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?

noir - I don't think there is any social engineering agenda. This was my mum's view. She always believes any conspiracy theory.

You are right, my parents are farmers, not from an intellectual background, but would describe them as middle class. Both these friends were adopted as babies. Things may not have been so easy for them, if they'd been adopted later on.

it's also reckless and irresponsible imo to say that women who are pregnant cannot be treated for mental health problems. this is tosh - many antidpressants have a very good safety record with pregnancy (particularly old school tricyclics which have a long history of use and therefore much data has been collected) and if someone's problems were more severe re: psychosis or mania it would be treated as the risks of not doing so would in many cases outweigh the risks of drug use.

pregnant women should know that it is worth seeing doctors, seeing midwife and asking to speak to obstetricians if they are having mental health problems. there are treatment options and you shouldn't suffer in misery thinking that nothing can be done. obstetricians would be happier with a long record drug being used than with a mother not eating, neglecting herself, being at risk of self harm etc which both for her and the baby could have dangerous consequences.

ranteetheranter - so well put. I also felt very sad for Shaun and Marva. When Shaun sang the lullaby and engaged with his son, and with the photos of his children on the wall, and talking about his desires for his child, I felt that he was not a bad person, but had been irreparably damaged.

I do hope the son does not have any problems from his mother's alcohol abuse, and can have the childhood his parents missed out on.

Swallowed-i haven't said that. What i am saying is that Marva's case is very complex and without knowing the details a judgement cannot be formed. I could see the reasoning behind not sectioning her, which proved correct because she was doing so well at Elaine's.

Marva has been in the system along time and what we saw was the CP process, not the MH process.

Im notmisleading anyone, i am commenting on this case and could see why it was considered that it was in Marva's best interests not to push for sectioning, given one suicide atempt in years. The claim would then be made that they sectioned her to take the baby, it was a no win situation.

"suicide attempt in 12 years".

the motives aren't about PR (they'd have said they sectioned her to take the baby) though bird - at least they shouldn't be. the motives should be for protecting people.

We don't know the full details of Shaun's violent convictions, they have to be very serious for the visits to be carried out with security guards.

I have had clients will alsorts of offences on record, yet we only carry out visits in pairs, even if there are dogs on the premises.

In an ideal world the situation wouldn't occur, but it does,it is then how you deal with it. If they had of had family, then it would have been sought for the baby to be placed in the family until the parents had have gone through the process, possibly up to three years. The parents didn't attend contact sessions with the baby,do we then let the child linger in the system to see if the parents show an interest? Shaun will not have social workers work with him, he said that himself.

The baby has a right to a life.

Sentimental rubbish.

History of violence, training a dog to attack, 7 children taken into care at birth, social workers needing security guards to visit, dominting a vulnerable young woman- but because he knows the words to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" people feel sorry for Sean. Mike last week, obvious learning difficulties, inarticulate, frustrated by the system, desperately but incompetently trying to keep his child with him was scary and dangerous and got very little sympathy at all.

We would have to institutionalise somepeople to protect them, though, as we once did. Ideally Marva wouldn't be getting pregnant, we would come to a situation were we only lock up fertile women who cannot parent, that is a dilemma.

How do you decide who you "allow" to become alcoholics, that is what we would be locking Marva for, that and her wanting to be wih Shaun.

The difference is who you met and have children with,somepeople impact on each other in such a negative way that they could not parent together with all the support in the world. Marva wanted to be with Shaun, as dolots of the women who stay in DV situations. Why not use the MH Act against them? Wh the hell in their right mind stays wih someone who hits them?

There are no easy answers for some people. Without being oppressive.

This programme focuses on CP, the baby would have been dead if left with them.

Seeker - you are right, Shaun had far too many issues, to look after a child. I felt it was the right decision. I just thought that if he'd had a better upbringing, he might have been okay. I never saw last weeks episode.

I do get the argument for injection, until you have agreed to be helped and stopped taking drugs and alcohol, when the injections could stop. I also get that it is a human right to be able to have children.

