Archived Forums

It is terrible. I know someone in that situation. No one would do that to their own child. I am astounded that is even legal.

It certainly gives a new meaning to "in care" there is no care involved in this that I can see. The average 15 year old would struggle, but most of these individuals are very valuable with multiple problems, shouldn't be allowed in my opinion. I know the Victorian workhouse system was pretty horrendous, but in some ways bringing back a slightly better version may be better for all those living on the streets and for teenagers accommodated alone. At least they would have adult supervision and those living on the streets somewhere warm and dry to stay.

16-17 yr olds may be a bit of a grey area, but 14-15 yr olds I would have thought there was a legal requirement for them to be under adult supervision. After all, if an under 16 yr old runs away the police usually return them to the parents when found, or pass to social services if they refuse. It wouldn't surprise me if one of these kids brings a court case claim for compensation when they are a bit older.

I can't say too much at the moment but Simba's little brother ( age 11) is currently in an ofsted rated outstanding residential home, I'm horrified at the lack of supervision within the home, its supposedly 1 to 1 staff ration. I have been raising safeguarding concerns since Christmas and made a formal complaint last week. They have no idea what he's up to inside the home, never mind outside it.

Yes, in my previous post I nearly added that maybe they were safer , and at less risk of bad influence ( or being themselves a bad influence ! ) if in a caravan........ But no matter the risk of being in a children's home, there is something far wrong with the system and its funding if support at that age is so limited. In Scotland we had an incident a few years back where two girls about that age committed suicide. They had been in an open residential centre and a review said that both had ( separately) tried to get into the adjoining secure centre because they felt they would be safer from bullying there.

yes I remember those girls Pingu - so very sad

I find it all strange in a our area it became compulsory that all unaccompanied refugees under 18 had to be placed where there were responsible adults in place eg home. Care home etc because they are minore but is not the same for other children who can't live with their adults. Can't work that one out.

It seems to be that social care rules are different counties is different. I have noticed differences in adoption and fostering policies such as the way rules vary on which children gets a plan for adoption and who goes into long term foster care. I suspect the level of resources available in a county have a lot to do with the level of support each county gives.Some councils do seem to be struggling to meet even their statutory requirements. I also wonder if extra money from government has been given to councils with a lot of refugees, recently, to help, because not long ago I read of underage refugees similarly in b&b etc, in their own in a strange country out of desperation, some not even speaking much or any English. I am guessing the government reckons the rest of the population is covered by the main social work allocation of funds. We know its not because we see the effects of lack of funds when we need support for our kids.

How can this be better "care" than what their birth families provide? How dire must things be for this to still be deemed the better option? Unless, of course it is not and SS just have to prove they took them into care? So wrong.

I suppose that depends on what is happening in the birth family. I know some kids have run away because they felt the streets were safer. I am not excusing the authorities. It is appalling that such youngsters are being put in these situations.

Beggars belief! But on the other hand, does this mean if DH and I want some respite we can just book Dash into a B&B while we do our own thing? Insert angry emoticon here!