[RileyH]

I think he should probably go to a Christian family, but if there is a family willing to look after him and take him in as one of their own I don't see the problem.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm in shock... someone has it in their heart to open their family to a child in need and straight away there are those who take that a a negative.

Shameful.

Or open their bank accounts! Let's be honest we know it goes on and in this case there are suggestions they were less than compassionate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7916071.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/br...stian-into-two

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah I can imagine, it must be awful for a child to grow up like that.



Yeah I know there really is no fool proof system, what kind of scum goes into that line of work to abuse the most vulnerable in our society though

Predators?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The scary thing is that they ARE quite well vetted. My wife is working with a charity that helps vulnerable youngsters as one of the (many, haha) side activities that she does alongside University, and she had to have a completely separate round of vetting and long interview process for working with vulnerable youngsters (even having already been through vetting for studying as a Mental Health Nurse).

I guess, sadly, the problem is... just because someone hasn't done anything in the past - or hasn't been caught doing anything in the past - doesn't mean that they aren't capable of it in future. There's only so much that vetting can do.

Or who is doing the vetting.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Or who is doing the vetting.

True, but that's only at the final interview stage. These positions all require disclosures and record checks etc. that show there's nothing dodgy in someone's past and those are all done centrally. But... Passing that only means that someone hasn't done anything YET or anything that anyone ever found out about. Every abuser has a "first time", and plenty don't get found out for a long time (some never) and those people will pass the basic criminal records checks and reference checks no problem.

[Oliver_W]

Add to that, being a generally ****ty parent who won't feed a child the food he or she wants and trying to impose their culture on them aren't things which show up in any kind of vetting.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm in shock... someone has it in their heart to open their family to a child in need and straight away there are those who take that a a negative.

Shameful.

I've got to disagree on this. Social workers have to make decisions in the best interest of the child. If it was just a case of someone opening up their family unit to a child in need, it would be easy but its much more complex than that. Language, religion, culture and even race are carefully looked at (by most) when it comes to fostering a child and rightly so because children need as much familiarity as we can possibly give them and on top of that, those children are not finding a permanent family but a temporary one.

I'm presently working with refugee kids. Many of them arrive here with no living family, many don't speak the language. Some of the younger children get fostered out to English families because there just aren't enough people from their own heritage that want to foster. Those kids do suffer further trauma because there's no familiarity. Of course its important that the child learns our language but we need to understand that these children aren't just Syrian, African or Iraqi by language but by culture and religion too.

As a kid we moved house and my parents binned everything and purchased all new furniture. I had a meltdown over the loss of an unfamiliar red lampshade. Of course, it wasn't just the lampshade, that was just the trigger. If the loss of familiar furniture can affect a child, imagine what its like for children who lose all familiarity. If only it was so simple as the love of a family. The reality is, its so much more.

[user104658]

I agree DR, on the surface it seems simple; if a child needs a home and someone will offer theirs then it should all be fine. But in reality, more important than "a family home RIGHT NOW" for these kids, is stability longer term. Finding a good match for each child. The risk otherwise is it repeatedly not working out and bouncing from family to family... Much more destructive for the child than taking a while to find the right place.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Predators?

I wasn't really referring to that type of abuse, just people being cruel and uncaring towards those they're supposed to be looking after, with the elderly or young people

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I wasn't really referring to that type of abuse, just people being cruel and uncaring towards those they're supposed to be looking after, with the elderly or young people

I know this is changing the subject, so I'll keep it short. The one thing that really bothers me about the elderly in many nursing homes is, we give them nothing like the level of care we give to people with learning disabilities or mental health issues. CQC just can't keep tabs on the neglect caused by understaffing and lack of training and whistleblowing policies are seriously flawed, so even when someone does see something suspicious, the fear of losing their job is higher than the fear of stopping something that needs to be stopped.

