If you were to offer yourself to Social Services as a prospective adopter with a CV that read âwill change identities frequently without warning, will move child from house to house as identities change, will kick child out at 16 without any further support, will smoke, drink, display psychotic tendencies as we see fit, will indulge in paedophilia if it suits us, and will avoid all physical contact with the child (unless practicing paedophilia), and take steps to ensure that we never form any sort of emotional bond with that childâ â they would fall about laughing before pointing out that this is exactly why they have a vetting system before allowing anyone to adopt. Then turn you down flat.
Yet this is all perhaps not accepted, but âknown to occurâ practice in âchild careâ as performed by the State.
There are those who would argue âbut what will happen to abandoned childrenâ. To which I would respond, âsomeone will take them in, out of the goodness of their heart, as happened before Social Services was invented in the sixties, or else they will die â of starvation, or cold, or ill treatmentâ â as still happens to them under State care.
The difference being, that those who donât die on the streets will have been taken in by someone who had a vested interest in turning them into useful human beings. Whether because they happened to be good people, or because they saw a useful future wage slave on the family farm or whatever.
Having experienced State care myself, and later âself-careâ and the âkindness of strangersâ, I have no doubt which system is preferable.
If there can be any justification for State care it must be, can only be, that it is more efficient and has better outcomes than the haphazard method of self care and the kindness of strangers. State care also has to overcome the dangers inherent in society assuming that because the State has stepped in that society has no further role to play and can look away.
I can see absolutely no justification for a State care system that is called in by relatives to two parents both suffering from profound mental illness, both religious fanatics, and on visiting the child, find the Father praying fervently for the child to be released from âDevilsâ â then leave the premises without checking on the child.
They found Mr Lovemore in a âpsychoticâ state, praying loudly and shouting âTake the Devil out of Juliaâ. He refused to answer questions. The pair were left disturbed and left to get help without checking on Lovemore or her baby.
â¦â¦it later transpired that the child was either already dead or dying, following the Motherâs confession.
âShe ripped out pages from the Bible out of âfrustrationâ, stuffed them into her childâs mouth, sat on her, bounced up and down and smothered her to death.â
Rebecca Hughes, a community psychiatric nurse and Joetta Fox, a health visitor, have not surprisingly been censored today.
There is even less surprisingly a report which contains a section headed âLessons learnedâ.
There are calls for âmore social workersâ, âmore trainingâ, âmore workshops, seminars, case conferencesâ.
I would prefer to see the entire Social Services edifice abandoned.
Certainly children will die. There will always be crazy parents, violent parents, wilfully neglectful parents and their unfortunate offspring will die. As they always have done.
However, the rest of society will stop believing that there is such as thing as State care, will stop believing that a call to Social Services will ensure that they have done all that is necessary as a good citizen to ensure that children are safe and will start taking a more intrusive interest in what is going on under their nose.
I personally doubt that there will be any more deaths than there are now, the only down side I can see is that the unemployment rate will shoot up as a shower of useless and virtually unemployable trollops are thrown onto the scrap heap. The savings made in financing conferences, seminars, and reports such as this should offset the increased cost of benefits.