Child snatchers

Ohbethehokey

Tulsa have removed a child from it's grandparents because they are in thier mid 60's and it is preferable for Tulsa that the age gap between child and foster parents should not be more than 40 years.


Total nonsense. If I die, my siblings wouldn't be able to foster my children.

Nanny state gone mad. Ageist. Sure enda is 65 and in charge of the country, but apparently these people can't be left In charge of a child, despite teachers and doctors saying they are doing a good job.

foggy_lad

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Tulsa have removed a child from it's grandparents because they are in thier mid 60's and it is preferable for Tulsa that the age gap between child and foster parents should not be more than 40 years.


Total nonsense. If I die, my siblings wouldn't be able to foster my children.

Nanny state gone mad. Ageist. Sure enda is 65 and in charge of the country, but apparently these people can't be left In charge of a child, despite teachers and doctors saying they are doing a good job.

Yet these clowns will leave at risk people in foster homes for years at risk of sexual assault from members of the household! they have no real idea of what is needed, they learned it all from books not from being part of loving caring homes.

SEPT 23 1989

Surely after your own parents the best people to look after you are your granny and granda

What sort of homes did these Tusla people come from to make a decision like this?

Alf Stewart.

Read thread title.

Immediate thoughts...

Lollipops......

Treacle tarts......

Ice cream........

Sweeties....



And alll freeee todaaaaay.

colm_mcm

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Tulsa have removed a child from it's grandparents because they are in thier mid 60's and it is preferable for Tulsa that the age gap between child and foster parents should not be more than 40 years.

24 Hours from Tusla...

Wibbs

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Nanny state gone mad.

TBH O, normally I baulk at that phrase and it makes my toenails itch, but in this instance I'm right behind it and you. Unless there are details not being made public in this particular case, the "judgement" is beyond moronic. Then again I would reserve the lower bowels of Hell itself for a large chunk of so called "social workers"(and their "science" is most definitely of the soft stripe). As we've seen in our neighbour the UK, they have consistently proven themselves to be utter morons in the face of common bloody sense and human experience. The cultural meme of grandparents raising their grandchildren in cases where their parents were lost is very deep and universal. Hell it's even in children's books like Heidi.

Child snatchers is a brilliant thread title title to gather lots of trolls!

Unless you know the details of a specific case, you really cannot comment

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

Unless you know the details of a specific case, you really cannot comment

Eh yeah, we can actually. Until such times as the government body in question that has the power to remove a child from a good home as testified to by other healthcare professionals comes out with damned good reasons for such a decision, damned good reasons that extend beyond a press release citing "procedure".

SEPT 23 1989

bubblypop wrote: »

Child snatchers is a brilliant thread title title to gather lots of trolls!

Unless you know the details of a specific case, you really cannot comment

"we cannot comment on a specific case" is usually the phase these institutions hide behind

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh yeah, we can actually. Until such times as the government body in question comes out with damned good reasons for such a decision, damned good reasons that extend beyond a press release citing "procedure".

So do you think that all child protection issues should first be put out in the public domain , for random strangers to comment on?
I'd prefer that the people in charge of child protection do their job.
Not that the media take over that job!

Mam of 4

This is just pure ridiculous Imo , to take a child/children from Grandparents who love them and know them and have bonded with them to place them with total strangers or in care homes? Because they're over the forty year age gap?? Beggars belief to be honest .

And before anyone jumps on me , I know not all Grandparents are kind , loving or willing to look after the children in situations like this , but for those who are , they should be supported not punished by removing the children from their care.

Ohbethehokey

foggy_lad wrote: »

Yet these clowns will leave at risk people in foster homes for years at risk of sexual assault from members of the household! they have no real idea of what is needed, they learned it all from books not from being part of loving caring homes.

Yes it wasn't a month ago they were saying they wouldn't remove children being abused from foster parents. I think they are trying to make a little industry for themselves.

tomwaterford

bubblypop wrote: »

So do you think that all child protection issues should first be put out in the public domain , for random strangers to comment on?
I'd prefer that the people in charge of child protection do their job.
Not that the media take over that job!

Do you not think Tulsa could come out and say whether it was the age gap or not was the issue without passing comment on rest of case???


As if 'twas the age gap...surly providing support to the family is preferable to making off with the child??

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Then again I would reserve the lower bowels of Hell itself for a large chunk of so called "social workers"(and their "science" is most definitely of the soft stripe). As we've seen in our neighbour the UK, they have consistently proven themselves to be utter morons in the face of common bloody sense and human experience.

You're being a bit unfair there now Wibbs. The unfairness is directly proportional to the size of the 'large chunk' mind you. We simply never hear of the thousands-and-thousands of cases that are successfully dealt with day-in-day-out.

It's a bit like plane crashes. Successful flights don't grab the attention of the public whereas accidents, crashes, and hijackings do.

alchemist33

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH O, normally I baulk at that phrase and it makes my toenails itch, but in this instance I'm right behind it and you. Unless there are details not being made public in this particular case, the "judgement" is beyond moronic. Then again I would reserve the lower bowels of Hell itself for a large chunk of so called "social workers"(and their "science" is most definitely of the soft stripe). As we've seen in our neighbour the UK, they have consistently proven themselves to be utter morons in the face of common bloody sense and human experience. The cultural meme of grandparents raising their grandchildren in cases where their parents were lost is very deep and universal. Hell it's even in children's books like Heidi.

I haven't read about this particular case so can't comment, but it's oh so easy to snipe from the sidelines about social workers. Childcare social work is one of the ****tiest jobs in these islands. If you're seen to be over-zealous you're pilloried in the press; seen to be too lax and the same happens. Certainly there are tragedies and individuals or systems don't do their job properly, but this ignore the many cases where the job is done right. The social workers are usually under-staffed, working in a legal system that has to take parents rights into consideration (parents who will sometimes abuse, threaten and be violent to social work staff), and every single case is a judgement call that can go either way. There's massive pressure and massive turnover of staff.

Like I said, I don't know this case, and Tusla may have made a mistake (or not), but it shouldn't descend into another social worker bashing session. Honestly, it isn't a job most of us would want to do.


(btw, I'm not a SW, or related to any)

suicide_circus

http://tomandlorenzo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang-Musical-Monday-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-TLO-44.jpg

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

Do you not think Tulsa could come out and say whether it was the age gap or not was the issue without passing comment on rest of case???


As if 'twas the age gap...surly providing support to the family is preferable to making off with the child??

No I don't think tusla have to come out & say anything about I individual cases.

tomwaterford

bubblypop wrote: »

No I don't think tusla have to come out & say anything about I individual cases.

Preferring instead to not clarify their position on age gaps on parenting in general


And giving its organisation a bad reputation??

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

Preferring instead to not clarify their position on age gaps on parenting in general


And giving its organisation a bad reputation??

It's really not their job to worry about what people in social media say about them.
Their job is child protection.

Atlantic Dawn

Rod Stewart is still banging them out at 71.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

_Whimsical_

bubblypop wrote: »

No I don't think tusla have to come out & say anything about I individual cases.

The childs school and Dr have both made submissions in support of the child staying with the grandparents. They have been told the basis the child was removed was because they were over 40 years older than the child.


Very often grandparents make a much better parental substitute than an aunt or uncle. If Tusla are genuinely concerned that the grandparents may eventually die, which is a risk for parents of every age, there are so many other ways to go about supporting the child. Why not try to introduce him to a family who might be there if he is ever in need of care due to death or illness of a grandparent so he could forge a bond with them over time. If he had a strong backup like that there'd be no huge concern with him receiving continuity of familiar care even if the worst happened. He should be left with people who've loved him from birth until the very last minute. Nothing replaces real love and a person whose willing to fight for them in a child's life.

PandaPoo

Wow, my foster parents are 50 years older than me. They raised me from the time I was 6 months old. Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have , they were more than capable

twowheelsonly

Before anybody makes general comments about Social Workers and Tusla I think they should read the relevant article

http://www.thejournal.ie/grandparents-age-foster-care-2778265-May2016/

Personally I think it's a disgraceful decision.

Fair enough, the childs parents are not capable of minding the child at this time but that may change. Everybody changes over 5/8/10 years and who's to say that their circumstances won't improve.
As the Grandparents are fit and healthy and more than capable of minding the child at present, and by all accounts doing a good job, why not leave them there and just keep a watching brief ?
Hundreds of kids are reared by their Grandparents with no input or involvement from Social Services - in a lot of instances they wouldn't even know about it. Seems to me like that's the way to go.

This is the bit that got me...

....denial came through after a foster care committee assessment.

When committees' start making decisions about how to rear your children then you know you're in trouble...

Ohbethehokey

They don't like farmers either


Other concerns listed included the fact the family owns a farm



Morons

foggy_lad

I'll just leave this here for people to read, If the HSE and tusla wont listen to a consultant pediatrician then there is no real point even debating this as they are not for turning.


http://www.thejournal.ie/grandparents-age-foster-care-2778265-May2016/

A consultant pediatrician from a large hospital, who treated the child for enuresis (bedwetting) wrote a letter to confirm that the child’s condition had improved and that the care of the child’s grandmother had “afforded a huge degree of stability”… and that it was clear the child felt “secure with its grandmother”.

The letter urged that the child’s situation should not change:

I would therefore be strongly opposed to any attempt to move [the child] from its present placement. [The child's] interests come first and this child is clearly doing well… moving [the child] from this environment would be detrimental to [the child's] welfare.

The child’s school principal also testified to the child being “very happy”.

Ohbethehokey

The child is 9 now according to tomorrow's paper.


Is this the start of finding children for same sex couples?

osarusan

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

Is this the start of finding children for same sex couples?

:rolleyes:

FFS

Junkyard Tom

Even when it was the bears I knew it was the gays.

whatdoicare

There's 40 years between my husband and our daughter, does that mean he's unfit to parent??

Who makes up this rediculous criteria?!

Subcomandante Marcos

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh yeah, we can actually. Until such times as the government body in question that has the power to remove a child from a good home as testified to by other healthcare professionals comes out with damned good reasons for such a decision, damned good reasons that extend beyond a press release citing "procedure".

To be frank, a GP and a principle have little to no idea of what is going on in the home on a family they deal with.

Social workers would have a far, far clearer picture of the needs of the child in question and the ability of the guardians to meet those needs.

They very, very rarely get it wrong, but when they do it's all over the place.

I'll reserve judgement of the SW's in question until such a time as the details become public knowledge.

foggy_lad

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

The child is 9 now according to tomorrow's paper.


Is this the start of finding children for same sex couples?

Well at the moment same sex couples are prohibited from adopting in Ireland(one of the couple can apply as a single person), I am not sure how these caring tusla civil servants deal with same sex foster carers or whether they allow it at all.

foggy_lad

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

To be frank, a GP and a principle have little to no idea of what is going on in the home on a family they deal with.

Social workers would have a far, far clearer picture of the needs of the child in question and the ability of the guardians to meet those needs.

They very, very rarely get it wrong, but when they do it's all over the place.

I'll reserve judgement of the SW's in question until such a time as the details become public knowledge.

The same social workers who turned up hours late for meetings or cancelled them at the very last minute or even asked to hold meetings out in a car park?

They might see the child and it's carers for less than an hour and suddenly they are experts? The only thing they know is their forms and red tape and how to juggle their overtime into the budget.

Story Bud?

That poor child

Can you imagine how scared he must be? Taken from his own home without any kind of explanation that he would understand at that age. Just wondering why he's in a strange house with a family this not his.

It's heartbreaking

claregal1

So if the online editions of this morning's papers are correct- it appears that Tulsa are now conducting their own investigation within the organisation as to the outcome of this case ...

Shocking that a child who came to live with his grandparents at the age of 4 is then removed from the only stable home enviroment he has known for the last five years based on his grandparents age.

gctest50

It's what's best for the child long term that matters

Counting when the child is 18/19 they will be 75 - who will be looking after the farm then ?

Would the grandparents be so keen if the child was female ?

.

Realt Dearg Sec

Yeah fostering is a mess. I remember seeing a documentary about fostering in Australia, they had this kid, she grew up in a foster home, bit her foster mother actually was just changed overnight one time, and the new one pretended to have the same name. Must have been pretty traumatic, but she never received an explanation. And one after another her foster fathers died, yet nothing was done to help her. And all the other foster kids who came through were constantly fighting and moving on, must have been a very unstable situation. I think eventually she moved to Yabbie Creek but to be honest the damage was done by then to poor Sally.

FTA69

Jesus Christ, reading this article I assumed this sort of stupid carry on was taking place in America or the UK. It appears common sense is going out the window in Ireland as well. There have been countless children raised by their grandparents at various times in Ireland (I was one of them) and they were lucky to have them. To be snatched away from your family by some f*cking anorak and placed in a group home or a house full of strangers is beyond stupid and cruel. I hope it gets resolved.

I wonder was there are other evidence? As the thing about age is only a factor.

It sounds awful...but we are getting one side only, and presume Tusla are kinda prevented from saying "but there was also this reason, and that".

I'd be surprised if age was the only factor - if it was that would of course seem wrong.

Ohbethehokey

claregal1 wrote: »

So if the online editions of this morning's papers are correct- it appears that Tulsa are now conducting their own investigation within the organisation as to the outcome of this case ...

