Did you see this story?

[Susan in KY]

 

Forced adoption...in the UK, no less. Horrifying.

[Jen in PA]

Terrifying, truly.

[K-FL]

Horrors! Sounds like the UK has gone USSR.

[bettyandbob]

sort of adds to my theories about social workers.

[FaithManor]

That just makes me feel ill! I can not imagine the horror they live everyday. How would you put your life back together and go on?

 

I am grieved for the world that my children will raise my grandchildren in. It's so sick and twisted...so many power grabbing, slime bags with the guns and the government badges to terrorize the electorate and make them so scared that they are completely submissive to abuse. That's what I think this case is....a "We'll show the people just exactly what we can do to them!"

 

I weep for Britain. I weep for America because once this kind of tyrannical bureucratic behavior becomes accepted there, the power mongerers here will seek to give government workers that much control over us.

 

Faith

[GinaPagnato]

I'm utterly shocked. How can this be?

I'm sitting here thinking to myself that surely there must have been some reason, something, to make the authorities behave in this manner. But nothing about this makes even remote sense, from what I gather from the article.

The parents house was messy. The father was pi$$ed off, and let it be known. And this constitutes reason to forcefully remove a child from her home?

I can't even imagine. This poor, poor family.

[Jean in Newcastle]

My worst nightmare.

[Dawn in OH]

sort of adds to my theories about social workers.

 

 

Same here. How awful. I cannot believe this kind of thing is allowed to happen.

 

That poor family.

[Pretty in Pink]

How terrible. :crying:

[Mimm]

I've seen several cases like this out of the UK. Stories that quoted doctors and psychiatrists on behalf of the parents. I've heard of parents fleeing the country in terror of losing their children. I've heard of social workers planning to take a baby as soon as it was born, having already made the decision that the baby would be adopted, on very very flimsy grounds, despite the mother saying she would cooperate with anything they wanted her to do in order to keep the baby. They weren't even planning on letting the mother hold the baby before they stole it from her. She fled the country. I'm very sad about what seems to be happening over there.

[Mejane]

sort of adds to my theories about social workers.

 

:confused: Did you read the same article I did? It's obvious the police were the villians here. The parents had been taken away; the social workers had no choice but to remove the child. The "experienced independent" social worker testified on the parents' behalf, but her testimony was not considered. I'd say the police and the courts are to blame in this case, not the social workers.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Mejane

[Word Nerd]

:confused: Did you read the same article I did? It's obvious the police were the villians here. The parents had been taken away; the social workers had no choice but to remove the child. The "experienced independent" social worker testified on the parents' behalf, but her testimony was not considered. I'd say the police and the courts are to blame in this case, not the social workers.

 

That independent social worker was the sole exception. The story implicated all the others involved.

[Mejane]

That independent social worker was the sole exception. The story implicated all the others involved.

 

Perhaps, but the actions of the RSPCA and the police led to the situation in the first place. Why has no one condemned them? The social workers who responded could only report on what they witnessed - a home torn apart by dogs and a screaming child whose parents had been arrested.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Mejane

[Murphy101]

I've seen several cases like this out of the UK. Stories that quoted doctors and psychiatrists on behalf of the parents. I've heard of parents fleeing the country in terror of losing their children. I've heard of social workers planning to take a baby as soon as it was born, having already made the decision that the baby would be adopted, on very very flimsy grounds, despite the mother saying she would cooperate with anything they wanted her to do in order to keep the baby. They weren't even planning on letting the mother hold the baby before they stole it from her. She fled the country. I'm very sad about what seems to be happening over there.

 

What the heck?

 

I wonder if this is a side effect of europe's terrible national birth rates? Can't or didn't have a baby of their own, go file to adopt one and the state will take one from someone else for you? Sounds like serious money involved here or something?

[Hunter's Moon]

That's horrible!!

[Word Nerd]

Perhaps, but the actions of the RSPCA and the police led to the situation in the first place. Why has no one condemned them? The social workers who responded could only report on what they witnessed - a home torn apart by dogs and a screaming child whose parents had been arrested.

