Socialservices taking 4 kids away

[Dee Sa]

I read in the paper today, but dont always take for gospel what I read, that Social Services are taking away the four youngest children from a family and putting them up for adoption because the whole family is overweight if they dont get adopted there will be a "no contact" clause with the fosterparents, the parents are heartbroken, surely they cant do this ? and what impact will it have on the children in later life. It seems too cruel for words.

[MarkRae]

Mail on Sunday, perchance...?

[roxie_09]

It does Dee, surely they should be teaching the family what sort of things they need to be eating etc, otherwise there's going to be a lot of children in care! x

[Bobbisox]

oh that's dreadful Dee

[persguru]

I am in the United States, may I ask which paper this is in and is it available on the internet. I would like to read this article because recently there was a news story here that some want that ridiculous thing to happen here as well.

[China Doll]

I imagine there is more to it than that, social services tend to prefer to leave children with their families.

[craft1948]

Teaching the family.............how about chips, bread, pies, pizzas, KFC's and MaccyD's make your kids fat.............end of.

[roxie_09]

yes craft, but teaching them the alternatives, it's all well and good saying whats bad for you, but teach them that they an still eat tasty stuff without all the crap, many people don't know hoe to do this, especially (as I imagine) with 4 kids, money being tight etc x

[roxie_09]

can eat**

[Ann]

The story is in The Mail on Sunday - here is the link
http://www.dailymail....ildren-fat-again.html
Its totally disgusting - the children don't look that much overweight in the picture in the article and the parents clearly love them. Are we told if they have lost weight now they have been put with a foster carer - No! I know how cruel Social Services can be - hounding innocent families instead of targeting families who abuse or starve their children. They usually go after loving families who live in decent homes because they are "soft targets" - instead of the ones they should be monitoring. Think about it, who would want to visit a violent or filthy home - very dangerous and too much of a challenge for them.

[Ann]

I would dispute that China Doll - unfortunately they are a law unto themselves, they are answerable to no other authorities and try to get feathers in their cap for how many children they remove from families .............

[China Doll]

You can dispute it all you want... You'd be wrong but feel free :c)

[wolf63]

I'm with China Doll on this - there is much history to this situation.

[B00]

Think im the only one who read this story and thought "good!" then? The parents were warned three years ago that their lifestyle was detriment to their childrens' health but it appears they've done nothing to change that fact.

[hc4361]

I'm with China Doll. The Family Court makes the ultimate decision to remove children, not the social workers, although the Court does listen to the Social Services.
The family were told 3 years ago to address the weight problem and were given a huge amount of support.
A 12 year old weighing 16 stone, an 11 year old weighing 12 stone and the 3 year old weighing 4 stone is VERY fat by any standards. Dangerously so.
There are other problems too. As usual the DM is being very selective in its reporting for shock value.

[pastafreak]

The family says they were observed by Social Services at one point during meal times. Did any one in SS take it upon themselves to give the family any guidance as to what constitutes healthy eating? Some people just haven't a clue what they should or could eat. They were also supposed to enrol the kids in certain activities-was this done-could they afford to do it?
While I agree something needs to be done-removing the children-and stopping contact seems cruel.

[B00]

If the SS didn't offer advice on healthy eating, did the family think to ask them? Or Better yet their GP?

[pastafreak]

The father says they served mince and potatoes,and bolognaise....maybe the problem was in portion sizes. What I wonder about them being 'observed' is...if they were *seen* to be doing wrong- didn't any social worker who was doing the watching intervene and give advice?

[DTCwordfan]

I would have thought that European Court of Human Rights would have some interest in this if this is the prima facie story......

Or is it Mail inflation?

There has to be far more to it.

[hc4361]

Course there is a lot more to it. The SS is not allowed to discuss individual cases so this is very one sided reporting.

[AlBags]

There are usually two sides to all of these stories ..
.. and as it's the Daily Mail .. a story indeed.