Anything and everything

[BigFatBlonde]

Well, I have hesitated to write this as I cannot prove it.   But when I started as a Child Care Officer in the late 1960s I had three sisters in care who has been removed in circumstances very similar to the ones we are discussing.

Anyway, we were talking about whether leaving them in the way they were left was neglect or not, not whether or not there had been a prosecution.   In fact as I have said before, and as you appear to have confirmed unless I have totally misunderstood your post, not all cases of child abuse of any kind result in prosecution - most are dealt with in other ways.  But that does not mean that the abuse / neglect / whatever did not occur

As soon as the word 'neglect' appears the pro's always steer the thread toward a discussion surrounding the legality of what the McCann parents did. They do this because it is an argument they can win.

Whereas if we were just discussing was it neglectful then very few would be able to argue in favour of the Mccanns' actions other than the favoured "well they had a listening service in Butlins" - and how that is a valid argument for anything is beyond me.

N

[Aiofe]

Come on, surely someone can find an example which will please Alfie?

No, oh maybe that's because you are on a hiding to nowt because nothing will ever satisfy them.

It may not be a case of criminal neglect with the McCanns but it is certainly neglectful behaviour to leave 3 kids alone while you go out. Just because you can't be sent to prison for it does not make it right. 3 kids and two of them infants, may not be illegal but it is disgraceful.

N

Excellent. We agree. The McCanns were not guilty of criminal neglect in Portugal and would not have been found guilty here either going on the court records and recommendations in the Child Protection Handbook Sweet and Maxwell). They are totally innocent of criminal neglect.

Now we come to personal belief.

You believe they were non-criminally neglectful and disgraceful.

I believe they were ill advised, too complacent and unthinking

Others believe it was a reasonable risk given similar child watching schemes.

Let me tell you, none of those beliefs are right or wrong. They are just beliefs. Different people have different beliefs.

But it is a fact that there was no criminal neglect involved.

Glad to have settled the matter.

[Aiofe]

"My contention is that it is very rare for neglect charges to be successful in the UK without severe harm coming to the child."

I think they did Coco.

We do not know that but we do know that leaving Madeleine alone was not the Prime Cause of her disappearance as discussed elsewhere. The cases of neglect resulting in severe harm or death are ones where the harm was the direct result of the neglect.

[Aiofe]

As soon as the word 'neglect' appears the pro's always steer the thread toward a discussion surrounding the legality of what the McCann parents did. They do this because it is an argument they can win.

Whereas if we were just discussing was it neglectful then very few would be able to argue in favour of the Mccanns' actions other than the favoured "well they had a listening service in Butlins" - and how that is a valid argument for anything is beyond me.

N

 I agree that they were neglectful- a personal belief. The problem is that people try to make that mean criminally liable when it is only a matter of individual belief.

[CPN]

Excellent. We agree. The McCanns were not guilty of criminal neglect in Portugal and would not have been found guilty here either going on the court records and recommendations in the Child Protection Handbook Sweet and Maxwell). They are totally innocent of criminal neglect.

Now we come to personal belief.

You believe they were non-criminally neglectful and disgraceful.

I believe they were ill advised, too complacent and unthinking

Others believe it was a reasonable risk given similar child watching schemes.

Let me tell you, none of those beliefs are right or wrong. They are just beliefs. Different people have different beliefs.

But it is a fact that there was no criminal neglect involved.

Glad to have settled the matter.

You may have settled it to your satisfaction  but not to the satisfaction of others.  And one thing I do know, that the LAs I worked for would certainly have followed up any referral that a family were doing this to their children of that age.  They would not necessarily have prosecuted, as we have agreed , but they would have taken action, not ignored it, of that I am certain.

[BigFatBlonde]

Shame you did not acquire better manners or better debating skills from your perfect parenting.

That is just your personal judgement though isn't it?

N

[Redblossom]

We do not know that but we do know that leaving Madeleine alone was not the Prime Cause of her disappearance as discussed elsewhere. The cases of neglect resulting in severe harm or death are ones where the harm was the direct result of the neglect.

And since you dont know what happened to her, you cant state that as a fact...if in the  uk two parents left their toddlers alone and went out and left the house unsecured too, albeit for half hour periods, sometimes more, and one or more had a serious or fatal accident, you really think they would not be charged? No need to answer.....

