Were sorry we took your kid, but you cant have him back!!!

#1
The Times reports that a child who was unneccesarily taken in to care (and then fostered out) will NEVER be reunited with his true mum.

On the grounds he has been fostered and has gone too far down the road. He doesn't know who his real mum is, and was in distress when he spent just one night with her.

Social Services have fcuked up big time on this one, and while I don't usually condone obscene amounts of compensation I suggest they pull their finger out on this one.

And the arrseholes who took the kids in the first place, and made an innocent mother have only 1 1/2 hours suppervised access a month with the children need to crawl to her door step and beg forgiveness.

After that, her whole family need help to restabilise and bring hte "wayward stray" home. I suggest the "SS" mobilise on that one

I am going to assume though, the "SS" are better at steaming in, kack handed than sorting out their own fcuk up. The mother will be left with a shattered family, which will go down the pan without massive help, and the "SS" involved will just crack on destroying another family through negligence and incompetetance.

This idiotic shambles of a service need a sort out, and stop the insane methods of medical "experts" so called, destroying families with their theories.
 
#2
The mind boggles. Is this just another example of the nanny state interfering to meet Government targets and to hell with the families?
 
#3
If all Social Workers were Grandparents, there would not be half the problems in familes today!

How can a 24 year old graduate know what is right and applying 'Common Sence' to each and every case? All they know is some of the books they have read and hounded by government targets to place children, what confidence does this bring to the issue?

It should be an individual response to the very individual issue in each case.
 
#4
CharlieBubbles said:
If all Social Workers were Grandparents, there would not be half the problems in familes today!

How can a 24 year old graduate know what is right and applying 'Common Sence' to each and every case? All they know is some of the books they have read and hounded by government targets to place children, what confidence does this bring to the issue?

It should be an individual response to the very individual issue in each case.
My bold. Read between mammoth sessions on the p1ss, and whilst trying to get rid of acne and virginity.
 
#5
Sadly social workers tend to be a bunch of numpties with no idea of what goes on in the real world, other than their own self importance.

There are many stories of them deliberatly coming to their own opinions and using the shield of "in the childs interest" to cover themselves. The secret trials are an abomination on the country. It is NOT British Justice.

More stories here.

Before Louise Mason’s trial in 2004, social workers apparently told her that they would be putting her children up for adoption irrespective of the outcome. That is precisely what they did, two weeks after her acquittal. They clung to their own “guilty” verdict despite the verdict of the jury.

In far too many cases social workers are putting themselves above the law. Doctors increasingly report that a child who is admitted to hospital has injuries that may be “nonaccidental”. This is translated by local authorities as proving guilt.
These social workers need finding and putting out of a job. They continued to heap misery on a family, despite the judges opinion on the matter. They decided that they were above teh judge, jury and they were also the executioner.

As for Adoption being the end to the mothers/families rights. That needs addressing. The child is theirs by genes and biology. The child is the adoptive parents by law. If the law makes a mistake, then genes and biology wins. The child should be returned to the family that was unfairly treated.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3419700.ece

Last autumn a small English congregation was rocked by the news that two of its parishioners had fled abroad. A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.

Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret. The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates.
The 56 year old who helped his WIFE to hide from the "SS" was given 16 months for abduction (of his WIFE) how much would a mugger receive now adays?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3406214.ece

This article shows the true idiocy at large in our Social Services.

A grandfather jailed for NOT AVOIDING HIS GRANDSON. The SS decided that their "care plan" was being undermined by the grandparents, despite the fact that the child was alwasy running to them and calling htem.

Sounds like their "care plan" was a crock of sh1t, and they didn't like the fact that this fact was getting air time.

The grandfather has been sent to prison for nearly two years. These would be our over filled prisons.

Charles Roy Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He knew that a jail sentence was the penalty he might pay if he did not take steps to avoid his stepgrandson. But this seems desperately unfair. The teenager, whom we shall call John, has been in care since his mother died of an overdose. He has been phoning his grandparents and running away to see them for some time. In the end, social services became concerned that the grandparents were “undermining the care plan” by continuing to see John. It does not appear to be clear to the grandparents what the care plan is. But it does not seem to include them, even though they could presumably be John's first port of call when he leaves the care system at 18.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3042581.ece
 
#6
And looky Government targets again. A government intent on micro manageing fcuking up the country.

This couple have become a cause célèbre for campaigners who fear that the Government’s drive to get more children adopted is having a perverse effect on some local authorities. For the same local authority to leave a man alone with a child that it thought he had harmed, but to take away another that had not been harmed, does seem bizarre. Until you realise that the child from the first marriage was disabled, and older, and would have been hard to place with an adoptive family. The child from the second marriage was a healthy baby, just the kind of “adoptive commodity” that local authorities find relatively easy to place.

I still believe that ministers were right to want to speed children out of the hell of care. But they have put social services departments in a strange position. We now expect them to combine three contradictory roles: to protect children, to keep families together and to meet adoption targets (which bring financial rewards).
Surely the way ahead is to keep the family together, providing the child is safe.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1832184.ece
 

Similar threads


Top