The problem with many stories about SS is that the family can reveal what they like and Social Services are forbidden from disclosing details. I remember a particular case of a family fleeing to Ireland where SS planned to take a baby because the mother would be the primary carer alone with the baby for a significant amount of time, and she had significant learning difficulties.
That is a particularlydisgusting practice. How is it that despite their learning disabilities they can get pregnant, yet they will be unable to look after themselves? MeanwhileJosie Cunningham keeps her children. People on drugs keep their children. The Matthews and Philpot families kept their children until they committed very serious crimes.
Social workers who implement such far-right policies against the disabled should be fired and jailed.
This scandal will one day be stopped, then those responsible for it will hopefully receive the punishmentslucky they deserve.
That is a particularlydisgusting practice. How is it that despite their learning disabilities they can get pregnant, yet they will be unable to look after themselves? MeanwhileJosie Cunningham keeps her children. People on drugs keep their children. The Matthews and Philpot families kept their children until they committed very serious crimes.
Social workers who implement such far-right policies against the disabled should be fired and jailed.
This scandal will one day be stopped, then those responsible for it will hopefully receive the punishmentslucky they deserve.
Not that I'm advocating removal in these circumstances, but I don't think it's especially hard to get pregnant (it's easier to get pregnant having sex than not get pregnant actually). And care for oneself is easier than care for a child.
That is a particularlydisgusting practice. How is it that despite their learning disabilities they can get pregnant, yet they will be unable to look after themselves? MeanwhileJosie Cunningham keeps her children. People on drugs keep their children. The Matthews and Philpot families kept their children until they committed very serious crimes.
Social workers who implement such far-right policies against the disabled should be fired and jailed.
This scandal will one day be stopped, then those responsible for it will hopefully receive the punishmentslucky they deserve.
Right, because getting pregnant is evidence that you can look after a child.
That is a particularlydisgusting practice. How is it that despite their learning disabilities they can get pregnant, yet they will be unable to look after themselves? MeanwhileJosie Cunningham keeps her children. People on drugs keep their children. The Matthews and Philpot families kept their children until they committed very serious crimes.
Social workers who implement such far-right policies against the disabled should be fired and jailed.
This scandal will one day be stopped, then those responsible for it will hopefully receive the punishmentslucky they deserve.
Becoming pregnant for many people is the easy part. It doesn't follow that, because a person is capable of procreation, that they are automatically capable of looking after a child.
That's not to say that people with learning disabilities should not have children. However, if the disability prevents them from providing the appropriate level of care then Social Services should be involved. That should be in the former of support and assistance wherever it is assessed that it is required. If the parent is still unable to care for the child, and there is no family support to assist them, then other steps would have to be considered.
Not at all. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. If social services aren't competent enough to get all their decisions right (that in itself is an acknowledgement of their mistakes) then why do you think this foundation is immune to the same mistakes? Sidestepping court ordered interventions seems very likely to end up aiding and abetting child abuse and neglect.
Child abuse and neglect are still illegal in Ireland so parents relocating there to avoid SS will still face the full force of children's services (and the police if they are committing such crimes) there... The big difference is that children's services involvement in Ireland will not involve their children being forcibly adopted out.
Do not allow access to your children to counsellors, psychologists and, above all, psychiatrists. Under no circumstances, allow a psychiatrist to prescribe drugs for your children
I'm not sure why anyone would place any value in such nonsense.
The problem is, the focus is all on risk risk risk risk risk risk risk
The focus should be on helping the family thrive as a unit. The aim should be to provide support to parents and kids to enable this to happen. But it is NOT. It is just about assessing risks, deciding whether the case should be referred to ' the reporter ', and whether the kids should be removed. if there wasn't this option, except in the most extreme of cases, They might try a bit harder. They really do remove kids on a whim of the 'experts' deem the risk high enough. Often while the kid is in her mother's arms, newborn. It is disgusting, shocking, horrific and inhuman.
The 'experts' are all so scared they will end up in the papers if something does go wrong that they are forced to act this way at meetings, trained to see the tiniest thing as a risk. Banning the forced adoption would allow them the space to do their jobs properly and help the families. I'm not blaming individual social workers here. The system is really messed up
Not at all. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. If social services aren't competent enough to get all their decisions right (that in itself is an acknowledgement of their mistakes) then why do you think this foundation is immune to the same mistakes? Sidestepping court ordered interventions seems very likely to end up aiding and abetting child abuse and neglect.
I don't think any organisation is immune from error, but at least this one has no direct power over the individual, and does offer a way out of injustice (whether perceived or real). Moreover, they are going to a country where forced adoption does not happen, even though their own social services may well be taking an interest if there is indeed, evidence of neglect or abuse.
If you acknowledge that UK Social Services aren't competent to get all their decisions right, as you say, then you will surely understand and appreciate why parents who feel an injustice is about to be committed, will make this step to save the taking of their child and the irrevocable next step of forced adoption, where the probability is they will never see their child again.
Comments
That is a particularlydisgusting practice. How is it that despite their learning disabilities they can get pregnant, yet they will be unable to look after themselves? MeanwhileJosie Cunningham keeps her children. People on drugs keep their children. The Matthews and Philpot families kept their children until they committed very serious crimes.
Social workers who implement such far-right policies against the disabled should be fired and jailed.
This scandal will one day be stopped, then those responsible for it will hopefully receive the punishmentslucky they deserve.
Not that I'm advocating removal in these circumstances, but I don't think it's especially hard to get pregnant (it's easier to get pregnant having sex than not get pregnant actually). And care for oneself is easier than care for a child.
Right, because getting pregnant is evidence that you can look after a child.
Becoming pregnant for many people is the easy part. It doesn't follow that, because a person is capable of procreation, that they are automatically capable of looking after a child.
That's not to say that people with learning disabilities should not have children. However, if the disability prevents them from providing the appropriate level of care then Social Services should be involved. That should be in the former of support and assistance wherever it is assessed that it is required. If the parent is still unable to care for the child, and there is no family support to assist them, then other steps would have to be considered.
Child abuse and neglect are still illegal in Ireland so parents relocating there to avoid SS will still face the full force of children's services (and the police if they are committing such crimes) there... The big difference is that children's services involvement in Ireland will not involve their children being forcibly adopted out.
http://www.ectopia.org/pass.html
Other 'helpful hints' for good parenting:
I'm not sure why anyone would place any value in such nonsense.
The focus should be on risk.
I don't think any organisation is immune from error, but at least this one has no direct power over the individual, and does offer a way out of injustice (whether perceived or real). Moreover, they are going to a country where forced adoption does not happen, even though their own social services may well be taking an interest if there is indeed, evidence of neglect or abuse.
If you acknowledge that UK Social Services aren't competent to get all their decisions right, as you say, then you will surely understand and appreciate why parents who feel an injustice is about to be committed, will make this step to save the taking of their child and the irrevocable next step of forced adoption, where the probability is they will never see their child again.