Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been?" How do you react to people that admit drugging their children and locking them in their bedrooms? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. " Agreed. There is more to this story than meets the eye. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been? How do you react to people that admit drugging their children and locking them in their bedrooms?" When people admitted to doing it on here and also drugging their children so they could have sex with strangers I     ...but that was seven years ago. Unfortunately today nothing surprises or shocks me...Sadly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. " The Guardian suggests otherwise, it states - "The ruling by a family court judge makes clear that the hearing was concerned only with the impact of the parents’ unusual lifestyle on their young children" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Guardian suggests otherwise, it states - "The ruling by a family court judge makes clear that the hearing was concerned only with the impact of the parents’ unusual lifestyle on their young children" " Firstly... would you ever get your house on ANYTHING published in the press being 100% accurate and complete? Secondly "unusual lifestyle" is a bit vague. There's a million miles between having a different partner every night, to having 20 man gang-bangs or watersports partys. More info is needed. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. The Guardian suggests otherwise, it states - "The ruling by a family court judge makes clear that the hearing was concerned only with the impact of the parents’ unusual lifestyle on their young children" " I don't believe it's just down to being a swinger. However we don't know what else was involved with their swinging lifestyle. In this day and age all possible is done to keep the children with the parents unless it's a safeguarding issue / abuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The Guardian suggests otherwise, it states - "The ruling by a family court judge makes clear that the hearing was concerned only with the impact of the parents’ unusual lifestyle on their young children" Firstly... would you ever get your house on ANYTHING published in the press being 100% accurate and complete? Secondly "unusual lifestyle" is a bit vague. There's a million miles between having a different partner every night, to having 20 man gang-bangs or watersports partys. More info is needed. Cal" Try reading the reports if you need more info, there are actual quotes from the Judge. The Judge felt that their lifestyle choices resulted in the children being neglected, even though the court specifically acknowledged the children had a loving relationship with their parents. They'd still been neglected because of their parents lifestyle choices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow drugging children and locking them away?? Think the parents need to be locked up!!! This is why I don't do evening meets as my youngest doesn't sleep properly and couldn't imagine doing anything of the swinging sort with them in the house!" No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow drugging children and locking them away?? Think the parents need to be locked up!!! This is why I don't do evening meets as my youngest doesn't sleep properly and couldn't imagine doing anything of the swinging sort with them in the house! No reports mention or suggest drugging of children." Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow drugging children and locking them away?? Think the parents need to be locked up!!! This is why I don't do evening meets as my youngest doesn't sleep properly and couldn't imagine doing anything of the swinging sort with them in the house! No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"..... No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling " By adding that 'drugging' line in I think the Op has detracted away from the reports of todays story. The Ops first paragraph does appear to be accurate though if you read what the Judge actually said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. " Spot on! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. " Like everything else ... every story has 2 sides | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"..... No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling By adding that 'drugging' line in I think the Op has detracted away from the reports of todays story. The Ops first paragraph does appear to be accurate though if you read what the Judge actually said." OP is just mentioning what people on here used to say they did when they had people round their house. She's not trolling, people did openly say those things. I was on here 7 years ago and read the same types of posts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. " this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow drugging children and locking them away?? Think the parents need to be locked up!!! This is why I don't do evening meets as my youngest doesn't sleep properly and couldn't imagine doing anything of the swinging sort with them in the house! No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling " Unfortunately not
This has been admitted to more than a few times in the many years I've been on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x"This
Kids come first and there is no excuse to expose them to a swinging lifestyle, even if unintended. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x"I don't think it's enough reason on its own if the parents are otherwise loving. It depends on so many things. The trauma of being removed from your family, placed in foster care or a children's home then placed for adoption shouldn't be underestimated. If there's a way to keep families together without causing further harm to the kids I think it should be taken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x
I don't think it's enough reason on its own if the parents are otherwise loving.
It depends on so many things.
The trauma of being removed from your family, placed in foster care or a children's home then placed for adoption shouldn't be underestimated.
If there's a way to keep families together without causing further harm to the kids I think it should be taken."You think it's ok to have a gangbang in your house when kids are there fuck me this place gets better n better x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x
I don't think it's enough reason on its own if the parents are otherwise loving.
It depends on so many things.
The trauma of being removed from your family, placed in foster care or a children's home then placed for adoption shouldn't be underestimated.
If there's a way to keep families together without causing further harm to the kids I think it should be taken.
You think it's ok to have a gangbang in your house when kids are there fuck me this place gets better n better x"No, I don't think its ok. I don't think it's enough reason on its own to take children away from their parents and put them up for adoption. I think other measures should be put in place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x
I don't think it's enough reason on its own if the parents are otherwise loving.
It depends on so many things.
The trauma of being removed from your family, placed in foster care or a children's home then placed for adoption shouldn't be underestimated.
If there's a way to keep families together without causing further harm to the kids I think it should be taken.
