What do you do with people like this?

previous user

She's a ballad singer.

TomSweeney

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of person I was talking about in the other thread about people with APD or some similar personality type, who IMO aren't capable of ever being properly "free citizens" without a risk to the public. After a certain number of run ins with the Gardai, they should be GPS tagged so that as soon as a call comes in reporting this kind of scumbaggery, the cops can look at an app and get an idea of which known scumbags were in the vicinity at the time.

It wouldn't be unconstitutional if it was done in lieu of a suspended jail sentence for the previous offence.

APD ?


Assoc. personality disorder ?

wexie

TomSweeney wrote: »

APD ?


Assoc. personality disorder ?

Antisocial personality disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

Or at least that's what I think he meant

Larbre34

She's well aware of the conditions the child seems to have, must get her bonus welfare.

I dont care about rehab and treatment and whatever other options she might have, right there on the day that was filmed she wasnt fit to have a child in her care and the child should be removed from her. Anything that happens later doesnt affect that child's immediate welfare.

GreeBo

wexie wrote: »

But...not until we can be sure that taking the child into care is actually going to lead to a better outcome for the child. And that certainly doesn't seem to be the case at the moment.

In general or in this specific case?
I find it hard to imagine that any other upbringing for this child in Ireland would turn out worse than what they are currently experiencing.


In the 50 odd minutes of footage, where the woman knew she was being recorded, she repeatedly shook, agitated and covered the head of her "severely disabled, downs syndrome, autistic" child.

I can only imagine what happens in private.

And her faux outrage regarding "locking up my child" is complete nonsense and merely an excuse for her to act like a raving lunatic.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not denying there absolutely are plenty of cases where I would have recommended that a child or children should immediately be removed from the family home because they were at immediate risk of imminent danger. I wouldn't make that recommendation off the basis of having watched a half hour clip like the one in the opening post. I wouldn't have any definite criteria simply because every situation is different. I didn't see a child at risk in that clip, I saw a woman who was hamming it up for the camera precisely because she knew she was being recorded. She was behaving like an asshole. Does her behaviour indicate she presents any risk to her child? In my opinion it doesn't.

Of course she's not setting a good example for her children, I'm not disputing that, but if that's the standard by which we judge children should be removed from their parents care, then we would simply be over-run with an abundance of children and no resources to provide them with the kind of care that would even come close to the unrealistic standards often expressed in just AH alone of parents.

I dont see the logic behind only removing children who are in immediate physical danger versus leaving children in that toxic environment all their lives.

IMO that attitude is what perpetuates the cycle of these anti-social families.
These children have a very slim chance of growing up as normal, contributing members of society. To me thats as much abuse as if the child was being physically assaulted.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's plenty can be done, and is being done, in spite of shamefully limited resources, and that's why there isn't enough being done, because of limited resources, and that's why when I see people suggesting that the children should simply be removed from the family home in those circumstances, I have to believe it's a typical hyperbolic reaction rather than just a piss poor misunderstanding of the stark reality for the people dealing with those types of cases with what limited resources are available to them.

Any more resources should be used to take *more* children from this sort of environment and give them a proper chance at a life.

I dont think anyone is advocating removing the child and abandoning them in a dysfunctional state home. Improve the state care for these children so they have a chance at life.

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

In general or in this specific case?
I find it hard to imagine that any other upbringing for this child in Ireland would turn out worse than what they are currently experiencing.


In the 50 odd minutes of footage, where the woman knew she was being recorded, she repeatedly shook, agitated and covered the head of her "severely disabled, downs syndrome, autistic" child.

I can only imagine what happens in private.

And her faux outrage regarding "locking up my child" is complete nonsense and merely an excuse for her to act like a raving lunatic.

But the way it would be looked at is that the child is with a parent and will continue to be with that parent rather than being sent from pillar to post.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely don't agree with it but that's how the system seems to work. The standards for raising a child are incredibly low and don't go to far beyond : is it being fed, clothed and not beaten

There's not much in the way of consideration of : will this child grow up to be a habitual criminal, have psychological issues or anything along those lines.

And it's not for lack of wanting to help on behalf of the likes of social workers etc. The resources just aren't there :mad:

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see the logic behind only removing children who are in immediate physical danger versus leaving children in that toxic environment all their lives.

There isn't any logic there for you to see

It's literally a case of : we can only help the absolute direst of cases that are in immediate danger right now.

That's it, that's all there is room for in the budget.

Conservative

As good a case for sterility or forced abortion as you will find. Dublin is a complete kip due our soft touch approach to scum like this.

