Re: Bloody social services - again.
- From: "Christina Websell" <spamfree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:13:19 -0000
Evil_Nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Jan 31, 9:18 pm, "Christina Websell"
<spamf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They can't do right can they? Act now and get told off. Act later
when the kid is dead and get told off too.
I think it's very relevant that in this case the mother herself fought
hard (in the legal sense) to keep the kid, and the judge ruled it was
in no immediate danger.
My understanding is that SS acted in this case before they had been to
court. Which is stupid and illegal. The judge had no option but to return
the child.
It's a very different story when a kid is on the 'at risk' register
and the parents make up flimsy pretexts why the case worker can't see
it during the weekly visits, but then such kids tend to be too old to
place into adoption easily and so social services won't get a cushy
bonus from New Labour.
They will not have tried to remove it with no good reason.
Prejudiced against social services? Moi? Surely not!
So I guess you are then, eh? What do you know apart from what you see in
the press?
.
- References:
- Bloody social services - again.
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Bloody social services - again.
- From: Evil_Nigel
- Re: Bloody social services - again.
- From: Christina Websell
- Re: Bloody social services - again.
- From: Evil_Nigel
- Bloody social services - again.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bloody social services - again.
- Previous by thread: Re: Bloody social services - again.
- Next by thread: Re: Bloody social services - again.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|