Options
Social Services - child snatchers?
Bio Max
Posts: 2,207 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3032868/Snatched-loving-family-handed-strangers-Sophia-adored-baby-devoted-mother-besotted-grandparents-social-workers-took-extraordinary-decision.html
Have a read of this story - I understand why they'd be concerned about the dad - but it's heartbreaking what social services have done...
Have a read of this story - I understand why they'd be concerned about the dad - but it's heartbreaking what social services have done...
0
Comments
I would be very interested to hear the other side of this story, as I'm convinced there is a heck of a lot more to it, than the very dewy eyed, one sided picture painted there.
Both of these really. In my experience with SS, even when all agencies involved feel a child needs to be taken away and there's a lot of indicators that the child is in danger, it's very difficult to get them taken away unless there's cold hard evidence, which of course when you're dealing with abusive parents, is often VERY difficult to get.
There will of course always be exceptions.
I reported my neighbour for beating and abusing her child who she was a gorgeous toddler. The older children were already showing signs of the abuse they grew up with by acting out violently and sexually. They let it happen to the younger ones too.
They should err on the side of being heavyhanded and get kids out of potentially risky situations but they seem to have gone the other way, despite high profile cases, and leave kids alone and unsupported, in houses with druggies, alcoholics, abusive and neglectful 'parents'.
Ah, never mind., I just had a look at her previous articles. Yeah, she's missing her calling as a Victorian-era novelist.
I find it odd that they'd just take a newborn baby like that, so
I really don't think we're getting the full story. I have known, within my family, how difficult it is for them to just take a child, especially a newborn and that is with concerns raised from immediate family members
IF her sex offender partner is no longer with her, why shouldn't she have been able to take her baby home?
Edit: Okay, it appears that she was okay with the dad having contact with his daughter. The social services might have thought that he would be a danger to his daughter after finding out that he was a registered sex offender.
I have first hand experience of how overzeallous and, in my opinion, appalling social services can be, so I can completely believe this story.
I feel very sorry for grandparents who have been separated from their beloved grandchild. But social services never have any right of reply, and none of the court evidence can be revealed. It would be interesting, for example, to know the extent of the mother's history of behavioural problems, which are skated lightly over here. It is possible that there was a long history of social services intervention in that generation of the family. The offence that put the baby's father on the sex offenders register also sounds like a gloss. "He forced his hand up a woman's skirt and kissed her against her will". Hmmm. Something tells me it wasn't a prank at a drunken party. We don't know - and 'Jayne' certainly isn't going to tell us - why social services appear to have considered separating mother and baby from HER to be their main priority. And we don't know why the mother was assessed for 16 weeks then reported as risking emotional harm to her baby. It sounds as if a lot of money was invested into giving her a chance; 16 week residential placements must cost the earth.
I understand that alarm bells probably sounded when they found out he was a registered sex offender, but the sex offence not having anything to do with underage people should have meant that she was allowed to keep her baby daughter. I also think removing the child after two years, if that's what happened, is a real nasty thing to do.
If what they say is word for word true omitting no facts, then yes, it’s outrageous. But then since it would be so outrageous, then perhaps it is less than the whole truth?
With regards to ‘future emotional abuse’, I would be interested to know what they meant by that from a personal perspective. My own mother has mental health issues and eating disorders that have significantly impacted upon my sister and to a lesser extent me. But we’re both fully functioning adults, healthy in body and mind, and in healthy long term relationships, hard-working and more or less happy people. And, dare I say it, quite understanding of other people due to what we’ve had to tolerate from our mother. No one would say that a lot of the things my mother exposed us to were wholesome (for example, when we were just 5 and 7, telling us constantly and in extreme detail the abuses she suffered at the hands of her own parents and first husband), but it would be interesting to know what a social worker nowadays would think of it and how it measured up to what this family were judged upon.
Even if a person has no convictions but they are aware of issues and accusations within a family it may be appropriate for then to act to protect a child. As an example if an older sibling makes a complaint but chooses not to make it officially but rather leaves that is kept on file and considered when evaluating the safety of siblings - as it should be.
We have to remember that most sex crimes never reach the courts and that proportion is even higher when related to children and family members. I'm not saying this is the reason they were so concerned but it is one of many possibilities.
We don't have enough information to judge what happened here but it's damned odd that a caring family wouldn't have chosen the child over the sex offender even if social services were totally wrong.
The fact that she had a long history of severe mental health problems, meaning her previous two children were permanently in care, was often not mentioned at all.
Her major psychotic episode, which had led to her being sectioned while pregnant, was described as 'a panic attack'.
Her own doctor - representing solely her medical interests - applied to the courts for her to have a caesarean section, on the grounds that otherwise her womb might rupture. This was given, as is normal with elective sections, a bit earlier than her estimated date of delivery, since there is no point in setting the date for surgery for afterwards.
This led to headlines like, "Baby Snatched from the womb by the state!" (Daily Mail) with apparently invented quotes like "I was crying as I begged them not to cut me open." - she previously said she had been anaesthetised and knew nothing about it. "Social workers stole my baby" was another headline. (They are oddly hard to find; almost all the original press reports have been deleted, perhaps because they were exposed as a toxic load of hysterical nonsense.)
I'd say there's a lot more to the DM story than meets the eye.
2 - when she was asked to go to the mother and baby unit, it would have been clear from the outset that this was an assessment period, she would have had to sign paperwork outlining the concerns, expectations, rules and parenting sessions, what sessions she would be covering and why, she would have been given a parenting assessment schedule
3 - the parents failed the SGO assessment but dont say why, this could be because they may not have seen what the concerns were, not taken them seriously, she clearly didnt see the father as a risk, was this correct or not, it may have been due to ill health or lack of availability
4 - if the child is still in proceedings, unless the DM has permission to publicise the face of the child, they are in contempt of court
5 - the problem of the child remaining in the mother's care for so long is an unfortunate consequence of making every effort for children to remain in the care of their birth or extended families. If the law didnt do this, there would be accusations of removing the child without proper consideration for evidence or a chance for parents to learn how to safely and effectively care for their child. If you do take that into consideration, it means the child is not immediately removed at birth.
There are no easy answers to when children are put at risk.
The child should have been returned to Italy, not adopted by a couple here in the UK.
A decision was made by Italian authorities that the child should be the responsiblity of the UK