Cement bag at sea job.

GreeBo

wexie wrote: »

There isn't any logic there for you to see

It's literally a case of : we can only help the absolute direst of cases that are in immediate danger right now.

That's it, that's all there is room for in the budget.

I'd rather take resources that are being spent on that mother and spend them on the child tbh.:o

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd rather take resources that are being spent on that mother and spend them on the child tbh.:o

I wouldn't argue with you. The system is completely screwed as far as I can tell.
But you know what would happen if anybody suggested it no?

'hooomaaan rights, entitlements** yada yada yada

** I don't really know how to phonetically spell this in skanger accent, you'll just have to imagine it

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Why is she left with the kids? No doubt this is what we’re encouraging to reproduce, they’re a drain on society, and their off spring will be no different.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see the logic behind only removing children who are in immediate physical danger versus leaving children in that toxic environment all their lives.

IMO that attitude is what perpetuates the cycle of these anti-social families.
These children have a very slim chance of growing up as normal, contributing members of society. To me thats as much abuse as if the child was being physically assaulted.

The logic behind it is as simple as this - as bad as their situation currently may be, the outcomes are better for children that remain with their parents, than the outcomes for children taken into care, and this isn't just in Ireland, but it's been observed internationally -


Scoping Review of International and Irish Literature on Outcomes for Permanence and Stability for Children in Care


If you want better outcomes for children as adults, and the chance at a normal life, then the last thing you do is remove them from their parents, and place them in care, and I could have picked many passages from the review above, but I'll just give you the brief overview:

1.2 Research on Outcomes for Children in Care: An Overview

In Ireland children frequently enter care due to abuse and neglect in the family home. The literature from Ireland largely corroborates international studies of factors predicting a child’s entry into care, although there are some differences which may be attributable to Ireland’s distinctive ‘care histories’ (O’Brien, 2013). This literature is detailed in the chapters that follow. Generally speaking, the research broadly indicates that poverty and dependence on social welfare, homelessness and family break-up, experience of violence in the family home, the child’s mental health and the intellectual capacity of parents are predictive factors indicating a child’s placement in Ireland’s care system (McSherry et al., 2008). Other compounding factors identified in the Northern Irish and international literature as increasing the likelihood of entry into care include alcohol misuse, particularly by the child’s biological mother, and substance misuse (Malet et al., 2010). Children in care frequently experience placement instability and multiple moves, significant behavioural and psychological problems, education deficits, and difficulties in maintaining familial contact and social networks (Rock et al., 2013; Daly and Gilligan, 2005). Those in long-term care are more likely than other children to experience difficult transitions to independent life and to experience homelessness and poverty and other social harms in adulthood. Such findings are consistent with international and UK literature which postulates that children who experience care placements are 10 times more likely to be more excluded from school, 12 times more likely to leave with no qualifications, and 60 times more likely to become homeless later in life (see McSherry et al., 2008).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the woman who acted like a complete asshole, what I'm saying is that solely in terms of the welfare of her children, and the potential outcomes for her children - the likelihood of a better outcome for those children as adult is greater if they remain in her care, than if they are taken into care provided by the State.

GreeBo wrote: »

Any more resources should be used to take *more* children from this sort of environment and give them a proper chance at a life.

I dont think anyone is advocating removing the child and abandoning them in a dysfunctional state home. Improve the state care for these children so they have a chance at life.

But the resources simply aren't there! There's plenty of money being poured into child welfare services, but most of it is going on administration, salaries and other various payments, and frankly, fcukall of it is being spent on improving child welfare and resources for helping families and children! When you have the HSE, TUSLA, Gardaí and social workers all blaming each other for failing children, and foster carers claiming that they simply don't have the resources they need, you're going to end up in a situation where children taken from their families and taken into care, are simply likely to be worse off, experiencing more abuse and neglect, at all sorts of levels, from physical, emotional, sexual, verbal and psychological abuse, to social exclusion because of who they are, the outcomes are often worse than if they had been left with their families and the family helped to care for them:


Child with Down Syndrome and severe autism who was abandoned at birth was 'not receiving sufficient HSE and Tusla support'
Foster care report calls for specialist Garda child protection units
Fostered boy was rejected over two years by 28 schools
Child and Family Agency missed chances to unite girl with father


These are not isolated or outlier cases, they are the standard, and by standard I mean that they aren't in any way unusual. They're pretty much the run of the mill cases. There's literally thousands of cases like them in just Ireland alone. So you have the problem of an abysmally failing system of State child welfare services that's already underfunded and overloaded, with fcukall resources, and if there is more funding made available it's soaked up by salaries and administration so that they can churn out even more reports to justify seeking more funding, and when you've experienced that kind of shyte from people who claim to have children's best interests in mind, you really do begin to question whether the children are better off with their parents, or would they be better off being taken from their parents and thrown into a system where the likely outcomes for them are far worse than anything they will experience by not being thrown into the State care system only to be forgotten about.