[CPN]

And since you dont know what happened to her, you cant state that as a fact...if in the  uk two parents left their toddlers alone and went out and left the house unsecured too, albeit for half hour periods, sometimes more, and one or more had a serious or fatal accident, you really think they would not be charged? No need to answer.....

They might / might not actually be charged, Redblossom - but action would certainly be taken

[Aiofe]

You may have settled it to your satisfaction  but not to the satisfaction of others.  And one thing I do know, that the LAs I worked for would certainly have followed up any referral that a family were doing this to their children of that age.  They would not necessarily have prosecuted, as we have agreed , but they would have taken action, not ignored it, of that I am certain.

That is what I have been saying- administrative action, but that is not legal action or certainly criminal action. The Mccanns were visited by social services on their return. They did not have children placed into care. The may have been placed on the at risk register, but in my experience, parents who are aware of the errors made and do not intend to repeat them are spoken with and then put on the back burner even if deemed at risk. We know that they made the application for Madeleine to be made a ward of court and they were able to take the twins to Canada, suggesting minimal intervention.

But the bottom line was that they were not adjudged to be neglectful.

[Benice]

Hi! Mum and Dad would scrimp all year to take us on a little holiday to Butlines and what a time we all had! Mum and Dad used the listening service while they had a drink at the club and they would be heart broken if some body were to say that they abandoned us kids.

I am on the fence in this case of Madeleine but if people are saying that they abandoned their kids then they are also saying that my Mum and Dad abandoned us and I find that a bit offensive. This family did just the same as my Mum and Dad did.

Thousands if not millions of parents must have done the same over the years Tooty. It's been a recognised 'service' for decades for people on holiday. 

But apparently it's only if you mirror that service yourselves and are targetted by abductors that it becomes 'a heinous crime' committed by the parents.      If I live to be a 100 I will never understand the logic in that.

[Aiofe]

They might / might not actually be charged, Redblossom - but action would certainly be taken

But not likely to be criminal action and unlikely to reach a Family Court judge.

remember that social work decisions are not affirmed until they have legal backing. Placing a child on the at risk register has no meaning in the assessment of culpability- it is a tool, not a legal decision.

[Redblossom]

They might / might not actually be charged, Redblossom - but action would certainly be taken

Thanks CPN, I realise various things are taken into consideration, but this is something I dont understand, if a child can break a leg with its parent in the house, they are convicted of neglect, but if one does so or worse while they were out  they wouldnt?

[Aiofe]

Thanks CPN, I realise various things are taken into consideration, but this is something I dont understand, if a child can break a leg with its parent in the house, they are convicted of neglect, but if one does so or worse while they were out  they wouldnt?

Do you have a cite for an accidental leg break being prosecuted successfully as neglect in England?

[CPN]

That is what I have been saying- administrative action, but that is not legal action or certainly criminal action. The Mccanns were visited by social services on their return. They did not have children placed into care. The may have been placed on the at risk register, but in my experience, parents who are aware of the errors made and do not intend to repeat them are spoken with and then put on the back burner even if deemed at risk. We know that they made the application for Madeleine to be made a ward of court and they were able to take the twins to Canada, suggesting minimal intervention.

But the bottom line was that they were not adjudged to be neglectful.

Then we have been saying much the same thing.  But the fact that there was no court case does not mean that it was not neglect. There are, as I have said many times, other ways of dealing with things, and we do not know whether or not any action was taken in the McCann case as Social Services actions are not for public display.

Totally different, but when I was working in a Children's Hospital I was aware of a case where a father had caused damage to his child.  His actions after the incident in immediately bringing his child to A&E for attention, admitting what he had done, asking for help etc -  led to him being offered parenting classes rather than prosecution, which he was very happy to accept - and there were, (fingers crossed still!) no more problems.  That does not mean that the original damage to the child was not there, the child's arm remained broken; it means that it was decided after all aspects were taken into consideration that prosecution was not necessary and the situation could be dealt with in another way

[Aiofe]

Who "advised" them ? Or are you doing that misrepresentation of the meaning of words again to derail a thread ?

 I mean exactly what I said. Ill advised does not mean advised badly. Is English not your first language?