her type of client. Marva may well have been offered this sort of support but she cannot be compelled to accept it. If she accepted it, she would have been helped with lifeskills, inc housing, cooking and cleaning and self-care if necessary (she has adult clients who have a sort of grown up star chart for teeth brushing and showering - really important because there are no jobs of any sort for people who smell and don't keep their clothes clean!).

There are clients who do turn their lives around. The 'easiest' clients are the alcoholics, apparently, as long as they have no other drug problems or DV issues. 'Dual diagnosis' clients - the ones with severe MH issues as well as drugs/drink - are very difficult and often drop out of programmes, like Marva probably would :(

as far as i can see the fact she had untreated mental health problems and was suicidal was not dealt with - she should, imo, have been sectioned when she took the overdose. the fact that she was actually an alcohol was not dealt with - telling an alcoholic they need to stay away from alcohol is erm.... duh! once sectioned she could have had proper support for this and have been guaranteed not to have further abused alcohol during her pregnancy.

Swallowed- Martha needed more than treatment for depression, her drinking would have bben responsible for alot of her mood swings, possibly (we do not know her MH problem,it seemd to have stemmed from childhood). The mood stabilisers used in hospital are not safe in pregnancy. Under the law we cannot section people because they canot keep appointments. Help could have been given at Elaine's, but that was not able to continue because of Marva's actions. This is what you are up against in adult services. Again a balance of anti oppressive laws v people going without the help that they need.

If Marva had of been sectioned so late into her pregnancy she may not have been fit for discharge on giving birth, so she would have continued in hospital until discharge.

The baby would have gone straight to foster care. I doubt that she would have gotten contact or got herself together. At least she has been able to see what it is lik living in a home with furniture, with her baby. That is the hope, that a different life will be sought after experiencing it.

Marva is not just depressed, she has extensive MH problems made worst by drug and alcohol use. She has had three other children removed,she isn't a typical case that most people understand. If she passes the Mental Capacity Act, she has the right to make her own decisions.

We have to remember that althouh Shaun has a range of issues, he is a fully functioning adult.

Barb- yes that help is available for women, however Marva is very unstable and Shaun is a danger. They did not carry out visits with security guards for fun. Marva was best placed were she was, with Elaine. You could not put others at risk by putting Marva into a mum and baby unit.

We don't get security guards with us. We just do our visits in pairs.

We cannot lock people up for being alcoholics or drug uses, under the Human Rights Act or Mental Health Act. There is a danger of further marginalisation and institutionalisation each time a person is sectioned.

There has to be co-operation to stop drinking or drug taking, it cannot be forced. People comeout of prison after 10 years and go straight back drugs,it isn't as simple as locking people away for their own safety. We could section people for lots of things if that is the case. The law has to be written to be even handed, some willgowithout help. This is the "care v control" dilemma that we have in social care.

I never saw last weeks, so can't comment. My mum did and felt the family should have had more support, and kept their child. Mum described it as middle class social workers social engineering, and thought it was eugenics. She did not agree with the decision, and felt so sad for the parents.

I did feel the social workers were in the right this week.

I have two friends who were forcibly adopted, they are both university educated, with good careers, and loving families. With the one friend, when her parents adopted her, she was not responding to them or sitting up etc. There were concerns she had learning difficulties. She is now a lovely headstrong intelligent young woman.

The other is my best friend, and I don't know the circumstances. Only that when her brother was looking up his natural mother, she was asked by another whether she would to do the same. She said her adopted parents were all the parents she needs, she was taken from her natural mother by social services, and has no intention of looking her up. She's had a very middle class childhood, with horses and private education, and I don't think she could deal with the circumstances around her natural parents. She has her own beautiful family now.

I have to agree with my mum, it is social engineering, and I feel uneasy about it, but I think of my friends, and have to acknowledge, when they do interfere, it is in the child's best interests (for the most part, no doubt somebody has an example when it is not).

I think it's all too easy to think about these situations in the here and now though. Right now we see a cute baby and a mother who's just given birth and we think how heartbreaking that she can't keep that baby. But in truth it's not always going to be a baby, is it? We're talking about someone being able to look after a child for the next eighteen years, and all that that involves.

