Child snatchers

Ohbethehokey

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

So you know better than trained people who know all the facts because you read something in the paper?

Right. You have a lot of credibility there.


Do you want to look what 'hypothetical' means?

And you and tusla know more than the doctor who carried out the assessment, right


I know what hypothetical means, do you know what slander and lying to blackened someone's name in order to further your own agenda means?

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

600euro/week/child would be worth throwing a bribe to the social worker and securing a few children.

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

325-352 foster payment
Stil can claim the dole foster payment is not counted in means test and increase for having a dependent child

So it's not €600 per week per child at all.

It is €325-352, or almost half what you claimed. The dole being a completely separate payment.

I see you now have accused posters of making up stuff. You were the person who introduced a reference to bribes into this thread. That was made up, wasn't it?

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

And you and tusla know more than the doctor who carried out the assessment, right


I know what hypothetical means, do you know what slander and lying to blackened someone's name in order to further your own agenda means?

Poster refers to bribery, then starts getting upset about slander...:D

ohnonotgmail

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Single people can foster, unless they're all millionaires, where do you think they get money to live?

who are these mythical people who are willing to give up a job to go on the dole to foster a child?

BarryD

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

You don't know the whole situation. TUSLA DO.

I admire your confidence in relation to offices of the state. Have you ever read any of Shane Dunphy's books http://www.paperbackswap.com/Shane-Dunphy/author/

Written by an insider, depicting chaos in a system where the needs of the child usually seem to be at the bottom of the list.

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

And you and tusla know more than the doctor who carried out the assessment, right


I know what hypothetical means, do you know what slander and lying to blackened someone's name in order to further your own agenda means?

How do you know they didn't get the original letter, edit it and reprint it ?

MRnotlob606

I was born when my Father was 50 and my mother was 45. I am 21 now , healthy, in College and could not have wished for a better life. Older parents tend to be quite wise imo and can be fantastic parents. These paternalistic government probably have good intentions, but are not always right in their assertions.

Ohbethehokey

gctest50 wrote: »

How do you know they didn't get the original letter, edit it and reprint it ?

Right so they're in to fordging stuff as well now...

Ohbethehokey

...is any other made up sh1t can we think of to fling at them?

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Right so they're in to fordging stuff as well now...

No, I assume they didn't - that doesn't mean anything though

joey100

@ ohbbethehokey, you have read a news paper report. You haven't read the TUSLA report, no one here has. People are taking the age gap as the only reason when it's already been said a few times it's one of 6 reasons.

A doctor will assess the physical health of a child. That's all.

Everyone seems to be saying about the poor grandparents, what about the child? TUSLA acts in the interests of the child, not the grandparents. Just because your grandparents doesn't give you an automatic right to bring up your grand child.

syklops

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

...is any other made up sh1t can we think of to fling at them?

Unicorn poop.

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

...is any other made up sh1t can we think of to fling at them?

Says poster who dropped in bribery reference!

You couldn't make this stuff up. You can make scurrilous attacks on the Social Workers motivations, but you get upset about any innuendo involving the family?

How about posters on both sides drop the utter nonsense. Its really unlikely that there was any bribery or forgery, isn't it?

Carlos Orange

joey100 wrote: »

Everyone seems to be saying about the poor grandparents, what about the child? TUSLA acts in the interests of the child, not the grandparents.

I'm sure being taken away from the people who raised you will be in no way traumatic and distuptive for a child

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

...is any other made up sh1t can we think of to fling at them?

made up ?

They are now running out of money to pay their legal team.

“My wife was at her wits end,” said the grandfather.

click here and read :

http://www.thejournal.ie/grandparents-age-foster-care-2778265-May2016/

Ohbethehokey

gctest50 wrote: »

made up ?





click here and read :
.../[/url]

Can you quote the bit about the dementia and fordging stuff?


Who wouldn't be at thier wits end if the child was removed to a different county and grandparents not informed of thier location?

Benevolent Misanthrope

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

And you and tusla know more than the doctor who carried out the assessment, right

Yeah, TUSLA will know all that and everything else about the case. Me, I know almost nothing, same as you.

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

I know what hypothetical means

I don't think you do, or at least you can't distinguish it from 'making stuff up'.

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

do you know what slander and lying to blackened someone's name in order to further your own agenda means?

So you think that TUSLA are lying and slandering people for some unknown reason?

This conspiracy goes DEEP!

Ohbethehokey

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

Yeah, TUSLA will know all that and everything else about the case. Me, I know almost nothing, same as you.

I don't think you do, or at least you can't distinguish it from 'making stuff up'.

So you think that TUSLA are lying and slandering people for some unknown reason?

This conspiracy goes DEEP!

