Am I being too sensitive...

shegirl

sovilla wrote: »

The children are not at risk. And if we as carers (better not put parents and clearly you lot think im not entitled to that term) want to put pictures on facebook then that should be our decision.

Social services have no contact with the children, they are not even on their books and to be honest they never have been. Everything was done through courts and cafcass. It was their mother who willingly rang social services to give them up. Social services just said to us if you want to go and get them, then get them. They didnt take them from her.

It was the court that decided they should stay with us and that their mothers partner could go no where near them. Not social services. They havent helped us one bit. We had to get family support services from the local University to come and help the eldest when she was struggling and social services were too busy.

There is alot more to this whole story but think ive told enough. I take on board everyones opinion so thank you.

I have closed my facebook and my husband is going to do the same to his.

That makes a difference to my previous post.Earlier you said they were involved but you still had to get a residency order.

Your husband needs to realise his part too,having the kids and then,unless he moved in with you as soon as they split,letting them stay with her if things were so bad.

shegirl

angelsmomma wrote: »

In your op you said that social services were involved. Now it seems that this is not the case at all. The mum for her own reasons gave them up willingly, her partners behaviour did not have any bearing on it at all. They also now have a child that lives with them so his alleged abuse can't be serious enough for the child to be removed.

Your husband applied for residency and got it but you do not have parental responsibility yourself. That being so you really should try to keep out of dealing with the children's' mum and let your husband deal with her.

I am also stunned that apparently the partner had 'an unhealthy interest in the girls' yet social services were not involved?Come on!

Who decided the 'unhealthy interest' and what it was?

tinkerbell28

sovilla wrote: »

The children are not at risk. And if we as carers (better not put parents and clearly you lot think im not entitled to that term) want to put pictures on facebook then that should be our decision.

Social services have no contact with the children, they are not even on their books and to be honest they never have been. Everything was done through courts and cafcass. It was their mother who willingly rang social services to give them up. Social services just said to us if you want to go and get them, then get them. They didnt take them from her.

It was the court that decided they should stay with us and that their mothers partner could go no where near them. Not social services. They havent helped us one bit. We had to get family support services from the local University to come and help the eldest when she was struggling and social services were too busy.

There is alot more to this whole story but think ive told enough. I take on board everyones opinion so thank you.

I have closed my facebook and my husband is going to do the same to his.

You said social services were involved and he was part of a court order.

Op I've just read the whole thread now I'm home and I actually feel a bit sick. It's all a bit weird.

Almost like you're trying to replace her and be her and take her life.

All this rubbish you've swallowed about what life was really like. How he only did this, that and the other. As others have pointed out the inconsistency with his version of events I won't dwell on it.

You're insistent by rights you're their mother. You aren't.

Talk of adoption.

Plastering your version of events all over the forum where in future, people could read it. Her, the kids. It wouldn't be too hard for people to recognise you if they knew the background of your life.

Then, this is the really weird bit. How close you are to HER family. I get they want to see the grandchildren. But it's really, really odd. You're there every weekend? Had them at the wedding?

It's like some horrid film plot where you are all trying to erase this woman from existence. I feel sorry for her.

shegirl

This_Year wrote: »

Oh come on. It's beginning to sound like my library book now.

The ops thread about her parents in law was bad enough,with turkish ma fia and somebody being shot to try and get money back!

quidsy

My ex neighbour was a drug dealer and prossie, she had 6 kids in care, had an order that she could never have any pets, ever yet got pregnant again and she was given all the help in the world from social services and her new chikd was allowed to stay with her,lso I can beleive that the mother is allowed to keep a baby in an abusive relationship with a man with dubious intentions to kids.

Tiddlywinks

This post on another thread also suggests that some of the posts on here are glossing over the facts:

sovilla wrote: »

I haven't been in the court room myself as I wasn't allowed but my partner went through it. The best advice I can give is to be calm and not to rise to anything. Answer the questions fully and look the judge/panel (my partner had 3 judges) in the eyes. If you have social services and cafcass in your side then that's going to be a big help to you.

We went through a lot of court cases to get custody of my partners kids. Their mothers partner was abusing them and the mother couldn't cope. We still had to allow her contact tho which was a pain. But she hasn't seen them now since December and I'm hoping its going to stay that way.

Good luck to you. And I really hope it works out.

sovilla wrote: »

I think its a good thing. We have spent over £5000 on solicitors and court cases to get full custody of my partners 4 children. They were being abused by their mothers partner and we still have to go through it all, and because they were on benefits they got everything paid for. And even after it was all sorted and we had residency she still kept taking us back to court for contact, contact she didnt really want but knew it was just costing us money. Glad we will be on an even playing field now and she might actually leave us and the kids alone to enjoy their lives.

So much for hoping to maintain contact and supporting 'staying in touch'.

And then there are the allegations rolled out constantly BUT this post says it's the mum who was the abuser:

sovilla wrote: »

My second time bankrupt was December last year. I was working full time, managing my debts quite well. Then me and my partner got custody of his 4 children that were being abused by their mother and I had my own child so couldnt work full time.

Money_maker

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I have just been back to your previous thread to see if I had remembered things correctly... the one where you wanted to get your 9 year old to stay with your MIL (who had recently trashed her house because of stress) and FIL who has dementia which you said might be drink related... you wanted to do this to increase the benefits your family could claim... but that was OK because your daughter wanted her own room!

How was that going to give her a 'stable environment'?

Honestly, posters should take a little time to look at some of the OPs other posts.

From the other thread:



Here's the thread in full:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4749111



How can a 9 year old (who has been through so much upheaval already) really fully understand the implications of being adopted.

Most 9 year olds would want to copy their friends that's part of being a child and wanting to fit in.

Please try to understand that these are children we are talking about and not possessions which can be traded on a whim.

Thanks for putting that link up. It needs to be remembered that abuse is not always physical and the suggestion about how to 'place' the 9 year old with the grandparents for financial gain is sickening.

I feel so sorry for this poor, poor child. The nightmare continues.

shegirl

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

This post on another thread also suggests that some of the posts on here are glossing over the facts:





So much for hoping to maintain contact and supporting 'staying in touch'.

And then there are the allegations rolled out constantly BUT this post says it's the mum who was the abuser:

Not much point in the whiter than white pretence is there.

Kids are not possessions!

mountainofdebt

Did you know you can print off any of the photos from your facebook friends' album at Tesco?

HPoirot

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: