I'm a bit of an Anglophile and think you guys got a lot of things going for you. The wide latitude given to your social services to interdict parental custody, however, is not one of them.
Baby removed from mother's custody because she's deemed 'not clever enough.'
Seriously, WTF?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Okay, Brits...
Okay, Brits...Follow
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
I absolutely believe it's possible, but unless or until a person PROVES him or herself to be an actual threat to the child's physical well-being, custody should not be interfered with, and her having "mild learning disabilities" in no way suggests that would be the case. I would have no problem with authorities mandating regular visitations and check-ups to be sure she's doing well with the baby, and interfering if it seems she's not, but declaring before the baby is even born that she's unfit is simply absurd.
You made me read a Daily Mail article, I now despise you 
As for the article, if the couple can safely raise the child in a loving home I cannot see why social services are involved. In my opinion this would be a disgusting abuse of resources being spent to ruin a family. Some of the most cruel and vile parents I have seen have a high dose of intelligence but lack a heart.
But ... there may be evidence and reasons not stated in the article for the social services decision.
Personally? From experience I'm inclined to beleive that some sections of social services are full of c**p. They investigated my mother when I was little as I fell and bruised myself (as if children do not fall of bikes
). With the Baby P abuse and the "Satanist" incidents and more, I'm just inclined to think to err on caution and challenge any judgement from Social Services as a matter of course.
I wish I could find the article but there was a case of children being taken from one family in an irreversable judgement only for the children to be later diagnosed with a disease that explained the so called signs of "abuse".
But then again lets not keep this as anti UK social services only! The US tried to take a mothers children into care not knowing she was a Chimera. Why do beaurocrats never account for the always occuring exception?
All in all I'm sure more lives are improved by the role of social services but I'm convinced lives have definitely been ruined by them.
As for the article, if the couple can safely raise the child in a loving home I cannot see why social services are involved. In my opinion this would be a disgusting abuse of resources being spent to ruin a family. Some of the most cruel and vile parents I have seen have a high dose of intelligence but lack a heart.
But ... there may be evidence and reasons not stated in the article for the social services decision.
Personally? From experience I'm inclined to beleive that some sections of social services are full of c**p. They investigated my mother when I was little as I fell and bruised myself (as if children do not fall of bikes
). With the Baby P abuse and the "Satanist" incidents and more, I'm just inclined to think to err on caution and challenge any judgement from Social Services as a matter of course. I wish I could find the article but there was a case of children being taken from one family in an irreversable judgement only for the children to be later diagnosed with a disease that explained the so called signs of "abuse".
But then again lets not keep this as anti UK social services only! The US tried to take a mothers children into care not knowing she was a Chimera. Why do beaurocrats never account for the always occuring exception?
All in all I'm sure more lives are improved by the role of social services but I'm convinced lives have definitely been ruined by them.
OK.
Incidentally, given the angle the Mail is taking on this, and the liberties it is wont to take with facts, "mild" could in fact be quite severe.
Incidentally, given the angle the Mail is taking on this, and the liberties it is wont to take with facts, "mild" could in fact be quite severe.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
OK.
Incidentally, given the angle the Mail is taking on this, and the liberties it is wont to take with facts, "mild" could in fact be quite severe.
Incidentally, given the angle the Mail is taking on this, and the liberties it is wont to take with facts, "mild" could in fact be quite severe.
Perhaps, but it still doesn't explain why the more common-sense approach of supervision and visitation wasn't taken.
The Daily Mail ran two articles in the same week last year.
One condemned 'Do-Gooder' social workers for ripping a poor ickle infant from the arms of its loving mommy.
The other condemned 'incompetent' social workers when a drug addled mommy starved her ickle infant to death.
Damned if they do; damned if they don't.
Social Workers assessed this case (and under Child Protection law, had to involve doctors, police and educationalists in the decision), judged the child's safety compromised. I've sat on Child Protection Case Conferences, and as well as finding them upsetting, find that decisions follow rigorous assessment of heaps of detailed reports and evidence before taking a child into care is the result. Merely getting a child on the 'At Risk' register needs evidence, not just the opinion of a single professional, never mind a full-blown removal order.
I suspect that in this case, they based their decision on a smidgen more than an article by a failed journalist who could only get a job with the Mail.
