Skip to comments.Parents had week-old baby taken away by social services (Britain)
Posted on 02/17/2017 6:57:29 AM PST by originalbuckeye
A local council has been ordered to pay damages after taking a week-old baby into care because the father expressed unorthodox views about the need to sterilise feeding bottles. A family court judge awarded the couple and their son, who is now 15 months old, a total of £11,250 after ruling that Kirklees Council had breached their human rights and misled a judge in a bid to remove the child from their care.
The case, which has cost the taxpayer around £120,000, centered on a couple in their mid-twenties, who cannot be identified. They both suffer from mild learning difficulties and have received assistance from adult social care workers for around a decade.
In a ruling published yesterday, Mr Justice Cobb said that the couple had not been referred to social services ahead of the babys birth, in November 2015, despite the fact that the mother suffers from minor mental health problems and the father had displayed aggressive behaviour. Four days after the child was born, however, hospital staff called the council to raise concerns about the long-term parenting capacity of this mother and father.
Mr Justice Cobb said: It was suggested that the mother had no family support, and that the father was expressing unorthodox views about the need for sterilisation of bottles, and the benefits of formula milk. Social workers then sought an emergency hearing to place the child under the care of its paternal grandmother, however they did not tell the parents that the hearing was taking place, wrongly told the judge that they had been informed, and also forgot to notify Cafcass, the agency that represents childrens interests in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Well at least Sandusky is in jail, kid won’t be sent to Penn State.
Was it support for sterilization that the father was expressing? I’m not seeing that in the article, and it would seem unlikely that that was simply his position.
Unfortunately, the article had to be excerpted. The father expressed support for the sterilization of the baby bottles and the use of baby formula. The Government want new mothers to breastfeed only. It is suggested that the reason is that breastfeeding doesn’t cost the NHS while they likely have to provide bottles and formula for those not breastfeeding. Still, the point I was trying to make was that the Government oversteps into private family matters, when they have control of your health care.
I agree that the government oversteps and I see in the article where he was expressing support for formula feeding, but only “unorthodox” views on sterilization. Since I find it hard to believe that the government is against sterilization generally, I find it hard to believe that the guy’s “unorthodox” views on sterilization was simply a pro position.
Happened in this country when the Obama administration banned a quarter of a million vets from owning guns. Vet Gun Ban
‘the father expressed unorthodox views about the need to sterilise feeding bottles’
I took this to mean that he believed in sterilizing bottles. Maybe I read it wrong. But I will tell you that in Britain, only the cold water, and usually just the cold water tap in your kitchen, is certified ‘clean’ for drinking. The hot water usually just comes from a cistern of water in your loft (attic) that is then heated . Maybe he meant that you didn’t need to sterilize the bottles, but that’s not the way I read it.
“Unfortunately, the article had to be excerpted. The father expressed support for the sterilization of the baby bottles and the use of baby formula. “
As the other poster said, this is not in the article.
Did the muslims decree that the baby be given to them?
After some research I found that the hot water tank also is part of the home heating system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.