If you have mental health problems, avoid England at all costs.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr. Burning**

The truth slowly comes out.

Shame the child isn't already with family but it appears as if there are other issues. It should be said that the adoptive parents will love and support this child.

**TheMeanDM**

The Telegraph report also suggested that social services had not consulted with either the child’s extended family or Italian social services. In fact, the judgement makes clear that both a social worker and the baby’s guardian visited Italy, and documents from Italian social services played a major role in the judge’s decision. The mother’s two other children are currently being cared for by their grandmother, and both the family and the Italian courts had for some time restricted the mother’s contact with them due to her illness, which caused “considerable conflict” with her parents

This is very reassuring to see, and also sheds more light on the severity of her illness when *not* on meds and how very inconsistent she was in taking them through the years.

I must say, after reading the snips of the judgment, I believe that the judge was truly torn as to what to do and was trying to make the best of a horribly bad situation.

Not being from the UK, I have also learned to not take things written by this newspaper "Telegraph" and its journalists as being....entirely factual and overly sensational.

**filbert**

You would be well served not to take *anything* you read or see in the mass media as being entirely factual or without agenda. There isn't a single media organ, certainly here in the UK at any rate, that doesn't have its own particular agenda, politics or axe to grind.

**Tigurius**

Typical sensationalising of the situation by the Telegraph.

Though I agree the authorities can sometimes make overreaching decisions based on poor judgement. My experience is that our Social Services (or at least the ones in Manchester and Greater Manchester) only take a child from a parent when justified.

**Palindrome**

CptJake wrote:
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

You are sounding a lot like an anarchist.

**-Shrike-**

TheMeanDM wrote:
The Telegraph report also suggested that social services had not consulted with either the child’s extended family or Italian social services. In fact, the judgement makes clear that both a social worker and the baby’s guardian visited Italy, and documents from Italian social services played a major role in the judge’s decision. The mother’s two other children are currently being cared for by their grandmother, and both the family and the Italian courts had for some time restricted the mother’s contact with them due to her illness, which caused “considerable conflict” with her parents

This is very reassuring to see, and also sheds more light on the severity of her illness when *not* on meds and how very inconsistent she was in taking them through the years.

I must say, after reading the snips of the judgment, I believe that the judge was truly torn as to what to do and was trying to make the best of a horribly bad situation.

Not being from the UK, I have also learned to not take things written by this newspaper "Telegraph" and its journalists as being....entirely factual and overly sensational.

You've basically summed up what I've been thinking. Although, as for the part I've highlighted, I'd say your country is probably slightly worse in regards to media partisanship!

**Imposter101**

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:
And these guys....

Spoiler:

Were completely within German law (at the time) when they herded their prisoners into these gas chambers....[/color]

Spoiler:

Yay! Godwin!

Oh, wait, we are talking about compltely different things - one being the actual topic - a woman who may have been mentally unable to take part in her own care and that of her baby having medical decisions taken for her with the baby subsequently being placed for adoption due to on going concerns about her ability to care for herself and her child. The other being the systematic elimination of entire races and ethnic groups...

It is the same mindset....and the same type of government...

Britain is now a fascist national socialist state apparently. Oh wait I have to go, I've got my party rally at 8!

**Palindrome**

filbert wrote:
Graham Linehan is tweeting about it:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/why-the-forced-caesarean-story-was-wrong

What a surprise, the Telegraph 'story' was nothing more than sensationalist bollocks

**hotsauceman1**

Yes. Put her in foster care. That is a stable enviroment

**d-usa**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes. Put her in foster care. That is a stable enviroment

It can be. It is definitely a better shot at a stable environment than living with a non-compliant bi-polar mother.

But you already have your mind made up about social services. All I know is that next time I see you crying about "Dakka just hates teachers, how dare you all judge them and paint them with the same brush" I'll just link you back to your judgmental holier than though attitude about a profession in this thread.

To be young again and have all the answers...

**hotsauceman1**

No, I have seen what social services can do some good. Like my cousins taken from their druggie aunt and given to my mother till they can go to thir dads. Also did you see mt post "I was going into social service, but I dont have the guts for it" i think that shows a bit of respect. Why did they not send them to the grandmother? Like the other kids? Why did they put them in foster care? A really bad system that devalues kids?

**CptJake**

Palindrome wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

You are sounding a lot like an anarchist.

When you clip out the rest of my post to make it seem like that, perhaps I do. Of course, that is disingenuous on your part.

**Palindrome**

CptJake wrote:

When you clip out the rest of my post to make it seem like that, perhaps I do. Of course, that is disingenuous on your part.

The entire post wouldn't have made you sound any less anarchistic. Anarchists afterall hold the state to be harmful and undesirable, just like you do apparently.

**Ketara**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes. Put her in foster care. That is a stable enviroment

My parents are foster carers in the British system. They're currently looking after a six year old girl who wets the bed at night and has two different anxiety disorders, because her father didn't want her and her mother was a violent alcoholic.