You think it's ok to have a gangbang in your house when kids are there fuck me this place gets better n better x
No, I don't think its ok. I don't think it's enough reason on its own to take children away from their parents and put them up for adoption. I think other measures should be put in place."Aye stop fucking people in your house when there's children in it lol x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x
I don't think it's enough reason on its own if the parents are otherwise loving.
It depends on so many things.
The trauma of being removed from your family, placed in foster care or a children's home then placed for adoption shouldn't be underestimated.
If there's a way to keep families together without causing further harm to the kids I think it should be taken.
You think it's ok to have a gangbang in your house when kids are there fuck me this place gets better n better x
No, I don't think its ok. I don't think it's enough reason on its own to take children away from their parents and put them up for adoption. I think other measures should be put in place."I agree a meet with children in the house is a bad thing to do, very immoral but it’s not a reason to lose your children over, it’s a bad decision and other steps should be taken but to take children from parents for that and put them through that trauma is extreme | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x
I don't think it's enough reason on its own if the parents are otherwise loving.
It depends on so many things.
The trauma of being removed from your family, placed in foster care or a children's home then placed for adoption shouldn't be underestimated.
If there's a way to keep families together without causing further harm to the kids I think it should be taken.
You think it's ok to have a gangbang in your house when kids are there fuck me this place gets better n better x
No, I don't think its ok. I don't think it's enough reason on its own to take children away from their parents and put them up for adoption. I think other measures should be put in place."agree and i also think this is not the whole of the story | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Text from the paper: Three children are to be removed from their family home amid concerns that their parents’ “open relationship” may have contributed to neglect. The ruling by a family court judge makes clear that the hearing was concerned only with the impact of the parents’ unusual lifestyle on their young children, who are all under the age of five and will now be placed for adoption. The application was made by social workers acting for Sandwell borough council in the West Midlands last August and was granted in October this year. The parents nor children have been identified. Social services officials described the couple’s relationship as “open”, although both parents denied that was the status of their relationship. The father chose to see other women and the mother had relationships with men she met online, the judge Elizabeth Williscroft explained in her judgment. “The father had his own lifestyle outside the family home which plainly included going clubbing until the early hours as well as being involved with other people,” she said. “In respect of both parents, the court is not concerned about their private lives and how they will conduct them unless it impacts on the care of the children – which at this time was neglectful.” The Wolverhampton-based judge said the couple continued their “dysfunctional relationship” while living in the same house. “All of this must have been confusing for the children.” She said of the mother: “It is plain some complete strangers have visited her house while the children were there to have sex with her.” The father “didn’t fully understand either why the presence of strangers at the home meeting the mother for sex was worrying”, the judge said. Social workers said the couple found it hard to supervise their children, and Williscroft added: “Mother was observed parenting ‘from the sofa’ and relying on others to keep the children safe from hazards.” The judge concluded: “After balancing the possibilities of care for these children, my analysis is there are no realistic alternatives to meet the children’s welfare needs throughout their lives but adoption. “I bear in mind and balance that each child has a loving relationship and attachment with their parents but has also been harmed by neglect and would be at risk of harm in their care.” " There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Stop voting the grow the fecking nanny state every 5 years then. Our state is too big and too intrusive. I have friends from eastern europe who say "you are more communist than we ever were". If you lined up all the shitty parents in this country, which would be a long line, then the children remaining with them would still be better for the children in all but the ~15% worse cases. " Yep! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Swinging doesn't mean you neglect your children. The judgement is clearly based on neglect, which is a totally different reason to remove the children from the home. They just add about the parents lifestyle and everyone is overlooking the rest of what happened. They clearly didn't know how to care for children properly. " In an ideal world wouldn't it be better to show them how to care for their kids? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. " So children should only be removed if there are drugs/alcohol/violence involved? By rights the parents would have had the chance to prove themselves and work alongside professionals to enable the children to stay at home. The professionals clearly didn't believe they were capable of looking after children who sought after a care order and took it to court and the judge has agreed with them. Although these cases aren't normally open to the public so I'm not sure how the paper got in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In an ideal world wouldn't it be better to show them how to care for their kids? " I would imagine that time and effort was put into this, because taking children away permanently is a last resort. My stepsister is a social worker and they spend many, many hours trying to keep the children with their parents rather than separate them. It is often heartbreaking for her when after all the work she has put in, she still must apply for a court order for the sake of the children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We know of a case where three children from the same family were adopted into a family where they were neglected and exposed to alcoholic parents. Adoption isn't always the answer." As an adoptee myself, I don't think adoption is always the answer. But it takes a very, very long time for social services to get to the point where this is the only option left open to them. (And not everyone is perfect - sometimes parents do become alcoholics and similar. Social parents are not always perfect, just like biological parents are not always perfect.