my son wants to get custody for his son

looby75

nottslass wrote: »

If Social services are apparently so concerned about the childs welfare that they want the OP to have residency - then why haven't they simply removed the child from its mother and placed the child in her care ? In the short term there would be no need for the OP to engage a solicitor and start proceedings if SS had concluded that this was indeed in the childs best interests.

One of my friends has custody of 2 of her grandchildren as her daughter wasn't able to care for them due to mental health problems. Even though SS wanted her to have the first grandchild my friend was the one who had to do all of the work so to speak when she was trying to get a residency order for him because her daughter was resisting giving up her ds.

The problem was that SS had to prove that the mum was unfit and that takes time, so it was my friend who had to do all the legal stuff herself. It sounds as though the OP is in exactly the same situation.

My friends daughter has had 4 children now and after the first 2 the 3rd and 4th were automatically taken from her and handed to other family members, the other grandchild my friend has was no 3 and she didn't have to jump through any hoops at all, as by that time SS had all the proof they needed.

I hope those who are doubting the op might realise that when it comes down to child protection it's not always as straight forward as the SS getting what they think is best for the child immediately

nottslass_2

looby75 wrote: »

One of my friends has custody of 2 of her grandchildren as her daughter wasn't able to care for them due to mental health problems. Even though SS wanted her to have the first grandchild my friend was the one who had to do all of the work so to speak when she was trying to get a residency order for him because her daughter was resisting giving up her ds.

The problem was that SS had to prove that the mum was unfit and that takes time, so it was my friend who had to do all the legal stuff herself. It sounds as though the OP is in exactly the same situation.

My friends daughter has had 4 children now and after the first 2 the 3rd and 4th were automatically taken from her and handed to other family members, the other grandchild my friend has was no 3 and she didn't have to jump through any hoops at all, as by that time SS had all the proof they needed.

I hope those who are doubting the op might realise that when it comes down to child protection it's not always as straight forward as the SS getting what they think is best for the child imediatly

But in the OP case they haven't actually given any accurate examples as to how the child is allegedly being mistreated.

I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that the OP's judgement of the situation is accurate when she uses the example that the child is allegedly was "over fed" by being given 6oz of formula then 2oz 2 hrs later ....................

lynzpower

nottslass wrote: »

But in the OP case they haven't actually given any accurate examples as to how the child is allegedly being mistreated.

I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that the OP's judgement of the situation is accurate when she uses the example that the child is allegedly was "over fed" by being given 6oz of formula then 2oz 2 hrs later ....................

Its not for the OP to investigate this. Social workers have the child under CP processes.

balletshoes

nottslass wrote: »

If Social services are apparently so concerned about the childs welfare that they want the OP to have residency - then why haven't they simply removed the child from its mother and placed the child in her care ? In the short term there would be no need for the OP to engage a solicitor and start proceedings if SS had concluded that this was indeed in the childs best interests.

I sincerely hope that this thread is a wind up and if it isn't and the babies welfare really is at risk,then I hope that social services Hurry up and place the baby with a family that can give it the stability,love and upbringing it deserves.

I can only go with whats gone on in my brothers case, but even though social work have been monitoring my niece (and her mum's) situation since she was born, and have fully supported my brother's application for full residency, they would not have taken her out of the mum's household until something had actually happened to her. Social work, as appears to be in OPs case too, want the Dad to apply for residency rather than wait for something to happen to the child, which is at the point that social work would intervene. If Dad goes through the courts for residency, its dealt with more quickly too I believe.

looby75

nottslass wrote: »

But in the OP case they haven't actually given any accurate examples as to how the child is allegedly being mistreated.

I'm finding it extremely difficult to believe that the OP's judgement of the situation is accurate when she uses the example that the child is allegedly was "over fed" by being given 6oz of formula then 2oz 2 hrs later ....................

that is often the problem though. Again my friend was in a similar situation, everyone knew that her daughter wasn't looking after her son properly. She would pass him off to anyone who would have him, she also used medicine to get him to sleep but it was more a drip drip effect each thing on it's own wasn't serious enough to take him directly into care but when you added up all the bits together it was clear that she wasn't coping. SS had to monitor the situation for a time, and it was then that they advised my friend to start legal proceeding, basically they were pre-empting the fact he would eventually be taken from his mum.

Where ever possible they like to keep children with someone from the family, my friends situation wasn't ideal to take on her grandson, she was working full time, she had young children of her own at home and not a lot a room in the house, but SS and courts still decided that her taking him on was preferable to a complete stranger. It's never black and white when it comes down to child protection/residency and having seen what my friend has been through both times I can completely believe the OP's situation.

Loopy_Girl

RAS wrote: »

Perhaps the problem is night-time calpol as below?

At the risk of being pedantic, if the HC professionals were talking about the night time version they would have said unsuitable for children under 6 YEARS, not 3 months.

However, I have read Looby's posts and am always willing to learn things so I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt although I would still question whether the OP is mentally fit and able to deal with a tiny demanding newborn whilst dealing with her own family in light of recent events.

Ultimately it's the baby that counts in all of this.

Loopy_Girl

Looby, I was just having a think there and it's maybe an idea to take the name of the medicine you mentioned away?

Just in case anyone reading this has any 'bright' ideas

nottslass_2

looby75 wrote: »

that is often the problem though. Again my friend was in a similar situation, everyone knew that her daughter wasn't looking after her son properly. She would pass him off to anyone who would have him, she also used medicine to get him to sleep (medinol) but it was more a drip drip effect each thing on it's own wasn't serious enough to take him directly into care but when you added up all the bits together it was clear that she wasn't coping. SS had to monitor the situation for a time, and it was then that they advised my friend to start legal proceeding, basically they were pre-empting the fact he would eventually be taken from his mum.

Where ever possible they like to keep children with someone from the family, my friends situation wasn't ideal to take on her grandson, she was working full time, she had young children of her own at home and not a lot a room in the house, but SS and courts still decided that her taking him on was preferable to a complete stranger. It's never black and white when it comes down to child protection/residency and having seen what my friend has been through both times I can completely believe the OP's situation.

I'm not doubting that this is how SS operate nor would I usually doubt the concerns of a grandmother in this situation,but given the examples of the alleged neglect that the OP has used its hard to establish any validity in the whole situation.

I know I'm repeating myself but I really do not believe that you can force feed an 8 week old baby.
Personally i would be questioning the credentials of any HC professional that considers feeding an 8 week old baby a 6oz feed followed by another 2oz 2hrs later would be classed as "twice as much as they should be having".Esp when the guidelines state that a 8 week baby should be taking an average of 5 to 6 oz per feed.
.

RAS

That is none of your business, mine or any one else on this forum. And it certainly is relevent to whether the OP's son can get legal aid.

It is for social services to decide the best option for this child.

It is all very nice for those of us who live in perfect worlds to judge other people by the standards we like to live by. But the doors of a lot of those very nice households hide a lot of dysfunction.

When you have not got the money or the status to cover up the cracks, people can see them more easily, but that does not mean those families are incapable of offering the best they can to their children.

The OP has already explained that her recent troubles magnified a result of an abreaction to medication and this has been sorted out. Yes it would have been better if her son had kept his worm in his trousers and if he had not decided to explore the insides of an older women with substance misuse problems. He has already discovered that a few minutes pleasure can have life changing and life long consequences, as well as the lesser joys of the GUM clinic.

What we have learned from a century of social experiment is that it is a horribly fine line when it comes to choosing between removing children from birth families and providing a "better home life" and leaving them with loving but less that perfect parents. Most of the time the only way to work out what would be best is 30 years hindsight and we do not do time travel yet.

So please learn a little humility and let those on the front line do the best they can, even if it would not be your choice.

Loopy_Girl

RAS wrote: »

.



The OP has already explained that her recent troubles magnified a result of an abreaction to medication and this has been sorted out.

Sorry, but that is not an 'explanation' as to why she was potentially going to leave 4 children without a Mother - who is to say that the constant screaming and demands of an 8 week old baby won't tip her over the edge again?

And with all due respect, this is a public forum, you choose to air your dirty laundry on it and you have to take what responses you get.

You gave a big sermon about not knowing people and their lives blah blah blah and then tell people to have humilty - know all the people on the forum personally do we?

Just because people express a differing opinion to the usual or, lets be honest one you don't like, doesn't mean they don't have the right not to say it or be told by the headmaster how to think and speak.

I don't believe you can force feed a baby milk either as it happens...if they are given too much then they chuck it up. They have small stomachs.

When my daughter was at that age I fed her every 2 hours as she needed it and wanted it - as another poster said, it is called demand feeding which is very the norm now as oppose the old fashioned 'every 4 hours whether they wanted it or not' method. And also, babies at that age are going through a growth spurt - the amount of milk they can consume is incredible.