I don't think anyone working in the care industry sets out to be abusive (unless they are a sexual predator) they just end up that way.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I've got to disagree on this. Social workers have to make decisions in the best interest of the child. If it was just a case of someone opening up their family unit to a child in need, it would be easy but its much more complex than that. Language, religion, culture and even race are carefully looked at (by most) when it comes to fostering a child and rightly so because children need as much familiarity as we can possibly give them and on top of that, those children are not finding a permanent family but a temporary one.

I'm presently working with refugee kids. Many of them arrive here with no living family, many don't speak the language. Some of the younger children get fostered out to English families because there just aren't enough people from their own heritage that want to foster. Those kids do suffer further trauma because there's no familiarity. Of course its important that the child learns our language but we need to understand that these children aren't just Syrian, African or Iraqi by language but by culture and religion too.

As a kid we moved house and my parents binned everything and purchased all new furniture. I had a meltdown over the loss of an unfamiliar red lampshade. Of course, it wasn't just the lampshade, that was just the trigger. If the loss of familiar furniture can affect a child, imagine what its like for children who lose all familiarity. If only it was so simple as the love of a family. The reality is, its so much more.

I am aware of that and appreciate the considerations made, that said there should be no provisos that state that religion and/or race is a strict barrier to foster families.
What message is that sending out into communities, that there is to be strictly no integration, is it not better to deal with these considerations on a case by case basis?

[jaxie]

I would have thought a lack of English spoken in the home would be far worse for a child if English was their primary language, than a lack of bacon. Sensational story elements aside it may be that in the geographic area there wasn't a better match for the child and it was felt a family was better than an institution.

It isn't appropriate for a Christian child to be influenced negatively by other doctrine however there are much worse things that go in care.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I am aware of that and appreciate the considerations made, that said there should be no provisos that state that religion and/or race is a strict barrier to foster families.
What message is that sending out into communities, that there is to be strictly no integration, is it not better to deal with these considerations on a case by case basis?

integration is one thing, putting a 5 year old child who just wants to be looked after into an unsuitable home is just plain wrong.

[Kizzy]

Can't be good for the anti Muslim brigade for them to be seen to be doing anything positive, there is no evidence they took her things and just because they speak another language that should not mean that they are unsuitable to foster English children.

The whole thing stinks if you ask me, I am wary of the slant given to this article as well as who and why they are railing against it. The rhetoric is distasteful, has anyone given any thought as to why she is in care initially?
No, appears not although the saddened mother, family , friends and grandparents are all notable appalled although strangely not by being less suitable to care for this little girl than the Muslim undesirables..... :/

[Northern Monkey]

Poor kid.What about when the kid hits 10,They gonna start making her do ramadan and starve her too?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Poor kid.What about when the kid hits 10,They gonna start making her do ramadan and starve her too?

I don't think children fast during Ramadan (not young children anyway)

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Can't be good for the anti Muslim brigade for them to be seen to be doing anything positive, there is no evidence they took her things and just because they speak another language that should not mean that they are unsuitable to foster English children.

The whole thing stinks if you ask me, I am wary of the slant given to this article as well as who and why they are railing against it. The rhetoric is distasteful, has anyone given any thought as to why she is in care initially?
No, appears not although the saddened mother, family , friends and grandparents are all notable appalled although strangely not by being less suitable to care for this little girl than the Muslim undesirables..... :/

You don't think it would be confusing for a child who only speaks English to be living in a home where English isn't spoken in the home?

Who and why are they railing against it?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I don't think children fast during Ramadan (not young children anyway)

Fasting is not obligatory for young children, until they reach the age of adolescence, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The pens have been lifted from three: from one who has lost his mind until he comes back to his senses, from one who is sleeping until he wakes up, and from a child until he reaches the age of adolescence.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4399; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Nevertheless, children should be told to fast so that they can get used to it, and because the good deeds that they do will be recorded for them.

