Court told of support for incest mother by Catholic group

Shiny · 22-01-2009 03:09PM

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

I am from the area of this family. I know the kids and the parents. I am so sickened and truely saddened by what happened these poor children.

Words cannot truely describe my anger. It was well known about the neglect the kids suffered and how they were not being looked after properly. It was allowed to go on far to long by the services. I was unaware of the High Court ruling back in 2000 but it makes sense now that I hear it how the kids were allowed to stay with the family so long.

To those saying why didnt the aunt do x y or z, she did everything she could do and thankfully in the end they were removed from the parents "care"

The kids thankfully from what I know are doing as well as they can after their past few years and are settling in well to a new and better life.

There is more I could say but I wont as it cannot achieve anything and wont help any further cases and there will be more out of this im sure.

Do you know the name of that right wing organisation ?

Morlar · 22-01-2009 03:14PM

This reads to me like a social worker making excuses. Their reason for not proceeding earlier is :

"Tadgh Guider, a social work team leader, said there was concern about the family but the mother became involved with “a Catholic right-wing organisation” which provided her with financial support in her successful bid to get a High Court injunction. He said after this court case there was a certain amount of caution about how to approach the family. "

So in other words because this person suddenly had the financial means (from this mystery X support Group) they were more reluctant to proceed. Perhaps if they had been doing their job the initial case would have succeeded and this would not have gone on for so long.

Catholic bashing aside this reads to me like inept social services making excuses.

Morlar · 22-01-2009 03:16PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds like social services are trying to blame someone else for their own **** up.

What the **** were the rest of the family playing at as well, did their auntie not think to kick the **** out of her sister.

There's a lot more guilty people here than some catholic nutters and a deranged mother.

Just saw this now & couldn't agree more.

Marcus.Aurelius · 22-01-2009 03:32PM

Disgusting failure of the state services to own up to their incompetence and lacklustre performances. Absolutely pathetic excuses.

Dragan · 22-01-2009 03:32PM

julep wrote: »

I left Dragan's post because, while there was a jokey element to it, I also saw it as a bit of social commentary.

Pretty much yeah, I mean, it was a mild shot at the fact that they would unknowingly ( i can only assume ) help this woman simply because she portrayed herself to them ( once again, i assume ) as a Catholic and would look no further into things than that.

More a shot at them, than a joke about the story itself.

sassa · 22-01-2009 03:32PM

What was this organisation thinking by getting involved anyway? And if they were so caring why didnt they try to help the kids instead of preventing them being place somewhere safer. In saying that social services were a disgrace to just back down like that it's nice to know I could treat my kids worse than animals and all i need is enough money for a soliciter for them to back down!

Dudess · 22-01-2009 03:37PM

Dragan wrote: »

Pretty much yeah, I mean, it was a mild shot at the fact that they would unknowingly ( i can only assume ) help this woman simply because she portrayed herself to them ( once again, i assume ) as a Catholic and would look no further into things than that.

More a shot at them, than a joke about the story itself.

That's exactly how it looked to me - nothing nasty or tasteless about it.

Slow Motion · 22-01-2009 03:43PM

Dragan wrote: »

Pretty much yeah, I mean, it was a mild shot at the fact that they would unknowingly ( i can only assume ) help this woman simply because she portrayed herself to them ( once again, i assume ) as a Catholic and would look no further into things than that.

More a shot at them, than a joke about the story itself.

Fair enough and I accept your point! The others which where deleted were not so thought provoking and I had more issue with those tbh

Terry · 22-01-2009 03:45PM

I may have missed something in the article, but does anyone know where the father was when all of this was going on?

Mingey · 22-01-2009 03:49PM

Dragans joke was at the organisation, not the family. Justified, imo.

Mingey · 22-01-2009 03:50PM

julep wrote: »

I may have missed something in the article, but does anyone know where the father was when all of this was going on?

I'd take a guess that there is more than one father, and she probably doesnt know half of them.

Reflector · 22-01-2009 03:54PM

corkhero wrote: »

Mind boggling how this wasnt noticed sooner.

surely the teachers in school would have known that something was up and that the kids hygeine wasnt up to scratch.

Feel sorry for this kids tho.

hope the mother rots!

I'd say this isn't an isolated case, I'm sure social workers see terrible things all the time, the kind of stuff most people just choose to ignore, out of sight etc. I'd say it takes a long time to get a court order but I think that maybe there should be some emergency procedure that can be put into place in extreme circumstances. This kind of thing is bound to repeat itself unless the laws change.

sassa · 22-01-2009 04:10PM

imo the kids involved should take a case against both the organisation and social services because of the ineptitude of them those kids had to suffer longer than they should have.

Mingey · 22-01-2009 04:43PM

What exactly did the organisation do? Were they aware of the incest & neglect?

nacho libre · 22-01-2009 04:59PM

Mingey wrote: »

What exactly did the organisation do? Were they aware of the incest & neglect?

they supported her financially so she could contest a high-court injunction to take her children into care.

seamus · 22-01-2009 05:04PM

Mingey wrote: »

What exactly did the organisation do? Were they aware of the incest & neglect?

They interfered and seem to have provided her with money. The state don't try to take children from their families without a very good bloody reason, so anyone who even considers blocking it on someone else's behalf, would want to know that person inside-out and be able to justify the reason you're helping them based on more than some fictional book.
Whether they were aware of the neglect is kind of irrelevant - if they're weren't aware, they should have made themselves aware.

cjt156 · 22-01-2009 05:06PM

nacho libre wrote: »

they supported her financially so she could contest a high-court injunction to take her children into care.

I believe yesterday's Times said she won the injunction to stop them being placed with the Aunt who first raised concerns. In fairness I think a lot of people were trying to help but the system moves ridiculously slowly, once the court injunction was in place it set things back years.

Morlar · 22-01-2009 06:06PM

seamus wrote: »

They interfered and seem to have provided her with money. The state don't try to take children from their families without a very good bloody reason, so anyone who even considers blocking it on someone else's behalf, would want to know that person inside-out and be able to justify the reason you're helping them based on more than some fictional book.
Whether they were aware of the neglect is kind of irrelevant - if they're weren't aware, they should have made themselves aware.

Maybe the state ought to be able to put together a case which can withstand basic paid legal representation ?

What the social services said boils down to -

- ) if the parent(s) have financial capacity to resist a case like this then we tend not to bother.

IF you take it for granted that social services dont have a policy to prioritise targetting less affluent parents who abuse their kids (above more affluent parents who abuse their kids) then I think either our social services need some kind of performance/skills review/overhaul, or, the legislation in this area is insufficient. Blaming some moron charity is a cop out in my view regardless of whether there is a religious aspect to them or if they are just plain secular do-gooders.

seamus · 22-01-2009 06:09PM

Morlar wrote: »

What the social services said boils down to -

- ) if the parent(s) have financial capacity to resist a case like this then we tend not to bother.

I don't think that's primarily what they meant. Largely, people will win against social services when it comes to taking your kids away. The very fact that you've gone to court shows that you care, and because our constitution protects the institution of the family, almost above all else, any judge will invariably rule in the parents' favour.
I'm sure social services have taken a number of these cases, and lost, and cost the taxpayer a good deal of money.

Morlar · 22-01-2009 06:15PM

What the social services said boils down to -

- ) if the parent(s) have financial capacity to resist a case like this then we tend not to bother.

seamus wrote: »

I don't think that's primarily what they meant.

That is how I would read this :

"Tadgh Guider, a social work team leader, said there was concern about the family but the mother became .... (recieved) . ...... financial support in her successful bid to get a High Court injunction. He said after this court case there was a certain amount of caution about how to approach the family. "

I would read that as social services expressing a preference to avoid mounting legal cases where the people have sufficient funds to defend themselves.

As I said - either social services need to be reviewed/rebuked/heads roll. Or the legislation in this area may need to be improved. Blaming the idiot charity is a copout. Another pointless opportunity for religion bashing.

seamus · 22-01-2009 06:23PM

Morlar wrote: »

I would read that as social services expressing a preference to avoid mounting legal cases where the people have sufficient funds to defend themselves.

Yeah, that's what I meant. They don't avoid chasing people because they've enough money to look after their kids, but purely because they have enough money that they'll probably win in court. So why waste the taxpayer's money?

As I said - either social services need to be reviewed/rebuked/heads roll. Or the legislation in this area may need to be improved.

Social services hands are very badly tied in this area. There's a fine line between doing what's right to protect kids and protecting the right of adults to look after their kids as they see fit.
In this case, the woman was clearly putting on a show whenever social services called around. What are they to do? They can't put surveillance on people like that or insist that someone from social services lives with them.

The other big monolith in the way is our constitution. I don't think anyone would be happy with any amendments to the articles offering protection to families. We take family very seriously in this country and we'd be reluctant to allow the state any interference into our lives.

Blaming the idiot charity is a copout. Another pointless opportunity for religion bashing.

I don't think it's a specific stab at religion - I'm pretty sure most religious charities (St. V. deP, etc) would similarly condemn the other "charity" for getting involved without finding out the facts of the case.

benoit08 · 22-01-2009 06:29PM

Could not agree more Morlar,the amount of Catholic bashing and religion bashing on boards is unbelieveable.Thankfully we have seperation of Church and State in this country,the fault lies solely at the feet of social services.
What has the action of Youth Defence go to do with this case?why was the author of earlier comments on them not pulled up for going off topic?
I find the actions of this unknown group, at the very least, distasteful but we know nothing on them so far.There are many people at fault here but they had a very minor role.

Kat Slater · 22-01-2009 06:31PM

Absolutely disgusted after reading this. Those poor kids having to live like that with that evil beast of a "mother". They will be scarred for life. People like that really shouldn't have children.

People might have alerted social services but as cjt156 said, these things move slowly. It said in the paper that a doctor did alert the social. But it still looks like less people spoke up than should have.

Awful indictment on the system. The HSE have a lot to answer for, shocking neglect.

And the right-wing organisation that helped the monster of a mother (don't know the org's name... was it not mentioned for legal reasons???) are a crowd of scumbags for supporting her... agree with Seamus on this point.

Here's some interesting info on Mina Bean Ui Croibin or however you spell her name if you scroll down...
http://irishcatholics.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=diocese&action=display&thread=97&page=1

gurramok · 22-01-2009 06:33PM

We, the public have a right to know who this organisation is. They have interferred in the role of society's organs to protect these children from that monster.

How can we be reassured that they are not helping financially to defend a swathe of other cases where there are child abuse?

lostexpectation · 22-01-2009 06:35PM

this is all cos children don't have rights in this country.

Morlar · 22-01-2009 06:37PM

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Fair enough

seamus wrote: »

They don't avoid chasing people because they've enough money to look after their kids, but purely because they have enough money that they'll probably win in court. So why waste the taxpayer's money?

I would not agree with that as a policy. If it is a policy it is an unwritten one and needs to be changed.

seamus wrote: »

Social services hands are very badly tied in this area.

Looking at similair cases (which tend to hit the press more often in the UK & yes I know the uk have different support structures and different legislation etc) there is always an abundance of excuses and a lack of accountability in cases like this.

If their hands are tied then there needs to be a review to make them more effective and if its a case of their hands were tied to some extent but they were also negligent/inneficient then heads should roll (tied-hands excuses or not).

seamus wrote: »

The other big monolith in the way is our constitution. I don't think anyone would be happy with any amendments to the articles offering protection to families. We take family very seriously in this country and we'd be reluctant to allow the state any interference into our lives.

There are more than those 2 options here - remove family protection in our constitution or protect vulnerable children.

I think those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

seamus wrote: »

I don't think it's a specific stab at religion - I'm pretty sure most religious charities (St. V. deP, etc) would similarly condemn the other "charity" for getting involved without finding out the facts of the case.

I think in the context of the comments made on this thread - (catholic) religion bashing has been the motive for many in my view.

Kat Slater · 22-01-2009 06:37PM

gurramok wrote: »

How can we be reassured that they are not helping financially to defend a swathe of other cases where there are child abuse?

Very worrying.

K-9 · 22-01-2009 06:38PM

Mingey wrote: »

What exactly did the organisation do? Were they aware of the incest & neglect?

I'd say nobody was aware of the incest until the 13 yr old admitted it, but yes, definitely the neglect.

seamus wrote: »

I don't think that's primarily what they meant. Largely, people will win against social services when it comes to taking your kids away. The very fact that you've gone to court shows that you care, and because our constitution protects the institution of the family, almost above all else, any judge will invariably rule in the parents' favour.
I'm sure social services have taken a number of these cases, and lost, and cost the taxpayer a good deal of money.

I would think Mothers are given more chances, Dads very little.

gurramok wrote: »

We, the public have a right to know who this organisation is. They have interferred in the role of society's organs to protect these children from that monster.

How can we be reassured that they are not helping financially to defend a swathe of other cases where there are child abuse?

Agree on that.

PS. Dragans comment was satirical, not offensive.

K-9 · 22-01-2009 06:41PM

Morlar wrote: »

There are more than those 2 options here - remove family protection in our constitution or protect vulnerable children.

I think those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

I think in the context of the comments made on this thread - (catholic) religion bashing has been the motive for many in my view.

They shouldn't be exclusive, I agree.

I don't think it's Catholic bashing, though I'm sure a few comments are. If the SDVP or another charity stepped in, I'd say they'd get worse comments.

There is a double standard though that a supposed Catholic organisation defended the mother and not the children here.

Moojuice · 22-01-2009 08:30PM

Even though we have a separation of Church and state the state is still scared ****less of the church and wont stand up to it. Just look at how FF passed the cost of compensation for clerical sex abuse on to the tax payer rather than confront the church and force them to pay for their crimes.

Court told of support for incest mother by Catholic group

Comments