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. " There are so many 10's of thousands of kids under social worker care, and these news stories where they can only deal with the ones who are in actual imminent danger, I feel sure it wasn't escalated for no reason. None of us has the info to make a sensible comment though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. So children should only be removed if there are drugs/alcohol/violence involved? By rights the parents would have had the chance to prove themselves and work alongside professionals to enable the children to stay at home. The professionals clearly didn't believe they were capable of looking after children who sought after a care order and took it to court and the judge has agreed with them. Although these cases aren't normally open to the public so I'm not sure how the paper got in. " If you look at the evidence you see that the only person worse at raising kids than a shitty parent is the state. Check the facts on outcomes of children taken into care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd imagine there's a lot more to it than just swinging. " One would hope!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. There are so many 10's of thousands of kids under social worker care, and these news stories where they can only deal with the ones who are in actual imminent danger, I feel sure it wasn't escalated for no reason. None of us has the info to make a sensible comment though." My statement is that there's nothing in that news article to suggest the children will be better off in care. You can speculate on what's not in the article but im basing that on what's written and what we know about the outcomes of children taken into care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We know of a case where three children from the same family were adopted into a family where they were neglected and exposed to alcoholic parents. Adoption isn't always the answer." Most adoptive parents are good, that isn't the problem with adoption. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We know of a case where three children from the same family were adopted into a family where they were neglected and exposed to alcoholic parents. Adoption isn't always the answer. As an adoptee myself, I don't think adoption is always the answer. But it takes a very, very long time for social services to get to the point where this is the only option left open to them. (And not everyone is perfect - sometimes parents do become alcoholics and similar. Social parents are not always perfect, just like biological parents are not always perfect.)" I agre. We're discussing a case here where none of us know the facts, the hours that were put in to trying to keep the family together or the full reasons the courts made the desicion they did. All we can do is discuss in general. I genuinely hope that everyone concerned comes out of this with the least damage possible inflicted. As an aside there was a series recently on radio 4 that followed some children through the adoption process and included interviews with the birth parents and foster parents. It was very interesting, not sure if its still available in iPlayer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We know of a case where three children from the same family were adopted into a family where they were neglected and exposed to alcoholic parents. Adoption isn't always the answer. Most adoptive parents are good, that isn't the problem with adoption. " Most parents are good (enough). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Children should never be in your home if you decide to have a meet .... end of Im sure there are lots of responsible people who already do put their children first " I guess it depends what you consider as a 'meet' to be honest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow drugging children and locking them away?? Think the parents need to be locked up!!! This is why I don't do evening meets as my youngest doesn't sleep properly and couldn't imagine doing anything of the swinging sort with them in the house! No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling " No I wasn't trolling! The child had adhd or something. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"..... No reports mention or suggest drugging of children. Op says seven years ago someone admitted it here. I can only hope it was throlling By adding that 'drugging' line in I think the Op has detracted away from the reports of todays story. The Ops first paragraph does appear to be accurate though if you read what the Judge actually said. OP is just mentioning what people on here used to say they did when they had people round their house. She's not trolling, people did openly say those things. I was on here 7 years ago and read the same types of posts. " Thank you! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We know of a case where three children from the same family were adopted into a family where they were neglected and exposed to alcoholic parents. Adoption isn't always the answer. Most adoptive parents are good, that isn't the problem with adoption. " I know I am! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. So children should only be removed if there are drugs/alcohol/violence involved? By rights the parents would have had the chance to prove themselves and work alongside professionals to enable the children to stay at home. The professionals clearly didn't believe they were capable of looking after children who sought after a care order and took it to court and the judge has agreed with them. Although these cases aren't normally open to the public so I'm not sure how the paper got in. If you look at the evidence you see that the only person worse at raising kids than a shitty parent is the state. Check the facts on outcomes of children taken into care. " I've seen all the stats, but they're not always accurate either. My 4 siblings and I were in care, because our parents were useless (no violence or drugs), we've not once been asked for feedback and no one we knew in the care system have either. It would appear they get their stats from those entering the criminal system and allow people to think how bad t must have been in care that a lot end up in prison. Can you show me stats of those who were in care that have gone on to have successful lives, good career, no criminal record etc? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. So children should only be removed if there are drugs/alcohol/violence involved? By rights the parents would have had the chance to prove themselves and work alongside professionals to enable the children to stay at home. The professionals clearly didn't believe they were capable of looking after children who sought after a care order and took it to court and the judge has agreed with them. Although these cases aren't normally open to the public so I'm not sure how the paper got in. If you look at the evidence you see that the only person worse at raising kids than a shitty parent is the state. Check the facts on outcomes of children taken into care. I've seen all the stats, but they're not always accurate either. My 4 siblings and I were in care, because our parents were useless (no violence or drugs), we've not once been asked for feedback and no one we knew in the care system have either. It would appear they get their stats from those entering the criminal system and allow people to think how bad t must have been in care that a lot end up in prison. Can you show me stats of those who were in care