 

Oh, I agree that the police and courts are certainly at fault. I can't even wrap my head around how many people at different levels and at different parts of the process could commit such an injustice. That's not even a strong enough word for it.

[mom2abcd]

Oh, my! Is there anything we can do to help?

 

Keep voting, Americans! (And praying).

[Heather in WI]

:crying:

 

I can't imagine. That poor, poor family.

[RanchGirl]

Perhaps, but the actions of the RSPCA and the police led to the situation in the first place. Why has no one condemned them? The social workers who responded could only report on what they witnessed - a home torn apart by dogs and a screaming child whose parents had been arrested.

 

definitely the police had a lot to do with it, especially the woman miscarrying that night in jail. But she was let go within 24 hours, shouldn't the social workers have returned the child at that point? Or called a relative/friend/neighbor rather than taking the child into custody to begin with? And they were the ones who restricted the parents access to the child -- no visits for the first couple months? Telling the child the parents were dead?!?!? And the social workers certainly had to be the driving force behind putting the child in foster care and pushing forward on the adoption.

 

The whole thing makes me absolutely SICK. That poor child. And honestly based on my experience with our social services system, I can see it getting that bad here in the US... we're not that far off now. The social workers in our state county have way too much power and a complete inability to admit their mistakes. The judges listen to the "professional" social workers, but they ignore the opinions and rights of foster parents, birth parents, guardian ad litems... no one has any power or voice other than social workers and the judges.

[Skadi]

Although this particular case happened in the UK, I've read dozens of similar stories here in the US. This one is especially compelling because it encompasses so many themes familiar in these types of cases -- dozens of police raiding a home over a minor violation, pets being destroyed, parents paying thousands of dollars in legal fees, nearly 100 court hearings, social workers coaching children for allegations or telling children that their parents are "bad" or even dead, and finally, the nightmare culminates with a forced adoption. CPS does not need "probable cause." You are not entitled to have a lawyer present while your children are being interviewed. There is no real due process. If they target your family, you will spend months and even years trying to get your "guilty until proven innocent" mark removed. This will not stop until the people demand a major reform in child services, but I'm afraid the "It couldn't happen to me" mentality may make that outcry come too late.

[justasque]

Yes, the case sounds horrible. But I'm going to reserve judgment until reading something from the other side. Often in CPS cases there is another side to the story, and often the social workers can't justify their actions in the press because of privacy concerns. If the case is as it was presented in this one article, then obviously it's every parent's worst nightmare. But without hearing the other side, we don't have the full story.

 

Here's a start:

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/2046118.vet_could_smell_decaying_carcasses_at_dog_breeders_house/

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4127314.Dog_breeder_loses_appeal_over_puppies__tail_docking/

[Corraleno]

Here's a start:

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/2046118.vet_could_smell_decaying_carcasses_at_dog_breeders_house/

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4127314.Dog_breeder_loses_appeal_over_puppies__tail_docking/

Well, those articles certainly paint a different picture of the household. :blink:

 

Jackie

[justasque]

Well, those articles certainly paint a different picture of the household. :blink:

 

Jackie

 

Yes, they really do. I've learned not to take a single news article at face value. While there might still be serious issues to consider, this story isn't as black-and-white as the first article made it out to be.

[LibraryLover]

Why am I not shocked?

 

But without hearing the other side, we don't have the full story.

 

Here's a start:

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/2046118.vet_could_smell_decaying_carcasses_at_dog_breeders_house/

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4127314.Dog_breeder_loses_appeal_over_puppies__tail_docking/

[LibraryLover]

But. Moving babies around a country/switching parents doesn't change the birth rate of a country. Now, if you tell me Italians (negative birth rate) are stealing babies from the Roma in Prague, or from French Muslims, say, then maybe I'd buy it.

 

And no! I have not heard of this happening...just am trying to figure out how a country can change their birth rate without birthing babies. ;)

 

What the heck?