Mrsmum

Poor girl. I bet she's been used and abused all her life. Multiple complicated issues likely. Rage and frustration causing her to self sabotage and rail against the world. As in all these cases, there probably a kernel of truth in what she's saying but it's lost in the ranting and raving. She needs help and kindness badly.

Poor poor little child. Very unhealthy upbringing. Hope he has other healthier people watching over him.

Poor us. Society pays in the long run.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The logic behind it is as simple as this - as bad as their situation currently may be, the outcomes are better for children that remain with their parents, than the outcomes for children taken into care, and this isn't just in Ireland, but it's been observed internationally -


Scoping Review of International and Irish Literature on Outcomes for Permanence and Stability for Children in Care


If you want better outcomes for children as adults, and the chance at a normal life, then the last thing you do is remove them from their parents, and place them in care, and I could have picked many passages from the review above, but I'll just give you the brief overview:




Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the woman who acted like a complete asshole, what I'm saying is that solely in terms of the welfare of her children, and the potential outcomes for her children - the likelihood of a better outcome for those children as adult is greater if they remain in her care, than if they are taken into care provided by the State.





But the resources simply aren't there! There's plenty of money being poured into child welfare services, but most of it is going on administration, salaries and other various payments, and frankly, fcukall of it is being spent on improving child welfare and resources for helping families and children! When you have the HSE, TUSLA, Gardaí and social workers all blaming each other for failing children, and foster carers claiming that they simply don't have the resources they need, you're going to end up in a situation where children taken from their families and taken into care, are simply likely to be worse off, experiencing more abuse and neglect, at all sorts of levels, from physical, emotional, sexual, verbal and psychological abuse, to social exclusion because of who they are, the outcomes are often worse than if they had been left with their families and the family helped to care for them:


Child with Down Syndrome and severe autism who was abandoned at birth was 'not receiving sufficient HSE and Tusla support'
Foster care report calls for specialist Garda child protection units
Fostered boy was rejected over two years by 28 schools
Child and Family Agency missed chances to unite girl with father


These are not isolated or outlier cases, they are the standard, and by standard I mean that they aren't in any way unusual. They're pretty much the run of the mill cases. There's literally thousands of cases like them in just Ireland alone. So you have the problem of an abysmally failing system of State child welfare services that's already underfunded and overloaded, with fcukall resources, and if there is more funding made available it's soaked up by salaries and administration so that they can churn out even more reports to justify seeking more funding, and when you've experienced that kind of shyte from people who claim to have children's best interests in mind, you really do begin to question whether the children are better off with their parents, or would they be better off being taken from their parents and thrown into a system where the likely outcomes for them are far worse than anything they will experience by not being thrown into the State care system only to be forgotten about.

It seems your articles are comparing the results of children in care with children at home.
How about comparing children in care with children left in broken, dysfunctional, substance abusing homes?

You have to remove children living in normal, healthy families otherwise the comparison is meaningless!

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

It seems your stiches are comparing the results of children in care with children at home.
How about comparing children in care with children left in broken, dysfunctional, substance abusing homes?

You have to remove children living in normal, healthy families otherwise the comparison is meaningless!

I can't say I blame you for not wanting to read an 85 page review, but the key point of the review was entirely about comparing the outcomes for children remaining in broken, dysfunctional, substance abusing homes, versus the outcomes for those children of being taken into care. The idea of the review was to examine whether providing families with the supports they need, leads to better outcomes for children, than removing children from their parents of origin, and placing them in the care of the State:

