Media misreports that a Christian child in UK foster home forced to remove crucifix

recedite

A Christian child was reportedly forced to live in a foster home where people ‘didn’t speak English’, and she was made to remove her cross necklace.
According to confidential documents seen by The Times, the girl – a native English speaker – has spent the past six months in two very traditional Muslim households where her carers wore niqabs and burqas, and she was encouraged to learn Arabic....
..More recently, the girl apparently told her mother that ‘Christmas and Easter are stupid’ and that ‘European women are stupid and alcoholic’.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/28/christian-girl-was-forced-into-foster-home-where-nobody-spoke-english-6883624/

Is this acceptable, or should the girl just be grateful that she has a home?


Bearing in mind that foster families normally get well paid by the state, I don't think this is acceptable. But maybe there are just no other foster families offering accommodation?

MOD NOTE - Title updated to reflect latest information regarding story

Peregrinus

It's not acceptable, but I'd read the report with a high degree of scepticism.

In the first place, what is described is absolutely contrary to the fundamental principles of good practice in child protection work as carried out in the UK. That's not to say that such a thing couldn't happen, but I wouldn't necessarily accept at face value an assertion that it was happening. I'd want a bit of a dig.

Secondly, it seems the story comes from a single source, which is the child's natural mother. For obvious reasons, natural parents are frequently resentful and upset about their children being taken into care and placed with foster families. So I wouldn't regard this as a dispassionate source.

In the third place, while the article does say that "Tower Hamlets refused to explain" its actions, it omits the reason for the refusal, which Tower Hamlets will certainly have pointed out; the law absolutely forbids the care authorities, and the foster carers, from discussing with the media the details of individual children in care, or the arrangements made for them. The reasons for that are obvious. The fact that the newspaper report doesn't point out the constraints under which Tower Hamlets is operating, and instead simply paints them as uncooperative, suggests to me that this newspaper report is written to push an ideological line.

There's a huge amount in this story that we are not being told. Whoever put this story together is trying, in a fairly crude and obvious way, to manipulate us. Call me a contrary old <snip>, but I don't like being manipulated like this.

On the fundamental question raised, is it acceptable that a foster child be pushed to adopt the religious (or anti-religious) attitudes or practices of foster carers, or inculcated with derogatory views about cultural or ethnic groups that the foster carers hold? Absolutely not, no. Is it actually happening as described in this article? I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt.

Manach

I on the hand would say the elements are more likely to be true than not.

Dismissing a lower class parents view and concerns is something that historically the Church and State have failed to engage with. These times have marked a low period in standards of care. That there are many more policies in place should be welcomed, but after reading books such as "Not my Dept" by Tape and more specific texts on administration law, these are seemingly in place to protect the institution and not the individual that they serve. Hence the no comment statement from the council. That the norms and cultural values of a child are not being properly catered to, either by a dismissive attitude by professionals or sheer indifference on their part does not come at all as a surprise.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the fundamental question raised, is it acceptable that a foster child be pushed to adopt the religious (or anti-religious) attitudes or practices of foster carers, or inculcated with derogatory views about cultural or ethnic groups that the foster carers hold? Absolutely not, no.

How does this pan out legally. If a child is fostered into a home with one religious tradition, and the child has another religious tradition, are the foster parents expected to support faith formation and practises, including possible dietary restrictions, of the fostered child?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

How does this pan out legally. If a child is fostered into a home with one religious tradition, and the child has another religious tradition, are the foster parents expected to support faith formation and practises, including possible dietary restrictions, of the fostered child?

Yes.

lazybones32

Manach wrote: »

I on the hand would say the elements are more likely to be true than not.

Dismissing a lower class parents view and concerns is something that historically the Church and State have failed to engage with. These times have marked a low period in standards of care. That there are many more policies in place should be welcomed, but after reading books such as "Not my Dept" by Tape and more specific texts on administration law, these are seemingly in place to protect the institution and not the individual that they serve. Hence the no comment statement from the council. That the norms and cultural values of a child are not being properly catered to, either by a dismissive attitude by professionals or sheer indifference on their part does not come at all as a surprise.

The report was issued by the girl's social services supervisor, not the mother. The article is based on the supervisor's report; supposedly a confidential local authority report. Most of it is based on the supervisor's interaction with the girl, not interaction with the mother.

recedite

lazybones32 wrote: »

. Most of it is based on the supervisor's interaction with the girl, not interaction with the mother.

Yes, it says in the article...

..In the reports, a social services supervisor describes how the child cried and begged not to be returned

IMO what we are seeing here is individual care workers reporting a problem, but the council turning a blind eye to the problem because of sensitivities around race and religion.
There are several UK councils controlled by the Labour party, in which there is now a large muslim population, which population tends to be associated with that party. A lot of the white working class traditional Labour vote moved to UKIP and SNP in recent years.

It's not very long since that kind of reluctance at council level to act led to a serious amount of child abuse; in Rotherham

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources

In that situation, individual care workers had reported the indicators of the problem early on, but were stonewalled.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Yes, it says in the article...
IMO what we are seeing here is individual care workers reporting a problem, but the council turning a blind eye to the problem because of sensitivities around race and religion . . .

There's nothing in the report to suggest that the council is "turning a blind eye to the problem because of sensitivities around race and religion". In fact there's nothing to suggest that they're turning a blind eye to it for any reason; the report is completely silent about what action the Council is taking.

I'm afraid you're just projecting your own preconceptions here.

A childcare authority in this situation will normally (a) move the child to a more suitable placement, or (b) work with the foster carers to see if their care standards and values can be improved or - ideally - (c) both of these things. But they are constrained by their statutory duty to provide a placement for the child and, frequently, by a shortage of approved foster carers.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

the report is completely silent about what action the Council is taking.

Not quite, the report tells us that the child was sent to live with muslim families, on two consecutive occasions, one family probably being salafists. And the report tells us that the child and the family objected to this.

Anyway, the matter has been taken out of the council's hands by a judge, and it seems the child will now go to live with her granny.

Judge Khatun Sapnara has ordered the council to conduct an investigation into the claims made by The Times and ordered that the girl should live with a family member who could meet her needs “in terms of ethnicity, culture and religion

Good decision by the judge there; he/she seems to have seen the importance of being seen to protect the ethnic minority (white English at only 31% of the population in the borough these days).

Also this raises the question of whether the family had ever agreed to have the child taken into care, or whether the council seized the child against the family's wishes. This happens quite a lot in the UK, although its relatively rare in Ireland.
I wonder what level of alcohol consumption would render a parent unfit to keep their own child, in the eyes of this council?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Not quite, the report tells us that the child was sent to live with muslim families, on two consecutive occasions, one family probably being salafists. And the report tells us that the child and the family objected to this.

But the newspaper account doesn't tell us what action the council took in response to the social worker's report, is my point.

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, the matter has been taken out of the council's hands by a judge, and it seems the child will now go to live with her granny.
Good decision by the judge there; he/she seems to have seen the importance of being seen to protect the ethnic minority (white English at only 31% of the population in the borough these days).

I don't know whether this represents the matter "being taken out of the Council's hands"; that was the outcome the Council wanted. The judge's decision had nothing to do with "protecting the ethnic minority"; that would be unlawful. The judges decision must be taken in the best interest of the child, not on the political correctness fashionable with whites' rights activists.

recedite wrote: »

Also this raises the question of whether the family had ever agreed to have the child taken into care, or whether the council seized the child against the family's wishes. This happens quite a lot in the UK, although its relatively rare in Ireland.

Councils in the UK can't simply seize children; they have to get a care order from the Family Court. To get the order they have to satisfy the court that the child:

- is suffering, or is likely to suffer, serious harm from the way they are looked after; or

- is beyond the control of the parent.

Note that they have to satisfy the court as to this, regardless of whether the family consents to the care order or opposes it.

