DS Forums

 
 

phil getting custody of lexi


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-10-2012, 19:37
Julie_Smith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 456

So that awful social worker thinks lexi is better off with a violent ex alky,crack addict,arsonist with mummy issues,who couldnt raise phlegm without mucking it up
Julie_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-10-2012, 19:56
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
So that awful social worker thinks lexi is better off with a violent ex alky,crack addict,arsonist with mummy issues,who couldnt raise phlegm without mucking it up
Yep to an outsider Phil has no violent or drug criminal convictions. Arrested lots but not convicted and in this country innocent until proven guilty. Was last convicted of an offense 8 years ago in 2004 which was overturned on appeal, (his backstory showed convictions for petty crimes like stuff with dodgy MOTs and we are talking over 20 years ago), is gainfully employed and owns his own home. They have no idea about his addictions he has never been even arrested for them and support groups are confidential so they would not be aware.
Both Lola and Billy have fresh convictions, Lola is a habitual offender, are squatting in their residence so hardly secure, not gainfully employed and for some reason have a issue with taking a baby to the doctor even when advised too. Despite if they had they would get the cream free on prescription thus Lola would not need to steal it.

But the unrealistic bit was the social worker the way she has behaved and seemingly thinking they had enough to take her in the first place. There is no way they would have removed Lexi under such weak evidence.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:10
Lousiana
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
Yep to an outsider Phil has no violent or drug criminal convictions. Arrested lots but not convicted and in this country innocent until proven guilty. Was last convicted of an offense 8 years ago in 2004 which was overturned on appeal, (his backstory showed convictions for petty crimes like stuff with dodgy MOTs and we are talking over 20 years ago), is gainfully employed and owns his own home. They have no idea about his addictions he has never been even arrested for them and support groups are confidential so they would not be aware.
Both Lola and Billy have fresh convictions, Lola is a habitual offender, are squatting in their residence so hardly secure, not gainfully employed and for some reason have a issue with taking a baby to the doctor even when advised too. Despite if they had they would get the cream free on prescription thus Lola would not need to steal it.

But the unrealistic bit was the social worker the way she has behaved and seemingly thinking they had enough to take her in the first place. There is no way they would have removed Lexi under such weak evidence.
Billy and Lola aren't squatting anymore they were found out and now rent the flat legally.

Money is no issue for Lola as she is entitled to a number of benefits to help with Lexi's care, if Billy is on a low income he would also be entitled to housing benefit. They can't recommend someone else is given residency on the basis of money.

The whole storyline is a joke that overbearing social worker came across like she had major issues.
Lousiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:28
roverboy1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 736
From what i've seen and heard, she (the social worker) is pretty average social worker !!!

Most are overbearing jobsworths who will grab a child into care on the flimsiest evidence/hearsay to cover their own backs knowing judges will nearly always side with them and family courts are secret and not allowed to be reported.

They did earn the title Social Snoopers for nothing !!!
roverboy1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:35
NeutronstarNeko
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,839
From what i've seen and heard, she (the social worker) is pretty average social worker !!!

Most are overbearing jobsworths who will grab a child into care on the flimsiest evidence/hearsay to cover their own backs knowing judges will nearly always side with them and family courts are secret and not allowed to be reported.

They did earn the title Social Snoopers for nothing !!!
and yet there are cases like Baby P...

I get that Lola losing her baby was part of the juxtaposition with the real neglect of Scarlet, it just all feels a bit toothless, well acted by Danielle Harold but a lot of the actually writing is farcical.
NeutronstarNeko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:36
leeruk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,632
even if he`s got quite a long list of criminal convictions .
leeruk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:39
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
even if he`s got quite a long list of criminal convictions .
Who has? Phil nope he was last convicted of something serious 8 years ago and that got overturned. So we are talking a very long time ago. If you mean Billy and Lola then yes they have a fair few recent convictions Lola in particular.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:41
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
Billy and Lola aren't squatting anymore they were found out and now rent the flat legally.

Money is no issue for Lola as she is entitled to a number of benefits to help with Lexi's care, if Billy is on a low income he would also be entitled to housing benefit. They can't recommend someone else is given residency on the basis of money.

The whole storyline is a joke that overbearing social worker came across like she had major issues.
How much do you think they would actually get? And although they can not do it based on money if they believe they can not provide adequate care it is a issue and employment is not just about money they do believe in a household with more than one adult being gainfully employed is a huge plus and like I said not just because of money but security in general. That IS taken into account.

But you are right the storyline is a joke and unrealistic. There is not even close enough evidence to remove a child from the mother in this instance. Not just the overbearing social worker but the whole thing in general. It is very hard to remove a child from it's mother that is why so many children are in terrible states by the time they have been removed.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:42
Lousiana
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
Who has? Phil nope he was last convicted of something serious 8 years ago and that got overturned. So we are talking a very long time ago.
You don't think the social and police communicate with each other? Phil's reputation procedes him - even if he has not been convicted any dealings with the police will still be on record.