 

I wonder if this is a side effect of europe's terrible national birth rates? Can't or didn't have a baby of their own, go file to adopt one and the state will take one from someone else for you? Sounds like serious money involved here or something?

Edited November 21, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Murphy101]

I agree those articles don't paint a pretty pic of his kennel practices.

 

But they also don't say anything about abusing his child.

 

Not everyone, in fact most people, don't treat their children the same as they treat their animals. The articles read as those the animals were kept separate from the family.

 

Regardless of how I might feel about his animal treatments, the issue is how he treated his daughter.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Martha

[Murphy101]

But. Moving babies around a country/switching parents doesn't change the birth rate of a country.

 

No, I didn't say it did. I was wondering in pure speculation if these were issues of taking from the haves (the with children) and giving to the have nots (those who don't for whatever reason).

[LibraryLover]

Martha, the first article posted says he bred and kept the dogs at his home:

 

-A vet told a court he could smell "rotting decaying carcasses" when he was called to the home of a dog breeder.

Tony Sims, 31, fed raw meat and bones to a pack of 22 dogs he kept in unventilated rooms in near darkness and forced to sleep in their own excrement.

Police officers, animal inspectors and a vet found rabbit carcasses scattered throughout the house which Sims had used as food because he considered it "natural".

Veterinary surgeon Julian Peters told Hastings Magistrates Court that Sims' conduct had been "totally inadequate and inappropriate".

Sims, of London Road, Hailsham, bred boxers and rottweilers from his home. He now faces nine separate charges of animal cruelty relating to 16 puppies and six *****es.

 

I agree those articles don't paint a pretty pic of his kennel practices.

 

But they also don't say anything about abusing his child.

 

Not everyone, in fact most people, don't treat their children the same as they treat their animals. The articles read as those the animals were kept separate from the family.

 

Regardless of how I might feel about his animal treatments, the issue is how he treated his daughter.

Edited November 21, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Sputterduck]

Martha, the first article posted says he bred and kept the dogs at his home:

 

-A vet told a court he could smell "rotting decaying carcasses" when he was called to the home of a dog breeder.

Tony Sims, 31, fed raw meat and bones to a pack of 22 dogs he kept in unventilated rooms in near darkness and forced to sleep in their own excrement.

Police officers, animal inspectors and a vet found rabbit carcasses scattered throughout the house which Sims had used as food because he considered it "natural".

Veterinary surgeon Julian Peters told Hastings Magistrates Court that Sims' conduct had been "totally inadequate and inappropriate".

Sims, of London Road, Hailsham, bred boxers and rottweilers from his home. He now faces nine separate charges of animal cruelty relating to 16 puppies and six *****es.

 

The carcass smell was the rabbits. Which, by the way, are very popular with people who want to give their animals a natural diet. It's far more expensive that just giving them dog food. He was willing to go to that expense for them.

[Murphy101]

Martha, this article says he bred and kept the dogs at his home:

 

Hmmm. In his home is vague to me, though the rabbit thing is certainly an issue. For some reason, possibly erroneously, I get the impression they are in a basement or something. Oh well.

 

Ok. So let's assume all over the house. We have an unarguably unsanitary situation, which I don't put up there with abuse of children. As the dogs have been removed, one can speculate that the rabbits and other mess has or can be dealt with in short order.

 

So, no more dog mess. It sounds like the main child welfare issue has been addressed. So why can't they have their child back? What else have they done that has directly physically endangered their child? If there is nothing else, they should have their child back.

[Murphy101]

The carcass smell was the rabbits. Which, by the way, are very popular with people who want to give their animals a natural diet. It's far more expensive that just giving them dog food. He was willing to go to that expense for them.

 

Yes, I know that. But a person, never mind a breeder, would normally clean up any mess after feeding time was over. It's not the feeding of rabbits that is the issue.

[LibraryLover]

I don't know. Was the main issue of the animals addressed? Had anything else happened? Did the couple have other children? I don't know. These articles illustrate to me there is more to this than the OP article suggests.

