Did I do the right thing?

ArtSmart

LyndaMcL wrote: »

It's disgraceful that they'd give the child back to its mother. I hope they at least had a social worker present to talk to the mother before giving the child back.

can't remove a child without procedure, unless the child is in 'clear and present danger' (no, not the movie)

generally best to leave children with their mother but under supervision/ assistance. mistakes have been made with this policy, but overall it's seen as the best way rather than all of the elements of separation/ foster care etc, in most cases

Lisha

ArtSmart wrote: »

can't remove a child without procedure, unless the child is in 'clear and present danger' (no, not the movie)

generally best to leave children with their mother but under supervision/ assistance. mistakes have been made with this policy, but overall it's seen as the best way rather than all of the elements of separation/ foster care etc, in most cases

Which explains exactly why a amendant to the constitution is needed which protect the rights of the child above or even equal to the family unit

The parents no matter what they do will get chance after chance and the suffering of the child is sadly seen as collateral damage

THe OP did the right thing, to think they guards had to give child back to the mother is wrong IMHO

Delancey

While there is an understandable belief among folks here that Social Workers will definitely be getting involved the sad fact remains this is far from certain.
The Guards will no doubt make a report out but whether it gets acted upon is far from certain.

Lest we forget the recent report on deaths of children in care - the HSE is still placing children with unvetted foster parents some of whom have criminal records. Our Social Care system fails children everyday and this child has a big chance of being another one the ' system ' failed.

The OP did the right thing but whether the organs of the state do likewise remains to be seen.

ArtSmart

Lisha wrote: »

Which explains exactly why a amendant to the constitution is needed which protect the rights of the child above or even equal to the family unit

The parents no matter what they do will get chance after chance and the suffering of the child is sadly seen as collateral damage

THe OP did the right thing, to think they guards had to give child back to the mother is wrong IMHO

well there's a need for change all right. but the child isnt left in the home to protect the family unit, but for the welfare of the child, as despite rough environ removal is often traumatic. yes, it complex. still some changes would be welcome.

ArtSmart

Delancey wrote: »

While there is an understandable belief among folks here that Social Workers will definitely be getting involved the sad fact remains this is far from certain.
The Guards will no doubt make a report out but whether it gets acted upon is far from certain.

Lest we forget the recent report on deaths of children in care - the HSE is still placing children with unvetted foster parents some of whom have criminal records. Our Social Care system fails children everyday and this child has a big chance of being another one the ' system ' failed.

The OP did the right thing but whether the organs of the state do likewise remains to be seen.

and this is one of the required changes. but will the required funding and infrastructure be made avail? i doubt it.

CodyJarrett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTobHOyLvRU

Lisha

Below quoted from http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionReviewGroupReport.pdf
5 expanded constitutional guarantee for the rights of the child
There is no express reference in Article 41 to the child. As already indicated, the focus of this Article is on
the rights of the family as a unit and on protection of it from intervention by the State rather than on the
rights of the individual members of the family. Only Article 42.5 makes reference to the rights of the child
and imposes any specific obligation on the State.
The Report on the Kilkenny Incest Investigation chaired by Judge Catherine McGuinness observed that ‘the
very high emphasis on the rights of the family in the Constitution may consciously or unconsciously be
interpreted as giving a higher value to the right of parents than to the rights of children’ and went on to
recommend the amendment of the Constitution to include ‘a specific and overt declaration of the rights of
born children’. end quote

IMO the Judge is correct here in saying that parents rights are given a higher priority than a childs. I would love to see the constitution amended to give a child equal status.
Parents should not be given chance after chance to f*ck up again and again. Ultimately all this will create is a f*ucked up child.
I know what Im suggesting is nigh on impossible to implement but it kills me to see kids getting no real chance at life

admiralofthefleet

there is a family across the road from me who let their kids wander all over the place. one of them is barely walking and he is always walking out onto the road. cars do be flying up and down and i hate to think its only a matter of time

i am always out because i dont smoke in the house on front of my son but i do be in bits watching the little boy walking around.

you did the right thing op because any decent parent would do the same thing

Delancey

While instances like the Kilkenny Incest case support the idea of a constitutional amendement that may strenghten the hand of Social Services we must not forget these are the same Services that have failed thousands of children and seen many die while ' in care ' or ' under supervision '.

I have no children but if I had I would vote no - giving these idiots more power than mine as a parent is like a turkey voting for Christmas .

Who should parents trust ? Themselves or Social Workers ??

Lisha

Delancey wrote: »

While instances like the Kilkenny Incest case support the idea of a constitutional amendement that may strenghten the hand of Social Services we must not forget these are the same Services that have failed thousands of children and seen many die while ' in care ' or ' under supervision '.

I have no children but if I had I would vote no - giving these idiots more power than mine as a parent is like a turkey voting for Christmas .

Who should parents trust ? Themselves or Social Workers ??

A considerable number of the children who died while under the care of the state, some were in fact in their parents care at the time and others were missing without permission from where the state had placed them

Jason Todd

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Don't want to rock the boat but I don't understand why the OP and Jason didn't call social services sooner.

I should have.

Edit: Didn't feel it was 'our business' first, and then thought the social services had a grip on the situation.

Tombi!

Jason Todd wrote: »

I should have.

Don't feel bad about it.
Not everyone makes the right decision.

jazzzzy

You did the right thing, OP. You'd feel worse if it happened again and something more serious happened to the child - whereas now you can relax knowing you've taken the appropriate course of action. Hopefully the mother will either get a severe reality check, or the child will be placed in a more secure and safe environment, until the mother learns to adopt to the important needs of her own child.

Andy Carroll

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Don't want to rock the boat but I don't understand why the OP and Jason didn't call social services sooner.

Unfortunately the attitudes we have seen embodied in caricature by two trolls on this thread have some parallel in society and reality. We are living in a society where we throw around words like "rat" and "snitch" and we make people - who are genuinely concerned - feel like somehow to inform the proper authorities is a bad thing. We see this on these forums on every subject from TV Licensing to Tax Evasion to Child Welfare.

I guess thats the mark of a troll. Someone who comes to a forum and just acts like an idiot gets banned quickly and has little effect. Someone however who comes espousing - even in caricature - a very real but deplorable sentiment as we have seen twice in this thread can very quickly get a reaction out of people.

So while I can not answer for Jason or the OP - I would guess the answer has a lot to do with the fact that in our society we often feel like doing the right thing is somehow the wrong thing and we second guess ourselves for much longer than we should.

BarnhallBull

Jason Todd wrote: »

I should have.

Edit: Didn't feel it was 'our business' first, and then thought the social services had a grip on the situation.

At least you did it in the end! It's very easy for people to say they'd have acted immediately, and easy to be outraged when hearing a story but very different when you're actually in the situation yourself. I'm not saying you shouldn't have acted sooner, but you did act and hopefully you've had a positive impact on that child's future. Sadly, given my experience of social services in this country, I wouldn't be too sure

RoyalMarine

you did the right thing for sure.
reading that story I felt angry at the parents.

neonman

Just came across this thread and I can't believe what I just read ! You're a true life hero for what you did for that toddler.

If it happened once ok maybe the door wasn't fully closed but for it to happen, 3 maybe more times and for the Mother not to lock the door at night is unbelievably. Get one of the mats you can put under the childs mattress that an alarm goes off if no movement is felt for 30 seconds, problem solved.

Any update ? Hope the toddler is well.