Baby P's mother to be released

NotSpaghetti

This is what I understood had driven us to look at the removal/trying to work with families to improve, issue. I don't know how many children were left in very poor situations because of this idea. I'm not sure how ethical a longitudinal study of the outcomes of these children would have been?

Good point - about longitudinal studies.

I've no experience in the field, so am not really in a position to make judgements or suggest solutions other than those based on my own personal reaction to the horror of child abuse. However, a relative of mine did short-term foster care and his and his wife's experience with one child left me rather shaken. I can't give many details - he was bound by a confidentiality clause - but the nub of it is that the quite young child they were fostering at the time was from what used to be described as a 'problem' family. He'd suffered some sort of abuse at the hands of, I believe, his father. Initially, the father was allowed only supervised contact with his son, but this changed to limited, unsupervised contact once a week.

After each contact episode, the boy came back in a state of some distress - not profound, but he was withdrawn, quiet, and sometimes wet the bed at night. My relative contacted the social services and told them because he was, naturally, worried. Unfortunately, he obviously broke some sort of 'code of conduct rule' because he suggested that the visits stop while they investigated what has going on. To cut a long story short, they were quite snippy with him and more or less told him that their policy for this child was none of his business. Not long afterward, they removed the boy from the care of my relative.

I'm afraid this has coloured my view of social services' policies on keeping families together. I don't know what kind of abuse the child suffered, whether it was 'mild' or profound, but whatever it was, his contact with his father distressed him. Perhaps the social services did actually investigate the case, I've no idea. And of course, there's always the possibility that the child was upset because he wanted to remain with his father and not return to his foster parents. But he appeared content in that environment, happily playing with the other children (the relative's biological child and another fostered child); excited about family trips out for treats, visits to zoos, museums, etc, I doubt this was the case.

There might be 'problem' families who are simply disorganised, living chaotic lives and who just don't have the practical or emotional tools / support to deal with the situation. And I'm sure these families can be helped to stay together.

But abuse is abuse, in whatever form it takes. And that means the child is at risk, possibly permanently. It's a completely different kettle of fish, IMO. But, it is just an opinion, as I have no real knowledge or experience in the field of child care - apart from being a mother, but that doesn't make me an expert, obviously.

I'm not saying that support for families isn't a good thing. It is of course. However, when we were children living in a violent, abusive, chaotic household, we just had to get on with it. There was no one. I can remember as a very small child going to a local police station with my sister and asking the sergeant behind the desk 'Can you stop our dad from hitting our mum?' He said 'Go home girls, there's nothing we can do.' I must have been very small as I can remember looking up at the desk. No Social Workers to blame then.

It will probably be very unpopular, but I know of a large family, all with significant problems, and I would say that social services have done little to address their issues.
They spend a lot of the time "supporting" by picking up the pieces that this family leave in their wake.
Running around, collecting their neglected pets, knocking on their family's door at all times of the day and night, issuing them free bus tickets, collecting their prescriptions, arranging loans,
the list is endless.

I posted last week about a current situation that one of them is in, and it is a tragedy waiting to happen.

This person has been given the get out clause of "anger issues", which they use whenever things don't go their way.

I'm not sure the kind of "support" given is appropriate.

nightowl

Do you think we’ve returned to this Dickens. I think things are as bad now as they ever were in terms of child abuse. I couldn’t go into social work now.

About 12 years ago, I had 5 visits arranged one day, in the inner city areas of Manchester. There was an hour’s break mid day. I was near The Whitworth art gallery, so called for a coffee. I spent time looking at the Hogarth exhibition. It was impossible not to feel Hogarth could have been capturing images from my day’s work. Every parent and some grandparents I was visiting had significant substance dependence issues.

Thank n you NotSpaghetti and Iam64.

Iam64

Vintage jazz, I’m sure not spaghetti will respond but I made a comment earlier about the fact looked after children tend to do less well at school, more likely to have emotional behavioural problems, they’re over represented in the prison population
Simplistically, some argue this means care is bad and keeping families together a better option
If only it was so simple
The impact of substance misuse prebirth, the devastating impact of neglect and abuse in the developmental years isn’t always factored in the simplistic approach taken.
Also LAC will be compared with the general population rather than with the children left with parents like the ones they were removed from

This is what I understood had driven us to look at the removal/trying to work with families to improve, issue. I don't know how many children were left in very poor situations because of this idea. I'm not sure how ethical a longitudinal study of the outcomes of these children would have been?

I'm another with no straightforward solutions and hear Dickens cry for "root and branch" overhall - housing, education, health, everything".

nightowl

Do you think we’ve returned to this Dickens. I think things are as bad now as they ever were in terms of child abuse. I couldn’t go into social work now.

... ah - Hogarth's Gin Lane (or Alley)...

