@SouthAussie
Quote
William’s story starts 10 years ago, when his father met a girl. In 2010, they had a daughter. Three months later, that child — a girl called Lindsay in court documents — was taken into state care. What was the issue?
Violence. It wasn’t directed at the child. Lindsay’s mother went to a party. It got out of hand. Police got called. She spat at police. She was aggressive. She has mental health problems, and is addicted to drugs. She lashed out, in a way that made officers feel unsafe.
They decided Lindsay was “at risk of harm” — that’s a formal categorisation — and handed her to the NSW Department of Family and Community Services ...........
End quote
Thanks for the link. To me it seems unusual that a wanted child who was exposed to psychological harm stayed in care long term imo. It's technically hard to prove even though it's obviously not good for the child.
Even the way the first child was taken presumably while at home being babysat while the mother was out. That one incident isn't enough to remove a child. There must be more to it. imo.
@winterberry
I find it's often a statement of fact that people have addiction issues and mental health issues. The stigma around them makes it sound pejorative. Many people with similar issues are good hearted and are able to gather the strength to address their issues. They're often vulnerable people themselves. I believe the b mother has owned her past publically now imo? She is obviously stable enough now and has her other kids in her care imo.
I really find it very unusual her kids weren't returned to her.
Quote
William’s story starts 10 years ago, when his father met a girl. In 2010, they had a daughter. Three months later, that child — a girl called Lindsay in court documents — was taken into state care. What was the issue?
Violence. It wasn’t directed at the child. Lindsay’s mother went to a party. It got out of hand. Police got called. She spat at police. She was aggressive. She has mental health problems, and is addicted to drugs. She lashed out, in a way that made officers feel unsafe.
They decided Lindsay was “at risk of harm” — that’s a formal categorisation — and handed her to the NSW Department of Family and Community Services ...........
End quote
Thanks for the link. To me it seems unusual that a wanted child who was exposed to psychological harm stayed in care long term imo. It's technically hard to prove even though it's obviously not good for the child.
Even the way the first child was taken presumably while at home being babysat while the mother was out. That one incident isn't enough to remove a child. There must be more to it. imo.
@winterberry
I find it's often a statement of fact that people have addiction issues and mental health issues. The stigma around them makes it sound pejorative. Many people with similar issues are good hearted and are able to gather the strength to address their issues. They're often vulnerable people themselves. I believe the b mother has owned her past publically now imo? She is obviously stable enough now and has her other kids in her care imo.
I really find it very unusual her kids weren't returned to her.
