Rotherham Dad loses his kids

[loraward]

If it were as simple as just a smack on the hand, or on a well padded bottom, then there might be almost an inch of mileage in your argument, but we are talking about the intimidation and domineering of his whole family unit.

 

A judge is not going to whip a child away from its parents for something as simple as a tap on the hand.

 

I have already posted a small amount of the available evidence which supports the fact that they do actually whip children away parents for no good reason.

Based on the story the judge simply didn't like his opinion and his wife doesn't support the claim that he was domineering of his whole family unit.

 

If he broke the law he should be tried and if found guilty he should be given the appropriate punishment, if not then he and his wife should be with their kids.

[astrols]

If it were as simple as just a smack on the hand, or on a well padded bottom, then there might be almost an inch of mileage in your argument, but we are talking about the intimidation and domineering of his whole family unit.

 

A judge is not going to whip a child away from its parents for something as simple as a tap on the hand.

 

Being a reasonable human being you would think that, wouldn't you? As it happens I am close to a case where the father has just been granted the right to have his now 4yr old over the weekends (when social workers don't go out unless the child is dead, or as near as!) because apparently this is the age when boys in particular need to learn to identify with their father. By doing this, the Judge, but more importantly, the Social Services, have condemned this child to the druggie thug culture, thieving and violent world of his father, knowing that the man has several convictions, not least the one for assaulting a taxi driver, as well as the fact that he abused and assaulted the mother in front of the child and knocked the child to the other side of the settee resulting in a bloody nose and cut lip! There is much more involved in this case but I'm not going to bore you with that. I would though, like to stress that although I blame the Social Services as a body, my concern is that they are seriously understaffed and cannot therefore spend the time that is desparately needed to properly evaluate each individual case.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 01:41 ----------

 

I have already posted a small amount of the available evidence which supports the fact that they do actually whip children away parents for no good reason.

Based on the story the judge simply didn't like his opinion and his wife doesn't support the claim that he was domineering of his whole family unit.

 

If he broke the law he should be tried and if found guilty he should be given the appropriate punishment, if not then he and his wife should be with their kids.

 

Absolutely agree with all your posts on this.

[natjack]

They're not 'kids stepping out of line', are they? They're babies, or they were at the time of removal. The oldest was a few months old, it says, and the latest one was left with him for 6 months. What reason is there for slapping a baby, especially hard enough to leave red marks, that anyone can think of? He's obviously not changed his ways, so they've had to take this one to keep it safe.

 

No excuses.

[mafya]

They're not 'kids stepping out of line', are they? They're babies, or they were at the time of removal. The oldest was a few months old, it says, and the latest one was left with him for 6 months. What reason is there for slapping a baby, especially hard enough to leave red marks, that anyone can think of? He's obviously not changed his ways, so they've had to take this one to keep it safe.

 

No excuses.

 

it may be in relation to an older child as the article states=

 

" in 2010 the father appeared before the same court and was slammed by a judge for his rigid and inflexible thinking in relation to an older child.

He said then that he was not prepared to settle for a shade of grey but saw everything in black and white insisting on his right to smack children.

During that hearing he expressed concern about his rights in relation to his children and insisted he had done nothing wrong and there was no need for him to change"

 

Has this guy hit the younger kids or is it due to his rigid thinking that he has a right to smack his kids?

I think there is a lot more to this story myself, I feel for the kids in all of this....

Edited March 31, 2015 by mafya

[Ms Macbeth]

If the kids have been removed from his care, there will be plenty of evidence, believe me.

 

Most of it won't be in the public arena though.

 

Sadly the cases that do make the public arena are normally those that end in tragedy.

 

There is a shortage of qualified children's and families social workers in the UK (hardly surprising). Its the only category of social worker that non EU immigrant workers can apply for from outside the UK.

 

Social workers are vilified for taking children into care, but if a child is hurt or killed whilst with its birth family, the social workers are always deemed at fault. I wouldn't be a children's social worker for a gold pig!