The age at which parents should start to teach their children to fast is the age at which they are able to fast, which will vary according to each child’s physical makeup. Some scholars have defined this as being ten years of age.

Al-Kharqi said:

When a child is ten years old and is able to fast, he should start to do so.

https://islamqa.info/en/65558

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Fasting is not obligatory for young children, until they reach the age of adolescence, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The pens have been lifted from three: from one who has lost his mind until he comes back to his senses, from one who is sleeping until he wakes up, and from a child until he reaches the age of adolescence.” Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4399; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

Nevertheless, children should be told to fast so that they can get used to it, and because the good deeds that they do will be recorded for them.

The age at which parents should start to teach their children to fast is the age at which they are able to fast, which will vary according to each child’s physical makeup. Some scholars have defined this as being ten years of age.

Al-Kharqi said:

When a child is ten years old and is able to fast, he should start to do so.

https://islamqa.info/en/65558

Do children have to fast during Ramadan?
Not everyone has to observe Ramadan. Children do not have to fast. They should start when they reach the age of puberty, so long as they are healthy. People who are travelling long distances do not have to fast.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Do children have to fast during Ramadan?
Not everyone has to observe Ramadan. Children do not have to fast. They should start when they reach the age of puberty, so long as they are healthy. People who are travelling long distances do not have to fast.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan

But suppose these people believe in ramadan and they start trying to for this Christian girl to fast when she gets older?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

But suppose these people believe in ramadan and they start trying to for this Christian girl to fast when she gets older?

That would be child abuse imo

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

You don't think it would be confusing for a child who only speaks English to be living in a home where English isn't spoken in the home?

Who and why are they railing against it?

How do they communicate with the child if they don't speak English? Yes they may speak their own language between themselves why is this such an issue?

The MP Phillip Hollobone for one has called for an immediate investigation as to how this was allowed to happen.

Should it be found that it is unacceptable for people to foster children who cannot speak their language or share a common religion how will that impact on the plight of child refugees?
It will be said that we cannot accept any child refugees as we cannot adequately home or support their complex needs....Sometimes you have to read between the lines to see what is really there.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How do they communicate with the child if they don't speak English? Yes they may speak their own language between themselves why is this such an issue.

The MP Phillip Hollobone for one has called for an immediate investigation as to how this was allowed to happen.

Should it be found that it is unacceptable for people to foster children who cannot speak their language or share a common religion how will that impact on the plight of child refugees?
It will be said that we cannot accept any child refugees as we cannot adequately home or support their complex needs....Sometimes you have to read between the lines to see what is really there.

it is highly unlikely that this would have an adverse affect on rehoming refugees mainly because most speak some English and I doubt even a refugee would be rehomed in a home where they couldn't communicate.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

it is highly unlikely that this would have an adverse affect on rehoming refugees mainly because most speak some English and I doubt even a refugee would be rehomed in a home where they couldn't communicate.

You are presuming a lot there Cherie, should they not speak English what is to happen to those children?

This family can speak English though and they are still being considered as unsuitable as they speak their own language in front of the child...confusing the child.

My fear is we're being duped, if it's found the public are in favour of not allowing English 'Christian' children to be fostered with Muslim families then I would say that that will then be flipped to apply that Muslim children cannot be fostered to English families whose cannot communicate in the language of the foster child as that is what 'the public' want.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How do they communicate with the child if they don't speak English? Yes they may speak their own language between themselves why is this such an issue?

The MP Phillip Hollobone for one has called for an immediate investigation as to how this was allowed to happen.

Should it be found that it is unacceptable for people to foster children who cannot speak their language or share a common religion how will that impact on the plight of child refugees?
It will be said that we cannot accept any child refugees as we cannot adequately home or support their complex needs....Sometimes you have to read between the lines to see what is really there.

It's an issue because the child was upset by it. She has had enough upset and disturbance in her life clearly without needing to be forced into a situation she was not happy in. I do hate it when peoples' ideology becomes more important that those most affected by it!