Define neglect

One of the things that has come up as a result of the Roscommon child abuse case...is the fact that we need a better societal consensus of what is neglect of children and at what threshold should there be intervention.

Ickle Magoo

I would define neglect as a child who has less interpersonal skills, is underweight, has emotional development issues or academic issues, or is in anyway "at risk" compared with "the norm" caused in part or wholly by parental action or inaction; whether wilfully or through ignorance.

I think there should be intervention as soon as child neglect is brought to the authorities attention, what that intervention should be depends on the severity of the neglect.

liah

Problem is, Ickle, some kids are naturally skinny, quiet, and odd.

I was one of them, my mother was never neglectful or abusive but I was always a knobbly-kneed closed-off emotionally underdeveloped kid.

I'd've had my entire life ruined if someone had taken those criteria, added them up, and decided I was neglected. Which they could've easily done, thinking back on it-- no dad, working mother, seriously skinny quiet kid who couldn't talk to people. Could've added up, if they'd thought about it, and that scares the crap out of me.

There's no way at all you can tell from just the kid. You can get warning signs but even then they're probably misplaced. It's best to look at the actual relationship between the child and parent than try to assume the situation from looking at just one or the other.

This is assuming you have no documented evidence and are going only on speaking/meeting with people.

Ickle Magoo

liah wrote: »

Problem is, Ickle, some kids are naturally skinny, quiet, and odd.

Which would mean it wasn't;

Ickle Magoo wrote:

...caused in part or wholly by parental action or inaction; whether wilfully or through ignorance.

wolfpawnat

A child who is lacking any on the following; (please note this is only my opinion)

Warmth
Food
Clothes
Mental Stimulus
Kindness
Love
A roof over their heads
Being allowed adequate sleep
Being left in their own excrement
Not being allowed social interaction
Not getting children the medical attention they need (if they are asthmatic, not giving them their inhalers)
If they are abusive, mentally, verbally or physicalyl!

As Ickle said, if the parents are not giving the child something they need, that is neglect! It doesn't have to be beating them.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would define neglect as a child who has less interpersonal skills, is underweight, has emotional development issues or academic issues, or is in anyway "at risk" compared with "the norm" caused in part or wholly by parental action or inaction; whether wilfully or through ignorance.

I think there should be intervention as soon as child neglect is brought to the authorities attention, what that intervention should be depends on the severity of the neglect.

Those are still vague criteria though.

Until alcooholism is recognised as bonafide junkiism in this country, we are all aiding and abetting via denial the neglect of children.

There are lots of academic debates around neglect...thats not the question i was asking....whats "normal" in our society and culture would not be view the same way in say west Africa.

So therefore you cant just use academic discourses to define neglect.

The threshold of intervention is a very interesting area...for example if a parent is telling a child they are stupid and the child internalizes this and then grows up believing themselves to be stupid...that parent has emotionally abused that child, should there have been professional intervention in that family?....

liah

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which would mean it wasn't;

It was a direct result of indirect actions my parents chose to take, though.

Ickle Magoo

Of course it's vague - there are far too many parameters within each individual case for there to be any definitive marker that can unquestionably measure the point undesirable parenting moves into parental irresponsibility and then into criminal neglect.

There are many well-to-do parents that have no drink or drug issues that neglect their children as there are alcoholics and drug addicts who are a large and positive part of their children's lives. I think the deciding factor has to be whether the parents actions are/likely to be impinging negatively on a child life to such a degree that not intervening is doing more harm than whatever intervention is deemed necessary.

SugarHigh

If 2 parents lack social skills and suffer depression these will most likely be passed onto their kids, are they neglecting their child?

Even if they are I don't see how an intervention could help because putting child who lacks social skills into a home probably won't help them. I'm sure in your head you imagine them bonding with other kids but since they lack social skills they will most likely become a target for every other kid to score points off. I think the problem is wanting to take action to help the child but there simply isn't an appropriate action to take so you're potentionally just going to make their situation worse.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure what you mean by "in my head"...social workers intervened and myself and my siblings were forcibly removed from our biological parents and I'm eternally grateful for the intervention.

Societal intervention in families is something that many people intrinsically object to, ingrained that life with the biological parents is always preferable and that "the authorities" shouldn't be "interfering" - coming from the other side I might not be here without such intervention.