How much support would she have needed for that? As it was she needed 24 hour supervision in order to look after that newborn. That's not sustainable, is it?

Far better that the baby be removed now before he could be damaged either physically or emotionally by growing up in that environment.

I don't think they were bad people - either of them. But I think they were both so terribly damaged by their own circumstances that they would never have made good parents.

And I know this is not a politically correct opinion, but I do actually believe that there should be a case for people like these to be sterilised, to ensure that they cannot have any more children. Not as a punishment, but as much for their own good. You can't tell me that having child after child removed for adoption is good for either of them. The damage done every time must be worse and worse. And while people make the argument that they have the right to get pregnant and have children, they don't, do they? They don't have the right to have children because those children are removed from them at birth - each and every one of them. And every time she gets pregnant and takes an overdose and gets drunk she runs the risk of bringing a damaged baby into the world. On what planet is that right? I think people are just afraid to say that sterilisation should sometimes be considered because it seems inhumane to consider it. But in truth it's not all that humane to have seven childre removed at birth, or four in her case...

I felt do desperately sorry for them all. DP and I said it was odd that we felt so sorry for Shaun but not quite so much for Mike. What turmoil must Shaun have been in to slash his own face like that as a teen/child ? Heart breaking

I would be very surprised if there hadn't been lots of assistance offered to Marva (and Shaun) for help with their alcohol problems. The social worker offered my ex a choice between three or four different local services for help with her alcoholism such as the local health authority's Community Drug & Alcohol Team and also a couple of services run in partnership between the local authority and the Turning Point charity. And there's always AA, of course.

All the Social Worker can do is say that if their client stays off the booze then there will be good consequences and if they don't then there will be bad ones. So Annie offered lots of encouragement to Marva to stay sober but made it clear that they could not ignore it if she resumed drinking.

You cannot force people with drug/alcohol problems to stop taking their drug of choice. Even with the best support available in the world, if the addict isn't committed to stopping then they won't. It's as simple as that. The big problem with "dual diagnosis" issues is that that the MH problems cannot really be dealt with - and often can't even be accurately diagnosed - until the addiction problems are resolved first.

I think Martha should have had a specialist addiction SW as the cycle of addidtion is usually really high in region of 38 lapses each one being a learning curve towards eventual abstance.

Where was the addictions nurse also? Or treatment to help her?
I don't think people can be sectioned for addiction. However after the OD I was suprised she was not sectioned for at least assessment.

I also had more simpathy for Shuan than I had for Mike last week. Perhaps because he wasn't shouting all the time although obviously had an agression problem. He was able to articulate what had happened to him in the past all be it in a drunk/drug addled way, and was able to interact with his son - singing a lullaby - something Mike would never have done. He showed a degree of empathy.
I wonder if he or Marva might have, or would ever be offered voluntary stiraliseation. Since he has had 7 children already and she 4. I do think he might have been capable of understanding that this would be for the best, where as Mike last week would never have entertained it.

It was all horribly sad, sad for Sean and Marva, sad for those trying to help them. I was glad they gave her a chance but it was right that the baby was removed from her care after she returned to Sean. They both clearly needed intensive help for their alcohol and mental health issues but if they weren't engaging with services then there doesn't seem to be much that can be done. Although they had very chaotic lives on the fringes of society they were also adults who had the right to make that decision for themselves. It's right that adults with capacity can't be forced to accept treatment, sad, but right.

I hope the baby will be ok, I wonder whether there are long term affects of attaching to a caregiver in the first few weeks of life and then being separated from them?

So because alcoholic violent Sean sang a lullaby to his baby he is more entitled to sympathy than poor inarticulate damaged Mike?

To repeat: the programme was about CP. Any help from other agencies could not be shown, maybe not even mentioned, because the agreement was between the film makers and the clients and the child protection social workers and their department.

Other agencies may not have wanted to take part, or Marva and Sean may not have wanted their involvement mentioned.

Anyone in touch with social workers in any way, anyone who has bee through the care system, anyone who has had extensive contact with the police and health services for drink, drugs, violence, will have a huge number of agencies and individual professionals working with them, or at least the offer of this.

