questions on adoption

Dunroamin

tea_lover wrote: »

Doesn't "members of the household" refer to people living in the same house? So it wouldn't necessarily include close family, unless they all lived together.

It does. When we first fostered we had lodgers and they were checked but our parents certainly weren't.

travelgran

So after all this OP, are you going to do anything about it?

red_devil

what can i do? think it would be abit obvious it was me too?

tea_lover

red_devil wrote: »

what can i do? think it would be abit obvious it was me too?

If you really think there could be a risk to any child they adopted then it doesn't matter if they know it was you surely? Which would be easier to live with - the potential for losing friends, or knowing a child was placed at risk and you didn't do anything to prevent it?

Not that I'm saying there would be any increased risk in this case necessarily. Obviously none of us here know the details and that's something you have to decide for yourself. But if you do think there could be a problem, could you really not say anything?

red_devil

tea_lover wrote: »

If you really think there could be a risk to any child they adopted then it doesn't matter if they know it was you surely? Which would be easier to live with - the potential for losing friends, or knowing a child was placed at risk and you didn't do anything to prevent it?

Not that I'm saying there would be any increased risk in this case necessarily. Obviously none of us here know the details and that's something you have to decide for yourself. But if you do think there could be a problem, could you really not say anything?

of course it matters the relationship is close and there would be world war 3. Its up to the panel to carry out checks not wait for people to grass.

lolly_896

red_devil wrote: »

of course it matters the relationship is close and there would be world war 3. Its up to the panel to carry out checks not wait for people to grass.

You'd knowingly let a child be anywhere near somebody convicted of child abuse?

top_drawer_2

red_devil wrote: »

of course it matters the relationship is close and there would be world war 3. Its up to the panel to carry out checks not wait for people to grass.

Up to the panal to check, yes. But they are not infallible and it wouldn't be the first time Social Service and Co have failed.

Could you really live with yourself if you came to be faced with a grown adult (unlikely I know) who had been abused in this situation ... Well I didn't like to say anything cos I don't like to grass y'see.

redpete

red_devil wrote: »

of course it matters the relationship is close and there would be world war 3. Its up to the panel to carry out checks not wait for people to grass.

I can sort of understand why people are reluctant to 'grass' about crimes such as robbery or benefit fraud (not that I agree with the reluctance) but to extend it to potential harm to children because it is "someone else's problem" seems ridiculous.

If you were really not bothered about it why ask the question in the first place?

Dunroamin

red_devil wrote: »

of course it matters the relationship is close and there would be world war 3. Its up to the panel to carry out checks not wait for people to grass.

What a totally irresponsible attitude!

red_devil

dont lambast me its a tricky situation and i cant go into too much detail on here.

it would be really good to hear from someone who really knows whether the ss are likely to know.