Saturday, 25 July 2015

”How much is that doggy little girl in the window…”

Lots of tabloid reporting of the sad case of the grandparents deemed ‘too old’ to look after their granddaughter following her mother’s mental problems.

The full text of the judgement was released and immediately seized upon by social services apologists as ‘proving’ that age wasn’t a consideration, oh dear me no, it was the grandparent’s own poor childrearing that made mummy mad, and so of course the most logical thing to do was give the girl to total strangers. Your mileage might vary.

But this sentence stood out:
The Children’s Guardian said to me that if matters were put off she would be able to observe contact between C and the grandparents but at the present time C had had a final contact visit with her mother, that was on 5th June, and that C was now reconciled and prepared to moving on to a permanent placement. She had been told that she would not see her mother again and that communication would now be by writing letters. Miss Rosenthal said it would be very difficult for C to start unpicking this and looking at any further contact. She had reached a sense of closure and was being prepared and indeed looking forward to meeting a forever family.
A ‘forever family’? I wondered why that phrase jarred so much.

And then I realised why:




You may think, of course, that there's nothing wrong with treating children like unwanted puppies or kittens. But I'd respectfully disagree.

6 comments:

  1. There must be something they could do to keep them with their true family but they are not interested because of their agenda. One day these people will pay for the social engineering they are doing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frankly I`m astonished that no social workers in this country have been murdered by outraged parents who have had their kids snatched.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lord T, I pray that they will pay not only very dearly, but also very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anyone who writes using such pre-packaged jargon as that ('closure' indeed!) should be disbarred from public employment. The very last thing we need is for such irredeemably stupid people to be allowed to be in positions of authority over anyone, least of all vulnerable children and their families.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andy, I've been saying that for years on this and other subjects such as the NHS murdering, sorry, negligently killing people against H&S rules.

    The only thing I can think of is that they have something else to lose, another child, for example and they still believe there is justice in this mickey mouse country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "One day these people will pay for the social engineering they are doing."

    I think part of that bill is already coming due, and has been for some time now...

    "Frankly I`m astonished that no social workers in this country have been murdered..."

    I was thinking that too.

    "Anyone who writes using such pre-packaged jargon as that ('closure' indeed!) should be disbarred from public employment."

    Sadly, it's more likely to get you promoted...

    ReplyDelete