It is not as silly as Billy getting custody of Jay though wtf was that about.

Lexi should be with her mum.
Lousiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:43
roverboy1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 736
and yet there are cases like Baby P...

I get that Lola losing her baby was part of the juxtaposition with the real neglect of Scarlet, it just all feels a bit toothless, well acted by Danielle Harold but a lot of the actually writing is farcical.
It's since baby P they have taken this type of action more and more, the "if in doubt, snatch them out" method of social care !!!
roverboy1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:43
john176bramley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 23,049
Who has? Phil nope he was last convicted of something serious 8 years ago and that got overturned. So we are talking a very long time ago.
So wouldn't they be interested that the last child left in Phil's charge was sent down for assault and is currently awaiting trial for murder?

I think they might be.
john176bramley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:45
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
You don't think the social and police communicate with each other? Phil's reputation procedes him - even if he has not been convicted any dealings with the police will still be on record.

It is not as silly as Billy getting custody of Jay though wtf was that about.

Lexi should be with her mum.
Just because I am giving a view does not mean I think Lexi should not be with her mother nor is it realistic. For example Lola has every right to see what is being written. And if one of the reasons they hold something against Phil is to do with arrests and not convictions any half decent lawyer could walk all over that. Goes against our very basic legal beliefs of innocent until proven guilty. Hell they do that he could even sue. Unless your suggesting they would talk to the police and then lie about the reasons for turning him down? That is more than their jobs are worth.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:47
Lousiana
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
How much do you think they would actually get? And although they can not do it based on money if they believe they can not provide adequate care it is a issue and employment is not just about money they do believe in a household with more than one adult being gainfully employed is a huge plus and like I said not just because of money but security in general. That IS taken into account.

But you are right the storyline is a joke and unrealistic. There is not even close enough evidence to remove a child from the mother in this instance. Not just the overbearing social worker but the whole thing in general. It is very hard to remove a child from it's mother that is why so many children are in terrible states by the time they have been removed.
I don't even know why Lexi was taken into care.

When you look at some real-life cases, as you say, it is quite ridiculous.

So Lola got into a fight and had to be questioned by the police about it - the baby could quite easily have been left in Billy's care or Phil's care during the interview. At the very least the social worker should have brought her back the next day.

Lexi is obviously cared for, I can't see the social discriminating against anyone on the basis of money that would be outrageous, it's why there's things like child benefit and income support for mothers.

I am not sure of the rates as I have not had any children but it must cover the basics and if Billy is struggling with the rent he can apply for housing benefits.
Lousiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:48
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
So wouldn't they be interested that the last child left in Phil's charge was sent down for assault and is currently awaiting trial for murder?

I think they might be.
I never said that getting a little bit sick of someone quoting me then saying something irrelvant and then holding that incorrect view against me.

At no point did I say anything about Ben. I merely replied to a post about Phil's so called long list of convictions which was inaccurate. I never mentioned Ben or that would not make a difference?
Like someone saying it is unrealistic and Lexi should be with her mother, something I also happen to agree on. Because at no point did I say it was either realistic or that Lexi should not be with her mum.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:49
felixrex
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,066
From what i've seen and heard, she (the social worker) is pretty average social worker !!!

Most are overbearing jobsworths who will grab a child into care on the flimsiest evidence/hearsay to cover their own backs knowing judges will nearly always side with them and family courts are secret and not allowed to be reported.

They did earn the title Social Snoopers for nothing !!!
No, most of them are actually just people trying to do their best at an incredibly difficult job in the hope of making a difference.

It's stupid generalisations and myths propagated by the likes of yourself that make that job a thousand times harder; and I'm sure you'd be the first to pipe up and complain that they hadn't 'snooped' enough when cases of severe neglect and abuse arise, such as that of Baby P. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
felixrex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:49
Lousiana
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
Just because I am giving a view does not mean I think Lexi should not be with her mother nor is it realistic. For example Lola has every right to see what is being written. And if one of the reasons they hold something against Phil is to do with arrests and not convictions any half decent lawyer could walk all over that. Goes against our very basic legal beliefs of innocent until proven guilty. Hell they do that he could even sue. Unless your suggesting they would talk to the police and then lie about the reasons for turning him down? That is more than their jobs are worth.
I don't see how any social worker could take everything into account regarding Billy & Lola and Phil and then decide the kid should stay with Phil.

There is no reason she shouldn't be with her mum. I am not saying Phil wouldn't look after her properly but the social have no evidence that Lola wouldn't either.
Lousiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:50
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
I don't even know why Lexi was taken into care.

When you look at some real-life cases, as you say, it is quite ridiculous.

