We're going to take your baby away for no reason just to maintain a quota!

Tostitos

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2IaxSsD8zog

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/nsocial119.xml

The state has set quotas for forced child removals. If they can't meet the quota for actual cases of abuse, they take children away from people who have done nothing wrong.

Aldo

/discuss

Not much to say about this, other than that would be horrible.

Tostitos

I blame this on the fact that the best and brightest in Britain died in two very bloody wars, while the shirkers and weasels lived on. Then you get a Brazil-like bureaucracy and Baby Control.

Gnome-Interruptus

That is fucking nuts... I would assume that there are still people in the UK that are homeless and that there are still kids in foster homes... so why would they take a child away from a family and place them into the system to increase the burden on the system instead of just occasionally checking in on the child.

Unless these parents are some psychotics who bounce around rehab and homeless shelters or something.

Aldo

Yeah, every Englishman currently alive is a retard.

Feral

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, reports of overbearing child protection services taking babies away for no good reason are vastly exaggerated. That she has not yet abused her child does not, in and of itself, override every conceivable reason that the baby might be taken from her. We know the woman is mentally ill, but we don't know how mentally ill she is.

Even the most abusive, mentally ill, or drug-addicted parents can believe themselves to be perfectly capable of caring for their children. And they'll all curse social services and tell everybody they know that the actions of CPS were wholly unjustified and damn the nanny state and its overbearing goons. That doesn't mean they're even remotely right.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire case hinges on this:

Telegraph wrote:

Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to "emotional abuse". Neighbours have complained that the couple's household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.

"A personality disorder" could represent the entire spectrum from mild borderline personality disorder all the way to schizoid personality disorder. The actions of social services could be perfectly justified or they could be absolutely disgusting, but without knowing more information about the mother, I'd be hesitant to jump to any conclusions.

subedii

Feral wrote: »

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, reports of overbearing child protection services taking babies away for no good reason are vastly exaggerated. That she has not yet abused her child does not, in and of itself, override every conceivable reason that the baby might be taken from her. We know the woman is mentally ill, but we don't know how mentally ill she is.

Even the most abusive, mentally ill, or drug-addicted parents can believe themselves to be perfectly capable of caring for their children. And they'll all curse social services and tell everybody they know that the actions of CPS were wholly unjustified and damn the nanny state and its overbearing goons. That doesn't mean they're even remotely right.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire case hinges on this:

Telegraph wrote:

Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to "emotional abuse". Neighbours have complained that the couple's household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.

"A personality disorder" could represent the entire spectrum from mild borderline personality disorder all the way to schizoid personality disorder. The actions of social services could be perfectly justified or they could be absolutely disgusting, but without knowing more information about the mother, I'd be hesitant to jump to any conclusions.

My thoughts as well. There's NO mention of quota's either in the article or the tape itself, and I'd be willing to call that pure hyperbole until I see evidence that states otherwise. We are only hearing half the story about Social Services seeking an injunction to put a child into care as soon as possible once it is born because they feel there is a very significant risk to the welfare of the child. They still have to go through the court system in order to do so, and they may still be rejected if the courts deem this to be an unnecessary measure. Beyond this we don't know any of the background information necessary to judge.

From listening to the recording, it's pretty clear that the lady involved isn't arguing with him at any stage about them going forward with this procedure, or why they're going through with this procedure. There's very little background information given at all. Mainly they talk about the breastfeeding arrangements. She's clearly emotional about this, but that's all you can get from the tape. Plus the tape even cuts off before they've even finished talking with the advisor. Makes it difficult to get any decent context from what could be half a conversation.

Sorry, I don't buy it. At the very least I certainly don't believe there's any sort of quota system at work. Whether or not she should have her child placed into protection depends on the specifics of the case at hand, none of which are addressed.

Quid

subedii wrote: »

My thoughts as well. There's NO mention of quota's either in the article or the tape itself, and I'd be willing to call that pure hyperbole until I see evidence that states otherwise.

The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.

Though I am still wholly in agreement with Feral. It depends on what her disorder is. Also, I'm curious as to why the father is not being considered capable unless they are simply refusing to let the child reside in the same home as the mother.

Janson

Tostitos wrote: »

I blame this on the fact that the best and brightest in Britain died in two very bloody wars, while the shirkers and weasels lived on. Then you get a Brazil-like bureaucracy and Baby Control.

...thanks!

Anyway, social services have a tough time. They either do too much, or not enough. For every report like this there's ten like this.

Tostitos

Feral wrote: »

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, reports of overbearing child protection services taking babies away for no good reason are vastly exaggerated.

I had the windows in my old office open one Friday afternoon in the summer and I heard someone down the street swearing like a sailor. Since it beats working I walked outside and looked. It was a child services worker "M-er F-er-ing" some lady she was investigating or working with. The worker was just standing on the sidewalk letting loose a torrent of profanit at the lady, who was looking out an upstairs window at her.

It's not a job I'd want and 99% of the people you deal with are probably worthless shits but the people who complain about the police here would have a stroke if they saw some of the stuff that goes on with social services.

Tostitos

Janson wrote: »

...thanks!

I'm not saying that it's your fault or that you're one of those people. I'm saying that there is a point somewhere between "knife control" "beer bottle control" and "boot control" where things are horribly horribly wrong.

Janson

Tostitos wrote: »

Janson wrote: »

...thanks!

I'm not saying that it's your fault or that you're one of those people. I'm saying that there is a point somewhere between "knife control" "beer bottle control" and "boot control" where things are horribly horribly wrong.

So that comment wasn't actually a joke, and you intended it to be partially serious?

You use a complaint about UK social services as an excuse to lambast an entire country, and then your next post acknowledges that American social services aren't all peachy-keen either?

Jacobkosh

Tostitos wrote: »

I blame this on the fact that the best and brightest in Britain died in two very bloody wars, while the shirkers and weasels lived on. Then you get a Brazil-like bureaucracy and Baby Control.

Congratulations, you've just magically managed to invalidate everything you've ever said or will ever say. Dick.

nexuscrawler

From what I gather msot places have far more children who should be removed than the system can deal with. I'm yet to hear of there not being enough child abusers to keep social services busy.

Elki