foster care.

[Jane]

One of them had scalds to his leg/s and a facial burn. How would you account for such injuries ? Or rather,how would you have thought a Social Worker would have accounted for the injuries ? Today,if a young child was shown to have scalds and a burn to its face,the Social Services would have whipped them up and taken them to the nearest hospital for examination---------no questions asked.
Children have bumps and bruises but scalds and a burn to the face are a different matter.

Children HAVE accidents. If every child was taken from their mother because of it, there'd be no children remaining with their parents. I imagine that when Sheila wasn't being neglectful she was an over anxious mother because she had no confidence in her mothering abilities.

[Jane]

Do we know when Social Services signed Sheila and boys off? Was it when Colin was doing most of the caring? The boys must have been considered 'at risk' for some reason, possibly neglect because of Sheila's illness and inability to cope on a day to day basis.
We don't know but should imagine June and Neville were horrified about this situation.
Sheila clearly wasn't coping on any level and struggled to look after herself never mind the boys when her illness overcame her, hence the weekly visits and delivery of food and other necessities, probably paid her utility bills as well. The visits would also have enabled June to check how she was generally coping as well, P.S. can cause chaos in the day to day coping of a sufferer.
It was before the days of mobile phones and instant communication. Nmll
Think June and Neville would have been struggling out of their depth trying to keep her afloat and they deserve more understanding.

Maggie, I think you're right on every point. I know a case of a very loving single mother who has numerous mental problems, one of which being "short term memory" -personally, I think it's ADHD- she adores her boys, but is so over-anxious that she panics if they get a scratch -you can imagine what may be the long-term effect of that!!!! She will NEVER cope, on any level, without a team of social workers.

[lookout]

Children HAVE accidents. If every child was taken from their mother because of it, there'd be no children remaining with their parents. I imagine that when Sheila wasn't being neglectful she was an over anxious mother because she had no confidence in her mothering abilities.

I've just quoted that children have bumps and bruises, but not often scalds and a burn to the face,which spells out neglectful to me not anxious. Anxious is making sure that no harm comes to your children,such as not having a cigarette near them and making sure that all hot liquids are out of their reach. Lack of concentration was the problem,not anxiety.

[Jane]

I've just quoted that children have bumps and bruises, but not often scalds and a burn to the face,which spells out neglectful to me not anxious. Anxious is making sure that no harm comes to your children,such as not having a cigarette near them and making sure that all hot liquids are out of their reach. Lack of concentration was the problem,not anxiety.

Anxious is also panicking when they inevitably DO sustain injuries. Put it which ever way you like, Lookout, but NO deliberate harm to the boys was ever found.

[Caroline]

One of them had scalds to his leg/s and a facial burn. How would you account for such injuries ? Or rather,how would you have thought a Social Worker would have accounted for the injuries ? Today,if a young child was shown to have scalds and a burn to its face,the Social Services would have whipped them up and taken them to the nearest hospital for examination---------no questions asked.
Children have bumps and bruises but scalds and a burn to the face are a different matter.

You keep saying this Lookout but you haven't posted any evidence yet.

[mike tesko]

You speak as if Colin doesn't exist. This thread is about SS, SW, FC and FP's, so why would it be necessary to include him since he was an absent parent and not present when varying degrees of abuse for whatever reason took place. But now that you come to mention it, perhaps I ought to throw my penneth about Colin into the debate...Colin was the boys' main carer. He would surely have recieved some sort of support from SS and or other agencies, or family members. There is no doubt in my mind that when Colin looked after the boys full time that the boys were still under the supervision of  social workers, and being monitored at school...We hear that Sheila wanted them "back" but it didn't happen. And rightly so, considering the deterioration in her mental health. At the time Sheila went to stay at whf on that last occasion, I am suprised that Colin let her take the children with her to stop over considering the mood Sheila was in and had been in for a few days showing clear signs that she was having a relapse. In this respect Colin was neglectful by leaving his children with Sheila at whf when they arrived with her being in the mood she was in during the journey there. In addition, we also know the views Colin had about June Bamber behaving religeously oppressive towards the children, as per the contents of Colins letter he wrote out for the attention of Ralph Bamber.  Why didn't Colin bring these concerns to the attention of Sicial services? The situation was in my view, upon arrival at the farmhouse, there was an expectation of trouble as soon as Colin, Sheila, Daniel and Nicholas arrived at the farmhouse, the touch paper might as well have already been lit, because a part from the worsening mood of Sheila, Colin had a bad feeling towards June Bamber, and a head lay his confrontation with Ralph Bamber about his wifes mistreatment of his children. Social services should have been made aware by Colin of the oppressive situation he was voluntarily intending to leave his two young children in at the farmhouse. He knew Sheila was not well enough to look after the children when he took them all to whf on that last occasion, he knew he did not want nanny June imposing herself upon the children, and he kbew that once he confronted Ralph Bamber about his wifes mistreatment of the children that there would exist an unbearable degree of negative dynamic tension in the household.Yet he left the children there, in any event.I think the only reason SS were involved was because Sheila was inclined to neglect the boys when she was ill. My view is that the situation and circumstances were such that when Colin left the farmhouse on that very last occasion, he knew full well the volatile situation he was prepared to leave his vunerable children in. There was bound to be a very high degree of tension and resentment in the minds of Sheila, Ralph and June, after Colin dropped Sheila and the children off, tension and resentment which gathered momentum with the passing of time...Despite your insinuations there is NO evidence of her abusing them. Social services, social workers foster csrers and foster parents, don't all get involved for nothing. In addition, there is evidence from one of Sheila's boyfriends Freddie Emani that he himself became frightened for the safety of others, and himself, when Sheila was that way inclined...