[Plain Talker]

I have already posted a small amount of the available evidence which supports the fact that they do actually whip children away parents for no good reason.

Based on the story the judge simply didn't like his opinion and his wife doesn't support the claim that he was domineering of his whole family unit.

 

If he broke the law he should be tried and if found guilty he should be given the appropriate punishment, if not then he and his wife should be with their kids.

 

I know a number of people who have not broken any law, but who were inadequate parents, who did not have any parenting skills.

 

Their children were, quite rightly, taken into care. The social services' duties are to protect the child, and, even if no harm has come to a child, but there is potential for the child to come to harm, be it through the action, or inaction of the parent or guardian, then the social services' duty of care is to prevent harm, and to remove the child if necessary.

 

The safety of the child is paramount. There are cases where the child is better off being removed from the parent(s) and given protection.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 16:35 ----------

 

I for one do not wish to be standing around wringing my hands and weeping "Why did this happen??!" When this troglodyte's child or children turn up harmed or worse, dead.

 

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Plain Talker
because auto correct decided pound was spelt without a u

[loraward]

I know a number of people who have not broken any law, but who were inadequate parents, who did not have any parenting skills.

 

Their children were, quite rightly, taken into care. The social services' duties are to protect the child, and, even if no harm has come to a child, but there is potential for the child to come to harm, be it through the action, or inaction of the parent or guardian, then the social services' duty of care is to prevent harm, and to remove the child if necessary.

 

The safety of the child is paramount. There are cases where the child is better off being removed from the parent(s) and given protection.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 16:35 ----------

 

I for one do not wish to be standing around wringing my hands and weeping "Why did this happen??!" When this troglodyte's child or children turn up harmed or worse, dead.

 

An ounce of prevention is better than a pond of cure.

 

Having the opinion that someone is an inadequate parent is not a very good reason to snatch their children.

 

Children are more likley to be seriously injured whilst playing than from a smacked bottom.

 

Its not against the law to smack your own child's bottom, so it's hard to make a moral argument for snatching a child from its parents just because it might get a smacked bottom.

 

If the moral guardians we employ are determining who is a fit and proper person to care for a child, and then snatching children away from people they deem unfit, we should be made fully aware of the guidelines they use.

 

Once someone as been deemed unfit to care for children it is immoral to allow them to conceive, because the child will inevitably be snatched, it would be better for all if the unfit people were sterilized.

 

If you want to prevent child from being injured or killed there are better ways than stopping a parent smacking their bottom, many thousands of children are injured every day but to my knowledge not one needed A & E because they had their bottom smacked.

[taxman]

Having the opinion that someone is an inadequate parent is not a very good reason to snatch their children.

 

Children are more likley to be seriously injured whilst playing than from a smacked bottom.

 

Its not against the law to smack your own child's bottom, so it's hard to make a moral argument for snatching a child from its parents just because it might get a smacked bottom.

 

If the moral guardians we employ are determining who is a fit and proper person to care for a child, and then snatching children away from people they deem unfit, we should be made fully aware of the guidelines they use.

 

Once someone as been deemed unfit to care for children it is immoral to allow them to conceive, because the child will inevitably be snatched, it would be better for all if the unfit people were sterilized.

 

If you want to prevent child from being injured or killed there are better ways than stopping a parent smacking their bottom, many thousands of children are injured every day but to my knowledge not one needed A & E because they had their bottom smacked.

 

You seem a bit obsessed with the "bottom smacking".

 

Physical harm to buttocks, hands and legs. If someone did that to you you'd be pressing the Police to bring charges of assault.

 

But you think it's OK on very small children? Takes all sorts I suppose.

[loraward]

You seem a bit obsessed with the "bottom smacking".

 

Physical harm to buttocks, hands and legs. If someone did that to you you'd be pressing the Police to bring charges of assault.

 

But you think it's OK on very small children? Takes all sorts I suppose.

 

No I'm not, No I wouldn't and no I didn't, and I think some of the time it is more affective and more humane than the alternative.