[user104658]

To be fair, in these situations grandparents do need to be assessed in exactly the same way as any other care arrangement before getting custody of a child. That's because if there are major issues that mean a child can't stay with a parent... A large percentage of the time, there will also be issues in the grandparents home life too. Obviously not always, some people fall into a bad lifestyle for other reasons, but the vast majority of the time if you want to figure out the source of a person's deep personal issues you don't have to look much further than their own parents.

[Beso]

Questions must be asked why, if the child is now housed with her grandparents, was she not put their originally.

It does highlight in the original story tower hamlets disregard for the guidlines set out for social services.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Questions must be asked why, if the child is now housed with her grandparents, was she not put their originally.

Because like I said... If her mother has major personal issues then there's always the chance (a good chance) that there were big problems in her OWN childhood. So the grandparents living situation has to be assessed before giving them full responsibility for another child, or it's just history repeating.

But like I said it's not ALWAYS due to further family problems and also people's living situations can change over the years (e.g. Perhaps the grandparents once had an unstable or chaotic living situation, but are settled now) and in this case obviously they have determined that it's a suitable home for the child. But, they do have to check. Imagine the backlash if a child was taken from parents and given to grandparents, only for them to come to real harm with those grandparents.

[Vicky.]

I thought foster caring was kind of classed as a job...which would surely mean religious beliefs cannot be forced on children who have been fostered?

Either way this is totally wrong tbh.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I thought foster caring was kind of classed as a job...which would surely mean religious beliefs cannot be forced on children who have been fostered?

Either way this is totally wrong tbh.

It's kind of classes as a job. It doesn't pay enough to be a sole source of income, but I gather at least one parent is expected to be home all the timee.

[Kizzy]

They did speak English, and they were mixed race did it ever occur to anyone to question why the plight of this little girl made the front page of the times?....

Children in foster care and local authority care have been systematically abused for years, why is this case held up for scrutiny?

On the face of it it makes no sense, I have my own theory as I've stated.

Here is a slightly more balanced article, this whole thing has left a very nasty taste in my mouth as to where this country is going.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05710aa5d9415

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They did speak English, and they were mixed race did it ever occur to anyone to question why the plight of this little girl made the front page of the times?....

Children in foster care and local authority care have been systematically abused for years, why is this case held up for scrutiny?

On the face of it it makes no sense, I have my own theory as I've stated.

Here is a slightly more balanced article, this whole thing has left a very nasty taste in my mouth as to where this country is going.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05710aa5d9415

Im guessing this case is highlighted because its in tower hamlets and we all, unfortunatly know just how inept and treacherous the care system has been and still is....

The poor kid would still be suffering if this hadnt come to light.

[Beso]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05710aa5d9415



And it does not highlight any new information it just repeats the original story....can you point out where it differs kizzy cause all i see is the same stuff that was in the original story repeated and some tweets about it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Im guessing this case is highlighted because its in tower hamlets and we all, unfortunatly know just how inept and treacherous the care system has been and still is....

The poor kid would still be suffering if this hadnt come to light.

Why are you making reference to Tower Hamlets being inept as opposed to anywhere else?

Suffering?... Not being fed bacon is NOT suffering by anyones standards, this 'case' is at best a joke and at worst evidence of how racism is now an accepted norm in society so much so it is front and centre in the times.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b05710aa5d9415



And it does not highlight any new information it just repeats the original story....can you point out where it differs kizzy cause all i see is the same stuff that was in the original story repeated and some tweets about it.

I didn't say it offered any new information, I stated it was more balanced.
The tweets highlight the bias in the original article.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why are you making reference to Tower Hamlets being inept as opposed to anywhere else?

Suffering?... Not being fed bacon is NOT suffering by anyones standards, this 'case' is at best a joke and at worst evidence of how racism is now an accepted norm in society so much so it is front and centre in the times.

because tower hamlets has been slated in the past for not following the guidlines set out by the government regarding social care and this case highlights that they are still doing it...also, this case is in the tower hamlets area so i would be foolish to bring up anywhere else in regards to discussing this case.

ignore the bacon silliness and concentrate on the isolation this girl must have felt...ask yourself why would they not house her with her grandparents in the first place if they are good enough to house her there now???


to me it looks like the tower hamlets care system are ignoring guidlines set out by the government and making up their own rules....why do this?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why are you making reference to Tower Hamlets being inept as opposed to anywhere else?

