# I cant quite believe this is true - newbrn ivf twins taken into care



## chloe99 (Aug 27, 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194332/They-took-away-twins-Id-joked-birth-spoilt-body.html?ITO=1490


----------



## Blu (Jul 28, 2005)

I would take it with a truck-load of salt. The courts require an overwhelming amount of carefully compiled and validated evidence before they allow the removal children, especially babies. The process is a proper court hearing with the social workers under intense cross-examination from the parents lawyers, and independent lawyers appointed to represent the children.

This is just further fuel to the Daily Mails ongoing campaign of attacking social workers. They would equally put all the blame on the social workers if those babies were harmed (somehow it's never the parents fault if they harm their children - always the social workers  )

Blu


----------



## chloe99 (Aug 27, 2008)

do you really think so? i understood that because of pressure not to ge it wrong (ie leave one too many children with their families) there were more frequent errors of the opposite kind, with children being removed frm their families.  After all, I can't imagine any parents would exhibit risk of significant harm or worse whilst in hospital under scrutiny of nursing staff?


----------



## Blu (Jul 28, 2005)

Absolutely - it is a very robust system under enormous amounts of scrutiny. The only reason the number of removals of children have gone up since Baby P is that Social Services are receiving 50 - 100% more referrals, so they are being made aware of children who were previously at risk but had not been brought to their attention (remember Social Workers don't go and knock on every parents door to check on all children - they have to rely on teachers, GPs, nurses, etc and members of the public to make a referral first, before they can investigate - and even then the concerns have to be pretty high)

The alarming reality from that is that so many people were aware of children at risk, but didn't tell anyone until Baby P brought child protection to everyone's attention.

Unfortunately, because of confidentiality and the rights of the children, social services are not allowed to speak to the press, so parents can say whatever they wish. I was aware of a case reported in local press about 'Miracle Baby born at home before medics arrived' - the parents were sent all sorts of baby gifts etc for their baby in special care - the real story was that the baby WAS born at home and premature, and before the ambulance arrived, but the baby was prem because parents were drug users, mother had no ante-natal care, and they were too drugged up to realise she was in labour   The baby was in special care because it was withdrawing from drugs  So you can see how the press can take a piece of information, which is correct, but not provide any of the back story that would completely change the context


----------



## Bearfriend (Mar 28, 2008)

Yeah and if you read between the lines to the story, it seems there's more going on than 'oh I just made a comment about my caer scar'.  Mum has short term memory loss and the nursing staff referred because they were failing to feed the babies properly or change nappies regularly whilst in hospital.  If there are struggling to do that in hospital with the additional support what will they be like at home?  There have been problems with the parents working with professionals and police had to be called to a case conference.  I'm guessing that the mother may have had a head injury in the past leading to memory loss, difficulty retaining new information and possibly impulse control problems (anger management.)

Social workers don't take people's children away its the courts that make the decision after extensive arguments on both sides and judges can be very dismissve of social workers.  The mail has been running a campaign against social workers for years and its just more of the same.  They never point out the realities of the system, just headline the crap social workers again.  Actually its abueaty of a story for the mail as they can bash IVF AND social workers at the same time, perfect for them!  Think of how manay crap inaccurate and bias IVF stories you've read in the mail and just transfer that to social worker stories - same old rubbish different story.


----------



## BABY2 (Nov 28, 2007)

I found this story so Bizarre! I work with teenage mums and there have been instances where we were desperate for Social Workers to step in and take a child from his/her mother ...it's a long drawn out process, one which I was involved in with one of my clients just before I went on mat leave...Social workers have to have loads of evidence before a judge can grant a care order, so in this couples case there must have been quite a "few things" wrong for the judge to give the interim care order so quickly?!

The other strange thing was I thought they must have been in an excellent hospital, when I gave birth 4 months ago, I was lucky if I could get the nurse to come and help do anything as they were so busy and short staffed; so for them to be "under observation" from nurses is either a fabrication/ a very well staffed hospital/ or something seriously was worrying the staff  

also Chloe, I think if a parent is desperate to have some sort of help with their baby, whether be it they have mental health issues, Munchhausen's by proxy, lack of adequate housing etc, I think these are ideal times for some of these parents to exhibit risk of significant harm to their children , so they can draw the attention of staff and get the help they are desperately seeking but not knowing how to voice.


----------



## ckhayes (Nov 7, 2006)

Have you read the comment off Victoria (Sydney) on there....IVF should be ABOLISHED it causes to many problems and its to costly..!!!!! Im fuming...!!!!     Small minded B****

Im sure there must be more to it  


Clare x


----------



## PinkPeacock (Nov 9, 2006)

Clare - I just read that 

'This is why IVF should be abolished as it creates too many problems and is too costly. Without jnowing all the facts it is hard to work out who is in the right but clearly the mother has brain damage from her car accident with memory loss so why would anyone think that she would be capable of looking after babies?'

        

What on earth has IVF got to do with it? Are they suggesting the IVF MADE the mother go wrong?


----------



## ckhayes (Nov 7, 2006)

I was FUMING this morning....


C.x


----------



## PinkPeacock (Nov 9, 2006)

Another well thought out and well reasoned comment...

Here we go again, babies are being taken to meet adoption targets. When will everyone wake up??
- phoenixjenny, Not the Uk any more, its a scary place., 20/6/2009 0:39


----------



## Blu (Jul 28, 2005)

Grrrr   There are no such things as 'adoption targets' they are a figment of the Daily Mail's imagination


----------



## Angua (Aug 12, 2008)

This is why I refuse to read the Daily Mail. Scare-mongering seems to be the angle they always take on everything!


----------



## Jumanji (Feb 13, 2008)

Angua - I am so with you; I loathe the Daily Mail with a passion.


----------



## Pink Sparkles (Apr 19, 2009)

Hi all

I was fuming after reading that article    with that comment about IVF should be abolished!  -  I just had to make a comment myself.  Just hope they print it - might make people think that how cruel IF actually is.

Tracy
x


----------



## ckhayes (Nov 7, 2006)

I commented and the B******S  didnt print it.  I wasnt rude, just expressed myself.....goes to show..!!!!


----------