A care order doesn't necessarily result in the child being taken from the family. A child can be in care, and still live at home. In practice, though, when children are first taken into care the situation is usually critical and the children are placed elsewhere. The court has to approve whatever placement is made. Then the Council develops a care plan, the usual object of which is to bring about family reunification (i.e. the child returns home, but in conditions of safety). The court has to approve that too.

recedite wrote: »

I wonder what level of alcohol consumption would render a parent unfit to keep their own child, in the eyes of this council?

The eyes of the Council don't decide this; the eyes of the Family Court do. The critical level of alcohol consumption on the part of the parent, obviously, would be such as would cause the parent to behave in a way which results in the child suffering, or being likely to suffer, serious harm.

Is that relevant in this case? Is it suggested that the parent's drinking was a factor in the child being taken into care? I haven't seen anything about that.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The judge's decision had nothing to do with "protecting the ethnic minority"; that would be unlawful.

Fair point, but in this case the child's wellbeing was being adversely affected by being wrenched away from her own religion/culture, so the two issues are tied in together. Anyway, sometimes a judge has to be cognisant of the wider implications of a ruling.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Councils in the UK can't simply seize children; they have to get a care order from the Family Court.

They can get a temporary order quite easily, and look for a full court hearing later.
There is even a helpful website on what to do if your child has been lifted.

It follows that in a regime where lots of applications are being made by social workers for court orders, then a lot of those applications are going to succeed.
In other jurisdictions, such as Ireland, where social workers would see it more as a last resort, there will be fewer.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is it suggested that the parent's drinking was a factor in the child being taken into care? I haven't seen anything about that.

I have no idea about that, just that the foster parent was reportedly "having a go" at white/English/European women who drink, when talking to the child. So maybe that comment just came out of nowhere, but maybe not.

It would make you wonder though, suppose a home is visited by two council social workers, one from a strict muslim background, and one from a more aboriginal background. And there were obvious signs of alcohol; empty cans and bottles lying around. One social worker might start off on the assumption that this was an unfit home for a child, the other might be more circumspect about it?

lazybones32

recedite wrote: »

Yes, it says in the article...
IMO what we are seeing here is individual care workers reporting a problem, but the council turning a blind eye to the problem because of sensitivities around race and religion.
There are several UK councils controlled by the Labour party, in which there is now a large muslim population, which population tends to be associated with that party. A lot of the white working class traditional Labour vote moved to UKIP and SNP in recent years.

It's not very long since that kind of reluctance at council level to act led to a serious amount of child abuse; in Rotherham In that situation, individual care workers had reported the indicators of the problem early on, but were stonewalled.

My clarification about the mother wasn't aimed at you or manach.

Tower Hamlets Childrens Services, a few months ago, were harshly criticised by Ofsted for being inadequate and for widespread and serious failures. I gave a quick glance through that report and it is pretty damning...there are a lot of ploiticians involved in this organisation and they don't escape criticism.

Sarah Champion had to step down a few weeks ago for writing an article saying that British-Pakistani men are raping white girls...and it's time we faced up to it. Members of her own Labour Party turned on her and called it poisonous propaganda. I don't recall those colleagues voicing comment on the 17 people convicted for raping teenage girls in Newcastle a few days prior but they definitely made their voices heard when the common denominator in such cases was spoken of publicly.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

. . . It would make you wonder though, suppose a home is visited by two council social workers, one from a strict muslim background, and one from a more aboriginal background. And there were obvious signs of alcohol; empty cans and bottles lying around. One social worker might start off on the assumption that this was an unfit home for a child, the other might be more circumspect about it?

Assuming that they're both professionally qualified social workers (which, in childcare work at least, they should be) their training will have included some work on cultural awareness, on recognising one's own cultural assumptions, and on what it means for social work practice to place the interests of the child first. In this case neither social worker should be looking at the bottles and thinking "that's evidence of harm to the child"; they should be looking that the child and thinking "does this child appear harmed, or at risk of harm?" If the child appears, e.g., neglected, and the house is full of empties you might hypothesise that alcohol abuse is contributing to the neglect of the child but, actually, that doesn't matter greatly; the neglect is an issue regardless of whether it's caused by alcohol or by some other factor. On the other hand, if the child appears happy and healthy and safe, the parent's drinking, however severe, is not a problem (as far as child care legislation is concerned).

