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?

Dotty - as has been explained on the thread, we were not privy to the engagement of other teams of workers supporting Marva after the DS was put up for adoption - that does not mean she was not offered support.

tiktok and sAf - your posts on this thread have been really insightful and thought-provoking. Absolutely agree that Marva seemed to be totally disassociated a lot of the time.

Why does it have to be black and white?

I have more issue with people who are criticising those who have sympathy - what does that say about you?

Having sympathy does not equal feeling those with whom you sympathise are being treated unfairly. It is possible to have sympathy for someone whose life is so messed up that they have turned to a life of initially living on the streets, habitual alcohol abuse and self harm while at the same time acknowledging that that lifestyle is not condusive to good parenting.

It is possible to sympathize with someone and be sad for them, even to the extent that you are sad that they will never be able to parent their own children, while at the same time acknowledging that they should never be allowed to parent their own children. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

And the dog is a red herring. We know nothing about the dog other than hearsay from the neighbours.

Voidka - the baby was taken and kept in hospital cos of the alcohol/drugs/being small.
Had Shaun been told he could have guessed where his son was and turned up to see him.
I expect SW had enough worries trying to keep Elaine's address a secret from him

TBH, I think that Sean would have been better placed than Marva to make the best useof the FC placement. Why is it instantly assumed that the MOTHER should have the placement?

I thought that too. Marva seems so dettached. I think we would have seen more improvement from Sean with that level of support.

See what he did in his flat? the one room he sorted out? I cant see Marva doing that.

Both were incapable in different ways. Marva was sooo out of it in that panel meeting that I thought she was on something.

Why is Sean getting more sympathy than Mike? Because people see him singing Twinkle Twinkle and forget the alcohol, the violence, the dog...and descend into sentimental tosh. It's ridiculous. And Marva isn't getting the sympathy that Tiffany did because she drank and smoked- if she was a deserving mother she should have stopped. She didn't, so she is undeserving. I bet there are people thinking "well, she should have stopped Sean drinking too". Even "It's probably her fault"

Did you see my post Seeker? I dont think any of what you have written there, yet I have sympathy for Sean. its not about singing twinkle twinkle nor is it ridiculous.

Exactly. These parents may well NOT have been able to parent effectively. Doesn't mean that I can't have a HUGE amount of sympathy for them that their childhoods have left them so broken as to be IN that position. Everyone is a product of their childhood. What went on in Sean's childhood that he felt the need to cut himself like that? Can you just IMAGINE if one of your dc was so mentally distressed as to do that. THAT was Sean's life as a child. How can you NOT feel sad about that? How can you not feel for the person he was? How can you get so caught up in who he is NOW that it removes all sympathy for the child he was?

And do you think people that have their dc removed are immune from being broken-hearted about it? Do you think that they get over it without a backwards glance? It may SEEM like Marva has done that - but her reactions are typical of those who have been abused as dc, being able to 'shut off' from pain - because you have felt so much of it in your life that you can separate the 'hurt' part of yourself from the functioning part. Because you have HAD to or you wouldn't have survived.

Doesn't mean that when she is alone, with no cameras around, that she isn't crying. Doesn't mean that she won't continue to misuse alcohol in order to try to 'forget' and block it out. IMO, she should have been given this help with the FIRST baby, not the 3rd/4th.

I think that with the first baby though they were living in a tent in the woods, and they refused to engage at all. Actually, iirc the first one was twins.

The problem with these programmes is that they are merely a snapshot. It was clear that Marva had to stay away from Shaun - we know that she and Shaun were codependent, but there must have been more, much much more for this to have been such a clear stipuation of the agreement - to the extent she had to sign her agreement to it. Bearing in mind there were four other children removed subsequent to Marva's babies, so we can have no idea of the circumstances of those babies...

oops that should read prior to MArva's babies...

It's Shaun not Sean - Marva had it tatooed on her neck

I agree, Shaun, seemed more engaged than Marva, and was aware of the mistakes he'd made, and I really felt he could do something with huge amounts of help.

Marva seemed disengaged. I wanted her to indicate, from the outset, that she wanted this baby more than anything, and was going to do her utmost not to drink, to stay clean, and seek the necessary help. It never really came.

Hunty Cat - I agree, it really did seem, when they were visited by social services, that they were just being left to it, and not taught the basic life skills or help with their addictions.

Sorry about the spelling- disconcertingly my brothers are Mike and Sean, and he has had a lifetime battle to get his name spelled like that!

I have huge amounts of sympathy for everyone involved in these ghastly situations. I was expressing my sympathy for Mikemon the other thread. I just get exasperated at the sentimentality being about Shaun- it just shows how easy it isnto get the sympathy vote- and how easy it is to lose it. It would be perfectly possible to say tht it was easy for Shaun to play the doting father- he knewnther was no chance he would ever have to put his money where his mouth was. Whereas Mike had actually done it for 3 years. He was xrap qt it- but he had done it.

