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?

Domestic violence isn't rare amongst any sector of society as it happens, it's just that your middle classes often hide it well.

Maybe we need to ask why someone with several convictions for violence-related crimes is not in prison.

DV isn't rare full stop. It is no respecter of postcodes.

i don't think she was hooked to schaun as a means of self destruction i think she was reliant on him as someone she knew wouldn't abandon her and could put up with her through thick and thin. whatever we think of schaun he and her were strongly attached, both survivors of horrible abuse, both massively let down by society and with very difficult behaviours. there was no way she could trust the system and she was right wasn't she - once she fucked up (which given the state she was in was inevitable) the system kicked her out and abandoned her in a way schaun hadn't. they are all each other has. she couldn't invest her security in the child because she knew it would be taken from her in a heartbeat the minute she went under with her problems and seeked oblivion, she knew she couldn't live up to the standard set for her.

i think one reason schaun evoked more sympathy was that he was capable of attachment - despite a life of abuse, self harm, alcohol, violence etc he could still love and feel emotion. it may appear very twisted to us but he had looked after (the best he was capable of) for a long time and he even tried to be happy for her that she was getting support and that her and the baby were together despite missing her. he was very broken and had loads of issues clearly but he was still trying whereas mike was unreachable in the sense that he didn't try at all, he showed no emotional attachment or awareness of others and their needs etc.

i wasn't very clear on what the dv history was - i had the impression it was that their life was chaotic and could include violence rather than he was a violent abuser of her but i may have missed something.

of course DV is in homes all over Im not sure what class has to do with it , i didnt mention class or shauns class , I mentioned his behaviour , I dont really know many middle class people but the women i do know have been abused by ex partners , tbh class has nothing to do with dv i dont know why i mentioned it tbh

I don't think she was conscious of what she was doing wrt Shaun, but I think every single thing she did, including and maybe especially the multiple pregnancies said to me that she was locked into a self destructive spiral, with the multiple (eventually fruitless) pregnancies indicating an attitude of nihilism towards even her physical body. I think she saw herself as some sort of worthless thing that other people could do with as they pleased, a vessel for whatever a man thought fit to put there, completely passive as her sense of self was chipped away bit by bit since childhood, and unable to articulate any needs or reach out to anyone for what was in her own true and best interests. A very vulnerable woman in other words and I think her vulnerability may have been part of what drew Shaun to her.

Yes, I think I'm missing somethign too. It said at the start of the programme that Shaun had convictions for violent crimes, but I didn't pick up anywhere that these were directed at Marva or any other women (not to say they weren't, but this wasn't specified). So I'm not sure why everyone's talking about domestic violence here.
Did I miss something?

"would you let him babysit your DCs for two hours?" No. But then I never said that he should have been given a chance with that baby, just that it's sad he would never be able to be, iyswim.

Those children were rightly taken into care and adopted. And while I know it is not a popular view, I actually believe that in these instances forced sterilisation should be an option. Children are being removed anyway, it would be far better if these children never actually came into existance, and I really don't see why anyone has an issue with that, given that people seem to unanimously think these parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their babies.

I think it's all too easy to see in black and white.

I think that even violence, while certainly not justifyable, is often explainable. If lashing out is the only way you've ever gained attention then perhaps you will grow up lashing out. Even down to the point of having an agressive dog - if the only "love" you've ever known has been through agression, then it would make sense to even have an agressive dog. It's not a justification, but equally it's never just a case of violent man is evil bastard - there are often triggers, things that have led someone to become violent, we just often don't want to acknowledge that because acknowledging it feels like justifying the behavior, which it isn't.

The other alternative to sterilisation is putting people away for long stretches after conviction for a violent crime. If nothing else it would somewhat reduce the opportunities to father children, and I suspect it would also reduce the DV rate. While DV wasn't mentioned specifically as a factor with Shaun and Marva, violent offenders usually don't confine the violence to the world outside their own front door.

At no point was there any mention that Shaun had abused her.

violence comes in many forms though.

There is no mention that he for eg had convictions for asalt, it could have been robbery (which is considered a violent crime) it could just be that he had been involved in brawls in the street (again it is violent crime), we just don't know.

At no point did anyone mention Shaun having abused Marva in any way. The reason she went to the refuge was because it was a dry house, so she could be sure not to drink.

WannaBe, the problem with forced sterilisation (or medical intervention of any kind) is that people cannot be trusted to always make the right judgment regarding who should receive it.

So, although people may agree that, in this case, Shaun should have a vasectomy (for example), we could look at another case and opinion might be divided, or someone making that decision might make it based on the wrong factors (personal grudge, etc.)

Personally, I would like there to be investigation into reversible vasectomies at birth, to be reversed whenever the applicant decides, therefore all children are at least wanted. It might be a ridiculous idea, I'm not sure, but we need to look at these issues in a less conventional manner.

Forced sterilisation was carried out in many American states from the 1920s to as late as the 70s. It was a terrible idea with a strong whiff of fascism and eugenics, and the victims were the poor and others who were equally voiceless.

Yes, and paying addicts to get sterilised, what a horrific idea! What people that low need is support, not bribery.

Just watching this. What a sad situation for everybody.
I can't trawl 20 plus pages but does anyone else seriously wonder if mava and Shaun really have the intellectual cabability to consent to having all this filmed?