In this case one of the foster carers is said to have passed comments about alcohol, but they were generic comments rather than comments about the girl's mother. I haven't noticed any suggestion that any of the social workers involved said anything at all about alcohol. I do think I read that part of the factors which lead to the child being taken into care was that the mother had substance abuse problems; that could be alcohol or, obviously, another substance. Or both. The fact that the judge hasn't returned the child to the mother indicates that she finds that, for whatever reason, the mother can't provide a safe environment for the girl.

Peregrinus

lazybones32 wrote: »

My clarification about the mother wasn't aimed at you or manach.

Tower Hamlets Childrens Services, a few months ago, were harshly criticised by Ofsted for being inadequate and for widespread and serious failures. I gave a quick glance through that report and it is pretty damning...there are a lot of ploiticians involved in this organisation and they don't escape criticism.

Sarah Champion had to step down a few weeks ago for writing an article saying that British-Pakistani men are raping white girls...and it's time we faced up to it. Members of her own Labour Party turned on her and called it poisonous propaganda. I don't recall those colleagues voicing comment on the 17 people convicted for raping teenage girls in Newcastle a few days prior but they definitely made their voices heard when the common denominator in such cases was spoken of publicly.

You can read the Ofsted report on Tower Hamlets here. It does make for grim reading.

Interestingly, though the worst outcomes were noted in services for "children who need help and protection" - that is to say, children who have not yet been taken into care. Relevantly to the present case, for these children there was "insufficient consideration of children’s historical information and their
ethnic and cultural needs". As a result of these and other failures, "too many children remain in situations of actual or potential harm for too long".

But the present case deals with a child who is in care and, for that group ("children looked after and achieving permanence") the report is slightly less damning. Relevantly, "most children live within 20 miles of home in stable placements that meet their cultural, ethnic and religious needs. . . . a large majority of children are placed . . . with carers who meet their ethnic, religious and cultural needs." (although it doesn't appear that this girl was). But there is still a shortage of foster carers, a shortage of available foster places and "some weaknesses in the timeliness and quality of fostering assessments" (which may not be unconnected; when you're desperate for foster carers, you may be tempted not to get too picky with those who offer).

The pattern is not an unfamiliar one. This is a cash-strapped local authority, dealing with a deprived area suffering a high rate of social problems, during a time of austerity. The Council's limited resources are focussed on children already in care, to whom they have an overriding statutory duty. But care is expensive, and that absorbs a lot of the available resources, and the last thing the council wants is more children coming into care. So not a lot of resources are put into children in need of help and protection and the council is slow to seek care orders, and this is where the worst outcomes are noted.

The problems are exacerbated by poor governance ("Insufficient scrutiny by the chief executive, the director of children’s services (DCS) and politicians has meant that they did not know about the extent of the failures to protect children until this inspection"), poor management (" The board lacks an overarching strategic plan to systematically drive the extensive change required") and low staff morale (turnover of 30% in the assessment and
intervention team in 2016).

I don't see this as being down to political correctness, or the endorsement of Islamic preconceptions about alcohol. It's a mess, but it looks mess mainly attributable to poverty, social alienation and austerity.

pauldla

Latest update on this story: the press might have been, shall we say, stretching the truth of the matter.

How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. Here are the facts.

No removal of crucifixes, no banning of Easter or bacon, etc etc.

No matter, the damage is done now.

flas

Thread on twitter earlier on this,turns out its absolute rubbish

Victor

recedite wrote: »

A lot of the white working class traditional Labour vote moved to UKIP and SNP in recent years.

Labour got 40% of the vote in the recent election. UKIP got less than 2% of the vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

To describe SNP voters as "white working class" fails to appreciate that Scotland is 96% white and that they didn't run candidates outside Scotland. Labour hold some urban seats in Scotland, which in fairness are more likely to have higher non-white minorities than, say the Outer Hebrides.

In summary, UKIP have blown their load and <snip> the country.

