SarahBell Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-34626517 A child has been taken away from a mother who slapped the four-year-old across the face, then swore at and pushed a woman who intervened.The mother was at Derby Bus Station on Wednesday evening when she was seen slapping the child.Police arrested the 35-year-old mother on suspicion of common assault, interviewed her and gave her two cautions.Derbyshire Police said the child was now being looked after by social care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 If it can be taken at face value then that's mental and cruel to the child. "Taken into care" is such a misleading term for what must be a horrible experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Slapping children is obviously not good. Being "taken into care" will not help the child! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 If it can be taken at face value then that's mental and cruel to the child. "Taken into care" is such a misleading term for what must be a horrible experience. There's not enough information to make an informed call, but slapping a 4-year-old kid around the face isn't generally reasonable imo. A bystander seems to have been alarmed at the action to try and intervene. I don't like kids put in care but also feel terrible for kids suffering in silence at hands of bad parents. Although on hpc we learn how kids are tax-credit £400 a week benefits + 16 hours a week self-employed (and the rest in cash businesses) worthy like national infrastructure.. and society pays for it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Being "taken into care" must be a far worse experience than a light slap. Most mammals use corporal punishment to discipline their young. In my opinion, a light slap (or slaps) is an appropriate punishment in some cases, particularly when the child is doing something dangerous, but not across the face and never in anger. In this case the true facts are almost certainly at variance with what is reported by the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddog Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Hard to know what really happened, and the reaction of the women when confronted suggests she is not a great parent. However putting a kid into care can really mess them up for life, should really be the last possible action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Hard to know what really happened, and the reaction of the women when confronted suggests she is not a great parent. However putting a kid into care can really mess them up for life, should really be the last possible action. It's actually more like prison than "care". One of my friends had this experiece. Through no fault of his own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 If I had a 4 year old behaving dangerously around moving buses I would probably slap them (on the back of the hand). In fact my kids know this is the punishment for behaving dangerously around roads and car parks, even though I haven't had to for years. If a stranger intervened, depending on context I might well swear at them. I rather suspect there were substantial additional factors that contributed to the decision to take the kid into care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Another one "disappeared" by the local council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 There is no power to remove a child or to enforce other arrangements where the child is not considered to be at risk of significant harm. There may be occasions where a child, although not at risk of such harm, is nevertheless considered to be in need (eg, where the parent or carer is taken ill or is under arrest and the child has nobody with legal responsibility to care for them). In all circumstances the child should be consulted if possible and children’s social care should be involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 There is no power to remove a child or to enforce other arrangements where the child is not considered to be at risk of significant harm. There may be occasions where a child, although not at risk of such harm, is nevertheless considered to be in need (eg, where the parent or carer is taken ill or is under arrest and the child has nobody with legal responsibility to care for them). In all circumstances the child should be consulted if possible and children’s social care should be involved. Yes, but like the anti terror laws, child protection laws can be used by over zealous authorities to achieve their objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Yes, but like the anti terror laws, child protection laws can be used by over zealous authorities to achieve their objective. Oh I agree! Where is the "common sense"? Not as common as I thought then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Yes, but like the anti terror laws, child protection laws can be used by over zealous authorities to achieve their objective. Indeed, in para 2 safeguarding comes into play if the parent is arrested and there is no other to take over. And once on the "List", that parent is marked for life. I notice the penalty for her behaviour was a caution...no marks or scars are a probable outcome for the childs ordeal...again, thisreasonable chastisement is legal in UK law...although a slap across the face is going to look terrible in any public situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Indeed, in para 2 safeguarding comes into play if the parent is arrested and there is no other to take over. And once on the "List", that parent is marked for life. I notice the penalty for her behaviour was a caution...no marks or scars are a probable outcome for the childs ordeal...again, thisreasonable chastisement is legal in UK law...although a slap across the face is going to look terrible in any public situation. But a caution can only be given if an offence has been admitted to, reasonable chastisement is not an offence so there's probably more to it in this case. Sadly, I don't trust the police or social services not to bend the rules