 

Hmmm. In his home is vague to me, though the rabbit thing is certainly an issue. For some reason, possibly erroneously, I get the impression they are in a basement or something. Oh well.

 

Ok. So let's assume all over the house. We have an unarguably unsanitary situation, which I don't put up there with abuse of children. As the dogs have been removed, one can speculate that the rabbits and other mess has or can be dealt with in short order.

 

So, no more dog mess. It sounds like the main child welfare issue has been addressed. So why can't they have their child back? What else have they done that has directly physically endangered their child? If there is nothing else, they should have their child back.

Edited November 21, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Murphy101]

I don't know. Was the main issue of the animals adressed? Had anything else happened? Where there other children? I don't know. These articles illustrate to me there is more to this than the OP article suggests.

 

No they have one daughter. The wife was pregnant, but miscarried while at the police station that day.

 

All the articles share that they don't show clear abuse of the child. I am willing to agree that does not mean it was not there, but it certainly is not addressed.

[DarlaS]

I don't know. Was the main issue of the animals adressed? Had anything else happened? Were there other children? I don't know. These articles illustrate to me there is more to this than the OP article suggests.

 

 

Um... yeah. The original article referred to him as "a professional dog breeder". The second article quoted him stating he never took any of his dogs to the vet. :001_huh:

 

The situation is being spun two very different ways. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Edited November 21, 2010 by darlasowders

[LibraryLover]

I fixed all the spelling typos in my post above, but too late. ;)

[Murphy101]

Um... yeah. The original article referred to him as "a professional dog breeder". The second article quoted him stating he never took any of his dogs to the vet. :001_huh:

 

The situation is being spun two very different ways. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

LOTS of people who own many animals, such as a breeder, do not take their animals TO the vet. They call the vet to come to them if they can afford it bc it is so much easier. (and someone feeding rabbits could probably afford it) also, they often do many of the shots and so forth themselves, resulting in fewer visits. And it sounds like that is exactly what he did and just happened to get a vet that reported him.

 

As for the dog eye, I don't have a problem with him flushing it. Most of the time things heal on their own and that's all that is needed. It sounds like when it became apparent that wasn't working or it got worse, he called the vet in.

[justasque]

So why can't they have their child back? What else have they done that has directly physically endangered their child? If there is nothing else, they should have their child back.

 

Well yes, of course. And it's possible that this was a horrible unjust situation, and that the UK's social workers are out of control beasts, etc. But again, we have not heard from the social workers as to why they did what they did. And we aren't likely to, as it would be inappropriate for them to share personal details with the public. It's a tricky situation, balancing the child's and the family's need for privacy vs. the public's and press's roles as watchdogs. The articles about the dogs aren't meant to explain why the child was adopted. They do show that the original story wasn't telling the whole truth about the case, and that the situation is likely to be much more complex than it at first seemed. So I would argue that we simply don't have enough information to make a judgment as to whether social workers behaved appropriately in this case or not. And it should also be a lesson about taking sensationalist news articles at face value.

[jujsky]

My worst nightmare.

 

Mine too!

[Mejane]

this story isn't as black-and-white as the first article made it out to be.

 

It never is, is it?

[Murphy101]

Well yes, of course. And it's possible that this was a horrible unjust situation, and that the UK's social workers are out of control beasts, etc. But again, we have not heard from the social workers as to why they did what they did. And we aren't likely to, as it would be inappropriate for them to share personal details with the public. It's a tricky situation, balancing the child's and the family's need for privacy vs. the public's and press's roles as watchdogs. The articles about the dogs aren't meant to explain why the child was adopted. They do show that the original story wasn't telling the whole truth about the case, and that the situation is likely to be much more complex than it at first seemed. So I would argue that we simply don't have enough information to make a judgment as to whether social workers behaved appropriately in this case or not. And it should also be a lesson about taking sensationalist news articles at face value.

 

 

First, I never said I thought the social workers were any kind of beasts or that I was taking any of the articles at face value.

 

I do take issue with the theory that it's about family privacy. Allegations against the family is often public record.

