Child snatchers

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.

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.

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 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 ???

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?

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.

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.

Rubbish. I bet very few farms would meet Tusla criteria for items 1 and 2 and yet have reared perfectly healthy children.

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

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


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

I KNEW IT!