Suffering?... Not being fed bacon is NOT suffering by anyones standards, this 'case' is at best a joke and at worst evidence of how racism is now an accepted norm in society so much so it is front and centre in the times.

I still have to disagree with this Kizzy. I can accept that it being turned into "big news" (when it should really be an entirely private thing) is probably an agenda at work, however, as for the case itself... being selective about where a 5 year old child is placed in a foster setting is in no way "racism". On top of all of the other uprooting, anxiety, confusion and trauma that a young child would be feeling at a time like that, culture shock is not something to just throw into the mix "because in an ideal world it would be fine". The fact of the matter is, it WOULD be a strange and unfamiliar environment for a child to suddenly find themself in, and it could cause untold damage even if the foster carers had the best intentions in the world.

I'm not saying that it should only be "like for like" but I do think that if a fostering family has ANY strict religion, culture or belief then they can only really foster children who come from that background. Be that Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whatever. That's not to say that religion in itself should be a barrier but only where it's flexible - i.e. a "more modern" Muslim household who are prepared to accept and accomodate a child from a Christian background (by celebrating christmas with them, allowing them to eat the food they like, etc.) and that goes for any fostering family. It would be JUST as much a problem if a "staunchly Atheist" family was to foster a Christian or Muslim child and start telling them that they don't allow any religious imagery / belief / celebration in their house... for example. I would fully expect an atheist foster family to facilitate a Muslim child in observing their religious celebrations and occasions.

So it's not about this family being Muslim. Its about ensuring that terrified, anxious children who have already experienced untold upheaval and upset aren't thrown into situations even further removed from their usual life.

[Niamh.]

Yeah you can't argue with that logic really ^

Bottom line should be that the child is the most important person to consider in all of this, having to be placed in a strange environment wit strangers is going to be hard enough for them to cope with as it is without giving them even more **** to deal with

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

because tower hamlets has been slated in the past for not following the guidlines set out by the government regarding social care and this case highlights that they are still doing it...also, this case is in the tower hamlets area so i would be foolish to bring up anywhere else in regards to discussing this case.

ignore the bacon silliness and concentrate on the isolation this girl must have felt...ask yourself why would they not house her with her grandparents in the first place if they are good enough to house her there now???


to me it looks like the tower hamlets care system are ignoring guidelines set out by the government and making up their own rules....why do this?

There are failings everywhere, due to lack of resources, funding and staffing health and social care is in crisis across the country is in crisis, if you think Tower Hamlets is an isolated area you're sadly mistaken.
It's an area of high socio economic deprivation and crime, they are stretched to breaking point.

The bacon silliness was the whole premise of the article though, the lies in the article that they were a no English speaking family is rubbish, that begs the question what else have they lied about? They know that Tower Hamlets hands are tied due to this being an open case. It is interesting the a judge only placed the child back with the family after intervention from the times, MP Phillip Hollobone and none other than the chairman of the Commons education committee Robert Halfon....very odd imo.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I still have to disagree with this Kizzy. I can accept that it being turned into "big news" (when it should really be an entirely private thing) is probably an agenda at work, however, as for the case itself... being selective about where a 5 year old child is placed in a foster setting is in no way "racism". On top of all of the other uprooting, anxiety, confusion and trauma that a young child would be feeling at a time like that, culture shock is not something to just throw into the mix "because in an ideal world it would be fine". The fact of the matter is, it WOULD be a strange and unfamiliar environment for a child to suddenly find themself in, and it could cause untold damage even if the foster carers had the best intentions in the world.

I'm not saying that it should only be "like for like" but I do think that if a fostering family has ANY strict religion, culture or belief then they can only really foster children who come from that background. Be that Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whatever. That's not to say that religion in itself should be a barrier but only where it's flexible - i.e. a "more modern" Muslim household who are prepared to accept and accomodate a child from a Christian background (by celebrating christmas with them, allowing them to eat the food they like, etc.) and that goes for any fostering family. It would be JUST as much a problem if a "staunchly Atheist" family was to foster a Christian or Muslim child and start telling them that they don't allow any religious imagery / belief / celebration in their house... for example. I would fully expect an atheist foster family to facilitate a Muslim child in observing their religious celebrations and occasions.