---

recedite wrote: »

Judge Khatun Sapnara has ordered the council to conduct an investigation into the claims made by The Times and ordered that the girl should live with a family member who could meet her needs “in terms of ethnicity, culture and religion

Good decision by the judge there; he/she seems to have seen the importance of being seen to protect the ethnic minority

Just to let you know, the judge is a Muslim woman.

recedite

The court order confirms that the mother was unhappy with the placement, but it also gives us some new information that a court appointed guardian, in contrast, was happy with it.
Also we find that it was the police who removed the child, though from their point of view, that would have been as a short term emergency measure.

7. The Child has had the benefit of an independent court appointed Guardian from CAFCASS to protect her interests throughout these proceedings.

8. The mother raised some concerns about the appropriateness of the placement. On 27th June 2017, the court directed the Local Authority to produce a statement to address the cultural appropriateness of the foster care placement.

9. That statement was filed. The allegations made against the foster carers are disputed by the local authority.

10. The child’s Guardian has undertaken enquiries and visited the child in the current foster carer’s home and spoken to the child alone. The Guardian has no concerns as to the child’s welfare and she reports that the child is settled and well cared for by the foster carer

11. The mother has today confirmed further concerns in respect of the foster carers.The Court today directed a further statement from the local authority to address those concerns.

There is no mention in the order of the "confidential council reports" that the Times journalist said he had seen. These were (allegedly)the official council reports that contained the criticisms from the social worker "supervisor" about the placement, and the stuff about the crucifix.

The Times reporter is in a bit of a bind now, because he cannot really leak "confidential" documents. But without leaking them, people can (and will) say he made it all up. Maybe he did, or maybe the council hid them from the court, or maybe the court saw them and ignored them.

There was a time when you could believe something unverified coming from a reputable newspaper, knowing that they just wanted to protect their source. These days though, who knows. Nobody takes anything on trust anymore.

Sadly we live in an era when it pays to be a loan defaulter or a purveyor of fake news. Integrity counts for nothing. For my part, I'm open to waiting to see what else transpires, if anything.

Victor

recedite wrote: »

Sadly we live in an era when it pays to be a loan defaulter or a purveyor of fake news. Integrity counts for nothing. For my part, I'm open to waiting to see what else transpires, if anything.

But you spent the rest of the thread cheer leading the fake news.

recedite

Victor wrote: »

fake news.

The jury is still out on whether the "confidential council reports" referred to by The Times exist or not, and what is in them.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

The jury is still out on whether the "confidential council reports" referred to by The Times exist or not, and what is in them.

Burden of proof clearly lies with them though, and until such time as it is forthcoming the only reasonable conclusion is to assume it doesn't exist. Claims such as these need to be evidenced.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

...the only reasonable conclusion is to assume it doesn't exist. Claims such as these need to be evidenced.

Its not that simple. Historically a "respected" journal such as The Times could have got away with something like that, on its reputation alone, and not have to reveal its sources.
The "rules" of these things are changing all the time though.

MrPudding

The court ordered that the girl be placed with her maternal grandmother, who is a non-practising muslim. Not quite sure how that fits in with the narrative in the Times or the Fail.

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

The court ordered that the girl be placed with her maternal grandmother, who is a non-practising muslim. Not quite sure how that fits in with the narrative in the Times or the Fail.

MrP

Here is the actual order.

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

grandmother, who is a non-practising muslim.

"A non-practising muslim of christian heritage" apparently, whatever <snip> that is.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

"A non-practising muslim of christian heritage" apparently, whatever <snip> that is.

The mother came up with the christian heritage bit, which does not seem to fit quite right with actual reality.

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

The mother came up with the christian heritage bit, which does not seem to fit quite right with actual reality.

Right, but she is talking about her own mother (the granny) so she "should" know what she is talking about.
Anyway "Non-practising muslim" does not appear to make much sense either, unless they mean "not a muslim" but "of muslim heritage".
So yeah, there are a lot of aspects as reported in this story that are completely contradictory.

homer911

Flipping this story the other way, I know of a Christian couple who have been fostering a child from a muslim background. It does work both ways...

lazybones32

pauldla wrote: »

Latest update on this story: the press might have been, shall we say, stretching the truth of the matter.