Maybe not as bad, no. We do try at least to house people now - in the 18th century (I think Hogarth was 1750s) accommodation was grim, overcrowded, filthy. Or people just lived on the streets.

But I can see why you would not want to go back into social work now. I think the challenges are overwhelming.

Protecting the nation's children is a thankless task. No one seems to care much - until there's a tragedy like Peter and then everyone looks no further than the 'symptoms' of neglect and abuse and blames the SW. Instead of looking at the causes. Prevention is always better than cure.

I don't profess to know what the answer is.

Do you think we’ve returned to this Dickens. I think things are as bad now as they ever were in terms of child abuse. I couldn’t go into social work now.

nightowl

I think there is an even greater danger in thinking abuse only happens amongst the poor, the criminal, the ‘feckless’.

Oh, I agree absolutely.

Child abuse happens in every culture, every class, every section of society. Abusers do not have a sign on their head that marks them out as evil. They live amongst us in every strata of society.

Yes, I'm only too aware of that. The shock you feel when you discover that 'nice' middle-class family - described by others as seemingly a "normal, happy family", have meted out years of abuse on their offspring.

My post was concerned really with that section of society which AA has described...

The more the state intervenes, the more it is required to intervene and therefore the more chance that its intervention will, as in the case of Baby P, not be enough.

... and goes on to say...

There is no easy solution to the societal malaise this case highlights, but the fact remains, as many social workers will testify, there is a growing class of state dependants who have gained few if any life skills other than an ability to work the system.

This is the "underbelly" I was referring to. This growing class of state-dependents. I doubt they're all child-abusers, and I certainly don't go along with the idea that removing their benefits will solve any of their problems, or the problem itself.

I think AA is right when he says we live in a very atomised society / culture. Huge wealth exists side by side with abject poverty - sometimes in the same borough. And the impoverished are becoming detached from social norms, living in a world of drug-taking, alcoholism, criminal activity,... a peculiar form of low-level hedonism, satisfying their needs and wants in the only way available to them.

That's why I believe we ultimately have to address the whole notion of how we construct the society we live in. The problems that these growing band of 'misfits' (for want of a better word) create are not going to be solved by the state simply handing out funds and leaving the various care agencies to get on with the job of sorting them out. We need to look at education, the education system itself - are we teaching children to be rounded human beings? I don't think we are; we need to look at opportunities; the creation of worthwhile jobs; and we need to look at mental-health... everything, in fact. We need to look at everything that constitutes 'society'.

That’s a very thought provoking post Dickens. I’d just like to make a couple of points. The people you describe undoubtedly exist but I think there’s a danger in thinking of such families as an underbelly of society living lives of depravity, debauchery and perversion, tucked away on - often - meagre, run down, housing estates. Another world, which most of us know nothing about except when such cases as Peter's makes the sensational headlines.

I think there’s a danger in demonising such parents, separating ourselves in our minds and thinking they’re ‘not like us’. I’m afraid many abusive parents are very ordinary, looking after their children more or less, behaving in ways that do not mark them out as any different in the deprived areas where they often live. The children usually survive, with little happiness and few expectations or aspirations. The cases that hit the headlines - the tragedies that we are all forced to confront - are in the minority of the misery children experience.

I think there is an even greater danger in thinking abuse only happens amongst the poor, the criminal, the ‘feckless’. As someone pointed out, Logan Mwangi’s mother came from a wealthy, professional family and was privately educated. Laura Castle and her husband underwent a lengthy and thorough assessment to be approved as adoptive parents, and Laura Castle then killed the baby placed in their care. The baby is far from the only child murdered by foster or adoptive parents.

Child abuse happens in every culture, every class, every section of society. Abusers do not have a sign on their head that marks them out as evil. They live amongst us in every strata of society. We have a long way to go to even begin to understand what makes someone torture and kill a child, and there are no easy answers. I wish I could be more optimistic but after 40 years working in the field I feel we are no further forward than when I started out and Maria Colwell was the child whose death meant ‘lessons had been learned’ and ‘this should never happen again’.

Vintage jazz, I’m sure not spaghetti will respond but I made a comment earlier about the fact looked after children tend to do less well at school, more likely to have emotional behavioural problems, they’re over represented in the prison population
Simplistically, some argue this means care is bad and keeping families together a better option
If only it was so simple
The impact of substance misuse prebirth, the devastating impact of neglect and abuse in the developmental years isn’t always factored in the simplistic approach taken.
Also LAC will be compared with the general population rather than with the children left with parents like the ones they were removed from

Genuine question 'notspaghetti'but what do you mean by looked after children fare worse?

tickingbird

.Dickens

An excellent post. I had already read the piece in your link and it’s depressingly familiar.