[lookout]

You keep saying this Lookout but you haven't posted any evidence yet.

If you care to look at the reason/s why social services were contacted in the first place perhaps you'll find the evidence somewhere. If you were looking to defend Jeremy you'd find things that you'd never read,but your interest doesn't lie in that area of " investigating ". I at least know all that there is to know about how " evil " the man is,so don't need prompting.

[Caroline]

If you care to look at the reason/s why social services were contacted in the first place perhaps you'll find the evidence somewhere. If you were looking to defend Jeremy you'd find things that you'd never read,but your interest doesn't lie in that area of " investigating ". I at least know all that there is to know about how " evil " the man is,so don't need prompting.

Obviously the reasons why SS were involved was because she had just released from psychiatric care - they were involved in a supportive role. The thing is Lookout, how can anyone find evidence that doesn't exist? The ONLY report I've seen described 1 scald and some bruises, nothing about a burn on the face. Don't believe in 'evil' - I think most people have 'some' redeeming qualities. But JUST for you, I will keep looking and see if we can find a definitive answer. 

[Jane]

I think you are mistaken. FAR from being an absent parent, it seems that Colin had been their main carer, supported, I believe, by his mother. It was with him they were living at the time of the party. NONE, but some of those here who wish to find a "child cruelty" stick to beat Sheila with, have found her guilty of such.

As for Colin's feelings about letting the children accompany Sheila to the farm, it was more a case of Sheila accompanying the children to the farm because the Bambers had requested a visit before the boys went on holiday with their father. It's true that he may have seen himself as being between a rock and a hard place but on balance he probably thought they'd come to no harm with their grandparents. I fail to see why you think there to have been "an expectation of trouble" on this particular occasion, more than any other. Surely, had this been the case, he'd have informed the Bambers of any concerns he had re Sheila. As it was, she appeared no more than withdrawn and displaying classic signs of depression. A change of scenery MAY have been better for her than being on her own and it was going to be for less than a week. Whatever his concerns re Sheila's illness and June's religiosity, he neither mentioned it NOR gave Neville the letter he'd written.

You again refer to what you see as a volatile situation full of tensions and resentments, and I CAN see why Sheila, having met Christine, might feel this way about June but if June and Neville didn't know anything of her meeting with Christine there would be no need for them to have such feelings. As I've previously said, everything about Sheila's behaviour suggests her being too devoid of emotional energy to kill, let alone employing a method totally alien to her.

[lookout]

The twin's teacher had a lot of input on their welfare also,as she'd been in touch with Colin a few times during term-time. The boys had also told Colin's mother that they had to see to themselves,etc. Colin had had no idea that this was going on,nor for how long.

[Jane]

The twin's teacher had a lot of input on their welfare also,as she'd been in touch with Colin a few times during term-time. The boys had also told Colin's mother that they had to see to themselves,etc. Colin had had no idea that this was going on,nor for how long.

No one is denying that Sheila was capable of neglecting the twins.

[maggie]

Do we know that June was against Sheila being in touch with her birth mother or is this just an assumption?  I don't remember every reading this as fact.

[lookout]

I've read the odd rumbles of the suggestion Maggie, but nothing carved in stone as it were.

[Jane]

Do we know that June was against Sheila being in touch with her birth mother or is this just an assumption?  I don't remember every reading this as fact.

Maggie, I've seen nothing to suggest it, however Sheila asked Ann to take a picture of her to send to Christine but asked her not to tell June. This makes me wonder if she did, in fact, WANT June to know because WHY would she ask Ann, otherwise. She could have asked Colin, who met Christine, or any of her London friends. I not suggesting she was being deliberately devious. It MAY have been subconscious.

[lookout]

 I've also read that June believed Colin smoked " dope ",one of her reasons for having objected to him having the boys on a full-time basis,hence her preferred foster-carers or friends of hers giving Sheila and the Bambers a break----------------but again,nothing concrete.
What a combination,one tanked-up with ale and the other spaced-out with cannabis.