Much international research focuses on reunification because of its primacy as a permanence outcome in other countries. That said, studies of children in care in Ireland, such as Listen to Our Voices (McEvoy and Smyth 2011), found that many children and young people dream of returning to ‘normal’ family life with their families of origin (see also McEvoy and Smyth, 2011, cited in TUSLA, 2014a: 79). Much research from Britain and Northern Ireland focuses on the process of reunification, highlighting that it is not straightforward (see Farmer, 2014). Important lessons can also be drawn from this and applied to the Irish experience. Firstly, in cases where children return to their parents, it must not be assumed that this will result in better developmental outcomes (see Kiraly and Humphreys, 2016). Secondly, relationships between parents of origin, children and foster parents are important for shaping outcomes for permanence and stability. Indeed, Northern Irish literature suggests that when children maintain good relationships with parents of origin, this often contributes to permanence outcomes for children and young people, and may also improve young people’s self-esteem and behaviours (McSherry et al., 2008). However, Kiraly and Humphreys (2016) are more critical of this approach; their study from Australia shows that maintaining contact with families of origin can have negative consequences for child well-being, particularly in cases where families are affected by alcohol dependency and drug abuse, for example.

Internationally, research suggests that reunification is more likely to be successful when child welfare services, service agencies and other appropriate practitioners are involved in monitoring and supporting children and families throughout the reunification. This highlights the importance of relationships between children, foster families and parents of origin (see Salas-Martinez et al., 2014). It should also be noted that in some instances, it is not in the best interests of the child to return to the family home and live with biological parents, siblings or other caregivers (Kiraly and Humphreys, 2016). Several studies call for effective and comprehensive evaluation of the abuse and neglect problems that instigate removal from the family home in the first place, saying that this must be undertaken prior to reunification or foster care allocation, to ensure that risks to the child’s well-being are minimised or removed altogether. In addition, follow-up work relating to the child’s health, well-being and school participation must be completed in order to ensure that the best interests of the child are prioritised.

The point being that it's generally regarded as leading to better outcomes for the child or children involved that first of all they remain with their parents of origin, and secondly that their parents receive the necessary supports to be able to care for their children, rather than removing the children from the family home, separating them from their parents, and placing them in the care of the State.

Effectively what they're saying is that counter to your argument that more resources should be put into the provision of care by the State, instead the same resources should be invested in enabling the parents of those children to be in a better position to be able to care for their children, and that leads to better outcomes than the alternative which is removing those children from the care of their parents.

There's a reason btw I didn't at all make any comparison between children living in dysfunctional families, and children living in normal, healthy families, because the standards by which one would define either dysfunctional families, or normal, healthy families, are entirely subjective, and entirely dependent upon context, and that's why what is considered to be in the best interests of the child are entirely dependent upon context in each individual case. Everyone has their own individual standards of what they believe is in children's best interests, but I'm not really concerned that Irish society will ever get to a stage where children are removed from the family home because their parents weren't ensuring that their children were getting their five-a-day, or the opposite - that parents who made their children eat their greens could ever be considered guilty of child abuse.

wexie

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Effectively what they're saying is that counter to your argument that more resources should be put into the provision of care by the State, instead the same resources should be invested in enabling the parents of those children to be in a better position to be able to care for their children, and that leads to better outcomes than the alternative which is removing those children from the care of their parents.

But are we (the country as a whole) doing either of these with any great effect?

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't say I blame you for not wanting to read an 85 page review, but the key point of the review was entirely about comparing the outcomes for children remaining in broken, dysfunctional, substance abusing homes, versus the outcomes for those children of being taken into care. The idea of the review was to examine whether providing families with the supports they need, leads to better outcomes for children, than removing children from their parents of origin, and placing them in the care of the State:





The point being that it's generally regarded as leading to better outcomes for the child or children involved that first of all they remain with their parents of origin, and secondly that their parents receive the necessary supports to be able to care for their children, rather than removing the children from the family home, separating them from their parents, and placing them in the care of the State.

Effectively what they're saying is that counter to your argument that more resources should be put into the provision of care by the State, instead the same resources should be invested in enabling the parents of those children to be in a better position to be able to care for their children, and that leads to better outcomes than the alternative which is removing those children from the care of their parents.

There's a reason btw I didn't at all make any comparison between children living in dysfunctional families, and children living in normal, healthy families, because the standards by which one would define either dysfunctional families, or normal, healthy families, are entirely subjective, and entirely dependent upon context, and that's why what is considered to be in the best interests of the child are entirely dependent upon context in each individual case. Everyone has their own individual standards of what they believe is in children's best interests, but I'm not really concerned that Irish society will ever get to a stage where children are removed from the family home because their parents weren't ensuring that their children were getting their five-a-day, or the opposite - that parents who made their children eat their greens could ever be considered guilty of child abuse.

The definition of dysfunctional may be subjective, but I think most people can identify it when they see it. I'd be fairly confident this women does not run a functional home.

Of course children want to be part of normal family life, I disagree that most of them can "return" to one though, since there was never one there to begin with.

