Child snatchers

Ohbethehokey · 23-05-2016 11:13PM #1

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 · 23-05-2016 11:22PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:24PM

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. · 23-05-2016 11:24PM

Read thread title.

Immediate thoughts...

Lollipops......

Treacle tarts......

Ice cream........

Sweeties....

And alll freeee todaaaaay.

colm_mcm · 23-05-2016 11:26PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:27PM

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.

23-05-2016 11:27PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:29PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:31PM

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

23-05-2016 11:33PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:34PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:36PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:39PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:43PM

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 · 23-05-2016 11:53PM

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 · 24-05-2016 12:00AM

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

24-05-2016 12:08AM

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 · 24-05-2016 12:10AM

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??

24-05-2016 12:17AM

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 · 24-05-2016 12:19AM

Rod Stewart is still banging them out at 71.

FizzleSticks · 24-05-2016 12:21AM

This post has been deleted.

_Whimsical_ · 24-05-2016 12:24AM

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 · 24-05-2016 12:31AM

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 · 24-05-2016 12:39AM

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 · 24-05-2016 12:49AM

They don't like farmers either

Other concerns listed included the fact the family owns a farm

Morons

foggy_lad · 24-05-2016 01:03AM

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 · 24-05-2016 01:13AM

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

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

osarusan · 24-05-2016 01:18AM

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

FFS

Junkyard Tom · 24-05-2016 01:32AM

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

whatdoicare · 24-05-2016 01:34AM

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 · 24-05-2016 01:49AM

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.

Child snatchers

Comments