[angela in ohio]

Well yes, of course. And it's possible that this was a horrible unjust situation, and that the UK's social workers are out of control beasts, etc. But again, we have not heard from the social workers as to why they did what they did. And we aren't likely to, as it would be inappropriate for them to share personal details with the public. It's a tricky situation, balancing the child's and the family's need for privacy vs. the public's and press's roles as watchdogs. The articles about the dogs aren't meant to explain why the child was adopted. They do show that the original story wasn't telling the whole truth about the case, and that the situation is likely to be much more complex than it at first seemed. So I would argue that we simply don't have enough information to make a judgment as to whether social workers behaved appropriately in this case or not. And it should also be a lesson about taking sensationalist news articles at face value.

 

Bingo. The only side usually told in the press in these types of cases is the "unofficial side," because the officials (be they social workers, police, psychologists, schools, etc.) cannot share details, in order to keep the privacy of those involved. When you add that to the press's desire to go for the most sensational story, you usually end up looking at these stories far on one side.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes, the case sounds horrible. But I'm going to reserve judgment until reading something from the other side. Often in CPS cases there is another side to the story, and often the social workers can't justify their actions in the press because of privacy concerns. If the case is as it was presented in this one article, then obviously it's every parent's worst nightmare. But without hearing the other side, we don't have the full story.

 

Here's a start:

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/2046118.vet_could_smell_decaying_carcasses_at_dog_breeders_house/

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4127314.Dog_breeder_loses_appeal_over_puppies__tail_docking/

 

:iagree:

[DarlaS]

LOTS of people who own many animals, such as a breeder, do not take their animals TO the vet. They call the vet to come to them if they can afford it bc it is so much easier. (and someone feeding rabbits could probably afford it) also, they often do many of the shots and so forth themselves, resulting in fewer visits. And it sounds like that is exactly what he did and just happened to get a vet that reported him.

 

As for the dog eye, I don't have a problem with him flushing it. Most of the time things heal on their own and that's all that is needed. It sounds like when it became apparent that wasn't working or it got worse, he called the vet in.

 

He was docking tails with cable ties (It can be done w/out a vet with an elastrator. We used to do lamb's tails that way. Why not spend the money on that if he was so keen on taking good care of them? It's a simple, inexpensive tool.). I didn't get the impression he was the one who summoned that vet since the vet was there with police officers and animal inspectors. The second article made it sound like the police summoned the vet after someone tipped them off.

 

He was breeding dogs for two years and had 22 animals in icky conditions w/out vet care (because in his own words vets "mess around with the dogs"). If that's not a puppy mill, I don't know what is.

[Murphy101]

He was docking tails with cable ties (It can be done w/out a vet with an elastrator. We used to do lamb's tails that way. Why not spend the money on that if he was so keen on taking good care of them? It's a simple, inexpensive tool.). I didn't get the impression he was the one who summoned that vet since the vet was there with police officers and animal inspectors. The second article made it sound like the police summoned the vet after someone tipped them off.

 

He was breeding dogs for two years and had 22 animals in icky conditions w/out vet care (because in his own words vets "mess around with the dogs"). If that's not a puppy mill, I don't know what is.

 

Oh I'm not saying he was a grand good dog breeder. I was simply saying that many people who are professionals a. Do a lot themselves and b. Have vets come to them and c. I'm still waiting to hear that he abused his daughter in some way.

 

Not saying I like the guy or his treatment of his dogs.

[Happy2BaMom]

There's no way any of us will ever know the full story of what happened. The first article was certainly full of enough one-sided information to scare anybody out of their wits.

 

And, no, you haven't heard how he has abused his daughter...but you wouldn't. That information is confidential, for the children's sake.

 

I've been a foster parent for three years now. All the bio-parents whose kids I've kept have insisted they are COMPLETELY INNOCENT and that having their children seized was a COMPLETE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. One family even posted an enormous sign in their front yard about how the "government seized their children."

 

All of it has been crap.

 

Perhaps this couple's claim isn't true. But I'd be willing to bet my house there is more to the story - a whole lot more.