peterms Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I don't think you are right there Peter. Thacker did say on BBC it was soley because of ukip. But it doesn't mean the council unilaterally decided to do it. As I and others have tried to explain, they have a duty to discuss the situation with the natural parents, whose views are important. We have no idea whether they expressed a view. There seems to be more care given to the preferences of the temporary foster carers, but it's the natural parents who have more rights in this situation. And social services have a duty in any event towards the children, not towards the foster carers. If they believe it's better not to house migrant children with people who are members of a party with a policy which discriminates against such people - and only the most ideologically driven person could pretend that this should not be a concern - then that is a valid basis for action. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 but it's the natural parents who have more rights in this situation. do we know that ..in this situation ?? i.e if someone deems the natural parents are not fit to be parents in the first place and removes their children , do the parents still get to pick and chose where the children go ?? ( no idea on what basis the children are in care in this instance ,just a hypothetical question in a field of many hypotheticals around this case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 and only the most ideologically driven person could pretend that this should not be a concern - then that is a valid basis for action. so far in this case the only ideologically driven person appears to be Thacker these people had a proven track record with ethnic kids , that appears to be an undisputed fact from what I've seen in this case ... to suggest otherwise means you should get a job working for Rotherham social services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 do we know that ..in this situation ?? i.e if someone deems the natural parents are not fit to be parents in the first place and removes their children , do the parents still get to pick and chose where the children go ?? ( no idea on what basis the children are in care in this instance ,just a hypothetical question in a field of many hypotheticals around this case) If the court has taken the kids away from the parents, then the parents can't veto a placement (but should still be able to express views). I understood it was a short term placement, which may suggest it's a voluntary arrangement, but I don't recall having seen a definitive statement. In either case, the council has a clear legal duty to consider cultural factors in making the placement, as the courts have reminded them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 do we know that ..in this situation ?? i.e if someone deems the natural parents are not fit to be parents in the first place and removes their children , do the parents still get to pick and chose where the children go ?? ( no idea on what basis the children are in care in this instance ,just a hypothetical question in a field of many hypotheticals around this case) Yes we do. We do know that. It has been stated by the council that this was a very short term adoption with the parents in agreement. In such circumstances the councils care plan has to be agreed by the parents (Peter posted the proof of that a few pages back.) Its all part of the legal framework that councils have to abide by in such cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yes we do. We do know that. It has been stated by the council that this was a very short term adoption with the parents in agreement. I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that the placement was with the parents agreement ?? and as awol has already pointed out previously , if it was short term , why did Thacker talk about the long term welfare of the children ... that we would really have to think long-term about their needs being met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that the placement was with the parents agreement ?? and as awol has already pointed out previously , if it was short term , why did Thacker talk about the long term welfare of the children ... Maybe I'm wrong but I'm convinced I read both, right at the start of it all on the CH4 websiteThey always have to think of the long term welfare surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 right at the start of it all on the CH4 website is that the same CH4 web site that removed the other info you read you were drunk weren't you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 is that the same CH4 web site that removed the other info you read you were drunk weren't you Yes but that page does seem to have changed or not exist any more. The one I remember had video footage on it and I can't find it again. I've hardly had a drop for two weeks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yes but that page does seem to have changed or not exist any more. The one I remember had video footage on it and I can't find it again. I've hardly had a drop for two weeks! Was it this one? Earlier on Saturday, Joyce Thacker, strategic director of children and young people's services at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, said the three ethnic minority children had been placed with the couple as an emergency and it was never going to be a long-term arrangement. "Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The reference to care proceedings would suggest it's not a voluntary arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 but when asked by the beeb if the court had told her not to place them there she said no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 29, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 29, 2012 Was it this one? The reference to care proceedings would suggest it's not a voluntary arrangement. Really? OK I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that one. That page looks like it but it has been edited if it was as I seem to remember a quote involving the parents agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I really find this amazing the mass support of UKIP from VT's Tory "fans", the mass hypocrisy from the Media (and I would say some on VT) to the status of the family and the views on immigration and the desire that now some have to have a go at "Thacker". The duty of care for the kids is still number 1 issue, which is seemingly forgotten. This afternoon I had to go to Rotherham, not on any sort of political basis before anyone gets silly ideas there. The whole subject came up again over a cup of coffee and it was clear to see from people that when faced with the question what should be the priority the answer was the kids welfare. Most people in our "group" - and again it was a mix of people from different ways of life and interests agreed also that UKIP had basically made political mileage out of the issue which in turn was wrong. I think in terms of VT, it seems that certain people do support more than one party in the punch and judy games. I wonder how that fits in with the views of the leaders of the party they usually vote for and what he thinks of UKIP supporters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Drat, I'm certain that you're right that UKIP are making political capital out of this, but I still think the original decision was fundamentally wrong. Mart, after listening to more and more views today I am not sure that the decision to move the kids was wrong, if the authorities felt that it was right to do so. The fact that the foster parents now want to make it, no doubt assisted by UKIP party leaders and members of the right wing media, into some sort of attack on UKIP at the expense of the kids is completely abhorrent, but as said only what I expect from them and their followers I'm just wondering about this and I don't know the answer. If I were to adopt would I be able to set the criteria about the children? Now this is definitely not racist. What I mean is, if we were to be asked to look after a child who has been brought up particularly religeous for example (any denomination, doesn't matter, and the cultural background is irrelevant) and I thought that would have too much impact on our family life, would I be able to say no. Another example might be the childs Gender, Adoption and fostering are two totally different things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 actually we do , because they have fostered countless children before and were screened as part of the process You seem to be getting more more confused than Blair at a Chilcot enquiry , since when have i been a UKIP supporter ? Knowing that Rottherham council were wrong doesn't = UKIP supporter You've been arguing it wasn't about their political belief and now suddenly you are saying it is ..make up your mind the environment was good enough for the previous children they fostered , good enough to get them on the list and stay on it ... indeed they were described as exemplary" foster parents when the lady that removed them states very publicly that they were removed So when it became clear to us that the couple had political affiliations to Ukip we had to seriously think about the longer term needs of the children. then really your arguments ... well you don't actually have one Tony read what I wrote - I never said you were a UKIP supporter - there are others on this thread who are and others in the "real world" (but I must admit your stance does show what I would think is "fondness" for them shall we say? :-) ) Silly comments re Blair and Rotherham council also - I will put that down to your tr...... mischievous bit :-) You are totally mixed up with the rest of your post, I suspect you had neither read nor had any intention of reading what was being said there. Again I will put that down to the tone (see what I did there) that you want the thread / discussion to take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I dont think its mass support of ukip, well certainly not from my point of view. Its that the children have been moved and split up, not because the fostering they were getting was below standard, quite the opposite according to Thacker. Its because of politics. I definitely say I would have the same opinion if it were a Tory or Lib Dem council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Really? OK I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that one. That page looks like it but it has been edited if it was as I seem to remember a quote involving the parents agreement Just that the term care proceedings suggests a court case where the local authority seeks custody, rather than something done by agreement. It doesn't mean they are still subject to a care order - I suppose they might have been returned to the family and at a later point the family felt they couldn't cope and asked for help. I don't think it's clear from the information that's been released, but using that term suggests to me that it wasn't a consensual arrangement at one point, and therefore may not be now. Whichever, the requirement to take into account cultural factors in deciding a placement remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Total speculation but it seems that the tory and lib dems have finished behind ukip, bnp and respect in rotherham . If true that would be massive. .......... Or is this just local radio shennanigans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 30, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 30, 2012 Oh shite, forgot all about the by elections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Lib dems to lose deposits in all 3 by elections tonight? Will clegg resign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts