Too Stupid to Marry

[Guest]

she will probably get plenty of obfuscation and nothing more , i really can't think of any other organisation that closes ranks around it's members to cover up it's failings.

we would accept failings ,it is , as you say only human , it's the cover-ups that are so annoying .

True. If my mate knew why, it would go a long way to help her.

It would help if the authorities would actually come out and justify their reasons for making the decisions that they do, which is the point I was trying to make the Thracian. If their reasons are unfounded, then fine, criticise them.

If that makes sense.

[Zingari]

True. If my mate knew why, it would go a long way to help her.

It would help if the authorities would actually come out and justify their reasons for making the decisions that they do, which is the point I was trying to make the Thracian. If their reasons are unfounded, then fine, criticise them.

If that makes sense.

yes it does , i suppose him and me are just more like impatient old reactionaries

[Bellend Sebastian]

In the 'too stupid to marry' case, I think it really hinges on the extent of this girl's learning disability. It's described as 'mild' in the article, but who's diagnosis is this? Action this drastic isn't going to be taken on the say so of one social worker, it just isn't - there will probably be various agencies involved (one of the reasons why stuff like this always takes an age to sort out) including a psychologist or psychiatrist making a proper assessment of the 'learning disability'. I only know this because my missus has to do these things as part of her job, which sometimes involves reporting to the social services or a court just what a person is capable or incapable of. It's an in depth process - you don't just chat to someone for a couple of minutes and decide they're a bit of a div. And trust me, all of the agencies involved are too stretched to be mucking about with someone that's not got much up with them. Mistakes are made, sure, but there are more than enough complete f*** ups out there to keep everyone busy without targetting people that are a bit slow

[Thracian]

But if you think that you can do better, and given your constant attacks on the English, and now British, legal systems, you should contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as I am sure that they would welcome your cast iron system of ensuring that the courts won't ever get it wrong in the future.

You are the one who's chosen law as your profession. I sincerely hope that one day you show the good judgement, the wisdom, the intelligence and the fairness to justify the effort.

Had I been younger I might have been persuaded to go into politics with a view, in part, to changing our legal system to one that is simpler, fairer, more effective and much more greatly respected as reflecting the needs of this country and the people who live here.

Cos I wouldn't have willingly been party to the current inconsistencies or to having people take the piss out of our land and our laws. Nor would I have signed away any of our nation's rights to govern itself as we seem fit.

[Thracian]

In the 'too stupid to marry' case, I think it really hinges on the extent of this girl's learning disability. It's described as 'mild' in the article, but who's diagnosis is this? Action this drastic isn't going to be taken on the say so of one social worker, it just isn't - there will probably be various agencies involved (one of the reasons why stuff like this always takes an age to sort out) including a psychologist or psychiatrist making a proper assessment of the 'learning disability'. I only know this because my missus has to do these things as part of her job, which sometimes involves reporting to the social services or a court just what a person is capable or incapable of. It's an in depth process - you don't just chat to someone for a couple of minutes and decide they're a bit of a div. And trust me, all of the agencies involved are too stretched to be mucking about with someone that's not got much up with them. Mistakes are made, sure, but there are more than enough complete f*** ups out there to keep everyone busy without targetting people that are a bit slow

I got the impression the "mild learning difficulties" was "their" description...the social services or their agents. Either that means what it says or they're lying. If it means what it says then the decision is scandalous and if they are lying they've brought a totally unnecessary controversy on themselves.

[davieG]

A major part of the blame is the media with their headlining sound-bites and their massive over reaction and witch hunting when things do go wrong. It's partly because of them that as a nation we're so controlled by by H&S regulation interpretation through to national security.

As a nation we now over react to ever little event even though the odds of a repeat are minuscule compared to the number at risk as per Zings burnt toast example this happens even though evidence will suggest that the burnt toast is just as bad or risky for us.

Most of the road works I've seen recently seems to be because it's deemed people are incapable of being in or around traffic, all responsibility is being removed from individual decision making. This is totally counter production because not only does it make people ever more irresponsible and lazy it gives them a greater opportunity for financial gain through suing as a result.

The whole country is gradually being turned on it's collective head.

[Guest]

A major part of the blame is the media with their headlining sound-bites and their massive over reaction

I agree.

[skinnydipper]

I saw this thread earlier in the week but didn't have time to post but here are some observations. The caveat to these is that they are based on the system as it operates in England and Wales

1. The article states that the local authority (L A) are preventing this girl from getting married as she does not realise the implications. At 17 the girl will need consent from those who hold parental responsibility for her before she can legally marry. The fact that the L A are preventing the marriage suggests that they hold parental responsibility which they would only do so because a court has decided that she should be placed in their care as a result of problems relating to her own upbringing.It therefore may not be simply learning disability that indicates that she may not immediately be equipped to provide "good enough parenting" to her new born baby. Her own childhood and the effects of her upbringing are likely to be relevant factors

2. As a child in care the L A have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of this girl. Part of that process will be 6 monthly multi disciplinary reviews ( school , health, education ) which will feed information to those responsible for making decisions about her care. Decisions relevant to her well being are informed by a range of sources. It is not simply a matter of the social worker playing God

