Is UK 'culture' to blame for child neglect -leading to child suffering?

[Mr Gray]

Because it had nothing to do with UK culture and child neglect combined and would divert from the topic.

Why is there a post re FGM and Nelson Mandela on this thread then

[G-Unit]

I don't think there is such a thing as UK culture. The UK has many cultures reflecting our diverse population. Child neglect takes many forms, so I will just concentrate on this thread - leaving children alone and unsupervised at home or on holiday.

Most cases of children being left alone stem from the carer(s) wanting to go somewhere or do something and not wanting to either arrange childcare or take the child with them. This can range from nipping to the shops to going away on holiday for a couple of weeks, and it doesn't seem to be just one societal group doing it, so I would say it's not a cultural phenomenon.

[Alfred R Jones]

Why is there a post re FGM and Nelson Mandela on this thread then

Because it was posted by a "sceptic".  Say no more.

[Carana]

Which parts are vague as regards accuracy.
You can check against the facts here in the first link

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2015/2015-ny-slip-op-51097-u.html

Two more articles here in non legalese-speak

http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer-blog.com/2015/09/endangering-the-welfare-of-a-child-how-long-is-too-long-to-leave-your-child-in-an-ny-pl-260-10-prosecution.html

https://nydefenseattorney.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/bad-parenting-or-criminal-neglect/#more-299

It seems to me the law has little tolerance, LE has absolute zero tolerance, but in this case I cannot see that the arrest was unjustified. Who leaves their 6 month old alone for an hour in a room and then alone for an hour in a public lobby!

So in answer to the OP, the defence of , its a cultural difference, is, as Judge Judy might say, BALONEY...and her being a "veteran" police officer should know better both about this area AND what NYPD are like!

I thnk at the very least the child should (if as they say they have its best interests at heart)  have been taken back to the UK and let UK authorities / her and her family deal with it.

Thanks for finding those links, Mercury.

At the moment, the case does seem a bit odd, but this is the initial LE evidence and I haven't read sny explanation from the defence yet. Has it been excluded that she'd arranged for someone to monitor the baby during her absence, for example? (No idea, just wondering.)

Whatever the reality, I'd agree that the baby should be repatriated to be closer to relatives (unless there is a major reason which this wouldn't be in the child's interest).

[Alfred R Jones]

Interesting comment from a Times reader on the story:

The staff member who believes they saw the child on the floor unattended for an hour should be charged with neglect. Because they left the child on the ground for an hour unattended. When they first saw the child on the ground, they believed he was unattended. Instead of immediately going to his aid, they left him for an hour. Then they called the police.



The mother did not believe the child was unattended as she was nearby and he was in her full view. She had no need to go pick up the child. However, the person who believed he was unattended did have that need, by their own assessment of the situation. If I thought this child was genuinely in danger, I would immediately remove him from danger. I wouldn't wait a moment, let alone an hour! The fact that they didn't do anything other than indignantly wait an hour and then make a telephone call shows them to be neglectful by their own standards.



Sounds like this is a battle over 'standards of motherhood', where the staff member didn't approve of the mother's parenting style, so waited for an opportunity to shame her, using the power and 'moral authority' of the State. The last thing on the staff member's mind was the welfare of the child. He was just being used as an emblem of that person's self-righteousness.



Perhaps the staff member didn't like the fact that she was single mother? I wonder if the mother let on to anyone that the baby was conceived without a father being involved? Conservative ruse sort of backfired then, didn't it? Now he's got a gay 'dad'.

[Alice Purjorick]

Interesting comment from a Times reader on the story:

The staff member who believes they saw the child on the floor unattended for an hour should be charged with neglect. Because they left the child on the ground for an hour unattended. When they first saw the child on the ground, they believed he was unattended. Instead of immediately going to his aid, they left him for an hour. Then they called the police.



The mother did not believe the child was unattended as she was nearby and he was in her full view. She had no need to go pick up the child. However, the person who believed he was unattended did have that need, by their own assessment of the situation. If I thought this child was genuinely in danger, I would immediately remove him from danger. I wouldn't wait a moment, let alone an hour! The fact that they didn't do anything other than indignantly wait an hour and then make a telephone call shows them to be neglectful by their own standards.