that have gone on to have successful lives, good career, no criminal record etc?" The ONS has a data series on it: Outcomes for children looked after by LAs. The measures are terrible for children in care and in most cases worse than with shite parents, putting aside the emotional aspects that a difficult to measure. I had a long-term ex who was in care, her mother was single and an order of magnitude worse than anything in this example. Not malicious to be fair, just a typical selfish addict. What i learned from the experience was that there was almost nothing the mother could do that would stop her children longing to be with her. My ex's foster parents were pretty good but she wouldn't ever open her heart to them for fear of betraying her mum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it scary that so many people have the default reaction that 'there must be more to it' as if the state couldn't possibly get it wrong. That's why this kind of nonsense happens. Read the ONS stats on how children in care turn out. Do a little research and unfortunately you'll find there are many many cases of social workers etc getting it wrong because of their own prejudices. " More that there must be more to it because it would be highly unlikely for a newspaper to have all the facts and an unbiased opinion in cases like this. It's reported because it's sensationalist, not because it's newsworthy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it scary that so many people have the default reaction that 'there must be more to it' as if the state couldn't possibly get it wrong. That's why this kind of nonsense happens. Read the ONS stats on how children in care turn out. Do a little research and unfortunately you'll find there are many many cases of social workers etc getting it wrong because of their own prejudices. More that there must be more to it because it would be highly unlikely for a newspaper to have all the facts and an unbiased opinion in cases like this. It's reported because it's sensationalist, not because it's newsworthy." So the system just never gets in wrong? Fun fact, if you look throughout history, nobody is statistically more likely to murder you than your own government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it scary that so many people have the default reaction that 'there must be more to it' as if the state couldn't possibly get it wrong. That's why this kind of nonsense happens. Read the ONS stats on how children in care turn out. Do a little research and unfortunately you'll find there are many many cases of social workers etc getting it wrong because of their own prejudices. " What are the stats for biological parents messing up their kids? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it scary that so many people have the default reaction that 'there must be more to it' as if the state couldn't possibly get it wrong. That's why this kind of nonsense happens. Read the ONS stats on how children in care turn out. Do a little research and unfortunately you'll find there are many many cases of social workers etc getting it wrong because of their own prejudices. What are the stats for biological parents messing up their kids?" Well have a look at the data i mentioned, they are one of the group's measured... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Children are usually put up for adoption as a last resort. Despite the usual nonsense in the media there will be far more of a back story to this probably over an extended period that has lead to the decision. Taking any one comment by a judge out of a full and detailed judgement is judt the usual media bollucks. That apart our children are or should be the best part of us and if that element of this story is true then personally I find it impossible to get my head round ever putting them at risk in any way at all. Maybe out thoughts should be with those children their welfare and their future rather than some grubby media storm designed to sell advertising..." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita" Would you agree that once social services are contacted, they have much stronger incentives to err on the side of caution than not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita" Agree totally no LA is going to spend there limited time and money and resources taking children into care then up for adoption due to swinging or drugs, I have a lot to do working with different LA and the ultimate aim is to keep children with parents but as stated if there is long term abuse and neglect to the children they will go to court for a care order then start adoption proceedings if needs be, no way just because they are swinging, they could shag who they like and swing with who they like as long as the children are looked after and not put at risk | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been?" Not enough information | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita Agree totally no LA is going to spend there limited time and money and resources taking children into care then up for adoption due to swinging or drugs, I have a lot to do working with different LA and the ultimate aim is to keep children with parents but as stated if there is long term abuse and neglect to the children they will go to court for a care order then start adoption proceedings if needs be, no way just because they are swinging, they could shag who they like and swing with who they like as long as the children are looked after and not put at risk" How about you point to what's actually reported and say what specifically meant that they deserved to have their children away? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. " Precisely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am 100% sure that there will have been a lot of other factors resulting in these children being permanently removed from their parents - drugs, neglect, mental health problems, paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical harm, domestic violence etc... the parents sex choices will only be one small piece of the jigsaw which of course the Daily Wail has latched onto as that makes a better story. Precisely " It's in the guardian | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. There are so many 10's of thousands of kids under social worker care, and these news stories where they can only deal with the ones who are in actual imminent danger, I feel sure it wasn't escalated for no reason. None of us has the info to make a sensible comment though. My statement is that there's nothing in that news article to suggest the children will be better off in care. You can speculate on what's not in the article but im basing that on what's written and what we know about the outcomes of children taken into care. " I've actually read the judge's ruling rather than the news reports. Highlights of this case include -Domestic violence by the mother towards the father - The mother threatening to kill herself in front of the kids - The mother has severe learning difficulties - The father routinely dumped the kids with the mum while he went out shagging, and now has another kid with his new partner - The mother wouldn't co-operate with social services - The house was dirty - The father's immigration status is dubious -The mother wouldn't take her