A five-year-old boy has been removed from his disabled mother’s care as a judge dismissed an allegation of ‘social engineering’ despite ruling it would cost too much to keep them together.
The family court judge ruled that the child must be taken from the care of his disabled mother claiming her disability made it impossible for her to meet her disabled son's needs by herself, and the level of local authority support she would need would be too extensive.…when we can apparently afford to take in yet more asylum seekers from
The judge, who said the boy could not be identified, said Buckinghamshire County Council wanted to take the youngster into care.
He ruled in the local authority's favour, approved a care plan and said the boy needed a "permanent substitute family".I’m guessing the boy doesn’t share his mother’s disability, and so is very much adoptable?
Judge Hughes indicated that the suggestion of "social engineering" had been made when a social worker involved with the boy had had given evidence during the hearing and been questioned by a lawyer representing the boy's mother.
"(The mother's) own disability renders it impossible, particularly over time, to meet (the boy's) developing needs," said the judge.
"One of the major issues in this case has been to the extent to which it would be possible for the local authority in providing support to the mother to care for (the boy) could effectively make up for her deficits and for (the boy) in that way to be provided with good enough parenting.
"It has been suggested that to remove (the boy) from his mother's care and provide an optimum level of parenting by adopters or long-term foster carers is in effect a feature of social engineering.
"I reject that proposition. The level of support that would be required in relation to such an arrangement would be so extensive as to be detrimental to (the boy's) welfare."I cannot understand why this outrageous decision isn’t garnering headline news in the so-called progressive press.
Nor why it isn’t a cause celebre for all the usual suspects in the disability lobby.