I really doubt they do- both of them are really damaged people and I suspect the both have a degree of learning difficulty.

How damaged will their baby be by his genetic heritage and intrauterine alcohol? Or will perfect adoptive parents be able to raise him as a productive member of society who has the skills to break the cycle?

Theas18 - I wondered on the alcohol affect to baby. Family friends adopted a girl, and were told she may have difficulties from her mother's drug abuse. The girl is now an adult, and received a first class degree. Another friend is a teacher, and has talked about a child in her school, who's had an alcoholic mother, and is brain damaged.

I hate the idea of forced sterilisation. I could accept the idea of forced temporary sterilisation, in this case, perhaps for a term of six months, which can be reversed when Marva and Shaun have shown that they have stopped their alcohol dependency, and are turning things around.

Which will never happen, let's be honest.

You can't tell what effect alcohol will have - we now know it's very dependent on exactly which days in the pregancy it is consumed, as well as how much. For instance a child wouldn't show the full facial symptoms of FAS unless a large amount of alcohol was drunk in the days the face is forming. Any other time in pregnancy, and nothing will happen to the childs face. Likewise with the brain damage, in the days or weeks where the crucial parts of the brain are forming, large alcohol consumption could cause huge damage. So with one mostly healthy child and another with FAE, the difference could have been purely down to the days on which the mother chose to drink.

However a large number of adopted children today do have problems because of alcohol exposure sadly. My DD2 probably has FAE (foetal alcohol effects, which is like FAS but without facial symptoms). The problem is, if a child has nio faical symtpoms, you don't know how badly they will be affected. It's a risk adoptive parents must take when they choose to adopt a baby or toddler exposed to large amounts of alcohol - their child may be fine, or may suffer lifelong disability because of it. No way to tell. Of course, some choose not to take on a child with this background because they don't feel able to deal with FAE, but hopefully this little boy will find a loving family willing to take the chance for him

they said at 1 of the confrences that marva had been involved in DV with shaun it was when she left him before the baby , the team leader said so ,

Just caught up with the thread. Really interesting discussion.

Lilka That is very interesting about the days on which alcohol is consumed in pregnancy; I think the same applies to the drug thalidomide.

Do any of the posters with SW knowledge know whether Marva & Shaun would be followed up for contraceptive advice?

forced sterilisation is a horrific idea i agree you cant force a human into this because they are alcoholics or addicts or maybe have learning difficulties , maybe advise long term contraception , but not sterilisation ,

Huntycat I completely agree with your sentiment, except I could never have expressed it as well as you since I have no direct experience, only what I have observed.

It would take a different mentality from the wider society and local community to help more individuals break that cycle.

Obviously you couldnt save everyone, but you could definitely improve the stats.

Unfortunately it is not realistic when taking in to consideration resources and SW workload.

I'm surprised at how many are making assumptions about the support that Marva and Sean may have had. I would be AMAZED if they'd had none - IME people whose lives are in this much of a mess have a file inches thick, with multiple agencies going in and out of their lives (part of the problem). Also important to remember that because of the 'rolling consent' there may be many parts of the picture that were not told in the programme - maybe we weren't told things about this couple for fear they would withdraw consent, for example.

I too was intrigued at the different response to this week's programme - not just to the birth parents, but to the social workers. Last week's sw was very inexperienced, but still - quite surprised at the pasting she got compared to Annie.

A lot has been said about class, and of course it's hard too see round the iniquities of a social system that dooms young, disturbed people to a shitty life - then sets up largely middle class social workers to judge them. I do actually know a very wealthy couple who have had their children taken into care. When I say 'very wealthy', I mean wealthier than any one else I know: hugely wealthy. Social services DID act, though not before a lot of damage was inflicted. Actually, if they were poor their children probably would have been rescued a lot earlier: their wealth meant they didn't have to engage with crime to afford drugs, for example; nannies picked up a lot of the slack. I'm not saying that anecdote makes any wider point, but I wouldn't want anybody to think that ONLY poor people get their kids taken off them.

Finally, someone suggested upthread that social workers may move to get children adopted quickly before the damage becomes apparent. We-ell, I think it feels just as big a step to take on the unknown as it does to take on known problems. My adopted dd comes from a similar background to this programme, was exposed to alcohol and drugs in utero, and is ?FAE/FAS. I can promise you that no social worker ever promises you that adopting a baby means that there is nothing to worry about. More the opposite: they tell you that everything is unknown and then terrify you with every possible worst case scenario. At least, if you adopt a child over 2, you can be pretty certain of what you will be dealing with and can prepare yourself with the necessary information and resources.

Shaun's offences must include physical violence towards other people, or kidnap, holding someone hostage,i suspect it may have been directed at professionals etc.

I carry out one on one visits with people who have fire arm offences etc. If there is a history of general violence then the visits are in two's, anything which involves security is a step up.

The programme said that there had been DV,the domestic abuse wouldinclude oppressive behaviour on Shauns part.

Shaun and Marva will have had constant referals to sexual health clinics and advice on contraception, they like many others choose not to use it. All of the feeder services used cover contraception,as a part of choice and self esteem/respect.

I don'tnthink people realise how violent Shaun must have been for the social workers to have security guards. It is incredibly unusual- the most that usually happens is that they visit in pairs, not alone.