I am pretty sure Marva will not have been abandoned and thrown onto the streets. She will prob have been offered a place in a hostel or a refuge, but these are often 'dry' ie no alcohol or drugs permitted and she may have refused, or walked out.

Just watched it on the iplayer - god it was desperately sad.
I'm really (perhaps naively) hoping that there were services involved that werent shown, since this programme was about SW working in CP. It seemed desperately cruel otherwise to send Marva away from the FC without a place to go to or any support. (altho I agree strongly that the baby wasnt safe in her care.)
Reassured that others have said there is support out there but whether she had access or took it up is a different matter.
Also sad to think she'll probably do it all over again - what is having all these babies taken away doing to her already fragile MH.

I felt more for shaun than for mike as shaun obviously cared and wanted to change but was too screwed up to change for any meaningful length of time.

"i wouldn't hurt my kid I would do anything, I would buy him a quad bike and a scrambler and everything"

He so wanted to be good just was too damaged and lacked the tools to do it.

Shouldnotbhere - the fact that the vast, VAST majority of social care clients keep their children undermines the argument that there is some kind of social engineering agenda. Can I also suggest that if you're from a middle class background and are university educated (maybe you're not but bear with me..) you are more likely to know middle class university educated adoptees, you maybe don't see the many thousands of people who are adopted into families of lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Believe me, I'm a child protection social worker and it can be hard enough to convince teams of managers, legal representatives and the courts to agree to remove a child even where the harm is clearly evidenced, removing a child on the basis of parents just not conforming to societal ideals would be impossible. The whole system is geared towards keeping children and families together.

Also I presume your Mother missed the bit where Tiffany last week said she had a support worker trying to teach her how to parent alongside social worker input (thats not a dig, lots of people missed that comment)? To fill you in, the child last week was 3.5 years old but could not talk and was in nappies, in my professional opinion he was also exhibiting attachment difficulties though this wasn't discussed in the programme. Research tells us that brain development decreases massively after the age of four so many of the synapses which have not been made or are rarely used will be lost forever. Basically this child had only a 6 month window to avoid lifelong learning difficulties and negative personality traits (such as impulsive and hyperactive behaviours caused by growing up in a state of hyper-arousal), no amount of therapy or good will can undo this kind of brain development. Last week's Mum did the kindest and most loving thing she could have done for her child (by giving him up at such a crucial point in his development) and the footage of her child thriving in foster care just a short time later proved that.

Maudlin alcoholics are very convincing. Are you forgetting the security guards, rantee?

It isn't about who is deserving of more sympathy. On a practical note, if the baby had of been left with Shaun and Marva i very much doubt that he would have reached the age that Toby did, at least without being very disabled.

I think there is more sympathy for Shaun because he seemed lively and articulate and had an insight into the cause of his problems. Mike on the other hand seemed surly and dull. Mike's parenting had already damaged his son, whereas Shaun had never brought up any of his children. We were told Shaun had convictions for violence, but not the details, so this aspect of him was a little glossed over. However we saw Mike being rough with Toby.

I felt sorry for Shaun. His dreams of quad bikes etc. showed his romantic, idealised idea of family life. He dreamed of giving his kids material things because to him that was important. He didn't seem to have experienced a loving family life and that was beyond his imagination.

I think you could see that with a better upbringing Shaun could have been a nice man. But now he will never be capable of looking after a child.

i'm concerned you seem very ill informed and misleading about mental health issues birds. first you say no treatment could be taken because she was pregnant which flagrantly untrue and then you bring mood stabilisers into it very randomly - unless marva was bipolar and in an acute manic phase there would be zero reason to use mood stabilisers - if she was in that state they would weigh the risks to her and the pregnancy of not being treated and of being treated.

you're misleading people and it seems like an attempt to know best or appear to whilst either not being very informed or being deliberately misleading.

No I am not forgetting it. I think it was 100 the right thing to do to remove that child. I am sad for what made him that way though. I saw 2 very irreparably damaged adults and it is wholly right that someone should grieve for the children THEY were who were failed