Missing Madeline - Anyone else sick of this?

iguana wrote:

Actually I work for a children's services charity in the UK and an issue like this would certainly be investigated by a social worker if it was brought to the attention of the local authority and could lead to the removal of the children or a criminal conviction. There was a situation several years ago where a woman in the UK left her 2yo son alone while she went shopping and he burned the house down, with himself in it. The woman was convicted of child endagerment but given a suspended sentence as it was deemed that she had suffered enough by losing her child, so the precedent for conviction is there.

Actually(!) I am a qualified social worker who has worked at main grade and team leader level for five years in child protection services in Ireland, the UK (and another 3 months in Oz), before retreating to the relative comfort of medical social work. I absolutely stand over my comment that based on the information I have, this case would not warrant a VISIT, let alone investigation. There is absolutely no judge on the planet, not even our crazy Irish judges, that would authorise the removal of a child on the basis of the McCann case. A notification like this would simply not get past an experienced intake worker, let alone a response team. Protective factors were in place (regular check in every 30 minutes during a child's sleeping routine), parents were in close proximity, no prior reports of any concerns regarding the children's well being etc. There is nothing to suggest Mum and Dad left matches around (you're right - where a young child is left alone for long periods of time with apparent easy access to dangerous materials, investigation is warranted, removal however would not necessarily occur.) and there is no evidence to suggest that they didn't childproof the apartment before they left - it being a holiday unit, I would imagine there was less to childproof as well.

Using your logic, we would be taking any child unsupervised for thirty minutes into care. Again, think of all the Irish weddings, where parents settle their kids into a hotel room (minus a babysitter) and then party on through the night. Social workers are not about to start pounding on their door either.

While I personally disagree with the McCann decision, lots of people make different decisions about supervision levels of their children, it doesn't necessarily constitute neglect (which would be the key requirement for follow up.)

Saintly.

Won't somebody please think of the children?

A lot of Irish hotels offer a baby "listening" service which entails listening in (presumably though some telephone set up) at regular intervals while the parents are in the bar/ restaurant. I can't remember exactly what the interval is but for some reason 20 minutes springs to mind.

It's not a service I've ever availed of or ever would as 20 minutes seems like an awful long time to me (especially since the night a hotel staff member walked into the room when my daughter and I were asleep.. but that's another story) but I just thought I'd point out that this service is regularly offered by Irish hotels.

Thoughts anyone? Has anyone ever used this kind of service? Do you see it as being any different from the McCanns checking the kids every half hour (apart from the extra 10 minutes obviously).

Laslo wrote:

Let's not forget the other victims... the (probably innocent) suspects who's reputations and lives have been ruined by the media and the usual misandry and speculation.

But it's all for little Madeline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpeizpjU8Hs

iguana wrote:

I never said removal, I said investigation. And while there is no proof that matches (or cigarette lighters, which is what was used in the case I mentioned) there was a swimming pool between the McCann's and their children.

You did suggest that that removal could be a possible outcome :

IGUANA wrote:

An issue like this would certainly be investigated by a social worker if it was brought to the attention of the local authority and could lead to the removal of a child or a criminal conviction

With regard to the swimming pool - where is the evidence that the apartment door was unlocked? One Scotland Yard Detective (On Sky News!!!) suggested that Madeleine wandered away, I haven't seen any other report agreeing with him -the consensus appears to be abduction. Where is the evidence that the McCanns did not have a clear view of the pool area? From the resort photos, it appears that the restaurant was poolside. Was there a pool gate? Was it locked? Etc, etc.

I can see where you are coming from but it’s not enough just to THINK that a parent is being neglectful. You have to prove it. Just look at the range of opinion on this board. Based on the same info, some people fervently believe the children should be removed, some people think the parents should be ‘given a fright’, some people think the parents didn’t do anything wrong at all. My point is that child protection workers are not allowed (thankfully) to bring their subjective opinion into a case assessment. Decisions must be evidence based. Based on the information to hand, I don’t find evidence of neglect in this case. There is just no way it would get a call out.

THEGOPHER wrote:

So this is the thinking behind child protection workers? Christ, and I thought that the teachers were bad for only giving half a sh1te. While I dont think a case like this would warrant a child being taken from the parents by social services, I do think it warrants the service sending out someone to give the parents a good fright. tbh Im not sure I like the idea of my taxes paying protection workers who have no issue with leaving a child alone for at least 30 minutes

Ah, the outraged taxpayer!! Please feel free to withhold the teeny tiny percentage of your tax that contributes to child protection social work wages and console yourself with the thought that they are overworked and vastly underpaid! 'The thinking' behind child protection workers as you put it, is actually based on (shock horror), legislation!! As agreed upon by the nation, taxpayers included, through the Dail.

Social workers respond to cases of emotional neglect, neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse, based on clear guidelines for assessment and intervention as laid out in law. Under current legislation, neglect is NOT leaving your sleeping settled child alone when you are located a short distance away and check on them every 30 minutes (I have yet to see a report that states the parents did NOT check on the kids every 30 minutes). With your mentality, nobody could sit out in their back garden at night while their kids sleep. All those times social workers don't run around judging every parenting decision YOU don't agree with, it is not that they are 'not giving a ****e' as you so eloquently put it, it's that they are working on cases of physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and emotional neglect, with woeful resources (no weekend/after hours service) at their disposal. Perhaps, you could direct your taxpaying outrage towards the lawmakers of this land?!!

I think a huge issue in this debate is perception of risk. Abduction remains a very low risk for any child. However, statistically an older child playing in a public space is at significantly higher risk of abduction than a child of Madeleine’s age at night-time. Take the example of the parents of a 10 year old abducted while playing in a nearby park/walking home from school whatever... statistically, their child was a higher risk for abduction. That's a fact. Do you also feel that they should be visited by social workers and 'given a fright?!" Where do you draw the line, stop blaming the parents and start blaming the perpetrator?

LITTLEBUG wrote:

‘A lot of Irish hotels offer a baby listening service which entails listening in (presumably through some telephone set up) at regular intervals while the parents are in the bar/restaurant’

It's not one I have seen used before. I am always flabbergasted at weddings at home though, a lot of parents are quite happy to leave their kids alone in a hotel room. It's just not something I could do - I used to think it was my job that made me paranoid or hypersensitive to just about every 'what if' calamity that could befall a young child alone but from the umpteen weddings I've attended, I find that parents fall into two camps on the wedding/function issue. Some are fine with it, some aren't. A system that encourages regular checks is a good idea IMO.

Saintly.