Shocking that a child who came to live with his grandparents at the age of 4 is then removed from the only stable home enviroment he has known for the last five years based on his grandparents age.

investigating themselves, i'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.


600euro/week/child would be worth throwing a bribe to the social worker and securing a few children.

BattleCorp

gctest50 wrote: »

It's what's best for the child long term that matters

Counting when the child is 18/19 they will be 85 - who will be looking after the farm then ?

Would the grandparents be so keen if the child was female ?

What exactly are you suggesting here?

Are you suggesting that they only want the child because he is male and could look after the farm? Really?

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

investigating themselves, i'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.


600euro/week/child would be worth throwing a bribe to the social worker and securing a few children.

Seriously?

€600 per child? Bribes? Conspiracies?

claregal1

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

investigating themselves, i'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.


600euro/week/child would be worth throwing a bribe to the social worker and securing a few children.

Are you seriously implying that foster carers get €600 pw per child and that social workers are accepting bribes ???

Subcomandante Marcos

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

To be frank, a GP and a principle have little to no idea of what is going on in the home on a family they deal with...

Absolutely.

In family law cases, people often come bounding in with the old "letter from the GP". Not worth the paper they're written on, as the GP can only repeat what the person who brings a child in says. A psychologist who observes the child, speaks with all relevant parties etc. is far more relevant.

Ohbethehokey

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously?

€600 per child? Bribes? Conspiracies?

A booming trade in children for the right people

Ohbethehokey

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

A booming trade in children for the right people

Ah lads, let's not try and turn the case into some utterly nonsense conspiracy theory. And make it laughable.

Afaik it's half the figure you mention.

It's a serious issue. Take it seriously.

Speedwell

I'm 49 and not yet menopausal. My husband is of a similar age. Would Tusla agree to me getting an abortion if I became pregnant with a child who would be 50 years younger than me, or would they prefer to send it to an orphanage?

Ohbethehokey

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah lads, let's not try and turn the case into some utterly nonsense conspiracy theory. And make it laughable.

Afaik it's half the figure you mention.

It's a serious issue. Take it seriously.

It is serious. Children being abused in foster homes won't be removed. This was stated a couple of weeks ago. They would be removed from thier natural parents for the same.

It is a booming trade in children for the right people.


Children for cash

Sapphire

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder was there are other evidence? As the thing about age is only a factor.

It sounds awful...but we are getting one side only, and presume Tusla are kinda prevented from saying "but there was also this reason, and that".

I'd be surprised if age was the only factor - if it was that would of course seem wrong.

I'm hoping that there was much more to it.

I wondered if they were in declining or recent poor health and that's why the child was fostered rather than just their age - after all, its only the Grandparents who are free to discuss their side of things, Tusla cant publicly rebut their accusations.

And we don't know the full story - for those two school/ doctors letters, there could be a stack of other reports that clearly show that the grandparents are not able to cope in lots of ways and increasingly depending on a child to help them around the farm and the house.

I'm finding it hard to believe that an already overworked social worker would go to the bother of paperwork and work involved sourcing alternative foster care if there wasn't a valid reason and the child was in an otherwise stable placement.

Age couldn't be the singe factor for fostering the child.

gctest50

Tusla seem to have had more concerns

Tusla also cited issues with :

home hygiene,
farm safety,
the grandmother's own health needs
the couple’s ability to communicate with its social work department

http://bit.ly/1VgwmV6

They just didn't meet six of the criteria :

The Irish Examiner understands that Tusla outlined six criteria that the couple did not meet as foster carers, which led to the child being removed from their care.

http://bit.ly/1VgwlAp

joey100

I worked with a social worker on a case that was very very similar to this (I'm not a social worker but do work in the area). In the case I worked in they let the child stay with the grand parent. But there were a huge number of concerns, especially around the size of the house that the grand parent owned, at the time they shared a bedroom and concerns were raised about what would happen when the child reached puberty. Their was also concerns around where the rest of the child's siblings where living and the effect of separating them. Basically a lot more goes into the decision than just the age of the grand parents, but maybe this information was all that was released because there is ongoing investigations? Maybe they don't want the real reason released to the media to try and protect both the child and the grandparents? We are getting one side of the story here and should try and remember that.

@ohbethehokey if you think parent's that abuse their children have them taken off them your completely mistaken. The level of abuse a child must suffer to be taken off the parent's is disturbing. Until very very recently the right's of the family where put before the right's of a child.