I agree with everything you’ve said and, I, too, also have sleepless nights trying not to think about the fear and terror some children suffer on a daily basis. I read something earlier about some woman doing something awful to a dog and wish I hadn’t.

I like to believe for every bad person in this world there’s two good. I think it’s time I concentrated on that thought. I suggest you also concentrate on the good that people do and sleep well.

... thanks tickingbird

I understand about the dog. And you feel so powerless to do anything. The deed has been done, and your imagination runs riot.

Ultimately, I have to remember that there are good people in the world, it's unbearable otherwise.

.Dickens

An excellent post. I had already read the piece in your link and it’s depressingly familiar.

I agree with everything you’ve said and, I, too, also have sleepless nights trying not to think about the fear and terror some children suffer on a daily basis. I read something earlier about some woman doing something awful to a dog and wish I hadn’t.

I like to believe for every bad person in this world there’s two good. I think it’s time I concentrated on that thought. I suggest you also concentrate on the good that people do and sleep well.

NotSpaghetti

Thanks for trying to get us over the feckless/benefits thing
I was not "picking a fight" here. Just trying to explain my thoughts.^
Thanks again.

... and thanks for your reply. Food for thought.

"Dickens*
I think I just maybe didn't say what I was thinking earlier on but I didn't want to equate fecklessness with benefits. I basically think they are not necessarily bedfellows.

Regarding "keeping the family together" though, as Iam64 says much earlier on, this came about, as much policy does, in response to research which shows that not keeping them together is generally worse. "Looked after" children have very poor outcomes so there was a deliberate effort to make poor parents into "good enough" parents, if possible, before removing the child.

Obviously there was never any suggestion that children would never be removed and one of Iam64's earlier posts actually quotes some statistics around removal.

One of the things we found in the aftermath of the baby P case was that thousands of people made referrals to social services about suspected child abuse/neglect - many many people who wouldn't have done so before. This did uncover some poor children who had been previously off the radar but it also was scary and difficult for thousands of families under suspicion. It also made it nearly impossible to function as a childrens' social worker in some areas because all these referrals needed swift appraisal and most were not carried any further. The unforeseen consequences was that some families in desperate need were given less attention.

Thanks for trying to get us over the feckless/benefits thing.
I was not "picking a fight" here. Just trying to explain my thoughts.
Thanks again.

That's a very moving post, Dickens. I won't open the link, but I agree with what you say.

tickingbird and Not Spaghetti

You've both probably read this...

www.theguardian.com/society/2009/aug/16/baby-p-family?msclkid=59c6b15fcef111ec99c16eca82348f47

... I've only just plucked up the 'courage' to read it. The thought of defenceless children suffering unimaginable horrors and physical pain, not to mention the psychological misery their undeveloped brains can't comprehend, really does keep me awake at night. That's a weakness on my part.

This is about more than chaotic lifestyles and people on benefits. There's an underbelly of society living lives of depravity, debauchery and perversion, tucked away on - often - meagre, run down, housing estates. Another world, which most of us know nothing about except when such cases as Peter's makes the sensational headlines.

Talk about removing their benefits so they have to get a job (so many people suggest this) is pointless. They've gone beyond that point. If you removed their benefits they would not find a job, they would resort to - or extend - the criminal activities they are often already involved in. And any children they had would bear the brunt of their further impoverishment.

Tinkering at the edges of this nightmare world is also pointless. Employing more social workers won't make much difference - what can a social worker actually do to counter generations of abuse so deeply ingrained in the psyche of the abused and the abuser? How can they counteract the mind-set of women with no moral compass - because they were never given one, don't even know what it means - who almost instinctively choose men with the worst traits of men, the bullies, misogynists, abusers?

"Keeping the family together" seems to be the ideology of the social care system. Is this because it's traumatic to break up families - or because it's a cheaper option? I don't know the answer.

And I don't know the answers to any of this, except that as long as this dystopian world continues with such people as Peter's mother - and her own mother - leading dehumanised lives, with brutalised men who have a penchant for "hardcore pornography, internet chat sites, vodka bottles, attack dogs, Nazi paraphernalia, knives and replica guns"... men who slip into and out of their lives ad nauseum, then babies, toddlers like Peter, children, will continue to be abused, tortured and murdered.

Perhaps we need to look at the whole concept of 'society' and the way in which we structure it? Adding an extra couple of social workers to the agencies involved, with endless meetings dealing with the aftermath of such cases to discover "what went wrong" and the now clichéd "missed opportunities" will do absolutely nothing to deal with an enduring and deep-rooted complex problem of people living on the edges of society.

And now I'm going to lie awake thinking about the horrors that possibly at this very moment powerless and helpless children are suffering.

Not Spaghetti

AA puts it slightly differently - which doesn't seem to link weak character and lacking motivation etc with relying on benefits.
Sorry if I gave some other impression.

You said it wasn’t relevant to this case. It’s very relevant and is often a common denominator along with a partner that isn’t the abused child’s biological parent.

AA doesn’t mention relying on benefits but weak character and lacking motivation plus single parenthood and chaotic lifestyle is very strongly linked to relying on benefits.

tickingbird

^The scene of the crime itself seemed to contain all the potent symbols and sordid realities of the feckless, desensitised version of contemporary life.^

Feckless? When I said the same yesterday I was asked what that had to do with it???

I think this might have been me tickingbird
If so, I think you may mean my objection to your phrase which said something like "these people" who always seem to "live a feckless life on benefits".
AA puts it slightly differently - which doesn't seem to link weak character and lacking motivation etc with relying on benefits.
Sorry if I gave some other impression.

I'd rather see resources going into prevention, and I don't see how that can work without attempts at understanding and trying to make sense of why these seemingly senseless abuses keep happening.

Amen to that!

There's a huge difference between understanding cause and effect and "sympathising" with the perpetrator of such crimes.

volver

Can I just ask something contentious?

Do the people posting upsetting details about child abuse cases think that it is going to change anybody's minds?

If not, why are you doing it?

I think this is a good question.

I would really rather not know the details. We know what happened, and can discuss the case without reference to upsetting accounts of child abuse. This is a discussion board, not a sensationalist tabloid. The only reason I can think that people might have for posting them is that they think it will make their case for lynching stronger. I don't think it works like that though - either people believe in a revenge motive or they don't.

Re the 'understanding' question - I think there is a difference between seeking to understand the reasons for crime and seeking to understand the offender. If there are potentially causal links between crimes it makes sense to explore ways of reducing their impact in the hope of reducing the number of instances.

That doesn't necessarily mean that offenders should be treated more leniently because they were affected by social factors though. Laws and penalties need to be enforced equitably, I think. Coming from a damaged background might explain someone's actions but it shouldn't excuse them. Targeted rehabilitation is a good idea, so that people can unlearn patterns of behaviour, but I'm not sure that reducing sentences is the right way to deal with it.

I'd rather see resources going into prevention, and I don't see how that can work without attempts at understanding and trying to make sense of why these seemingly senseless abuses keep happening.

Dickens I liked that you posted the quote because a key phrase from the Anthony book blurb in the context of this discussion is (imo):

But after the events of 11 September, he noticed that many colleagues and friends seemed determined to understand the perpetrator rather than support the victim.

Seeking to understand what lead to Islamic extremism and what lead to a women allowing such atrocities to be done to her child aren't so very far apart. Extreme right-wing thinking and association link the two. You can't start to address a problem until you understand what the problem is by examining the factors which lead to it.

You cannot force actions on people because social services are underfunded. If the NHS gets to the underfunded stage where there aren't enough maternity services what are you going to do? Force contraception on selected women? Someone else said upthread wtte it's a slippery slope towards a dystopian totalitarian state akin to Atwood's Gilead. Because Connelly is not an isolated case. There are 100s of baby Peters. Peter was failed by myriad people working for underfunded agencies not just the three jailed for his death.

What is happening in the USA with Row v Wade is truly frightening. Look at what is happening here in the UK. Democracy eroded by the right wing. Where does it end? Enforced sterilisation. Sending people we don’t like or want to Rwanda. Does none of this ring a warning bell that the world has been here before?

There is an assumption that the Parole Board's decision is wrong. On what basis? Where’s the evidence? Ignore Raab’s posturing. His agenda is to undermine the legal system for other reasons and to save his own job by appealing to popular hysteria.

I honestly think some people enjoy hurting children. Little Arthur"s grandmother offered to have him but they said no.

tickingbird

I’m aware of Andrew Anthony but don’t understand why you felt the need to give me a potted history, or why it would lead to a bunfight. Please explain.

You, apparently, used the word "feckless" in a comment and it seems were taken to task over it by someone who didn't understand it's relevance to this case. Some think it's judgemental - whatever - but its use is often controversial.

AA is a controversial journalist who didn't hesitate to use the word.

As we don't all read the same media, not everyone is familiar with all the journalists who write for the various sections of it. So the "potted history" was just for general interest (other people read posts directed at one particular person)... that's all.

Anyway, I apologise for making it look like I was trying to 'educate' you. I really didn't intend that, it was just to broaden the debate.

As for the bun fight:

I have an opinion - about AA, and more widely, the terminology used to describe Peter's mother, and those like her. It's a contentious opinion and likely to cause offence to some on GN as we are a polarised group. Hence the 'bun' fight.

Andrew Anthony spent months investigating the case of Baby P, as you probably already know. My reply to you was a failed attempt to widen the debate, I thought I might elicit an opinion from you, that's all. My post is irrelevant -just mentally 'bin it'.