when it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 But a caution can only be given if an offence has been admitted to, reasonable chastisement is not an offence so there's probably more to it in this case. Sadly, I don't trust the police or social services not to bend the rules when it suits them. Indeed...Safeguarding is a huge **** covering exercise...its use is a reaction to the undoubted real abuse that goes on...but it catches parents who are sick, stressed, request help or simply get it wrong on an occasion. Once in the list the file is there to grow, follow up, revisit and pop up later for anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Yeah.. you just hope there is much more to this case than appears at first glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Yes, but like the anti terror laws, child protection laws can be used by over zealous authorities to achieve their objective. Those authorities are themselves in fear - and not without reason - of terrible repercussions if they fail to act. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Those authorities are themselves in fear - and not without reason - of terrible repercussions if they fail to act. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Two words........ Nanny State! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Another one "disappeared" by the local council. Those politicians and other fiddlers don't want to be playing with themselves do they...... For the record nothing warrants a child being removed from it's parents unless that child is in serious or imminent danger. There should be something in the law where social workers have to prove serious and imminent danger and explain their reasoning to a judge if need be. Family courts will shroud this case in the usual secrecy so as usual we will never find out the true reason.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 For the record nothing warrants a child being removed from it's parents unless that child is in serious or imminent danger. There should be something in the law where social workers have to prove serious and imminent danger and explain their reasoning to a judge if need be. Family courts will shroud this case in the usual secrecy so as usual we will never find out the true reason.... I'd agree whole heartedly with that. The problem is the media stirred up such a sh*t storm about baby P that the politicians did the usual thing of over reacting to appease the baying public and now any kids that shows up at the docs with a bump on his head is liable to be removed from his parents and thrown parentless into a "protection system" for their own good. The public get what they demand of their politicians and never think about the unintended consequences until their own children are taken away from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Those authorities are themselves in fear - and not without reason - of terrible repercussions if they fail to act. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's the problem (and with with a lot else too). Society in general is in so much fear of the consequences of being held responsible for something going on that it completely over-reacts, to the point where the prevention is more unpleasant than the odd case that would otherwise fail to be prevented. It's easy to spot when those defending it have gone passed reasonable precautions, they're the ones with their heads stuck firmly in their backsides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I'd agree whole heartedly with that. The problem is the media stirred up such a sh*t storm about baby P that the politicians did the usual thing of over reacting to appease the baying public and now any kids that shows up at the docs with a bump on his head is liable to be removed from his parents and thrown parentless into a "protection system" for their own good. The public get what they demand of their politicians and never think about the unintended consequences until their own children are taken away from them. I got in a shitstorm myself a few years ago when I said in mixed company that although the death of Baby P was tragic, with the family structure as it was it probably saved the little tyke from a childhood of abuse, and also society from another broken person that would have committed multiple crimes against others. It could have been seen as a mercy killing for wider society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 I got in a shitstorm myself a few years ago when I said in mixed company that although the death of Baby P was tragic, with the family structure as it was it probably saved the little tyke from a childhood of abuse, and also society from another broken person that would have committed multiple crimes against others. It could have been seen as a mercy killing for wider society. Not a popular thing to say! Also not always the case IME. Sure you get total scumbags from broken homes but you also get some top people, of course this is pure anecdote but I've known people who on paper would be ending up in prison and on benefits because of their family background really make something of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 My mum used to say to us 'hold your hand out' we did because we knew we were in the wrong....got a little hand slap, then giggle afterwards..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovinedealer Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 There's not enough information to make an informed call, but slapping a 4-year-old kid around the face isn't generally reasonable imo. A bystander seems to have been alarmed at the action to try and intervene. I don't like kids put in care but also feel terrible for kids suffering in silence at hands of bad parents. Although on hpc we learn how kids are tax-credit £400 a week benefits + 16 hours a week self-employed (and the rest in cash businesses) worthy like national infrastructure.. and society pays for it all. +1 Slapping a four year old, I mean really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.