3. It is hard to reconcile someone who is reported to "not understand the implications of getting married" with someone who only has mild learning difficulties. If she is reasonably capable she could instuct a lawyer to challenge the decision of the local authority. It may be daunting to initiate that herself but is something that her family could assist with

4. The decision to remove a child from its parents at birth is not simply a social work decision. It is the most draconian interference in the right to family life and is a measure of last resort. In the absence of parental agreement it can only occur if sanctioned by the court at which the parents will have legal representation to put their case before the judge. The court will also appoint an experienced social worker, independent of the L A to represent the interests of the child. This is to act as a check and balance against an over vigorous L A. The court can only sanction removal if it is satisfied that the child's "safety" demands immediate removal

5. Sadly there are cases in which there is a level of learning disability that prevents adequate parenting . The scandal is that there are not supported environments which would enable these families to stay together.

6. The abilities of the father would have to be considered to see if he is capable of compensating for the mother's deficiencies but the fact that at 25 he was shagging a vulnerable 16/17 year old is at first sight somewhat troubling

7. The possibility of this baby being cared for by other family members would have to be considered before it could be adopted

8. The standard of reporting seems somewhat sensationalist to me. I'm surprised it's reported like

this in The Telegraph

[Zingari]

I saw this thread earlier in the week but didn't have time to post but here are some observations. The caveat to these is that they are based on the system as it operates in England and Wales

1. The article states that the local authority (L A) are preventing this girl from getting married as she does not realise the implications. At 17 the girl will need consent from those who hold parental responsibility for her before she can legally marry. The fact that the L A are preventing the marriage suggests that they hold parental responsibility which they would only do so because a court has decided that she should be placed in their care as a result of problems relating to her own upbringing.It therefore may not be simply learning disability that indicates that she may not immediately be equipped to provide "good enough parenting" to her new born baby. Her own childhood and the effects of her upbringing are likely to be relevant factors

2. As a child in care the L A have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of this girl. Part of that process will be 6 monthly multi disciplinary reviews ( school , health, education ) which will feed information to those responsible for making decisions about her care. Decisions relevant to her well being are informed by a range of sources. It is not simply a matter of the social worker playing God

3. It is hard to reconcile someone who is reported to "not understand the implications of getting married" with someone who only has mild learning difficulties. If she is reasonably capable she could instuct a lawyer to challenge the decision of the local authority. It may be daunting to initiate that herself but is something that her family could assist with

4. The decision to remove a child from its parents at birth is not simply a social work decision. It is the most draconian interference in the right to family life and is a measure of last resort. In the absence of parental agreement it can only occur if sanctioned by the court at which the parents will have legal representation to put their case before the judge. The court will also appoint an experienced social worker, independent of the L A to represent the interests of the child. This is to act as a check and balance against an over vigorous L A. The court can only sanction removal if it is satisfied that the child's "safety" demands immediate removal

5. Sadly there are cases in which there is a level of learning disability that prevents adequate parenting . The scandal is that there are not supported environments which would enable these families to stay together.

6. The abilities of the father would have to be considered to see if he is capable of compensating for the mother's deficiencies but the fact that at 25 he was shagging a vulnerable 16/17 year old is at first sight somewhat troubling

7. The possibility of this baby being cared for by other family members would have to be considered before it could be adopted

8. The standard of reporting seems somewhat sensationalist to me. I'm surprised it's reported like

this in The Telegraph

cheers skinnydipper , lucid and informative

[Thracian]

cheers skinnydipper , lucid and informative

So are you saying that the fact that she was in the care of the L.A. (for whatever reason) is making it harder for her to have the right to marry the father of her child and not have it taken away into the sort of care that has left her in that situation?

At least a life sentence for murder usually carries the prospect of eventual release. Seems to me that once the SS get you you can be doomed for ever and those who follow you too. Those initials always did seem frightening!

Good post though.

[Zingari]

So are you saying that the fact that she was in the care of the L.A. (for whatever reason) is making it harder for her to have the right to marry the father of her child and not have it taken away into the sort of care that has left her in that situation?

At least a life sentence for murder usually carries the prospect of eventual release. Seems to me that once the SS get you you can be doomed for ever and those who follow you too. Those initials always did seem frightening!

Good post though.

i wasn't actually agreeing that i'm satisfied with how the authorities work ,, i was merely thanking skinnydipper for his informative reply .

after recent close to personal experiences i still feel they are a law unto themselves who take no responsibility for the failings within the system . they try ( and usually succeed by attrition ) to cover up or justify mistakes for the most spurious of reasons .

thanks for your input though , it sums up a lot of my feelings

[skinnydipper]

So are you saying that the fact that she was in the care of the L.A. (for whatever reason) is making it harder for her to have the right to marry the father of her child and not have it taken away into the sort of care that has left her in that situation?

At least a life sentence for murder usually carries the prospect of eventual release. Seems to me that once the SS get you you can be doomed for ever and those who follow you too. Those initials always did seem frightening!

Good post though.