So it's not about this family being Muslim. Its about ensuring that terrified, anxious children who have already experienced untold upheaval and upset aren't thrown into situations even further removed from their usual life.

That's fine disagree, for me it was the bias of the article and the hooha created by right wing politicians that rang alarm bells for me. I agree matching like for like is a common sense approach, these were English speaking mixed race Muslims is that really such a barrier ... In Tower Hamlets?
Should it be? where does profiling end and segregation begin?

What is it about this particular case that caused such controversy, I wasn't going to say it but I will, this child is held up to mean more because she is white and a Christian.
Who cares where the poor refugee children are, the brown Muslims ones holed up in detention centres...

Who cared about the kids from Grenfell where are they, where's the article in the times for them?

Once again my whole issue with this is perspective, I hate the thought of any child upset..not just ones placed with Muslims, all

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's fine disagree, for me it was the bias of the article and the hooha created by right wing politicians that rang alarm bells for me. I agree matching like for like is a common sense approach, these were English speaking mixed race Muslims is that really such a barrier ... In Tower Hamlets?
Should it be? where does profiling end and segregation begin?

Again, it shouldn't be a barrier so long as there is complete flexibility in the new home. e.g.

A Muslim family saying "We don't celebrate Christmas but we understand that you do, so we will celebrate it with you, and you can celebrate with us." ... or "As Muslims we don't eat bacon, but you can still eat it."

Or a Christian / Atheist family fostering a Muslim refugee child saying "We don't know anything about Eid but we know you celebrate it, so we'll learn about it and celebrate it with you".


THEN it's less of a problem. But yes - if a child from one background is fostered into a family and they are suddenly told that they "aren't allowed" to do things, or can't take part in things, that have been normal in their life - even if to us as adults they seem like "minor things" - then it is a genuine problem.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again, it shouldn't be a barrier so long as there is complete flexibility in the new home. e.g.

A Muslim family saying "We don't celebrate Christmas but we understand that you do, so we will celebrate it with you, and you can celebrate with us." ... or "As Muslims we don't eat bacon, but you can still eat it."

Or a Christian / Atheist family fostering a Muslim refugee child saying "We don't know anything about Eid but we know you celebrate it, so we'll learn about it and celebrate it with you".


THEN it's less of a problem. But yes - if a child from one background is fostered into a family and they are suddenly told that they "aren't allowed" to do things, or can't take part in things, that have been normal in their life - even if to us as adults they seem like "minor things" - then it is a genuine problem.

I would have thought that went without saying in all fairness, there are currently guidelines covering such issues. We have little to no proof that any of the scenarios in the article actually transpired do we? And Tower Hamlets have no right to reply to this divisory article.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I would have thought that went without saying in all fairness, there are currently guidelines covering such issues. We have little to no proof that any of the scenarios in the article actually transpired do we? And Tower Hamlets have no right to reply to this divisory article.

Yes guidlines that tower hamlets have ignored yet again even after being critisised in the past for ignoring guidlines..the worst performing area in the uk.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I still have to disagree with this Kizzy. I can accept that it being turned into "big news" (when it should really be an entirely private thing) is probably an agenda at work, however, as for the case itself... being selective about where a 5 year old child is placed in a foster setting is in no way "racism". On top of all of the other uprooting, anxiety, confusion and trauma that a young child would be feeling at a time like that, culture shock is not something to just throw into the mix "because in an ideal world it would be fine". The fact of the matter is, it WOULD be a strange and unfamiliar environment for a child to suddenly find themself in, and it could cause untold damage even if the foster carers had the best intentions in the world.

I'm not saying that it should only be "like for like" but I do think that if a fostering family has ANY strict religion, culture or belief then they can only really foster children who come from that background. Be that Muslims, Christians, Atheists, whatever. That's not to say that religion in itself should be a barrier but only where it's flexible - i.e. a "more modern" Muslim household who are prepared to accept and accomodate a child from a Christian background (by celebrating christmas with them, allowing them to eat the food they like, etc.) and that goes for any fostering family. It would be JUST as much a problem if a "staunchly Atheist" family was to foster a Christian or Muslim child and start telling them that they don't allow any religious imagery / belief / celebration in their house... for example. I would fully expect an atheist foster family to facilitate a Muslim child in observing their religious celebrations and occasions.

