Interview under caution twice?

clearingout

Face1992 wrote: »

Saying SS should be told and saying SS should take her kids are two different scenarios entirely. I never mentioned her having her kids taken off her.

so what exactly is it that you would like social services to do?

Face1992

clearingout wrote: »

so what exactly is it that you would like social services to do?

If she finds it so easy to steal thousands of pounds over a four month period, what else does she find it easy to do in terms of breaking the law? How can she be teaching her kids right from wrong when she's done what she's done?

clearingout

Face1992 wrote: »

If she finds it so easy to steal thousands of pounds over a four month period, what else does she find it easy to do in terms of breaking the law? How can she be teaching her kids right from wrong when she's done what she's done?

but what do you want them to do? you have said it's not about removing the children from the mother..so what do you want them to do?!!

Chrissiew

The kids are 1, 5 and 3, I don't think she would have discussed that she committed benefit fraud with them so how would they know? Benefit fraud is wrong, and if she had gone out with a sawn off shot gun and robbed a bank then maybe SS should be informed, but she doesn't beat the kids( well from what I've seen of them they are always clean and well dressed, no visible bruises) so SS would have no need to be informed, what would they say? Please show some morals? They would certainly have their work cut out if they went round to every home who had bad morals.

Chrissiew

princessdon wrote: »

Whose name is the house in?

Eg is it in the wife's name only or is a joint tennancy etc?

Not that I imagine it makes a whole load of difference - you've pretty much admitted that for 4 mos at least they committed fraud - but if the husband "owns" the flat for Eg they can't stop them coming in etc.

I should think the flat is in joint names but I wouldn't know without asking

Face1992

She's a common thief whether she has a sawn off shot gun or a benefit form filled in.

Pippin12

Yes, but answer the question - what do you want the social services to do precisely?

Face1992

Pippin12 wrote: »

Yes, but answer the question - what do you want the social services to do precisely?

I think I'd ask them to interview the kids, speak to their schools and see if they need intervention so that they don't end up morally bankrupt like their mother.

Pippin12

Hahaha - priceless! You couldn't make it up! Do you think the Social Services exist to police people's morals? Child protection social workers have a hard enough time garnering the resources necessary to protect children from abuse and neglect. They would laugh you out of the office if you suggested they might be interested in protecting children from a mother who has lied to the DWP and consequently has what could be described as dodgy morality.

marisco_2

Face1992 wrote: »

Then any future benefits should be stopped and social services informed that because she's a thief, she's an unfit mother and is unable to show her kids right from wrong.

Having read the whole thread it appears the lady claimed benefits for a short period when she shouldn't have. I dont agree with or aprove of this and feel that it would set a bad example to the children.

However that alone does not make her unfit to be a mother. She could otherwise be an extremely loving mum who meets all her childrens' physical and emotional needs. They could well be thriving.

Social Services are stretched to the limit caring for children who are suffering neglect and emotional and physical abuse etc. Going by what has been divulged here I doubt they would see the woman as unfit to care for her children or see that any involvement on their part was really necessary.