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?

Seeker - I have found a better way to describe the difference in feeling between thi week and last. This weeks couple tried and failed. Last weeks couple failed to try! all they gave was lip service.

"Unfortunately you are somewhat right Greentown"

I don't think it's unfortunate - I would prefer if they stated it clearly though.
I think it's good for the programme makers to show that in some cases, removal is not even up for debate, and that in those cases, it happens.
Good for them, people/the public/society need to be reassured.
Clearly there are legal processes and protocols that need to be followed and it's obvious that the various 'conferences' and meetings constitute specific/formal steps in the process of removal.
The dramatic tension of these meetings though, and the worry that the SWs will give the child back to the parents, are very real - even in the horrific circumstances shown.

But it is a sad situation. These people are damaged adults. They were themselves damaged as children. They are not inherently evil.

Just because the decisions made were the right ones does not mean we should be clapping our hands with glee at the spectacle.

Po-faced? What on earth do you mean?

What I mean is that there is no point in going on about how sad and heart-wrenching the situation is.
Clearly, not everyone was going to get what they wanted - ie Shaun and Marva were not going to get to keep the baby. That was signposted by the programme makers right at the beginning and it was obvious to any rational person watching, that it would be a travesty of 'child protection' if they had been given the baby.
People are being po-faced/disaproving about me saying the SW should have 'punched the air'.
She did a good thing. She did the only right thing. She did her job properly. There should not have been a moment's hesitation in doing that.

But it is a sad situation. These people are damaged adults. They were themselves damaged as children. They are not inherently evil.

That's a much bigger can of worms, isn't it? What is evil? Is anybody inherently evil? Or are they shaped by the society around them? Either way, it's beyond the limits of the programme and I'm not even sure it applies. Did anyone say they were evil? Just entirely unsuitable and potentially dangerous and that's not in doubt given all the other children removed already from Shaun and marva.

People who torture children and take nothing but glee in it. They are evil.

People who try but cant change because of the world they were brought up in, they are not.

They were once children themselves, and society failed them, the same as it would fail if the children remained in their care now.

I repeat. Just because something is right, doesnt stop it being sad.

Nobody said it wasn't said. But the child was removed - be happy about that. It makes it less sad.

Out of interest, and although it's way off this topic, I think this can also be true:

People who torture children and take nothing but glee in it -They were once children themselves, and society failed them.

I don't think Marva wanted to keep the baby - at some level, she recognised it was too much for her to do. She may well have loved the baby and wanted to be capable of caring for him, while knowing she could not.

She knew that if she went back to Shaun, or if she started drinking, the baby would be removed from her care immediately. She made sure this would happen by doing both of those things at the same time, and for good measure, just to make even more certain, going missing with the baby. For 14 hours - can you imagine how worried that poor foster mother was, and how scared the baby must have been? He would have screamed and screamed with hunger for a few hours, and then stopped.

Poor Marva - this dramatic and risky way was the only means she had of communicating her lack of ability to care for the baby, and her wish for someone else to do it for her.

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

I did have sympathy for Mike last week.

I feel more for Sean this week though, Mike had 3 years to parent his child, he failed to do that effectively although I dont think that was because he didnt care, just he did not have the first clue.

I dont think Sean was bad. Someone up thread said that maybe with a stronger partner [not Marva] Sean may have done better? maybe.

Sean was very much aware that his actions and his way of life were why he wasnt allowed to do more than see his child under supervision.

All of his children were in SS care from birth so what chance has he had to be a parent? [someone said he had and had failed]

Mike was clueless Sean in contrast was very aware of his situation, I find that sadder, he knew what was wrong but did not have the emotional capacity to put it right.

Sean had a deep mistrust of SWs, that was probably going right back to his own childhood. I liked that he told Annie in so many words that he liked her but he still doesnt like SWs, it was a very backhanded compliment that Annie took beautifully!

Sean obviously had a very difficult and abusive childhood that can be very hard to live with.

Lots of [justified] sympathy and understanding towards children in abusive/neglectful homes on here, its interesting to look at where that sympathy ends?

Sean was that child once.

He is now the grown up product of that abuse.

So when does the sympathy stop?

At what point in his life should Sean and formerly abused adults like him 'get over it'?

I meant -nobody said it wasn't sad

Good post Tiktok.

I agree with tiktok, I don't think Marva actually wanted to keep her baby. She seemed to be floating through the whole process.

I also agree with seeker about Shaun- I'm baffled by the sympathy he is getting here. If Marva had posted in relationships describing him, and saying 'oh but he sings twinkle twinkle' despite the violent history, the attack dog etc etc, he'd have got another response entirely.

Of course he is a victim of his own circumstances, but when adults harm other adults (which we must assume he has done), they have to take responsibility for it. The fact that he's getting the 'aww' reaction for singing a lullaby just shows how hard it must be for SWs to remain objective - if the vipers of MN can be melted by it then what chance does a woolly liberal have! He's made 7 kids and they've all been removed from him. Actions speak louder then words.

"So when does the sympathy stop?

At what point in his life should Sean and formerly abused adults like him 'get over it'?"

What are you arguing though? Are you saying that out of sympathy for this circumstances he should get a baby? By way of some sort of compensation for the dreadful hand life dealt him?

Or are you saying society should pursue his abusers and right the wrongs done to him that way?

Or do you think society can 'fix' him with sympathy? How?

I suspect society can't fix him - what do you suggest - does mean you give up on him or go 'soft' on him. There's no answer/solution.
He just is.

Amber - when should they stop getting sympathy: when they abuse others?

