Sometime all it takes is a mistep of a parent and kids are taken from them. There was a story in the UK, where single mom had to go to the job interview and agreed with a friend to come and babysit. On a day of the interview babysitter couldn't come in time, but promised to come a bit later, so mom decided to go for the job interview. Kid stood next to window, banged on a glass and cried as mom was leaving. Police was called and kid was taken from her and very quickly adopted by another family.
This is almost certainly a untrue, and propagating such garbage does wild disservice to social workers and foster parents everywhere.
While the UK might be more conservative with regards to child welfare, in the US you generally have to nearly kill a child or be in jail to have them removed.
So, we're talking about a woman with multiple violations of child care standards, culminating in an incident where her landlord was concerned and called the police, whom found her 22 month old alone and seemingly neglected for many hours... and then ongoing efforts to try and create a supervised reunion and return to the home failed?
I don't doubt she has her own story where she's the victim, but...
If look at facts, child was taken from her because:
- in the view of social care workers house condition were not suitable for a child. Interestingly landlord wasn't charged for renting "inhabitable" premises, so the conclusion is that it was actually habitable and possessed no risk to health of wellbeing of people living there. _Even_ if it was that inhabitable, and landlord knowing that called police nevertheless, then why it was put on a single mom to improve living condition, not on a landlord to fullfil his duty to maintain premises? Why council housing wasn't offered to her when council itself found that her living conditions are not up to standard?
- Child was left alone once(!!), peed and pooped itself. There was no evidence of harm caused to her at that moment.
- There are 2 more facts,which contributed decision: she was seen walking drunk on a street barefoot and night noise was reported once.
Looking at that, do you honestly think that separating child from her mother is justified? Do you honestly think that forced adoption was the only (as required by law) option left, council did everything they ought to do? How come giving child to sister (another daughter of Laila who was adult by then) or locating grandparents and allowing child to stay there wasn't considered first?
> Child was left alone once(!!), peed and pooped itself. There was no evidence of harm caused to her at that moment.
"On the wall beside the bed was a large area of damp in the wall and the wallpaper was coming away. There was a very strong and overpowering smell of urine and faeces in the room. I saw the child curled in an almost foetal position on the bed lying on a pillow. She sat up when we came into the room and she was holding an empty pink bottle. I went towards the child. She stood up and came towards me. I saw that her clothes were wet and that she was wearing a nappy that had fallen off between her legs. Once in a different room I could see the child's clothes were wet and she was shivering. The strong smell was coming from her and it was clear that she had not been changed or cleaned all day. I removed the child's nappy to find dried and fresh faeces. The nappy was so swollen with urine that the child was unable to walk properly. There was also dried faeces on the child's body and her skin was soaked in urine that had leaked from her nappy and gone through her clothes."
That's a bit more than having just soiled oneself. That's many, many hours of neglect.
> she was seen walking drunk on a street barefoot
Pushing the baby down the middle of the street at 1AM while severely intoxicated.
> There are 2 more facts,
No... then the child was removed a whole year and a half later after attempts at parenting classes, etc, but where the mom continued to have police contact and the child showed developmental delays that were strongly suspected to be from neglect.