I'm not for a moment advocating wholesale removal of children from their homes, I'm sure there are a large percentage of cases where merely giving the parents support will resolve the problem since the parents actively want to be better parents.

Somehow I doubt this woman fits that category though.

A parent who doesn't provide their child with their 5 a day because they don't know any better can certainly benefit from support, the other type didn't provide them because they are busy getting off their heads on various substances and causing antisocial behavior

One eyed Jack

wexie wrote: »

But are we (the country as a whole) doing either of these with any great effect?

Truthfully, and I have to stress that this is solely from my own subjective perspective - we're not. We're generally failing miserably at addressing the issues of children being raised in environments where the outcomes are unlikely to lead to healthy, well-balanced, contributing members of society, and that goes across the whole social spectrum. Families living in dire poverty and destitution are only one aspect of society, albeit the most visible one and the people that command the least respect from society. They're easy targets for all sorts of crap, basically.

Much harder to determine are the outcomes for children who are raised in families where they don't come to the attention of the authorities because of their ability to present themselves as pillars of their respective communities, yet behind closed doors there's a different story entirely. They're not dependent on any form of support from the State, and are therefore unlikely to be subjected to any form of observation or intrusions from the State, and it's actually the children in those families I'd be more concerned about, because the abuse is often hidden and goes under the radar, leading to outcomes as adults that leave a whole lot to be desired.

GreeBo

Do you the children in your second scenario are a larger group than the other ones?

I'd have to say I believe it to be the tiniest of minorities.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you the children in your second scenario are a larger group than the other ones?

I'd have to say I believe it to be the tiniest of minorities.

That's really my point - that we generally believe people from more affluent, well-educated backgrounds couldn't possibly be as dysfunctional as people who come from less affluent and less well-educated backgrounds, and yet the reality is that they are.

It's difficult to put figures on it because again it's entirely dependent upon context, but anti-social behaviour is by no means limited to adults who came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Wealthier people just happen to be able to afford better education is all, and they can afford better lawyers.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do see your point, I just don't agree with it, and thankfully too for society we don't just lock people up without any chance to justify their actions. That's totalitarianism you're arguing for, not justice, and it has never led to a harmonious society.

So putting violent criminals in jail (assuming it's proven before a jury that they did indeed engage in violence) is "totalitarianism"? That's just bizarre.

Depends upon how you define ideas like scumbags, and doing shìtty things to other people.

Being violent and abusive towards members of the public, and committing acts of violent vandalism makes one a scumbag. There are literally no circumstances under which it does not make one a scumbag.

Like I said previously, there's two sides to that story, and we're only seeing one side in that video from the perspective of the people who were recording it and encouraging her behaviour.

It's irrelevant. Even if she had evidence that the person who owned that shop was literally Satan himself in human form, it still wouldn't justify vandalism and violent behaviour in public. Nothing ever justifies vandalism or violent behaviour in public.

They're as bad as each other IMO, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest anyone should be locked up and their children taken away from them. There's nowhere suitable for children in State care as it stands, and there are plenty of parents who would fail your parental standards test, so finding places for them too would place quite a burden on an already overstretched judicial system.

So that means that anyone who commits a violent crime should get away with it just because they have kids? Incredible get out of jail free card you're handing to the scumbags of this world there.

In short HP your vision is just totally unrealistic, impractical, unworkable and above all - simply would not lead to the outcomes for society that you imagine it should. That's already been demonstrated in the past, so what could possibly have you imagine it would work any better now? That's what I don't understand. We've been there already, it didn't work. It was a blight on Irish society and it's something the scumbags who perpetuated it should be ashamed of, yet still to this day they go largely unpunished, and you would support the State wielding that sort of power over people again?

I don't use the phrase often but that would be the very definition of a Nanny State.

In everything you're writing, you're ignoring the fact that the woman in the video is a violent criminal. That's the single most important fact in this whole argument and you're acting as if it's not relevant. It's like arguing that a building shouldn't be demolished because tons of people live in it and have nowhere to go, despite the central fact that it is of dangerous construction and a fire hazard - think Priory Hall.

My view on this is extremely straightforward: Violent criminals should be tried and subject to custodial sentences for the crime of committing acts of violence against members of the public and their property. That's it. The whys, wheres, hows and whos are irrelevant. Violence is a crime, and criminals are supposed to face justice in a civilised country.

skylight1987

this is proof that some men would get up on a gust of wind .what kind of a man would procreate with that woman .