Love is lacking

LAC stands for looked after child.
I have been dreading this for ages. The first LAC, the chairman, after seeming to read the report studiously for far longer than it took us, asked if we understood it (not if we agreed with it) then looked over at social work, sniggered and asked if our child's name was a boy's or girl's? We'd been all hopeful as it was apparently chaired by someone independent from the council.

The second LAC I walk in, my knees shaking. Our child is not there. Again. According to the internet site about Standards for LAC meetings it is a child's right to attend. He wants to know why he can't come home as much as we do.

It is the same chairman as last time. I sit down, shaking. Ask why our child is not here? My voice is shaking. Damn.

Chairman not looking at me, says, as if talking to an idiot, it's "probably because he is too young." My child has aquitted himself well at a Children's Hearing, and is frequently described as bright and articulate. I say it is his right to be there. The chairman says he has been told my child is content where he is. I wish I could do something about my voice - I need to be strong to defend my child but I sound pathetic. I tell the chairman what my child said about having to "manage forever". The chairman tells me to "cap your emotions or you will be sent out"

The best description of the chairman I can give is grey. He makes me think of being suffocated by dust. His voice is thin as pins.

I say : according to the Standards we should have had explained to us by social work, prior to the meeting, what was to be discussed. This did not happen. I say : we should have been sent a report of how his carers feel he is doing. This did not come. The chairman looks impatient, says I am speaking out of order, and that these issues will be discussed later. They never are.

Round the table are the carer's husband, the social worker, his headmistress, school nurse who I've not met before, me, his Dad, and the chairman.

His carer says he wants to come home, but is fine, says he'd taken a while to get used to different house rules, for some reason mentions the gel incident, but doesn't make a huge deal out of it. Chairman and social worker shift in their seats as if readying for starting pistol.

Social worker's turn. With his carer he is "getting his haircut, being bought new clothes and getting the opportunity to wear gel in his hair." She goes on "While it may be thought the gel thing is a minor matter, I consider it to be very significant that I understand that the child will not wear gel when he visits his parents, it seems he is unnaturally worried about upsetting them, which I find concerning." We've heard this before, so it doesn't wind me up. However, though I am relieved he is being bought new clothes with some of his £75 a week I wonder if anyone is considering why he wasn't wandering round naked before being put in care? And is it mentally ill to let your child grow their hair because his friend is?

She carries on "Now he is having having friends round, enjoying dance class, becoming more socially aware, getting a normal happy childhood, which for some reason with his parents, he was not able to."

I say since he was taken into care 6 children have asked to play with him at home, not to mention the ones he has said he wants round. The chairman tells me to stop interrupting, so I don't say the social worker has seen photos of his birthday party from the year before last, shared with another friend, when most of preschool came (this birthday he had flu, then I did, then he was taken away)

The dance class. I could have made him go to that, but he said he didn't like it at school (it's the same teacher) and didn't want to go after school as well. That he enjoys himself there has been brought up several times. Feeling guilty I didn't make more of an effort to persuade him to go, I asked him if he liked it? He said it was boring. When I stayed to watch once, wanting to see him enjoying himself, he and his friend certainly looked bored, lurking at the back having a shout conversation over the deafening music, with the occasional kick or arm wave when the teacher exhorted them to join in. He said the only good bit was the lollypop at the end. Maybe I should not have denied him the comeraderie of a grim experience shared, I don't know ; he'd only been at school a few months and was tired from the full day, and he got loads of exercise from all the walking.

Social worker is still at it. She says my letting him come home for lunch is because I cannot bear to be apart from him, preventing him from joining in at playtime, so causing his social development to be restricted.

I appeal to his headmistress that she knew I was trying to get him to stay for lunch, because I knew playtime is when you make friends, that he came home because he was not eating at school, that he was nearly ready to stay voluntarily as he was settling in and getting to know the other children. Headmistress agrees. Chairman says he has warned me about interrupting so I don't say a third of the children in his class went home for lunch.

Social worker says that contact has increased to four days after school and now 6 hours on Sunday. I ask why Wednesdays were cancelled, that it has upset him so much how contact has been cancelled or not been granted as promised. Before, she'd said Wednesdays were cancelled because we had no minimum contact rights, it was all at social work discretion and it was up to us to cooperate. Now she says when I dropped my child off for the dance class at the end of our contact time after school on Wednesday his friend had asked to come to our house to play with him. I'd said that would be great, but wasn't sure if he could, it was up to the lady over there? Now 'the lady over there' said that had been inappropriate and was why our child could not see us on Wednesdays anymore.

It is the Headmistress's turn. She says he loves learning, is bright and articulate; she smiles at me. Chairman asks if he has become more self confidant since being put in care? She says yes... I say that that might just be because he has been at school twice as long and has made friends. Chairman says he has warned me.

It is the school nurse's turn. She says he is healthy. The chairman says there is a query about MMR. The nurse says it is the parents' right to decide whether or not to get it done. That I'd cancelled several appointments to get it done. I said this was because he had had bad colds. (He has one at the moment.)Also that I didn't want him to have it while he was in care as the last vaccine he had he'd got a high temperature for 2 days, and I'd read the side affects could be quite bad for MMR and wanted him to be at home if that happened again. The chairman said triumphantly he would write down that I didn't care about my child's welfare.

It is my turn. The chairman says he doesn't need to ask my opinion. It is his Dad's turn. His Dad nearly cries asking if he can't come home could he go to his grandad's?

Chairman asks about parenting assessment.
Social work said I did not cooperate, had no understanding of why our child had been taken away. I said no, and nor had the doctor or therapist or anyone else. Chairman said there had been reports to the police. I said they had not considered them serious enough even to investigate. Social work said in their opinion had shown emotional instability so could not provide a stable home for my child. I said I was an emotional person, but I did not get upset with my child - it was having him taken away that had made me upset. Social work said "See what I mean?" The independent chairman said he had a background of 25 years in social work, and he agreed with the social worker and recommended a psychologist for her to refer me to.

Time to sum up.
Social work recommended our child did not come home in July. Chairman "wholeheartedly" agreed