In the past, they've weaned several babies off of heroin due to the mother taking it whilst pregnant, cared for a developmentally delayed five year old who had the brain of a one year old, and done a number of emergency placements for children who were having the everlasting crap kicked out of them by their parents. One three year old girl they had used to steal food from the kitchen and hoard it in her room, because she was used to having to do that to survive.

No, foster care is not always the most stable system. But when you see what some of these kids are running from, you realise that 'stability' is something they've never had to begin with, and not knowing where they're going to end up tomorrow is not necessarily worse than being beaten, starved, and neglected.

Think before you post.

**hotsauceman1**

Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? To me that is a bad system, expecially later in life, when a teenager shouldnt be changing schools that often. And around here when you are 18 you are out of the foster system, no hope, no help and no one to take you in.

**purplefood**

To some degree the foster system is not and cannot be the best life for a child. However, when faced with the alternative I believe that many children live mostly stable lives only because they were put into foster care. Emphasis on live.
I have several friends who were in foster care. It's not perfect but the alternative is far worse.

**hotsauceman1**

Yes, but why put the kid in foster car when there was a sister asking for her?

**Ketara**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? To me that is a bad system, expecially later in life, when a teenager shouldnt be changing schools that often. And around here when you are 18 you are out of the foster system, no hope, no help and no one to take you in.

Depends on what you mean by 'shuffled around'. Sometimes the foster carers need a week or two off after looking after a particularly challenging child for eight months. So naturally, the child is placed with another foster carer for that period of time. Sometimes a foster carer has enough and quits, in which case, the child has to be moved. Sometimes the child will be in a perfectly good placement for two years, but it becomes obvious the chances of adoption are nil. The foster carers do not want to commit to another ten years of caring, so the child is moved to someone who is.

They don't do move kids around for the fun of it. It's just simply not realistic to tell every foster carer that upon taking the job they have to be prepared to care for the child 24/7 for the next 18 years.

**CptJake**

Palindrome wrote:
CptJake wrote:

When you clip out the rest of my post to make it seem like that, perhaps I do. Of course, that is disingenuous on your part.

The entire post wouldn't have made you sound any less anarchistic. Anarchists afterall hold the state to be harmful and undesirable, just like you do apparently.

You say this to the guy who has spent his entire adult life defending his country, and is married to another soldier doing the same, and has a son getting commissioned this spring who will spend at least a chunk of his adult life doing the same.

Probably not someone who advocates anarchy nor hates their country or finds it undesirable. Conservative with strong libertarian leanings? Yep. Anarchist? Only when you take a portion of my post out of context.

The entire post :

CptJake wrote:
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?

Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.

Pretty unambiguous. States should not have rights (and do not). My country has a constitution in which the people have given certain responsibilities to the State, and the power to make good on those responsibilities. The same document goes pretty far to ensure individual rights are recognized, rights the State cannot infringe upon.

**SickSix**

I am not sure, that if this happened to any female in my family that I wouldn't go clinically insane and then not be responsible for my actions during said blackout.

**Bullockist**

Ketara wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes. Put her in foster care. That is a stable enviroment

My parents are foster carers in the British system. They're currently looking after a six year old girl who wets the bed at night and has two different anxiety disorders, because her father didn't want her and her mother was a violent alcoholic.

In the past, they've weaned several babies off of heroin due to the mother taking it whilst pregnant, cared for a developmentally delayed five year old who had the brain of a one year old, and done a number of emergency placements for children who were having the everlasting crap kicked out of them by their parents. One three year old girl they had used to steal food from the kitchen and hoard it in her room, because she was used to having to do that to survive.

No, foster care is not always the most stable system. But when you see what some of these kids are running from, you realise that 'stability' is something they've never had to begin with, and not knowing where they're going to end up tomorrow is not necessarily worse than being beaten, starved, and neglected.

Think before you post.

This, people who whinge about social services in general need to be mindful of this. Best serious post I have read on dakka, have an exalt.

**Rotary**

I wonder if they considered giving care to the father? I can't imagine the amount of stress and heart break a parent would feel in this situation. Time to pay that family up Uk, you've done wrong.

**Wolfstan**

Ketara wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes. Put her in foster care. That is a stable enviroment

My parents are foster carers in the British system. They're currently looking after a six year old girl who wets the bed at night and has two different anxiety disorders, because her father didn't want her and her mother was a violent alcoholic.

In the past, they've weaned several babies off of heroin due to the mother taking it whilst pregnant, cared for a developmentally delayed five year old who had the brain of a one year old, and done a number of emergency placements for children who were having the everlasting crap kicked out of them by their parents. One three year old girl they had used to steal food from the kitchen and hoard it in her room, because she was used to having to do that to survive.

No, foster care is not always the most stable system. But when you see what some of these kids are running from, you realise that 'stability' is something they've never had to begin with, and not knowing where they're going to end up tomorrow is not necessarily worse than being beaten, starved, and neglected.

Think before you post.

Respect to your parents Ketara. That's a great thing they are doing.