Does anyone know if the programme has a stated editorial agenda - such as to promote social work as a career?
Certainly it's made me re-examine my views on what SWs do.
As someone whose default position on SWs could be described as negative, I'm immensely pleased to see that some children are removed from homes asap although I'm very disappointed that in the other programme, the child was allowed to be neglected until more than 3 years old.
I wonder if the programe makers are deliberately setting out to show SW as a career which positively intervenes to protect children (2 programmes, 2 removals) rather than be perceived as a passive occupation which as Noir remarks above, keeps the vast majority of children with families.
It seems as though there is an (un)stated aim to overturn the public's (and Daily Mail's) perception of SWs as woolly, over-liberal, do-gooders who defy common-sense and cause more harm than good. Social worker reality tv in the same vein as Copper tv and Fireman tv. SW as a GOOD emergency service?
Is so then 10/10!!!
The programme makers have clearly chosen cases where nobody in their right mind would even consider leaving a child, then created some dramatic tension by worrying the viewer that the SW might actually leave the child there, then resolving it at the end by taking the child away.
Feel good TV for people who feel that SWs don't do enough to prevent horror story families - and a great 'make a real difference' recruitment campaign.
It was sad that Annie wasn't more positive about removing that baby - she should have been punching the air - because that was the best thing she could have done.
Whatever the circumstances of their birth, if children are to have equality of opportunity with all other kids then they can't be left in those kind of environments - allowing incapable biological parents to inflict irrepparable damage as their 'needs' and 'rights' to be parents are wrongheadedly indulged.
Bang on - Go SWs - take those kids away!!!

"It was sad that Annie wasn't more positive about removing that baby - she should have been punching the air - because that was the best thing she could have done."

Yep- just the sort of person we want doing this sort of job!

What? She should be sad to have saved the kid's life?

Okay - punching the air may be a bit too demonstrative but, the removal of the child - legally and with no fear of the child having to go back, was a victory for the child. It's not something to be ashamed about.

One can be sad about the society that creates Shauns and Marvas but not about preventing them from creating another Shaun or Marva.

Greentown- every SW knows that the outcomes for children in care are less than the lowest socio economic group in our society, aside from the ethics involved, of course, so the removal of a child should never be the punching the air occassion. You are pleased that the child stands a better chance, but there is still the parent and the impact having to remove children has on our society.

i dont think 'punching the air' would be the correct response, the SW knew that the baby could well end up being being a 'looked after child', in the same system in which his 'incapable' biological parents were bought up - tbh i think the SW was in a no-win situation from the very start and her position must give her sleepless nights - until we sort out a better way of looking after vulnerable children in the state system this will be a never ending cycle - sad for everyone concerned.

I missed last weeks programme , but I just felt kind of hopeless watching this last night . Two very damaged people who for whatever reason will go on repeating the same mistakes over and over again .

Was he allowed to keep the dog in the end ? That was scary in itself .

He did get rid of the dog, when they went to see his after Marva left he was saying he got rid of the dog.

The SW was not in a no-win situation. The child won by being removed. When the child wins - society wins. A better future is made for the child and a better future for society. The society that the child lives in and goes on to create.
Nobody can fix everybody in that situation but the best result is not to make it worse by leaving the child there.
Annie should feel good for facilitating at the very least, a 'better' future for that baby.
She can't fix Shaun and Marva - nobody can. Maybe their lives can be managed or aided with the hope of them not damging themselves or anybody else any further but that's the limit with them.

Unfortunately you are somewhat right Greentown, the series almost certainly has an agenda to promote social work as a career. At the end of the programme they give out a bbc web address that they say links to the Open University. There they have a Protecting Our Children mini site that links to the episodes, where you can play a day in the life of a social worker game (which includes a lot of extra footage of the Bristol CP social workers talking about the work they do) and find links promoting their BA in social work.

He police took the dog-or "the puppy" as he called it. Hedidn't get rid of it.

Just glad we haven't had any "won't someone think about the poor dogz" posts.

There's no need for people to be so po-faced about the way the situation was resolved.

Po-faced? What on earth do you mean?

Thanks voidka , I didn't catch that bit , I wouldn't want to be a sw for anything , I applied a couple of years ago but withdrew my application when I was told there were no adult services places left , only children's . I really don't think I could do it well and stay within boundaries .