I have a question.
If a child is slightly under weight would you feed him junk food, chocolate, sweets and crisps to get his weight up?
I wouldn't, and I'm sure nearly everyone else wouldn't. This couple didn't and for some reason some social workers, from Derbyshire, took the decision to take the child into care.
See Article Here
Here is a quote from the article
But in a decision that surprised the couple, a social worker from Derbyshire County Council later said that Zak needed to go into foster care so they could “assess his needs” and determine how he ate.
The couple, who have four other children aged under 10, were told that if they challenged the decision, social services would “go straight to court” where “all your parental rights would be taken away”.
I am shocked that they take a child into care because he is slightly under weight, but i am even more shocked that they then tell the parents that if they challenge them they will take their rights as parents away.
That is blackmail in my book.
They must of known they were on dodgy ground by taking the child into care. So what do they do, they tell the couple that their parental rights would be taken away if they challenge them.
It took them four months to get their child back, and guess what they fed him, yes junk food.
Another quote from the article;
Eventually they went to court to try to get Zak back, and after four months, he was allowed to return home after gaining less than a pound in four months.
Social services eventually said they were good and caring parents.
If they were good and caring parents why the hell did they take the child away from the parents in the first place?
I know the majority of social workers are genuine hard working and work with parents to see what is best for the child, but the minority of them, who cause unwarranted situations like the one above, have to be taken out of the profession.
1 comment:
they tell the couple that their parental rights would be taken away if they challenge them.
They could not have said that. The couple might have told the Daily Telegraph that they did, but no social worker would ever say that, since they cannot know for sure what a judge will do.
There also must have been some background to this case, of which we're not aware. Social workers are in an incredibly difficult place these days; media like the Telegraph rush to slate them when they don't take kids into care, or they rush to slate them when they do. The social work department won't ever comment, since the interests of the child (under the Children Act) are paramount, but the aggrieved parents can always find some paper that will publish their side without obtaining confirmation.
I agree that - on the face of it - it seems awful and I also concede that mistakes are made, but I really suspect there's possibly a lot more to this case than we know, and which - sadly - we often find out only after something dreadful has happened to the child.
Post a Comment