I know 1 mother (have known her for all my life) who was brought up in a decent (not brilliant but more than decent enough) family. She was a spoiled nasty little child and she is a spoiled nasty self centred adult who has ruined her childrens lives. Society did not fail her she was/is inherently nasty (Though probably not evil) so it is possible to have a complete lack of sympathy for someone. So your line may be true, but not always.

In this case it was good the child was removed, I am pleased that the child is safe and has a good chance of a good life. I do not have to be happy about the situation that surrounded her removal.

Probably neither Shaun or Marva will ever get over their lives and for them there can only ever be "treatment" never a "cure".

when I said he had tried and failed. I meant that he had tried to give up drink and failed, he had tried to get his flat in order, he had tried to make changes but he failed.

I dont think it was fair that Shaun found out a week later that the baby was born, and I understand why he seemed upset about that.

birds Yes you're right about the atrocious outcomes for children raised in care. I can't remember his name but the head of Barnardos wrote an article in the Times recently about his realisation when he worked in prisons about the dramatically disproportioate number of children raised in care who ended up in the criminal justice system and naturally concluded that taking a child from its family was a disaster that should be avoided if at all possible. However, when he looked into it more closely, he found that it was actually the opposite - what had caused the damage was the length of time that it had taken for many of these children to be removed from their birth families that had caused the damage ie it wasn't placing them in care that was the problem, it was leaving with their parents for too long.
If you remove a child before their first birthday, they hopefully haven't had too much damage inflicted by their parents and it's relatively easy for them to be adopted. The longer you leave it, the more damaged they become and the harder they become to adopt which means that they go through e series of failed placements which makes things even worse.
Adopting an emotionally damaged older child is something that only fairly exceptional people feel able to commit to.

I agree with seeker. He deseves the same amount of sympathy as shaud did. Both men obviously so damaged by their childhoods/addiction/mental Health problems/SN and its so desperately sad.

Both men loved their children but it just wasn't enough, and the real tragedy comes when they seem unable to change and they know it.

I have sympathy for mike because in some ways he reminds me dd2 and 3's dad. He's not as bad but he has no idea to play with his dc, or interact. Its completely alien to him (he knows how to do the practical stuff and is great at it) But then again he grew up in a loveless house, witnessed his grandad sexually abuse his mother from the age 8, was beaten by his uncle and grandfather, never owned a toy, never had birthday or xmas presents and had to sleep on the floor in his nans room with his mum.

Ive had to teach him how to respond when his children draw him a picture. He would look at the picture and look away, He just dis not know what to do. He has never sung them a nursery rhyme and has difficulty hugging them although that has improved through therapy

my ex is a twat but it doesnt stop me feeling sorry for him and thats why I can empathise with mike I really can

I dont think anyone has said, least of all me, that Marva and Shaun should have been able to keep the baby. I do think "punching the air" over the situation is crass and uncalled for. The SW put it right. If she didnt care she should not be in that job, so she has to care. The fact that the child has to come first should not stop anyone caring about the adults.

I know that as seeker said, you shouldn't pay heed to a maudlin alcoholic.
However I think everyone deserves least one if not two chances.
Of course there are men that spend years making empty promises, end up letting everyone down no matter how much help they are offered.

But I don't think we were informed if he had been offered support in the past, not just a house, but actual human contact and support? It may well be that he was, but from last night's episode it didn't look like it. And that's probably why he is getting more sympathy.

What would have happened if Saun had been taken in by a foster carer with the baby, and been empowered with the chance to be a good father? Or if it was a different, less disengaged woman he'd gotten pregnant?
We will never know. We can have our opinions, but never know.

OBVIOUSLY it is not possible for the care system to put in place all these different scenarios to see which one works best.

But from the way the programme was edited it doesn't look as if Saun was given much chance. All he and Marva had was each other, and that is a dreadful combination.

But all humans need somebody to love, even in a messed up way, and unfortunately for them Saun and Marva were the best they could get for each other.

Now if you don't think that isn't desperately sad then you are a much harder person than me.

BTW I didn't see last week's episode so can't really compare to that.

I think it is possible to have sympathy for someone while at the same time acknowledging that their situation makes them impossible candidates as parents.

We don't know what Shaun had done in his past to warrant the necessity for security. In fact for all we know the security may have been required because of actions towards the sw rather than because of his convictions - no details were given on that.

As for the dog, yes it seemed agressive. But even the sw said that Shaun had it on a lead and it was under control. The neighbours said they'd heard him training it but this is all hearsay and we cannot possibly know for sure what went on. I can only imagine that living next door to a family with definite alcohol/mental health issues, with agressive dog and expecting to have their fourth child removed might well line them up for some judgement on the part of the neighbours. We can't possibly assume that all of that judgement was unbiased and not based on personal view.

^What are you arguing though? Are you saying that out of sympathy for this circumstances he should get a baby? By way of some sort of compensation for the dreadful hand life dealt him?
Or are you saying society should pursue his abusers and right the wrongs done to him that way?Or do you think society can 'fix' him with sympathy? How?
I suspect society can't fix him - what do you suggest - does mean you give up on him or go 'soft' on him. There's no answer/solution.
He just is.^

I dont think he should get to keep his baby no, that is not my point.

I just think its interesting how sympathy/empathy changes towards an abused person once they reach adulthood, as though all the abuse just melts away on their 18th birthday.

Some people are too damaged to live a 'normal' life, the patterns of self medication and addiction go round and round.

Again I dont think he should have got to keep his baby, but I still find it sad as to why he cant, yes he is an adult, but with a life history like that you are not necessarily ever fully in control of how your life goes even years later.

I have empathy for the Seans of the world. I dont see them as bad or evil, just damaged. whatever his violent actions/convictions etc, I still think its sad.