No it's you that's slandering not tusla '

joey100

@ Psinno, I never said it wouldn't be traumatic. But what about the child's rights going forward? I've seen the family argument used an awful lot in my work and leaving children with the 'family unit'.

Again we don't know the details. I work in the area and it's next to impossible to get a child taken out of the family unit. For me, that says there is a lot more to this than the age of the grandparents.

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Can you quote the bit about the dementia and fordging stuff?


Who wouldn't be at thier wits end if the child was removed to a different county and grandparents not informed of thier location?

Its a letter - we'll presume it's real - doesn't mean it is though.

In a letter – seen by TheJournal.ie -

Benevolent Misanthrope

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

No it's you that's slandering not tusla '

Where?

I don't think you understand what 'slander' means either.

BarryD

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

Yeah, TUSLA will know all that and everything else about the case. Me, I know almost nothing, same as you.

Anyone who has complete & utter confidence in the offices of the state as regards these sort of matters is misguided. Based on a whole litany of cases since the foundation of the state where there have been serious shortcomings. Have people such short memories?

Ohbethehokey

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

Where?

I don't think you understand what 'slander' means either.

What are you on about dementia for?

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Is this the start of finding children for same sex couples?

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

600euro/week/child would be worth throwing a bribe to the social worker and securing a few children.

OP, wind the neck in a bit.

No one has thrown around as much hysteria and nonsense as you, from blaming homosexuals to hinting at bribery.

No one.

Benevolent Misanthrope

BarryD wrote: »

Anyone who has complete & utter confidence in the offices of the state as regards these sort of matters is misguided.

Indeed. But I think it's fair to say they know more about what is going on in such a case than random posters who read something in The Star.

Benevolent Misanthrope

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

What are you on about dementia for?

May I refer you back to the definition of 'hypothetical'?

Ohbethehokey

Deleted User wrote: »

OP, wind the neck in a bit.

No one has thrown around as much hysteria and nonsense as you, from blaming homosexuals to hinting at bribery.

No one.

Lol Connor, are you angry I produced the figures!

Ohbethehokey

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

May I refer you back to the definition of 'hypothetical'?

Maybe they're aliens so

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Lol Connor, are you angry I produced the figures!

Again, the hysteria, the angry emoticon and the rather forced "lol".

You sound very wound up.

You produced no figures whatsoever to support either your claim that the homosexuals are behind this, or that bribery has taken place.

Do you stand over both claims? Both are patent nonsense, you know.

Benevolent Misanthrope

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, the hysteria, the angry emoticon and the rather forced "lol".

You sound very wound up.

You produced no figures whatsoever to support either your claim that the homosexuals are behind this, or that bribery has taken place.

Do you stand over both claims? Both are patent nonsense, you know.

We're not a million miles away from the Jewish Blood Libel making an appearance here.

Ohbethehokey

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, the hysteria, the angry emoticon and the rather forced "lol".

You sound very wound up.

You produced no figures whatsoever to support either your claim that the homosexuals are behind this, or that bribery has taken place.

Do you stand over both claims? Both are patent nonsense, you know.

It was a question about we sex couples and I stand by asking it yes.


Bribery also a possibility I stand by asking it too

Children for cash is an industry. Children being abused in foster families will not be removed according. This has been reported on.

I stand by my figures too, not wound up at all. Amused by the apologists. Apologies for the angry face, on phone didn't see it till it posted.

Tell us, why you so angry about the money being discussed?

BarryD

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

Indeed. But I think it's fair to say they know more about what is going on in such a case than random posters who read something in The Star.

True but one should cast a skeptical eye too...

Ohbethehokey

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, the hysteria, the angry emoticon and the rather forced "lol".

You sound very wound up.

You produced no figures whatsoever to support either your claim that the homosexuals are behind this, or that bribery has taken place.

Do you stand over both claims? Both are patent nonsense, you know.

It was a question about samesex couples and I stand by asking it yes.


Bribery also a possibility I stand by asking it too

Children for cash is an industry. Children being abused in foster families will not be removed . This has been reported on.

I stand by my figures too, not wound up at all. Amused by the apologists. Apologies for the angry face, on phone didn't see it till it posted.

Tell us, why you so angry about the money being discussed?

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

What are you on about dementia for?

Alzheimer’s and multi-infarct dementia are twice as likely to occur in the grandmothers case

osarusan

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

I stand by my figures too, not wound up at all.

The figures you couldn't get to add up to anywhere near what you said they were?

Yeah sure.

darkpagandeath

Do they even know the life expectancy of people in Ireland ? you hit 60 and immediately get dementia ??

galljga1

whatdoicare wrote: »

There's 40 years between my husband and our daughter, does that mean he's unfit to parent??

Who makes up this rediculous criteria?!