So it's not about this family being Muslim. Its about ensuring that terrified, anxious children who have already experienced untold upheaval and upset aren't thrown into situations even further removed from their usual life.

Great post, well put.

People are suggesting the bacon thing is silly and it might seem that way to an adult but you also have to remember that some children can be very fussy eaters and if bacon is one of a limited food group that the child likes or carbonara with bacon as has been mentioned, this could be a huge issue resulting in difficult mealtimes and refusal of food.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's fine disagree, for me it was the bias of the article and the hooha created by right wing politicians that rang alarm bells for me. I agree matching like for like is a common sense approach, these were English speaking mixed race Muslims is that really such a barrier ... In Tower Hamlets?
Should it be? where does profiling end and segregation begin?

What is it about this particular case that caused such controversy, I wasn't going to say it but I will, this child is held up to mean more because she is white and a Christian.
Who cares where the poor refugee children are, the brown Muslims ones holed up in detention centres...

Who cared about the kids from Grenfell where are they, where's the article in the times for them?

Once again my whole issue with this is perspective, I hate the thought of any child upset..not just ones placed with Muslims, all

I think you have racism stuck in your headlights and you aren't looking at the situation with common sense. If you think about the confusion of any child in this situation you see what most people are saying.

It seems to me that the biggest issue for this particular child is a familiarity issue, out of her comfort zone anyway, away from family, then put with people who have very different beliefs, eating habits, perhaps speaking a foreign language in the home. No matter how well intentioned they might be, this is a five year old and it's probably more than she should have to handle all at once.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Great post, well put.

People are suggesting the bacon thing is silly and it might seem that way to an adult but you also have to remember that some children can be very fussy eaters and if bacon is one of a limited food group that the child likes or carbonara with bacon as has been mentioned, this could be a huge issue resulting in difficult mealtimes and refusal of food.

So true.It can be hard enough to get them to eat at times.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I think you have racism stuck in your headlights and you aren't looking at the situation with common sense. If you think about the confusion of any child in this situation you see what most people are saying.

It seems to me that the biggest issue for this particular child is a familiarity issue, out of her comfort zone anyway, away from family, then put with people who have very different beliefs, eating habits, perhaps speaking a foreign language in the home. No matter how well intentioned they might be, this is a five year old and it's probably more than she should have to handle all at once.

Kids of that age can be set in their ways due to having their own routine.That routine is their whole world.Turning it upside down is a massive thing for them.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I think you have racism stuck in your headlights and you aren't looking at the situation with common sense. If you think about the confusion of any child in this situation you see what most people are saying.

It seems to me that the biggest issue for this particular child is a familiarity issue, out of her comfort zone anyway, away from family, then put with people who have very different beliefs, eating habits, perhaps speaking a foreign language in the home. No matter how well intentioned they might be, this is a five year old and it's probably more than she should have to handle all at once.

Please don't make presumptions in relation to my reasoning, I'm looking in the context in which it was presented, there was a deliberate slant to the article that coloured any genuine concern for the child or looked after children in general in that article.

Of course in an ideal world all needs of looked after children should be met, but they aren't are they? that is the harsh reality of social services in the UK.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Please don't make presumptions in relation to my reasoning, I'm looking in the context in which it was presented, there was a deliberate slant to the article that coloured any genuine concern for the child or looked after children in general in that article.

Of course in an ideal world all needs of looked after children should be met, but they aren't are they? that is the harsh reality of social services in the UK.

I wasn't making presumptions I was responding to things you've typed. I think you are taking the article too much at face value rather than thinking about the confusion of the child but there isn't any point in discussing it further with you as you are getting defensive.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I wasn't making presumptions I was responding to things you've typed. I think you are taking the article too much at face value rather than thinking about the confusion of the child but there isn't any point in discussing it further with you as you are getting defensive.

No there isn't as you are becoming accusatory, I have had my say as have others, I don't feel that warrants your projections as to perceived flaws in my reasoning.