medication for her mental health problems - The mother routinely gave money to another violent man she was also in a relationship with And, to top it all, the father, for part of the period, was on bail for a serious sexual offence.... Need I add any more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. There are so many 10's of thousands of kids under social worker care, and these news stories where they can only deal with the ones who are in actual imminent danger, I feel sure it wasn't escalated for no reason. None of us has the info to make a sensible comment though. My statement is that there's nothing in that news article to suggest the children will be better off in care. You can speculate on what's not in the article but im basing that on what's written and what we know about the outcomes of children taken into care. I've actually read the judge's ruling rather than the news reports. Highlights of this case include -Domestic violence by the mother towards the father - The mother threatening to kill herself in front of the kids - The mother has severe learning difficulties - The father routinely dumped the kids with the mum while he went out shagging, and now has another kid with his new partner - The mother wouldn't co-operate with social services - The house was dirty - The father's immigration status is dubious -The mother wouldn't take her medication for her mental health problems - The mother routinely gave money to another violent man she was also in a relationship with And, to top it all, the father, for part of the period, was on bail for a serious sexual offence.... Need I add any more?" Yeah what's 2+2? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita Would you agree that once social services are contacted, they have much stronger incentives to err on the side of caution than not?" No, initially they often don't pick the case up. I think my wording could be misinterpreted. It can be hard to get Social Services to even pick a case up. Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. There are so many 10's of thousands of kids under social worker care, and these news stories where they can only deal with the ones who are in actual imminent danger, I feel sure it wasn't escalated for no reason. None of us has the info to make a sensible comment though. My statement is that there's nothing in that news article to suggest the children will be better off in care. You can speculate on what's not in the article but im basing that on what's written and what we know about the outcomes of children taken into care. I've actually read the judge's ruling rather than the news reports. Highlights of this case include -Domestic violence by the mother towards the father - The mother threatening to kill herself in front of the kids - The mother has severe learning difficulties - The father routinely dumped the kids with the mum while he went out shagging, and now has another kid with his new partner - The mother wouldn't co-operate with social services - The house was dirty - The father's immigration status is dubious -The mother wouldn't take her medication for her mental health problems - The mother routinely gave money to another violent man she was also in a relationship with And, to top it all, the father, for part of the period, was on bail for a serious sexual offence.... Need I add any more?"
Thanks for that.
As expected. The swinging headline aspect was a very small aspect of the case.
Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita Would you agree that once social services are contacted, they have much stronger incentives to err on the side of caution than not? No, initially they often don't pick the case up. I think my wording could be misinterpreted. It can be hard to get Social Services to even pick a case up. Nita " It's ok Nita I've got your case and I can even carry your bag too, screw those 'social services' more like unsocial lackofservices | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita Would you agree that once social services are contacted, they have much stronger incentives to err on the side of caution than not? No, initially they often don't pick the case up. I think my wording could be misinterpreted. It can be hard to get Social Services to even pick a case up. Nita It's ok Nita I've got your case and I can even carry your bag too, screw those 'social services' more like unsocial lackofservices " Actually, no. Like so many LA services they are short on cash, so the criteria for being picked up are much more stringent than previously. Where children are not deemed to be at risk assistance is provided by other organisations / teams. Only the cases of most concertainly are managed by qualified Social Workers. In the vast majority of cases Social Services do an excellent job, with limited resources and are seriously underappreciated. No I am not a Social Worker. .. Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been?" wow hard to believe anyone would with there children in same house I think it screams a neglect of there childs wellbeing a time and a place for everything I was going to say adoption was a bit harsh but as I write this im a single parent fuc it yeah you know the kids must always be priority when you become priority its fucked up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I often work with Social Services in my local area. My experience suggests that the biggest concern is getting them involved in the first place... Once they are, the aim is to keep the family together. Social Services really do consider removing children from their parents care as the last possible option. The only time this does not appear to be the case, is where a mother has already had several children placed in care, due to long term substance abuse and neglect. In short... the reasons for the decision will be much more complex than reported. In my opinion. Nita Would you agree that once social services are contacted, they have much stronger incentives to err on the side of caution than not? No, initially they often don't pick the case up. I think my wording could be misinterpreted. It can be hard to get Social Services to even pick a case up. Nita It's ok Nita I've got your case and I can even carry your bag too, screw those 'social services' more like unsocial lackofservices Actually, no. Like so many LA services they are short on cash, so the criteria for being picked up are much more stringent than previously. Where children are not deemed to be at risk assistance is provided by other organisations / teams. Only the cases of most concertainly are managed by qualified Social Workers. In the vast majority of cases Social Services do an excellent job, with limited resources and are seriously underappreciated. No I am not a Social Worker. .. Nita" Ok sister please don't hit me with all that my aunt is a social worker as if don't get enough lectures from her about it everytime I see her. I was being silly read it again if you have to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's ok Nita I've got your case and I can even carry your bag too, screw those 'social services' more like unsocial lackofservices Actually, no. Like so many LA services they are short on cash, so the criteria for being picked up are much more stringent than previously. Where children are not deemed to be at risk assistance is provided by other organisations / teams. Only the cases of most concertainly are managed by qualified Social Workers. In the vast majority of cases Social Services do an excellent job, with limited resources and are seriously underappreciated. No I am not a Social Worker. .. Nita Ok sister please don't hit me with all that my aunt is a social worker as if don't get enough lectures from her about it everytime I see her. I was being silly read it again if you have to. " Sorry to take your post seriously in a serious thread