Yeah, that's pure cac.
My parents were 40+ when they had there last 3 kids and they weren't too bad.
I am 40+ years older that my youngest and I am fabulous.

Ohbethehokey

gctest50 wrote: »

Alzheimer’s and multi-infarct dementia are twice as likely to occur in the grandmothers case

How do you deduce twice as likely?

MID generally occurs in people aged 55 to 75 years and is more common in men than in women.



We may retire all the 55 year olds

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

How do you deduce twice as likely?

MID generally occurs in people aged 55 to 75 years and is more common in men than in women.



We may retire all the 55 year olds

She suffers from Type 2 Diabetes

http://bit.ly/25icOWK

.

jmayo

bubblypop wrote: »

It's really not their job to worry about what people in social media say about them.
Their job is child protection.

Yeah remember that family in Wexford where the parents went in looking at coffins on a saturday.

Where were our child protection services that weekend ?
Oh wait they couldn't be reached.
Two little girls died that weekend.

Were the child protection services when a girl was left in a foster home where authorities knew she was open to abuse ?

It appears it isn't there job to worry about kids half the time either.

gctest50 wrote: »

It's what's best for the child long term that matters

Counting when the child is 18/19 they will be 85 - who will be looking after the farm then ?

Would the grandparents be so keen if the child was female ?

WTF !!!!!
Are you still living in 1950s or have you been watching some movies on the horror channel lately?

You should apply for job with Tusla, I reckon you would fit right in.

Sapphire wrote: »

Would you still say that if the grandparent's health has changed over the last 4 years and the 9 year old had to do most of the farm work before and after school, like milking cows and being up half the night with birthing animals, then expected to keep up with school work?

Yeah because everyone knows kids on farms with sick parents are out all night pulling calves.
Don't even mention lambing season. :eek:

They have to feed all the animals and milk the cows before school, ,then have to come home to clean the barns, milk the cows again, plough the fields, spread the slurry/manure, cut the hedges, cut the silage, dehorn the cattle, dose the cattle ...
And because they aren't strong enough or big enough to drive the tractor they have to do it all by hand.

Jaysus dragging in wrapped bales on their little wheelbarrows is some work I'll tell you.

Sapphire wrote: »

...
There were six criteria that this couple didn't meet. We know what four of them are from the newspaper reports:
-they failed to demonstrate that they can seek and accept support when necessary.
-they failed to demonstrate ability to work as part of a team with the Child and Family Agency with a commitment to operating within relevant standards, policies and guidelines of the agency.

WTF is that meant to mean ...
Rearing children isn't a team building excercise.

They forgot the other job advert lingo "the ability to work on own initiative."

Oh wait that appears to be what they took issue with. :rolleyes:

Benevolent Misanthrope

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah remember that family in Wexford where the parents went in looking at coffins on a saturday.

Where were our child protection services that weekend ?
Oh wait they couldn't be reached.
Two little girls died that weekend.

A great (albeit tragic) example of how they are damned for action when they take it, and damned for inaction when they don't.

Ohbethehokey

gctest50 wrote: »

It's what's best for the child long term that matters

Counting when the child is 18/19 they will be 85 - who will be looking after the farm then ?

Would the grandparents be so keen if the child was female ?

The child is 9. The grandmother is 66. when the child is 18 the grandmother will be 75. Where's the other 10 years coming from?

gctest50

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

The child is 9. The grandmother is 66. when the child is 18 the grandmother will be 75. Where's the other 10 years coming from?

typo obv. - there there now, i fixed it, in need of hug ?

twowheelsonly

gctest50 wrote: »

It's what's best for the child long term that matters

Counting when the child is 18/19 they will be 85 - who will be looking after the farm then ?

Would the grandparents be so keen if the child was female ?

Love to know where you're going with the female bit. If they're that bad sure they'd just make her do all the farm work.

When the child is 18 / 19 then there's also the possibility that their own parents will be in a position to resume the parenting role, or possibly even before that.

Sapphire wrote: »

There were six criteria that this couple didn't meet. We know what four of them are from the newspaper reports:
-they failed to demonstrate that they can seek and accept support when necessary.
-they failed to demonstrate ability to work as part of a team with the Child and Family Agency with a commitment to operating within relevant standards, policies and guidelines of the agency.
-grandmother's health issues are a concern.
-their advancing age is a concern.

They only publicly stated the very last one, but the previous three are the ones that would be more concerning to Tusla I'm sure.

Regarding the first 2 points, the Grandparents are also arguing that the 'team' failed to meet with them, arranged a meeting in a park and turned up late for appointments. It's all he say-she says but it stinks a bit of 'Do as we say and not as we do...'