Sounds like this is a battle over 'standards of motherhood', where the staff member didn't approve of the mother's parenting style, so waited for an opportunity to shame her, using the power and 'moral authority' of the State. The last thing on the staff member's mind was the welfare of the child. He was just being used as an emblem of that person's self-righteousness.



Perhaps the staff member didn't like the fact that she was single mother? I wonder if the mother let on to anyone that the baby was conceived without a father being involved? Conservative ruse sort of backfired then, didn't it? Now he's got a gay 'dad'.

Not to mention the person who wrote to The Times.

[mercury]

Thanks for finding those links, Mercury.

At the moment, the case does seem a bit odd, but this is the initial LE evidence and I haven't read sny explanation from the defence yet. Has it been excluded that she'd arranged for someone to monitor the baby during her absence, for example? (No idea, just wondering.)

Whatever the reality, I'd agree that the baby should be repatriated to be closer to relatives (unless there is a major reason which this wouldn't be in the child's interest).

She made an affidavit and at some stage it all went sub judice but the way it reads in the Telegraph she says that in the lobby she was only a foot away....which jars alot with what the employee at the desk said

It also seems a weak defence to say in our culture it is not considered dangerous to put a baby in a crib..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12087942/British-policewoman-sues-to-get-son-taken-from-her-in-New-York-returned-to-UK.html

Not going to follow this anymore..but the point of the thread I think was asking the question is "cultural differences" a good defence to what others/reasonable people might consider "bad news" ....I think not in general

[Brietta]

It looks as if there may indeed be a little more revealed about what may have been a culture clash which precipitated the British child being taken into care in New York.

It will be interesting to get the facts of the case.  In the interim one hopes the child is not suffering distress or ill effect through being removed from his mother and placed in foster care.

[Alfred R Jones]

Not to mention the person who wrote to The Times.

The person who wrote the comment may be perceived by you as self-righteous but at least his or her self-righteousness did not lead to the disastrous consequences for a young child, whisked away from his mother on a flimsy pretext and on a permanent basis. 

[Mr Gray]

It looks as if there may indeed be a little more revealed about what may have been a culture clash which precipitated the British child being taken into care in New York.

It will be interesting to get the facts of the case.  In the interim one hopes the child is not suffering distress or ill effect through being removed from his mother and placed in foster care.

so leaving the little boy alone in the room for 30 mins was not neglect...if the facts are as she described...lets hope she wins her case

[stephen25000]

so leaving the little boy alone in the room for 30 mins was not neglect...if the facts are as she described...lets hope she wins her case

This woman is a weirdo.

IMHO, of course.

and she doesn't deserve a penny.

Perhaps she will write a book. %&5%£ %&5%£ %&5%£

[slartibartfast]

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2015/2015-ny-slip-op-51097-u.html

[faithlilly]

Interesting comment from a Times reader on the story:

The staff member who believes they saw the child on the floor unattended for an hour should be charged with neglect. Because they left the child on the ground for an hour unattended. When they first saw the child on the ground, they believed he was unattended. Instead of immediately going to his aid, they left him for an hour. Then they called the police.



The mother did not believe the child was unattended as she was nearby and he was in her full view. She had no need to go pick up the child. However, the person who believed he was unattended did have that need, by their own assessment of the situation. If I thought this child was genuinely in danger, I would immediately remove him from danger. I wouldn't wait a moment, let alone an hour! The fact that they didn't do anything other than indignantly wait an hour and then make a telephone call shows them to be neglectful by their own standards.



Sounds like this is a battle over 'standards of motherhood', where the staff member didn't approve of the mother's parenting style, so waited for an opportunity to shame her, using the power and 'moral authority' of the State. The last thing on the staff member's mind was the welfare of the child. He was just being used as an emblem of that person's self-righteousness.



Perhaps the staff member didn't like the fact that she was single mother? I wonder if the mother let on to anyone that the baby was conceived without a father being involved? Conservative ruse sort of backfired then, didn't it? Now he's got a gay 'dad'.

Ah the 'McCann defence ' it's always someone else's fault ' !

[stephen25000]

Ah the 'McCann defence ' it's always someone else's fault ' !

That is the McCann's operational procedure to a tee.

[G-Unit]

This woman is a weirdo.

IMHO, of course.

and she doesn't deserve a penny.

Perhaps she will write a book. %&5%£ %&5%£ %&5%£

A Metropolitan Police officer too.