I don't think condescendingly inferring it's all just a romantic notion of bonding is at all necessary either btw.

SugarHigh

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "in my head"...social workers intervened and myself and my siblings were forcibly removed from our biological parents and I'm eternally grateful for the intervention.

Societal intervention in families is something that many people intrinsically object to, ingrained that life with the biological parents is always preferable and that "the authorities" shouldn't be "interfering" - coming from the other side I might not be here without such intervention.

I don't think condescendingly inferring it's all just a romantic notion of bonding is at all necessary either btw.

I was only talking about intervention being destructive in that particular scenario. I'm sure there are many times when intervention is a positive.

Ickle Magoo

But would it necessarily be destructive? What about parents who are depressed to the point they can't look after themselves, never mind children; or who are in and out of a psychiatric facility? At what stage do you draw the line and put the children's right to a normal childhood with capable parents above the parents right to hold onto their kids regardless of how poor a job they do?

I think it's a mine-field tbh and unfortunately we can only gauge if the right thing has been done retrospectively which is why the definitions are so vague; whether that be where social services fails to intervene and we have situations like baby P or an adult living with severe issues having been given no stable childhood or those that resent being forcibly put up for adoption instead of given extra support - and even then what intervention one party in a neglect case may consider justified or warranted may not be shared by another.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "in my head"...social workers intervened and myself and my siblings were forcibly removed from our biological parents and I'm eternally grateful for the intervention.

Societal intervention in families is something that many people intrinsically object to, ingrained that life with the biological parents is always preferable and that "the authorities" shouldn't be "interfering" - coming from the other side I might not be here without such intervention.

I don't think condescendingly inferring it's all just a romantic notion of bonding is at all necessary either btw.

Hmnnn.....

Ok it worked out for you.

Heres a couple of examples. I know of a couple with several kids in NY. They are far from ideal and perfect. The father is an alcoholic and the grandfather called the social workers and had the kids taken from him and his daughter. The kids were taken away for a week and came back with fevers and headlice.

Second example of interference. A friend of mine who was given up for adoption and died at 33. The state, church and family decided that due to his bio fathers mental condition[was insitutionalised] that his mother was better off in one of those homes where she could finish out her pregnancy and the child would be farmed out. HE was sold by a priest for 50 pounds to a family in Dublin, which later abused the crap out of him and his sister.


I read most of the Roscommon report and what is sad is that with all the help these people got they still couldnt learn to help themselves to raise their kids. The alcoholism was the root of the problem and how do you deal with that? That was what really needed the internvention! They needed to look at their addictions, be faced with it and sent to rehab.

Ickle Magoo

If by "working out" you mean I survived neglectful parents and state care facilities and have thus far manages not to repeat the cycle, yes - not sure that's quite the flippant terminology I'd use though.

I have no details on the cases you refer to and I'm not sure what shitty situations in the past have to do with defining neglect or knowing when/how to intervene in social work generally today - between the laundries, abusive priests, nuns beating girls, etc, ireland has a fairly horrific history of child neglect and abuse by the authorities - it wasn't just ireland either, traditionally kids taken into care were in a no-win situation. I was in a care home run by a nun later convicted of various physical abuses, for instance.

Regardless, I don't think historical records of care facilities are any reason not to intervene in neglect cases - and I would certainly not be a proponent of biological parents keeping their kids at all costs, no. Support parents yes but I think there has to come a point when enough is enough and if the parents lack of suitable parenting is having a significantly detrimental effect on their kids then those kids should (hopefully) get a second chance with another family, rather than bouncing between inadequate care and inadequate parents.

There are alcoholic and drug-taking parents that do a reasonable job at raising their offspring, there is only so much scape-goating to lack of authority hand-holding or parental foibles you can rationally make before accepting some parents are just terrible parents that don't deserve to get 30 chances to show they can feed, clothe and not abuse their children for any length of time.

irishh_bob

as regards the ( horrific ) roscommon case , thier was ample evidence of neglect , the neighbours never stopped banging on doors to anyone and everyone in a possition of authority , alas , it was yet another example of public servants passing the buck , beit teachers , guards or the professional hand wringers that are social workers , i for one dont believe an amendment to the constitution would have made a blind bit of difference , a few added lines to bunreacht na heireann wont change the distinct lack of responsibility that exists in our public sector