It's very hard to convey meaning via text alone... emojis were invented for a reason 
Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There's nothing in there that indicates the children will be better off in care. No drugs, no violence, no alcohol - just some shitty parenting and a self righteous judge. There are so many 10's of thousands of kids under social worker care, and these news stories where they can only deal with the ones who are in actual imminent danger, I feel sure it wasn't escalated for no reason. None of us has the info to make a sensible comment though. My statement is that there's nothing in that news article to suggest the children will be better off in care. You can speculate on what's not in the article but im basing that on what's written and what we know about the outcomes of children taken into care. I've actually read the judge's ruling rather than the news reports. Highlights of this case include -Domestic violence by the mother towards the father - The mother threatening to kill herself in front of the kids - The mother has severe learning difficulties - The father routinely dumped the kids with the mum while he went out shagging, and now has another kid with his new partner - The mother wouldn't co-operate with social services - The house was dirty - The father's immigration status is dubious -The mother wouldn't take her medication for her mental health problems - The mother routinely gave money to another violent man she was also in a relationship with And, to top it all, the father, for part of the period, was on bail for a serious sexual offence.... Need I add any more?" No that's sufficient evidence. Happy to change my opinion in the light of new evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. " Very eloquently put 
Nita | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. " Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been? How do you react to people that admit drugging their children and locking them in their bedrooms?" I'm sorry, but I'd sooner have chopped my cock off than even THOUGHT about doing something like that. There is quite simply no excuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative" So what exactly are you suggesting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? " Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Very eloquently put
Nita"Thank you Anita ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A judge in Wolverhampton has placed three children up for adoption because the parents had an open relationship and would separately invite strangers into their home for sex. I know some people on site do the same. Some have even admitted drugging and locking their kids door to enjoy sex with strangers, but is putting the kids up for adoption the answer? Although it's something I'd never do or understand I can't help but feel this is rather heavy handed. What would your alternative have been?" if anyone openly admits drugging their children and locking them in bedroom a while they have people round for sex, they really are the lowest kind of parents  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. " So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? " The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder what posesses people to contribute nothing to this thread other than a statement that they won't fuck strangers whilst their children are in the house. Well done you. Is this a slow handclap moment?" Funnily enough, the evidence shows that people that virtue signal the most are actually the more predatory than average, especially men | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that." I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder what posesses people to contribute nothing to this thread other than a statement that they won't fuck strangers whilst their children are in the house. Well done you. Is this a slow handclap moment? Funnily enough, the evidence shows that people that virtue signal the most are actually the more predatory than average, especially men" There's certainly something odd about it in this context. "We didn't burn him, officer!"... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's ok Nita I've got your case and I can even carry your bag too, screw those 'social services' more like unsocial lackofservices Actually, no. Like so many LA services they are short on cash, so the criteria for being picked up are much more stringent than previously. Where children are not deemed to be at risk assistance is provided by other organisations / teams. Only the cases of most concertainly are managed by qualified Social Workers. In the vast majority of cases Social Services do an excellent job, with limited resources and are seriously underappreciated. No I am not a Social Worker. .. Nita Ok sister please don't hit me with all that my aunt is a social worker as if don't get enough lectures from her about it everytime I see her. I was being silly read it again if you have to. Sorry to take your post seriously in a serious thread
It's very hard to convey meaning via text alone... emojis were invented for a reason
Nita"A serious thread? This thread doesn't have any effect in what happens in real life it just chat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? " I do respect what you are saying but perhaps you don't appreciate how much tax is being paid. Our tax to gdp ratio is perfectly adequate to fund the services we need. The empirical fact is that there will never be enough money for what i think you want because the supply of it feeds the demand via moral hazard. I would believe what you are saying regarding inception points but i think that you are really just talking about mitigating damage at that point. I've got some very decent friends who have had some very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip. I'd never be in favour of giving them more power to abuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that." Read the case papers. In this case the kids were going to fostering and adoption, not care. It's a good rule in cases like this to park your private hobby horse and check in with what has actually happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that.Read the case papers. In this case the kids were going to fostering and adoption, not care. It's a good rule in cases like this to park your private hobby horse and check in with what has actually happened." I would have assumed foster caring was care but sorry if i got the semantics wrong, it doesn't change the implication of anything i said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? I do respect what you are saying but perhaps you don't appreciate how much tax is being paid. Our tax to gdp ratio is perfectly adequate to fund the services we need. The empirical fact is that there will never be enough money for what i think you want because the supply of it feeds the demand via moral hazard. I would believe what you are saying regarding inception points but i think that you are really just talking about mitigating damage at that point. I've got some very decent friends who have had some very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip. I'd never be in favour of giving them more power to abuse. " What's our tax to gdp ratio compared to our European comparators? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that.Read the case papers. In this case the kids were going to fostering and adoption, not care. It's a good rule in cases like this to park your private hobby horse and check in with what has actually happened. I would have assumed foster caring was care but sorry if i got the semantics wrong, it doesn't change the implication of anything i said" It's strongly suggestive of you not having a clue what you're on about... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? I do respect what you are saying but perhaps you don't appreciate how much tax is being paid. Our tax to gdp ratio is perfectly adequate to fund the services we need. The empirical fact is that there will never be enough money for what i think you want because the supply of it feeds the demand via moral hazard. I would believe what you are saying regarding inception points but i think that you are really just talking about mitigating damage at that point. I've got some very decent friends who have had some very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip. I'd never be in favour of giving them more power to abuse. What's our tax to gdp ratio compared to our European comparators?" Above average, thankfully still lower than the nordic countries | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that.Read the case papers. In this case the kids were going to fostering and adoption, not care. It's a good rule in cases like this to park your private hobby horse and check in with what has actually happened. I would have assumed foster caring was care but sorry if i got the semantics wrong, it doesn't change the implication of anything i saidIt's strongly suggestive of you not having a clue what you're on about..." Because children in foster care do well? Check the data... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? I do respect what you are saying but perhaps you don't appreciate how much tax is being paid. Our tax to gdp ratio is perfectly adequate to fund the services we need. The empirical fact is that there will never be enough money for what i think you want because the supply of it feeds the demand via moral hazard. I would believe what you are saying regarding inception points but i think that you are really just talking about mitigating damage at that point. I've got some very decent friends who have had some very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip. I'd never be in favour of giving them more power to abuse. What's our tax to gdp ratio compared to our European comparators? Above average, thankfully still lower than the nordic countries" Oh dear EU average 41% UK 35% Try again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues. With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? I do respect what you are saying but perhaps you don't appreciate how much tax is being paid. Our tax to gdp ratio is perfectly adequate to fund the services we need. The empirical fact is that there will never be enough money for what i think you want because the supply of it feeds the demand via moral hazard. I would believe what you are saying regarding inception points but i think that you are really just talking about mitigating damage at that point. I've got some very decent friends who have had some very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip. I'd never be in favour of giving them more power to abuse. What's our tax to gdp ratio compared to our European comparators? Above average, thankfully still lower than the nordic countries Oh dear EU average 41% UK 35% Try again" And the EU is the highest tax zone in the world. Our ratio is comparable to Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, south korea, canada - do they all live in poverty? In fact it's only fluctuated between 33% and 38% since 1970 and we've been getting along fine, so if you prefer to live in a high tax country then feel free to tax a two hour train ride to france and see how wonderful it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The full written ruling gives far more detail than the papers choose to report on. Sandwell had been working with the family over a period of time. There were serious concerns about physical safety, a chaotic lifestyle, dysfunctional parenting, relationship issues between the adults, inadequate parental role modelling, and neglect issues With threshold intervention levels currently so high due to underfunding, there has to be a serious risk to the children. ( in this case all very young) Before a LA makes an application to a Court, the LA solicitor will have prepared and presented a full history to the Court, including all previous interventions and attempts to secure the family as an intact unit, rather than going for a care option. Given the performance of children in care, I'd say underfunding was preferable to the alternative So what exactly are you suggesting? Exactly what i said. I wouldn't want them to have any more money than they already have. So what should happen to children that need protecting, safeguarding and cared for when their family is not capable? The 'help' should come out the budget they have. I think you are missing the point. In all but the very worst cases, the child will be no better off in care than with shite parents, the data is very clear on that. I don't think you appreciate just how severely resources and funding have been cut over the last thirteen years. LA's now have significantly less to spend on a child in care than ever before. Yes I agree outcomes for cared children are not as good as they could be. However a lot of the data is incorrect. Most peer review research and analysis of outcomes is skewed to median data of the general child, teenager and adult population. What it fails to analyse correctly is the comparative baseline inception points of interventions. It is a complex issue. The cuts in funding mean that we are now suffering some of the longest waiting times for case management and intervention teams that LAs now have had to raise threshold intervention levels to ridiculously dangerous levels. Do you understand that this is the case? I do respect what you are saying but perhaps you don't appreciate how much tax is being paid. Our tax to gdp ratio is perfectly adequate to fund the services we need. The empirical fact is that there will never be enough money for what i think you want because the supply of it feeds the demand via moral hazard. I would believe what you are saying regarding inception points but i think that you are really just talking about mitigating damage at that point. I've got some very decent friends who have had some very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip. I'd never be in favour of giving them more power to abuse. " "very scary encounters with zeolous social workers, who were frankly chavs on a power trip......" Are you being serious??? That is SO insulting to all social workers. Have you 1) any personal experience of being in care of being cared for by a LA? 2) have you ever worked with any children in care or bring cared for by a LA? 3) Have you ever been a qualified Social worker? 4) have you ever been employed by a LA as a Senior Children's Social Worker? 5) have you ever managed a CRT(Criyial Response Team ) or IAT (initial Assessment Team)? Do you have a Masters in Economics and Social Care Policy? Have you ever managed LA Safeguarding Training and Services? Have you ever been responsible for budget management within any part of Children's Services for a LA? Have you ever had to revise LA Cared for Children's Services Policies and Procedure? I'm interested to know your level of experience in this area..., | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why would anyone invite a stranger to their home when their kids are there??... are people that desperate for attention and sex ... don't actually agree there has to be many more factors involved to get the kids out of such a selfish dangerous situation ... get a babysitter ffs or go without " Someone with some sanity ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 02/12/17 02:10:29]" Think I will keep my thoughts to my self. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[Removed by poster at 02/12/17 02:10:29] Think I will keep my thoughts to my self." As I was Adopted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x"I would never have a gang bang while the children were home. My children come first. I don't want them hearing fucking noises that involve mum/dad and a stranger. I don't want strangers in the house while kids are there. I dont want them accidentally walking in. It makes you wonder how loving and caring the parents actually are when they can think this behaviour is acceptable. It says something about the parent's character. What do they do when the children need something? What kind of sex were they having? Did it go on for hours and hours? Did the strangers sleep over? Were they still there in the morning? Did the children ever meet them? Were the children scared, ashamed, able to hear hungry, crying or neglected while this was going on? I don't believe for one minute they were taken because the parents swung a couple of times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can't believe the amount of people who think having a gangbang in your house while your children are there isn't a good enough reason to take them off you x
I would never have a gang bang while the children were home. My children come first. I don't want them hearing fucking noises that involve mum/dad and a stranger. I don't want strangers in the house while kids are there. I dont want them accidentally walking in. It makes you wonder how loving and caring the parents actually are when they can think this behaviour is acceptable. It says something about the parent's character. What do they do when the children need something? What kind of sex were they having? Did it go on for hours and hours? Did the strangers sleep over? Were they still there in the morning? Did the children ever meet them? Were the children scared, ashamed, able to hear hungry, crying or neglected while this was going on?
I don't believe for one minute they were taken because the parents swung a couple of times. "It wasn't! The case is a very complex one. Take some time to read my previous comments and also read the full case report findings of the judge. The papers have totally sensationalised one minor aspect of a very complex and long running case as usual. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Christopher Booker of the daily telegraph has been going on for quite a few years about the family courts and the secrecy involved in the decision making. Just about every swinger we have met has children or had children, and I feel the majority of swinging couples on here have children too. A very disturbing decision by the judge. Also very insulting as the inference is that swingers could be pedophiles too, which as most swingers know is absolute nonsense." Read the full case findings and you will find how complex this case was. Do not rely on newspapers for an independent or objective reporting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems archaic and a deprivation of the kids and parents rights. Terrible." Not if you read the case findings rather than the newspapers... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems archaic and a deprivation of the kids and parents rights. Terrible. Not if you read the case findings rather than the newspapers... " Why let the facts get in the way of a good burst of outrage... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Christopher Booker of the daily telegraph has been going on for quite a few years about the family courts and the secrecy involved in the decision making. Just about every swinger we have met has children or had children, and I feel the majority of swinging couples on here have children too. A very disturbing decision by the judge. Also very insulting as the inference is that swingers could be pedophiles too, which as most swingers know is absolute nonsense." There is nothing secret about this decision - the judgement is on Bailii - park that hobby horse... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Far easier for people to jump to totally misleading conclusions reading a newspaper like the Telegraph or Mail (with average reading age ability of 12) than taking the sensible route of undertaking some research finding out the facts using first source.... Sad! " How about the Guardians reporting of it that also left out all the critical facts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Far easier for people to jump to totally misleading conclusions reading a newspaper like the Telegraph or Mail (with average reading age ability of 12) than taking the sensible route of undertaking some research finding out the facts using first source.... Sad! " You told me to read the case files. You've told everyone it seems to read the case files. Maybe that's not the first thing that comes into peoples heads when they are on the forums commenting on lots of posts and just going with the flow. I know i didn't jump to any conclusions. Like other people on here we are just kicking ideas about and speculating. Nothing wrong with that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Far easier for people to jump to totally misleading conclusions reading a newspaper like the Telegraph or Mail (with average reading age ability of 12) than taking the sensible route of undertaking some research finding out the facts using first source.... Sad! How about the Guardians reporting of it that also left out all the critical facts?" It was disgraceful and I've written to the Readers Editor to say so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you ever look at some people's posts and wonder if they're also anti-vax and believe in a flat earth?" If you told them round earth theory was part of the patriarchy then there would be some new converts to flat earth theory that i can think of... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
