Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
No, his mother didn't. Yet social workers, despite visiting the family many times, were unable to tell that the parents were incapable of looking atfer him by the childs demeanor alone. Which is my point, you're claiming observation of the childs behaviour alone is enough to tell if parents are capable, but time and time again social services have been unable to use the childs demeanor to make the right call. Obviously it's not enough.
|
But social workers should have been able to tell after visiting the family many times. Baby P suffered months of cruelty and they apparently believed his mother's excuses. Perhaps things might have been different had his case worker been more experienced and less overworked. Time and time again the signs have been perfectly obvious and social workers
still make the wrong call.
Quote:
|
These things are also about a child at birth, not several months or years down the line, you leave a child with an incapable parent at birth and the first thing you know could be when the child is dead from neglect, you might not even have chance to check their demeanor, and with babies it's incredibly difficult to tell if anything is wrong anyway.
|
That's not in dispute, but what do you suggest? What is
enough? Would you support the use of CCTV cameras in private homes for instance?
Quote:
|
So CCTV observation is wrong, but judging someone as not being a fit parent based on a learning disability alone is ok? These centres are an alternative to taking children into care immediately, they give the parents a chance to show they are capable when otherwise they'd have lost their children based on their disabilities alone. My aunt is deaf with severe learning difficulties, she had a child, and before he was even born he was put on the at risk register, and as soon as he was born they wanted to put him into temporary foster care until they could get a place in an assessment centre to see if she could cope. If the assessment centres didn't exist she'd never have got that chance.
|
CCTV observation of someone in a place where they are entitled to expect privacy is wrong. In an assessment centre, provided the subjects know they are under CCTV observation and not in a place where they should be entitled to some privacy, it's acceptable. I'm dubious about how effective assessment centres will be, but I did not say they should not exist, indeed I said I wished them every success. I can see that they might be especially useful in disability cases where a parent might otherwise lose their child, and I'd never judge someone's fitness as a parent on their disability alone. That would be absolutely monstrous.
But social workers also overreach themselves. What do you think of
this case in which a family "agreed" to spend time in an assessment centre?
Quote:
|
In all likeliness they didn't know how to switch the things off, and never gave it a second thought.
|
You trust the state a lot more than I do.