So Lola got into a fight and had to be questioned by the police about it - the baby could quite easily have been left in Billy's care or Phil's care during the interview. At the very least the social worker should have brought her back the next day.

Lexi is obviously cared for, I can't see the social discriminating against anyone on the basis of money that would be outrageous, it's why there's things like child benefit and income support for mothers.

I am not sure of the rates as I have not had any children but it must cover the basics and if Billy is struggling with the rent he can apply for housing benefits.
I already made the point it was not about just the money but more so that in a house where there is 2 adults that being gainfully employed is a bonus in terms of the security of the house do not want to keep repeating myself. And when I say security that is more than financial.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:52
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
I don't see how any social worker could take everything into account regarding Billy & Lola and Phil and then decide the kid should stay with Phil.

There is no reason she shouldn't be with her mum. I am not saying Phil wouldn't look after her properly but the social have no evidence that Lola wouldn't either.
Right like you keep saying when quoting my posts please find the post where I said otherwise? You wont find it because I hav said exactly that.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:53
Lousiana
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,942
Right like you keep saying when quoting my posts please find the post where I said otherwise? You wont find it because I hav said exactly that.
I took your defence of Phil as a possible residency candidate to mean you wanted Lexi to end up with him and think she would be better off there.

Apologies if I was mistaken.
Lousiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:53
john176bramley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 23,049
I never said that getting a little bit sick of someone quoting me then saying something irrelvant and then holding that incorrect view against me.

At no point did I say anything about Ben. I merely replied to a post about Phil's so called long list of convictions which was inaccurate. I never mentioned Ben or that would not make a difference?
Like someone saying it is unrealistic and Lexi should be with her mother, something I also happen to agree on. Because at no point did I say it was either realistic or that Lexi should not be with her mum.
Sorry, my post did come across as my disagreeing with a point you hadn't made. My point still stands though, the last child in Phil's care has got a criminal record and it is very recent, it surely would count against Phil getting custody of Lexi.
john176bramley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:54
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
Sorry, my post did come across as my disagreeing with a point you hadn't made. My point still stands though, the last child in Phil's care has got a criminal record and it is very recent, it surely would count against Phil getting custody of Lexi.
What was Phil recently convicted of? As I recall his last conviction was back in 2004 and that was not even upheld as it was overturned in 2005.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 20:58
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
I took your defence of Phil as a possible residency candidate to mean you wanted Lexi to end up with him and think she would be better off there.

Apologies if I was mistaken.
No I find the storyline unrealistic and of course Lexi should be with her mum. But people are forgetting the social do not have our insight. I was just pointing out what the social would know is vastly different to what we know. In the real world Lexi would never be removed. But even some of Lolas own stuff has been silly too. Like the bum cream incident. She was advised to take the baby to the doctor who would have been able to prescribe the cream to Lexi for free. But for some reason Lola decides to steal it? Whole thing is just silly.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 21:00
john176bramley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 23,049
What was Phil recently convicted of? As I recall his last conviction was back in 2004 and that was not even upheld as it was overturned in 2005.
I'm talking about Ben's assault conviction and current murder charge, he got them both while being in Phil's care, hardly a great recommendation of Phil's parenting skills.
john176bramley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 21:06
AngelicPrincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,110
I'm talking about Ben's assault conviction and current murder charge, he got them both while being in Phil's care, hardly a great recommendation of Phil's parenting skills.
This is a tricky one. Ben was not raised by Phil alone in fact he was with his own mother until he was 11. He has spent much more time in her care then his. Now we know Kathy was a wonderful mother and although the psychiatric reports say he was fixated on his father they did not blame his father for the way he was. They do not work that way this area the reports I mean I happen to know something about. You very rarely make a "blame" game like just not done. Under that logic you could say Jay was Billy's fault. He was his legal guardian afterall not Phil. Now we know Jay is a good lad but looking at it from a legal perspective he is perverting the course of justice at the least and at the most is an accessory to murder. I am sure you could say something but not all parents of criminals are bad parents. Now we know Phil was just awful to Ben which is why much of the reason he turned out the way he did, but they do not know that, like they are unaware the Billy also used to be a child abuser.
AngelicPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 21:12
roverboy1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 736
No, most of them are actually just people trying to do their best at an incredibly difficult job in the hope of making a difference.

It's stupid generalisations and myths propagated by the likes of yourself that make that job a thousand times harder; and I'm sure you'd be the first to pipe up and complain that they hadn't 'snooped' enough when cases of severe neglect and abuse arise, such as that of Baby P. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
It's not as much a myth as you'd like to think. I trained as a social worker to "help make a difference" and saw the methods used and was so appalled at them, and the "lefty" types training and doing the job I couldn't bring myself to join such a profession, and although i completed my training, refused to be involved and never took it up.
roverboy1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:26.