Oh, and you didn't need hearsay from the neighbours to judge the dog. And neither did the police.

You guys who have sympathy for Shaun on the telly - if you met him I honestly think you would be terrified of him.

You think he might make a go of it, would you let him babysit your DCs for two hours? I wouldn't.

Shaun would have been a very poor candidate as carer, even with foster mother support. Shaun was a big, brawny 29 year old with a penchant for vicious dogs and a history of violence - foster carers often have their own children in the house and why should they be at risk? Foster carers themselves deserve to feel safe with the people they are living with. How safe would a tiny baby be - even with that level of supervision?

Shaun could not have been offered a place to stay with the baby, because of hie violent convictions, which we don't know the full details of but must be serious to need two security guards to attend with a profssional.

Shaun was capable of managing a property and looking after a dog. When Marva turned up at his with the baby but no next feed for him, Shaun made the choice to just start drinking with Marva.

If the police had not got the baby back at 3am, they would have continued drinking until they passed out and then what?

Shaun was in danger of absconding with them both and living in a tent again. He did not want contact with any professional services. That alone without the addiction problems put the baby in danger.

That's a very good point- how come it was Marva's fault nobody fed the baby when they were on their bender? There was Shaun's chance.

Shaun was dangerous enough that the social workers had to take the unusual step of having security guards with them for visits.

Is anyone really suggesting he would be suitable living with children in a foster carer's home?

Amaretti - I sympathised with him for having a terrible childhood. I felt he needed help too, not just Marva. I agree Shaun was scary looking, and I suspect his scariness and history of violence, would put people off wanting to help him. I admittedly would not want to provide a FC placement for him.

Yes, Rita - at least two people have made that suggestion.

It wasn't thought of as only Marva's 'fault' the baby was not fed.

The baby was removed (thank goodness) because she had made contact with Shaun and had been drinking. Even if the baby had been well-fed, by either Shaun or Marva, during that time, he would still have been removed.

I agree, tictoc. But there are loads of people on here saying the equivalent of "oh, poor Shaun, he might have been able to make a go of it, given the chance!" Well, he didn't even try to supply a basic need in an emergency, did he?

There are many comments suggesting that with the right intervention (lots of intervention) maybe Shaun or Marva could do something.
I'm not sure what 'something' includes or whether people are suggesting that this 'something' includes looking after a child.
But is it fair to ask society, as a matter of social policy, to fund this level of investment, as a matter of course, on experiments in family bonding and child-rearing - is it really appropriate to consider this? Morally or Financially?
If Shaun and Marva applied to adopt a child - is there any argument that they should be considered - do they have a 'right' to have children?
Does the child have to endure such an experiment in order to 'test' Shaun and Marva's 'rights' and abilities.
And there are people arguing this should be a given, as a matter of social policy?

seeker, I get ya!

Actually, the 'babysitter' test is a good one, for people who think either Marva or Shaun could have changed given more support.

Someone asked if any of us would feel ok about either of them babysitting our own kids for a couple of hours....and I'd change that to a couple of minutes, even seconds, and say 'no'. I'd not even leave the goldfish with them.

Babies and little kids can't wait until their parents have sorted themselves out. For both M & S it would take years - and meantime the baby/child is not able to attach to their prime carer.

Green- threseholds have been set in CP, they were met and the child removed. Ethically the law has been written the best it can be, given the subject matter. If given time, as was explained by the SW reflection time is needed to examine the ethics behind the practice and actions/outcome. Financial costs should never factor in decision making.

A question for the CP and SS experts ....

Mike, Tiffany, Shaun and Marva are all the product of the childrens' home system of between 5 and 15 years ago.
Nowadays the system seems to be that children are fostered as much as possible into strong family homes, many are adopted and very few end up in Tracy Beaker style "dumping grounds"

Do you think that the current approach to the children will reduce the number of young adults leaving the care system with no concept of family life?

Do you think that EVERY girl in care / foster care / been involved in care proceedings should be offered long term contraception (implant / coil) so that she has a chance to grow up before becoming a parent?

I have just watched it was on late in scotland last night , well I felt for them all to different degrees the sw and the foster carer at the end looked devastated well they were , they had their chances imo children were taken from them , although im not sure if it was marva and shauns children together or seperate children , I think the last blow was harsh but needed she broke her agreement and put her child in danger , yes they were adults with problems but they were given chances , the dad couldnt even see his baby without a security guard as he was probably that unpredictable , teaching a dog to attack thinking gettign children quad bikes is parenting , drinking overdoses , what chance did that little boy have ,