The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

StrontiumDog

The local social services department had sought to block their wedding and remove the child.

This would've required months of assessment, reports, liaisons with various other professionals and going to court to obtain care orders and putting a stop to the wedding, is a most unusual procedure and something I've never heard of before.

It's very time consuming and very expensive. Never undertaken lightly.

Most cases like this are extremely difficult to prove and most end up with the social services departments losing.

It is enshrined in law that the best interests of the child are to remain with its parents. Research has shown this and the Childrens Act also stipulates that the best interests of the child are paramount.

With this background, it is obvious that there exists a really serious problem in this relationship and because of confidentiality, one that cannot be broadcast to the public.

The girl was assessed to have learning difficulties. So is liable to have an impairment related to learning or understanding. Again we have to speculate about this. But if she failed "Gillick competency" plus IQ and caring assessments, then the Social services department are left with little choice. Suffice to say, this is all done within a legal framework.

The Social services department then have to go to court and prove their case. 3 barristers are present, one for social services, one for the parents and one independently appointed to represent the unborn childs best interests. The case must be proven, as in all cases. The judge will make the ultimate decision based upon the evidence and counter arguments presented. A judge....not social services.


Now, where DJ ran into problems, was with my assessment of the gentleman concerned. Legally he could marry her and become the legal guardian/parent for the child, but social services blocked that. Highly unusual to say the least. The only reason they could go to court and have this happen is if there is some confidential information on this guy. Something which can never be publicly released.

I speculated on why a 25 year old man would want to be involved with a girl who's mental age would be lower than 17...DJ jumped to conclusions and continues to display a total lack of integrity and honesty. Or is he just mind bogglingly dumb?

Finally, why would going on the run be a problem? Well, if you read the above and understand they are breaking the law, it means the police will be after them, they can not work, wont be able to settle anywhere and will have no source of income. They are being highly irresponsible, bearing in mind she is heavily pregnant. Raising a child under such circumstances might be somewhat problematic, I'd suggest....

__________________
Eat plutonium death, mutant scum...

Don Juan

Classic.

What do you call this?

Now this...

Means nothing.

Of course they can.

They'll be two doors down from the mother.

Are you mad?

When handing over your child, never to see it again is the alternative, they have no other option.

They'll be fine.

For a self-proclaimed 'expert' on matters, you actually know absolutely nothng!

StrontiumDog

I call that proving my argument. At which point did I explicitly label him a paedophile?

Don Juan

I hope nobody innocent got banged-up when he was banding his 'facts' about in court.

StrontiumDog

No, I know absolutely everything about these matters. You'd be very surprised about the work I've done if you knew the truth.....and you might have a little bit more respect.

Your ignorance is all you have, so I'll forgive your misinformed diatribe.

Oh, sales? Figures.

Takeovers

StrontiumDog

I no longer go with your reasoning after that comment.

If they have something against the young man then charge him. Short of that they have no business interfering.

Going to extreme lengths prosecuting people is not unheard of by bureaucrats. Once they have committed to a case some people don't let go until they succeed. Again If they have something charge the guy or let go.

Saying they must have something is just badmouthing.

They can still have an eye on them (probably they should) but not by the same people that have got them into that mess.

StrontiumDog

Ok, I can see your point, but there is no way in hell social services could stop a wedding without going to court and presenting actual evidence. No way.

Social services maintain extensive records on people...entire families going back decades.

I accept I am speculating, but I know how the system works and everything has to be done via the courts and it requires actual proof. The cases must be legally proven. Otherwise this could not have happened.

We don't know anything about this guy and there's no way of finding out. He is protected by confidentiality disclosure laws.

But trust me, something isn't right, or he could apply to be the legal guardian for the child, as happens everywhere, every day in the UK.

Don Juan

This is simply a case of Social Services aiming for their adoption targets.

A white, healthy baby will be adopted within minutes.

If the kid was going to be born with Downs Syndrome, or something, they wouldn't be anywhere near this couple.

I don't want to know about you, you fucking freak, I want to know what you were implying in your post!

What's that mean - that salepeople are inferior to you?

Get a grip.

You're a fading monger!



I've never stalked you.

Do you make-up everything you say?

StrontiumDog

Oh dear. Now you've really lost it.

StrontiumDog

Wrong again..I'm actually in my 30's....nice try.

Sdigit

^^Sorry DJ but that's the most ridiculous thing I've seen you write

Don Juan

It's true, Sdigit. I'll dig up some sort of proof.





You can't help yourself, can you?

Get it into your head - I don't want to know a single thing about you!

All I want to know is :

What you were implying in your 'assessment' of this guy?

StrontiumDog

I'd already furnished you with that information in the other thread. Please refer to it. Thanks.

Don Juan

I asked you the question in my first post & it's took all this shit for you to give that answer!

jizzybloke

Newbie!

http://teakdoor.com/thailands-travel...-my-story.html (My Story)

He's alright really!

Don Juan

BBC

All the facts

StrontiumDog

Interesting. One MP claimed something, strongly dismissed by several sources.

I think where there is an error is in how people understand adoption...and the adoption targets. The government has been cutting the social services budgets for decades and they don't want children placed in expensive foster homes or out of county placements. A child who is adopted is a cheaper option.

(There's also a serious lack of potential adopters btw)

As is pointed out in the BBC article, children are usually removed when neglect or abuse is proven, this has to go to court. A judge is appointed and decides the outcome. It follows a strict legal framework. As I've also pointed out, the law says a child's best interests must be taken into consideration firstly. Scientific research has proven a child is always best with the family.

If anything such targets are a cynical ploy by the government to reduce local authority spending in order to cut budgets.

DrAndy

or both?

however this


says the registrar would not marry them because one of them could not understand the marriage ceremony

it does also mention British law, which does not exist in Scotland, or England, for that matter

oh the Daily Mail.....

Smug Farang Bore

If their that dumb they should pick them up on the number 9 bus.

dirtydog

If only I was good at photoshop, those 2, a nice big red bus, and tongues licking windows