Has The Law Acted In This Child's Best Interest?

[sandyRoe]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/two-year-old-boy-taken-away-from-parents-because-they-smoked-too-much-in-dirty-house/ar-BBktKyJ?ocid=mailsignoutmd

[ummmm]

Yes. It wasn't just the smoking. Dirty, smelly, cluttered, unhygienic and evidence of drug use.

[anneasquith]

yes, appears to be many factors in the decision to remove this child from his home.

[andy-hughes]

As advised be previous posters, the social services operatives will have taken this difficult decision based on the current, and more importantly ongoing situation in which this poor child is living.

Some people are sadly unable to be parents, but that does not prevent them having children - and this is one of those cases.

[Baldric]

Looks ok 2 me!

[trt]

Definitely IMO, poor kid.

[sandyRoe]

I was thinking adoption was final. If the parents could have changed the way they lived and the child had been fostered they might have had some hope of getting him back.

[ummmm]

They've had 2 years to change. You get early visits from health visitors who probably raised the alarm. Social services would have been in regular contact advising them on what they needed to do. They clearly haven't done it and the poor boy has breathing difficulties.

[andy-hughes]

Sandy - I would suggest that circumstances and experience suggest that changes are unlikely - hence the removal of the child.

[sandyRoe]

Ummm and Andy, you're probably right. I was thinking if there'd been social workers around when I was a kid I could well have found myself in the care of some very unsavoury sorts.

[andy-hughes]

Sandy - I think after Baby P and Victoria Climbie, Social Services are extremely careful to make sure that cases are handled properly, and children are placed in proper environments.

At least I hope so!

[Sqad]

Of course the law has acted correctly, but my question is...why is this the only case.

One can go to any major city in the UK and see young mothers pushing their offspring in pushchairs and a cigarette stuck in their mouths (the mothers that is). Mothers, foul mouthed, badly dressed in dirty clothes with hair that has never been washed for weeks......a part of the great unwashed.
What about the children of those mothers ( no father in site) , they have absolutely no future and surely they would benefit from "being taken away."

[ummmm]

Believe me Sandy...had their been social workers when my mum was a child all of the kids would have been taken into care.

Or...if there had been a benefits system my nan, lovely person, would have been able to leave.

[sandyRoe]

I hope they are. But in light of what we know now the thought that the cure might be worse than the disease is hard to get rid of.

[anneasquith]

in fairness to the parents, the judge did comment that there was no doubt the parents loved their child. sometimes being ' loved' is not enough :(

[ummmm]

You must live in a really bad area, Sqad!

[B00]

I think the articles a bit misleading to be honest. I genuinely don't believe they took the child because of the smoking, though admittedly it was a contributing factor. It's when you add that to the apparent drug use and the squalor of the place.

[sandyRoe]

Yes. A headline stating that a child was taken from drug using parents wouldn't be as eye catching.

[anneasquith]

obviously the article is misleading, makes 'better reading' to discuss the smoking rather than possible drug issues ?

[Peter Pedant]

The parents will be aware of the consequences....

if the child is taken into care, adoption is a definite outcome they should anticipate.

[ Think car crash - there is no good in sitting in the car sear of a wrecked car and saying hmmm perhaps I shouldnt have driven so fast .... now next time...... ]

[ummmm]

There's a lot of drug users out there that get to keep their children. It's all the issues added together. Squalor, drug use, mental health and a child with asthma living in a cloud of smoke.