ETA:
So the article is based on her side of the story. What's the nature of her learning difficulty? Sufficiently severe for professionals to deem her not competent to understand the implications of marriage? (Under UK law, marriage is a legal contract, and as with any legal contract, both parties must be capable of understanding the full nature of the contract).
Secondly, do we know that the husband/father isn't a factor? Does he represent a risk to the infant? Are there other aspects of the family that influenced the decision? We 9quite rightly) aren't privvy to this private and confidential information.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 4:17am by Nobby
One condemned 'Do-Gooder' social workers for ripping a poor ickle infant from the arms of its loving mommy.
The other condemned 'incompetent' social workers when a drug addled mommy starved her ickle infant to death.
Damned if they do; damned if they don't.
Social Workers assessed this case (and under Child Protection law, had to involve doctors, police and educationalists in the decision), judged the child's safety compromised. I've sat on Child Protection Case Conferences, and as well as finding them upsetting, find that decisions follow rigorous assessment of heaps of detailed reports and evidence before taking a child into care is the result. Merely getting a child on the 'At Risk' register needs evidence, not just the opinion of a single professional, never mind a full-blown removal order.
I suspect that in this case, they based their decision on a smidgen more than an article by a failed journalist who could only get a job with the Mail.
ETA:
So the article is based on her side of the story. What's the nature of her learning difficulty? Sufficiently severe for professionals to deem her not competent to understand the implications of marriage? (Under UK law, marriage is a legal contract, and as with any legal contract, both parties must be capable of understanding the full nature of the contract).
Secondly, do we know that the husband/father isn't a factor? Does he represent a risk to the infant? Are there other aspects of the family that influenced the decision? We 9quite rightly) aren't privvy to this private and confidential information.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 4:17am by Nobby
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
The US justice system wrote:
We can't ban stupid.
MDenham wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
The US justice system wrote:
We can't ban stupid.
I prefer this one.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Debalic wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
The US justice system wrote:
We can't ban stupid.
I prefer this one.
Really not sure about that picture. Hugh Laurie used to play stupid.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 6:51pm by GwynapNud
GwynapNud of the Emerald Dream wrote:
Debalic wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
The US justice system wrote:
We can't ban stupid.
I prefer this one.
Really not sure about that picture. Hugh Laurie used to play stupid.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 6:51pm by GwynapNud
But playing at stupid is easy. Curing stupid, not so easy. Also, I heart Hugh Laurie
Lady DSD wrote:
GwynapNud of the Emerald Dream wrote:
Debalic wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Do you doubt that it is possible to be too stupid to raise a child or is it some particular of this case?
The US justice system wrote:
We can't ban stupid.
I prefer this one.
Really not sure about that picture. Hugh Laurie used to play stupid.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 6:51pm by GwynapNud
But playing at stupid is easy. Curing stupid, not so easy. Also, I heart Hugh Laurie
You know what is freaky? I grew up knowing him as a comedian playing silly roles to great effect. Then a friend from the US told me about "House" and we talked about this great 'sexy actor' .... then the penny dropped that it was him *Hugh". Well my jaw dropped, I watched House and was shocked to find myself agreeing. He is somewhat yummy and a dish
I'm watching House right now. Marathon on Bravo.
I DVR them, then once in awhile sit down and have my own marathons. I dont watch tv on a regular basis, but that is one show I really enjoy sitting down to. I enjoy Houses snakiness, wit, and humor. And eyes.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 6:41pm by DSD
Edited, Jan 23rd 2010 6:41pm by DSD
And then I have to ask myself: why do I watch House while I'm eating??!? 
Subconscious diet technique?
mmmmmmHouse.
I want to call social services every time I see a woman hand a baby-bottle full of coca-cola to an infant or toddler.
Then there was that woman that microwaved her baby dry "like I do with the tea-towels", and killed it, of course.
As to this couple, at least their child has the chance of growing up pretty.
I want to call social services every time I see a woman hand a baby-bottle full of coca-cola to an infant or toddler.
Then there was that woman that microwaved her baby dry "like I do with the tea-towels", and killed it, of course.
As to this couple, at least their child has the chance of growing up pretty.
If I was on the run from the state, and 2 child services people showed up to take my child... Those child services people would not survive.
Recent Visitors: 557
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (557)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Okay, Brits...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC