my son wants to get custody for his son

Fang_3

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

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.

Well said. Some posters seem to think that they are part of the moderation team. A bit like those children who were desperate to be prefect and were always telling tales.

nottslass_2

RAS wrote: »

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.

I feel that anyone questioning the OP's suitability to care for a child that is already supposedly venerable has a valid point. The OP appeared quite happy to post the short comings of the Babies mother on this forum but when others question the same in regard to her situation we are expected to "learn a little humanity".Surely thats a classic example of double standards.

nottslass_2

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

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.

Anyway,lets face it if an 8 week old had really been given a medicine formulated for a child over the age of 6 then I'm sure there would have been immediate steps to take the child into care - after they'd recovered in hospital of course.

looby75

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

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

I never thought of that I'll remove it now.

gizmo111

I cant believe all of this i came on here for advice the social worker advised me to seek it and i thought as i have always been helped on here and yes ive registered under a different name id get the advice i needed and the helpful ppl this forum used to be full of

Without a shadow of doubt she would have meant legal advice fro ma qualified and insured professional not from a public forum. It is also likely that she meant for your son to get advice.

This child is subject to a CP plan and if the neglect and passing the baby around is as you say then I am surprised that SS have not issued care proceedings. I am astonished that they have told you to go seek a residency order, without carrying out any form of assessment on you or your son. I think you may be misunderstanding the procedures.
When the police went searching for the baby - where did they find him and what made anyone suspect he was being overdosed on calpol, particularly in light of the fact that you say his mother doesn't look after him but her mother does?

JBD

I don't think anyone has attacked this poster just to be nasty. However there are inconsistencies in her posts. If this case does go to court and the babies mother engages a lawyer then I am sure they will pick up on any inconsistencies and question them much more thoroughly than anyone on this forum has done. After all, that is what lawyers do.
I have seen this situation from another side, in which 'evidence of neglect' from the MIL was quickly exposed as nothing more than spiteful gossip.
I'm definitely not accusing the OP of this, however I'm sure the whole situation would be better examined by experts.
The most important thing is the safety and wellbeing of the baby, which I am sure we are all agreed on.
Personally I am not going to comment on this thread again, I think the whole situation should be left upto the proper authorities. I hope it is worked out for the baby's sake.

LilacPixie

Looby - the medicine you mentioned. My daughter (3) was pescribed it after tonsillitus. I thought it was just a generic name for paracetemol. as it says paracetemol suspension on it. I had no idea it also contained an anti- histamine.

looby75

LilacPixie wrote: »

Looby - the medicine you mentioned. My daughter (3) was pescribed it after tonsillitus. I thought it was just a generic name for paracetemol. as it says paracetemol suspension on it. I had no idea it also contained an anti- histamine.

yes it's the antihistamine that makes them sleepy tbh I don't know if they even sell it any more. My son used to get really bad bouts of ear infections and tonsillitis and it was a god send for us as it really did help him sleep and be much more comfortable, but obviously we only used it when he was really ill. Sadly not everyone does (did?)

LilacPixie

I think thats probably why we were given it too. It really is a godsend when the kids are so ill that they cannot sleep. The same LO used to get real bad blocked noses and sinuses at under a year old, you used to be able to buy medised OTC from 3 months +, after stories of it being used for sleep purposes they lifted the age to 2+ and now its 6+. Only a few months ago I took a half used bottle to my local chemist to be disposed of and the box was obviously an old one saying 3+ months. As far as I am aware the medicine has not changed just the licencing.

Anyway this is a bit OT so I will stop now.

For the OP. If your son wants custody then fine get him to contact a solicitor himself and fight for it. I'm afraid taking on an infant is a very grown up thing to do and he needs to be sure he can handle the responsibility himself. From your posts it seems you very much want custody and say your son agrees but nothing from him instigating wanting a residence order. You say social workers are involved which is common if the family or anyone in the house if already known to them or if the mother has or had her own SW but the instances you have listed like the calpol and the feeding seem to be minor and your opinion of neglect. TBH I would be very concerned that a medical professional said calpol is dangerous for under 3 months old when it is licenced for use at a younger age and routinly given to children after first innoculations at around 8 weeks.

nottslass_2

LilacPixie wrote: »

Looby - the medicine you mentioned. My daughter (3) was pescribed it after tonsillitus. I thought it was just a generic name for paracetemol. as it says paracetemol suspension on it. I had no idea it also contained an anti- histamine.

Paracetamol suspension is just a generic version of calpol - it does not contain any antihistamine.

The "suspension" part of it simply refers to the fact its a liquid not tablet form.