How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. Here are the facts.

No removal of crucifixes, no banning of Easter or bacon, etc etc.

No matter, the damage is done now.

Firstly - and i'd really like an answer to this: what is the damage you fear has been done?

Secondly - tompride's blog doesn't disprove anything. The only aspect he's correct on is that the DM photoshopped or doctored an image.
TP offers his interpretation on the court documents and uses that to disprove claims that weren't made and more importantly, aren't the issues that are considered the important ones in the case.
The case has only been adjourned and TH are still investigating some of the claims.

We can go through them if you want...

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

"A non-practising muslim of christian heritage" apparently, whatever <snip> that is.

It means she's from a Christian cultural background, but she herself identifies or has identified as a Muslim (perhaps, e.g., because at some point she converted) but that she is not active in the practice of Islam.

(This wouldn't be at all unusual. We talk about "the zeal of the convert", but in fact in most religions converts have a "lapse rate" which is more or less the same as those raised in the faith concerned.)

RDM_83 again

pauldla wrote: »

Latest update on this story: the press might have been, shall we say, stretching the truth of the matter.

How the press lied about the little girl staying with Muslim foster parents. Here are the facts.

No removal of crucifixes, no banning of Easter or bacon, etc etc.

No matter, the damage is done now.

There is lots wrong with that blog post the biggest one being that it mentions a number of times issues relating to the parents and why the child was taken into care. This has no relevance and I am surprised by some of the people thanking the post as it's the same type of tactics that are decried by the same posters when it's used on other targets (e.g rape victims etc). But hey it's being used for a "good cause" now so it's ok :-/
Secondly the blog post is deliberately focussing a lot on the daily mail, for example it's incorrect about the veil thing, the Times reports picture is of one of the carers the author is either dishonest or didn't actually read the proper Times article. I don't think anybody also claimed the fosters COULDN'T speak English either.

Tower Hamlets has been seriously corrupt in the recent past and recently failed inspections relating to children's welfare (this is factual)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It means she's from a Christian cultural background, but she herself identifies or has identified as a Muslim (perhaps, e.g., because at some point she converted) but that she is not active in the practice of Islam.

That would make sense alright. For example she might have wanted to marry a muslim, and found that she was required in a technical way to call herself a muslim from then on. And been quite willing to do that.
There are some echos in all this of Ireland in the 1920's -1960's and the "ne temeres decree". The idea of "mixed marriages" and one party having to sign themselves over to the dominant religion before being accepted. The squabbling over which religion would get the children. Families driven apart. If a religion/culture does not have children, it is unlikely to survive in the long run.

In Ireland the smaller religion survived by self-segregating itself. Separate schools, separate boy scouts, separate social circles.

I can't see that being a runner in 21st century Britain though.

Peregrinus

Conversion in connection with marriage is a long-established thing in all religions, and it need not be nominal or token. Even Judaism, which does not encourage conversion, accepts this as a reasonable basis for wanting to become a Jew.

Obviously I don't know about this case, but if the child's maternal grandmother did convert to Islam for the purposes of marriage, and still identifies as Muslim, that might suggest that the child's maternal grandfather - or possibly step-grandfather - is a Muslim by upbringing.

On edit, looking at the court order, I see that . . .

"Documents including the assessment of the maternal grandparents state that they are of a Muslim background but are non practising. The child’s mother says they are of Christian heritage.

What this suggests is that both of the maternal grandparents identified (to the social worker assessing them as special guardians for the child) as of a Muslim background, but non-practising. If they both say they have a Muslim background then it's unlikely that either of them is a convert. They didn't mention their "Christian heritage" but the mother did. Unless somebody is outright lying, which I doubt, this points to a family tree which includes both Muslim and Christian ancestors.

Other facts set out in the order disclose that the grandmother's first language is not English, that she does not have a right of abode in the UK and that she is not an EU citizen. Her intention, if she is made permanent special guardian, is to care for the child in her country of origin.

The child's cultural background may be complex, and if her initial placement was not culturally appropriate this may partly be because a culturally appropriate placement was not readily available.