The Grandmother has Type 2 diabetes - Over 200,000 people in this country have Diabetes. It's not always a bad thing as these people are then more or less forced to look after their health. An estimated 15,000 people over 80 are living here with Type 2. This strikes me as a non-event and just something else for Tusla to write down in defence of their decision.

Advancing age can be a concern but not always and their current age certainly shouldn't be an impediment to them fostering. They're not actually that old right now so, as I stated earlier, why not keep a watching brief on them.

Other reports included poor hygiene in the home and an unsafe farm but Tusla accepted that improvements had been made in this regard.

Whatever about the Doctors, albeit the Consultants report was very good, more notice should be taken of the school and teachers that see the child on a regular basis. They'd be the first to report any abuse or hardship so I think their report should be given plenty of weight.

At the end of the day we don't know enough to be arguing about it but from the outside looking in it appears that Tusla seem to have a very weak case.

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

It was a question about we sex couples and I stand by asking it yes.

Bribery also a possibility I stand by asking it too

Children for cash is an industry. Children being abused in foster families will not be removed according. This has been reported on.

I stand by my figures too, not wound up at all. Amused by the apologists. Apologies for the angry face, on phone didn't see it till it posted.

Tell us, why you so angry about the money being discussed?

I'm not in the least bit angry, but then again I'm not the one claiming conspiracies involving bribery and homosexuals, and making up figures (you initially claimed it was €600 per week per child, when challenged you halved that but added in dole and references to other payments).

Now, the hysteria, the lies...do you have an angle on this? Like blaming homosexuals, it sounds very agenda driven.

You may answer with a "Lol" or angry emoticon, depending on what you're veering towards right now.

Widdershins

Very sad case. I don't think some of the theories that about vindictive social workers are too far fetched. I know a few social workers from the U.K and from Ireland, and they're all humane people, and the Irish system doesn't seem riddled with corruption like the U.K system does, but there are bad eggs in every profession. On a personal level, some of my closest friends raised their own grandchild. The child couldn't have had better guardians and certainly benefited from their wisdom and experience.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't think some of the theories that about vindictive social workers are too far fetched...

Snatching them for homosexuals and in return for bribes?

It is far fetched. It is very far fetched.

Sapphire

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Regarding the first 2 points, the Grandparents are also arguing that the 'team' failed to meet with them, arranged a meeting in a park and turned up late for appointments. It's all he say-she says but it stinks a bit of 'Do as we say and not as we do...'

The Grandmother has Type 2 diabetes - Over 200,000 people in this country have Diabetes. It's not always a bad thing as these people are then more or less forced to look after their health. An estimated 15,000 people over 80 are living here with Type 2. This strikes me as a non-event and just something else for Tusla to write down in defence of their decision.

Advancing age can be a concern but not always and their current age certainly shouldn't be an impediment to them fostering. They're not actually that old right now so, as I stated earlier, why not keep a watching brief on them.

Other reports included poor hygiene in the home and an unsafe farm but Tusla accepted that improvements had been made in this regard.

Whatever about the Doctors, albeit the Consultants report was very good, more notice should be taken of the school and teachers that see the child on a regular basis. They'd be the first to report any abuse or hardship so I think their report should be given plenty of weight.

At the end of the day we don't know enough to be arguing about it but from the outside looking in it appears that Tusla seem to have a very weak case.

Oh I do think that there is grey areas on both sides of this debate. And I've absolutely nothing against older carers - some pensioners I know would make better parental figures than some parents half their age. It's just that it seems to be trotted out that it was purely down to them being 40 years older than the child when its obviously more to it than that.

I think it's good though to have Tusla decision-making under public scrutiny, whether or not their decisions were justified in this case because they have failed children in the past. I just hope that they haven't failed this child too.

The problem is the regulations for fostering are of a higher standard to conventional parenting. Quite rightly we need to ensure that the people caring for foster kids are fully vetted and if there are conditions they have to adhere to, so be it. But on the other hand we need our social services system to be equally above reproach, so they would really want to be pulling out all the stops to ensure that they absolutely make the right decisions in all current cases.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

Snatching them for homosexuals and in return for bribes?

It is far fetched. It is very far fetched.

Vindictive social worker. I have no idea what his or her reasons could be. I don't think the post I read mentioned homosexual people at all, and I wasn't commenting on that idea.

jmayo

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

A great (albeit tragic) example of how they are damned for action when they take it, and damned for inaction when they don't.

It wasn't inaction, they weren't even contactable AFAIK.

I notice you neglected to include the part about leaving kids, mentally disadvantaged kids at that, in foster homes where they were open to abuse.
Cherry picking ?

Now that was gross inaction that was actually criminal neglect.
It should have warranted immediate dismissal and a Garda trawl to ascertain if said individuals should be allowed have a dog never mind a child of their own.