i heard that paul eventually gets eleanor back. is this true.

I hope so. Its been a real pleasure watching Paul change from hard man to soft sod!

Would be great if he got full custody.

Good luck to him

I'm female but I don't believe that just because you're female you should get custody.

He's not been doing a bad job, and eventually he's heart's in the right place

I have to agree with you there. Just because you are a mother doesnt earn you the right of been a Mum. Some so called mothers need locking up.

I think Paul would make a brilliant full time Father to Ellie, and I can see lots of great & funny storylines with the 2 of them.
The cigarette one was funny. But the best one was when Patrick lost all the money to decorate her bedroom and they stole some paint from the council and it was dreadful colours and wehn they came back, Paul had one out, bought some Pink paint and painted her room lol

SF

I hope he gets her back too! -- it will make a change from seeing the mother getting custody on most occasions.

Plus, she was the one who left her on his doorstep, remember, when she didn't want her!!!

Did he manage to go to the mother and baby group? I think I've missed an episode somewhere.......

Yes he did. He got on really well with the mothers there. I've a feeling they might get involved when they find out Eleanor has been taken away from him.

Hopefully. Amy should make up her mind before she upsets others.

Paul should seek legal advice.
It's not fair on Eleanor/Amber to be passed from one person to another. Poor kid won't know who her parents are at all.

Amy>>>Patrick/Ant>>>Paul>>>Social Worker>>>Amy>>> who's next?? The milkman????

SF

Paul should have rights as should Pat

but I find the baby story......boring.

I like Dot but I finf her present problems....boring.

sorry

I agree with the general consensus about Paul getting Eleanor back....

It kinda annoyed me that Amy got her back when, as Carene pointed out, she left the baby on the doorstep!

The line was that she had sorted herself out now and had gotten a job and wanted Eleanor back....but what happens if she loses that job? and whos going to look after the baby when she's at work? Surely she cant have built up that much money all ready in order to put the baby in a creche

I am surprised they would move her cos it would mean she would have to be with someone she doesnt know and it would upset her routine

Would this happen in real life? Does anyone know? Does it matter if they're married or not? Does he have no access whatsoever now?

I just hope he gets her back.

also, even if you can't afford to look after your baby, you don't leave it on a bloody doorstep - anything could happen to it.. surely in light of the way she dumped it rather than handed it over with a proper explanation they wouldn't give her back to Amy, since she seems mentally unstable?

Another thing for the "true to life things about soap operas"

I thought the same myself!

I've actually been a bit annoyed at this storyline because, yet again, when EE gets involved with storylines that involve Social Services, they get it wrong, and blatantly so as well.

Would this happen in real life? Short answer: no. In real life abandoning a child is a criminal offence and, whilst often no prosecutions take place, particularly when the child is left somewhere he/she can be found, it is not a crime that is bypassed and not dealt with in any other way. Social Services would automatically become involved when the mother returned and wanted to lay claims to her child. They would investigate both mother and carer of the child, in this case the putative father, Paul, and firstly establish whether the child was actually being well cared for or not. In this instance Paul was taking exceptional care of the child, and thinking of her emotional welfare and not just her physical needs/care. This would have given him a considerable advantage over the mother who abandoned the child and not only didn't leave any food or instructions as to what the child liked or disliked, but didn't even bother informing what her name was! Although being a putative father, Paul has no automatic rights, he could gain them. He was in a bloody good position to have a court agree he could look after the child in the interim whilst the mother was properly assessed by Social Services. In actual fact, as the child was so well cared for there was no valid reason for Social Services to remove the child from his care and he could easily have prevented this by seeing a solicitor the moment the social worker turned up on the doorstep. Certainly SS don't turn up one day and say "we'll collect her tomorrow"!

The main factor seemed to be that SS were saying the mother had now got a job and a flat and could have the child back...there's a likelihood that if she was given the child back (very high likelihood that she would eventually have the child returned to her) that the child's name would have been placed on a Child Protection Register for a short time, to acknowledge that there might be further risk of abandonment or neglect. SS would also maintain some degree of statutory involvement. Also, SS would have arranged some kind of contact between the baby and her putative father given that it is part of the Children Act 89 that children have contact with family members as being in their best interests.

I realise that EE can't always re-enact things in the finer details, but I do think this particular storyline was done very poorly.

Thankyou JustAGirl....that was a very good explanation and I too am surprised that EE didnt deal with the storyline appropriately.

I quite agree especially as many people do no understand how government departments work and will be getting the wrong signals from this story.

I agree, I couldnt believe that SS could just turn up and arrange to take the baby away. They never even spoke to Paul previously, interviewed him, assesed the situation etc.

But this is Eastenders we're talking about!

Last night's episode was soooooo emotional. I had a lump in my throat