Politics Home has written up my comments to the media today on the death of Baby P:
Ms Featherstone said the first serious case review into the death of Baby P has been shown to be “incompetent or at worst a cover up” by the second review released today.
You can read the full story here.
Lynne Featherstone 
Shame no one ever has the common sense to mention child custody issues when discussing this case.If we actually had the assumption of shared parenting when couples separate then the death quite clearly wouldn’t have occurred . It wouldn’t matter how incompetent or stupid or uncaring the social services staff were, nor how evil his killers, his father would soon have spotted what was going on in the times when eh was caring for Baby P and would have saved him.
That the father (not this one in particular) would have saved a child in similar circumstances is also an assumption. Custody rights are arguably less important than natural parental interest. Custody rights might just mean the father abuses the child as well. I am quite certain if my child was being subjected to what Baby Peter endured in another relationship I would have found out about it with or without custody and moved to stop it. This is not to argue against fathers having better rights than they have now.
Yes natural paternal interest is key, but the attitude of this government is that fathers really don’t matter and children have no right to have a relationship with their fathers.Given that some brilliant and incredibly determined fathers find it next to impossible to see their kids despite spending years fighting to see them and thousands of pounds in court, imagine what things are like for your average, slightly less determined and much less wealthy dad?The government doesn’t operate in a vacuum – their policies and attitudes impact on society. So if they and the courts incessantly repeat the message that kids don’t need their dads, then some people are going to believe it, (or at least realise they have almost no chance of a meaningful relationship with their children).As for your comment about custody right just meaning the father abuses the childrne – well that’s about the sickest, most sexist and certainly the least informed comment I’ve ever seen on this blog.
It is not your problem with spelling that makes your posts that bit absurd it is more your problem with reading. I did not say that the father having custody rights ends up ‘just meaning the father abuses the childrne as well’. I said ‘Custody rights might just mean the father abuses the child as well.’ Now, if the word ‘might’ is beyond your ken and the context in which it was used too abstract for your mind, I’m afraid I am not going to be of much help to you. This self-pitying whine trying to deify fathers shows little interest in finding a solution. Tell us something of the abuses inflicted on children by natural fathers before idealising their involvement as a panacea.
You just dont’ get it do you?Fathers are discriminated against and have less rights – both in legal terms but particularly in practice. Further still their rights and any court orders they obtain are not enforced.Any discrimination or any sort in any area means quite simply you are not choosing the best person for the task. This is what faciltates abuse – we don’t’ choose the safest parent, or the most able (or both as would be ideal) – we just choose the female one to have custody becasue they are female. It doesn’t matter to the courts how dangerous or derange she is or what a terrible parent she might be – she gets custody becasue of her gender.Custody right WILL stop abuse and save live – nothing to do with might. Yes they might increase the abuse in one case out of 1000, but in the other 999 they will improve the situation, this overall saving significant numbers of lives and causing vastly less suffering to countless children.Making decisions based on ability, merit and facts rather than race and sex are always going to make any situation better.As for telling yous something about abuses inflicted on children by natural fathers well they tend to mostly abuse their own children when the children are nearing adulthood. The majority of child abuse is carried out by biological mothers, and they tend to abuse and kill the very youngest and most vulnerable children.
‘You just dont’ get it do you?’I think I get it very well. I just don’t do the reductionism.Fathers are disadvantaged certainly. Been there, done that, wore the T-shirt as they say. ‘Any discrimination or any sort in any area means quite simply you are not choosing the best person for the task.’Positive discrimination gives the lie to this. It facilitated able people from disadvantaged groups to demonstrate their capability in a way that the absence of discrimination would not have permitted.‘This is what faciltates abuse – we don’t’ choose the safest parent, or the most able (or both as would be ideal) – we just choose the female one to have custody becasue they are female. It doesn’t matter to the courts how dangerous or derange she is or what a terrible parent she might be – she gets custody becasue of her gender.’If this were true it would hold in all circumstances. That it does not flags up the reductionism in your argument.‘Custody right WILL stop abuse and save live – nothing to do with might. Yes they might increase the abuse in one case out of 1000, but in the other 999 they will improve the situation, this overall saving significant numbers of lives and causing vastly less suffering to countless children.’Evidence? Prove it. You assume where you should be demonstrating. Sounds like ‘men good women bad.’ I suppose you think there are more men in jail than women because of judicial discrimination.‘Making decisions based on ability, merit and facts rather than race and sex are always going to make any situation better.’Not proven. Can work the opposite way.‘As for telling yous something about abuses inflicted on children by natural fathers well they tend to mostly abuse their own children when the children are nearing adulthood. The majority of child abuse is carried out by biological mothers, and they tend to abuse and kill the very youngest and most vulnerable children.’Evidence or prejudice? Produce.
Fathers are important to children and the courts need to start addressing that, I still don’t understand why baby Peter was not given to his father when he was taken away from his mother and why was he given back to his mother. Why do we give children back to the abuser, is it that all of a sudden they are not going to abuse the child any more, I have never read of a case where the abuse lessens, it always seems to escalate especially if no one steps in to stop it. Until everyone associated with this case is held accountable, the system will never get better. Children want and need to be loved, we need to address what happens when they aren’t. I am an advocate for home health visits where non school age children are really seen and protected.