A person under the age of 18 needs parental consent to marry but where a child is in the care of a local authority (by court order) that local authority acquires parental responsibility for the child which it then shares with the parents. The reality is that the local authority's parental responsibility trumps that of the parents in any dispute regarding its exercise although it is possible for a court to determine such disputes

Neither the local authority nor the parents will hold parental responsibility once the child attains the age of 18 and so thereafter the individual will be free to marry (unless the level of their functioning is so impaired that they need a legal guardian to protect their interests)

So hardly a life sentence

As for the decision of removal of the baby in the absence of agreement that is a decision for the court after it has heard the arguments for and against

The comment that you're doomed forever once social services get to you reminds me of the old joke

" Whats the difference between social sevices and a rottweiler? "

"The rottweiler gives you the baby back"

In my job I argue both for and against social services on exactly these sort of matters. The outcome in some cases is obvious and in others finely balanced. I've seen good and bad social work but frankly they have a thankless task. After Baby P, the government would wish you to see them as the guardian angels of children whilst cutting the funding to an already under resourced area. But that's politicians for you

[Zingari]

A person under the age of 18 needs parental consent to marry but where a child is in the care of a local authority (by court order) that local authority acquires parental responsibility for the child which it then shares with the parents. The reality is that the local authority's parental responsibility trumps that of the parents in any dispute regarding its exercise although it is possible for a court to determine such disputes

Neither the local authority nor the parents will hold parental responsibility once the child attains the age of 18 and so thereafter the individual will be free to marry (unless the level of their functioning is so impaired that they need a legal guardian to protect their interests)

So hardly a life sentence

As for the decision of removal of the baby in the absence of agreement that is a decision for the court after it has heard the arguments for and against

The comment that you're doomed forever once social services get to you reminds me of the old joke

" Whats the difference between social sevices and a rottweiler? "

"The rottweiler gives you the baby back"

In my job I argue both for and against social services on exactly these sort of matters. The outcome in some cases is obvious and in others finely balanced. I've seen good and bad social work but frankly they have a thankless task. After Baby P, the government would wish you to see them as the guardian angels of children whilst cutting the funding to an already under resourced area. But that's politicians for you

We did of course understand many of the problems facing the social workers .

I'd just like to add that although i said i was not going into much detail about the case that was involving someone close to me , that the judge was excellent and showed great skill in weighing up the evidence .

After hearing all the evidence she told the SS to drop the case immediately and more or less told them what a bunch of idiots they were and that steps should have been made earlier to rectify the mistakes .

As i said before , they seemed more concened with building up a stronger case to justify what they had already done than to get at the truth once the evidence that they were relying on to have the child taken away ( a radiology report indicating non accidental injury ) was found to be incorrect

The particular radiologist that the made errors had done this before but to my knowledge has never even been reprimanded , and indeed , from the replies about her performance after complaining , we got nothing but praise for her

[Thracian]

A person under the age of 18 needs parental consent to marry but where a child is in the care of a local authority (by court order) that local authority acquires parental responsibility for the child which it then shares with the parents. The reality is that the local authority's parental responsibility trumps that of the parents in any dispute regarding its exercise although it is possible for a court to determine such disputes

Neither the local authority nor the parents will hold parental responsibility once the child attains the age of 18 and so thereafter the individual will be free to marry (unless the level of their functioning is so impaired that they need a legal guardian to protect their interests)

So hardly a life sentence

As for the decision of removal of the baby in the absence of agreement that is a decision for the court after it has heard the arguments for and against

The comment that you're doomed forever once social services get to you reminds me of the old joke

" Whats the difference between social sevices and a rottweiler? "

"The rottweiler gives you the baby back"

In my job I argue both for and against social services on exactly these sort of matters. The outcome in some cases is obvious and in others finely balanced. I've seen good and bad social work but frankly they have a thankless task. After Baby P, the government would wish you to see them as the guardian angels of children whilst cutting the funding to an already under resourced area. But that's politicians for you

Thanks. I do sympathise. And quite recognise that a lot of good decisions can be ruined by the publicity that inevitably surrounds the bad ones. But there's a fine line between balancing the duties and expectations of authority with

the just rights and feelings of the affected individuals. It is so easy to misuse the advantage of power.

[Lillehamring]

This thread title/sub title sounds like it could be a morrissey song

[skinnydipper]

Zingari-Sounds like the case you are referring to was a horrendous experience for the parents. Bad medical opinion compounded by bad social work but fortunately corrected with the help of one of the checks and balances against such practice i.e the Judge. I think your comments about the radiologist shows that it's not just social services that f**kup/coverup - I'm sure its rife in many large organisations. The NHS and the army immediately spring to mind

Thracian - I'm sure that on occasion power is misused. Again, any large organisation is likely to have the good,the bad , the competent and incompetent. I'm not excusing it , it's just a circumstance of life. The aim should be to get rid of all the incompetents but in terms of the pay and responsibilities it's not the most attractive career is it? Make a mistake in commerce and it might cost you the deal but a wrong decision in this field may lead to children being injured or even killed or alternatively children who should be growing up with their mothers ,fathers, brothers and sisters being placed with strangers and having no meaningful relationships with their birth family