**reds8n**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25201336

Children in care in England will be able to stay with their foster families until their 21st birthday, rather than having to leave at 18, ministers say.

The Department for Education is imposing a legal duty on councils to provide financial support for those who want to stay longer with foster carers.

The government has pledged £40m over the next three years to fund the plan.

A care charity said the measure was the most significant reform for children in care in a generation.

It will be introduced during the third reading of the Children and Families Bill next year.

Independence
Children and Families Minister Edward Timpson, whose own family fostered nearly 90 children, said: "I know from the many foster children I grew up with how crucial it is for them to be given sufficient time to prepare for life after care.

"A growing number of local authorities already offer young people the choice to stay, but with little financial support it can be challenging for their foster families.

"Now all councils will have to follow their example, and we are giving them £40m towards the cost.

"This will allow the 10,000 young people leaving stable and secure homes to make the transition from care to independence when they are ready, rather than when their council tells them to."

'Extremely anxious'
Speaking to Radio 5 live about the run-up to her 18th birthday Rhiannon Wickham said: "Not knowing what was happening was very stressful and I was crying quite a lot to [my foster parents] in the evenings about what was going to happen.

"But now I know that they're here for me and it's brilliant."

The Who Cares Trust, which campaigns for and supports children in care and young people leaving care, said the move was "absolutely fantastic news for thousands of young people in foster care" and represented "the most significant reform to the support children in care are given in a generation".

Chief executive Natasha Finlayson said: "Time and again we hear from young people who are extremely anxious about having to leave their carers when they turn 18 and effectively no longer having somewhere they can call home, especially when the average age for young people who aren't in care to finally leave home is 24 to 27.

"It is excellent news that the government has agreed that young people leaving foster care should not be left to fend for themselves at 18.

"We mustn't forget though that the 9% of young people in care who live in children's homes - many of whom leave when they are 16 or 17 - need and deserve the same level of support and we hope that the government will start to look towards ways of achieving this."

Case study: Rhiannon Whickham

Rhiannon was fostered by David and Lisa when she was 16. She is now studying for her A-levels. But as her 18th birthday approached, she was unsure how much longer she would be able to stay.

"The run-up to my 18th birthday wasn't very nice.

"Not knowing what was happening was very stressful and I was crying quite a lot to Dave and Lisa in the evenings about what was going to happen.

"But now I know that they're here for me and it's brilliant."

After discussions with the council, she will now be able to live with the family until she has finished university.

"For me it's important because you know you've got somewhere to stay, somewhere to go back to. You've got the family support that's always there for you."

Her foster parent David says the change will give young people a "better opportunity for the future".

**Medium of Death**

So now that we've been told that it was the Doctors that asked for the cesarean on medical grounds, as the woman was not fit to consent to the procedure, are we still calling Britain a fascist/orwellian state?

I think certain posters just see the word "social", instantly loose their gak and assume the worst.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Yes we are. Accept your position in the police state bootlicker.

**hotsauceman1**

Ketara wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? To me that is a bad system, expecially later in life, when a teenager shouldnt be changing schools that often. And around here when you are 18 you are out of the foster system, no hope, no help and no one to take you in.

Depends on what you mean by 'shuffled around'. Sometimes the foster carers need a week or two off after looking after a particularly challenging child for eight months. So naturally, the child is placed with another foster carer for that period of time. Sometimes a foster carer has enough and quits, in which case, the child has to be moved. Sometimes the child will be in a perfectly good placement for two years, but it becomes obvious the chances of adoption are nil. The foster carers do not want to commit to another ten years of caring, so the child is moved to someone who is.

They don't do move kids around for the fun of it. It's just simply not realistic to tell every foster carer that upon taking the job they have to be prepared to care for the child 24/7 for the next 18 years.

Hmm, that is a different perspective. I guess the UK is different. Around here(Atleast in my neck of the woods) it is often bad. Money incentives given to foster parents that dont go to the kids. Kicked out and left on their own at 18. Many of the areas homeless are foster kids. Hell every christmas we have commericials here about donating clothes to foster kids.
But still, as other psoters said, Good on your parents

**Medium of Death**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yes we are. Accept your position in the police state bootlicker.

Well reasoned and to the point.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I do try to be concise. For the record I do consider this a massive over reach and the keeping of the child by the U.K. authorities questionable at best.

**Manchu**

CptJake wrote:
My country has a constitution in which the people have given certain responsibilities to the State, and the power to make good on those responsibilities. The same document goes pretty far to ensure individual rights are recognized, rights the State cannot infringe upon.

As Frazz pointed out, that's not quite correct. The state may infringe upon constitutional rights when it has, among other things, a so-called compelling interest in doing so. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is pretty ambiguous about the origin and nature of rights.

Medium of Death wrote:
I think certain posters just see the word "social", instantly loose their gak and assume the worst.

Totally agree. Catching a glimpse at the complexity of human misery contrasted to the rationalized modern state seems to produce an existential crisis-in-miniature, where our experience of free choice seems especially thin and illusory. The kneejerk reaction is to cry fascism.