Drug addicted babies? Should they go straight into care?

[flubdub]

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/soaring-rate-of-baby-druggies/story-e6frg12c-1225701869284

Obviously we all know its sad, but its on the rise - massively.

Thelast sentance got me "They are more likely to be taken into care."
Well why arnt they anyway???

 

[angelandbump]

My heart says yes, there are many people out their who would love them children more than the parents and bring them up in a better enviroment...
But my head says no. If we removed the child from their parents from birth, some would just keep popping them out with out a care (not all just some).

I have never been around drugs so i am rather bias. My friend's mum is a social worker who deals with drug users and she gets involved when they are pregnant too. She has said on many occasions that the mother has changed their ways but it rarely lasts and the child ends up in care anyway.

Each case should be dealt with indavidually... if they know a women isn't going to change and it is in a childs best interest to be rehomed then yes, from birth they need to be removed.
There should be a special rehabilitation home for drug addicted mothers with their babies and also mums to be, so they can be monitored 24/7. All their benefits should be removed to stop temptation and also to go towards paying for the care. Then slowely introduce other home maker responsabilites (including money management) when they have mastered parenting and are drug free.

 

[bobsiesgal]

its difficult because i doubt any two situations are the same.

Personally i think that if the mother has shown no BIG effort to change during her pregnancy then yes i think they should be removed, even if they show some effort they should still be removed because unless they are willing to do anything and everything to get better then they will probably just relapse and the baby will be taken away anyway.

but if they are genuinly really trying then maybe they should be allowed to keep the child, with a lot of support and a close eye being kept.

 

[indy and lara]

I do think yes. But with some checks and balances in place. There should be a way that a parent is able to regain custody of their child if they can get clean and stay clean. But on the other hand, this should not drag on throughout the life of the child. For me, there needs to be a point where there are no more chances for the parent so that the child's life is not disrupted forever. It is a very hard issue.

 

[flubdub]

My heart says yes, there are many people out their who would love them children more than the parents and bring them up in a better enviroment...
But my head says no. If we removed the child from their parents from birth, some would just keep popping them out with out a care (not all just some).

I have never been around drugs so i am rather bias. My friend's mum is a social worker who deals with drug users and she gets involved when they are pregnant too. She has said on many occasions that the mother has changed their ways but it rarely lasts and the child ends up in care anyway.

Each case should be dealt with indavidually... if they know a women isn't going to change and it is in a childs best interest to be rehomed then yes, from birth they need to be removed.
There should be a special rehabilitation home for drug addicted mothers with their babies and also mums to be, so they can be monitored 24/7. All their benefits should be removed to stop temptation and also to go towards paying for the care. Then slowely introduce other home maker responsabilites (including money management) when they have mastered parenting and are drug free.

Thats a good idea, although I assume a lot of people would refuse.
Does anyone know if they can "slip through the net"? If someone didnt tell their MW, or Dr that they were using drugs, would it be picked up? I imagine some people are good at hiding it, and the blood tests dont test for drugs do they?

 

[indy and lara]

^^^ At a staff training a few years ago we were told that the number of babies effectively taken into care before they are born in Edinburgh is rocketing. It is such a scary statistic to me. I think of course that there is always the possibility to slip through the net. However, if the professionals involved had any suspicions I am pretty sure that they would be all over the case.

 

[Nibblenic]

I think maybe you should clarify illegal drugs. As i took codiene in the last 8 weeks of my pregnancy. I was told lo could have a few 'grizzly' days after birth. However that never happened. I most certainly dont think my lo should have been taken into care due to me taking prescribed medication.

To look at it that way methadone is a prescribed drug aswell. Which would show a want for change and better herself. As using drugs in a controled by pharmists manner has got to be better than not. I suppose similar to the argument that came out of the smoking in pregnacy thread about stresses and shocks to the mothers body applies aswell

I dont think many children has a good life or experience going through the care system either. I dont feel its a solution to making the childs life.better or preventing the mother from getting pregnant again. The only answer really is support and education with intervention at the appropriate time

 

[flubdub]

I suppose I mean drugs like heroin, crack, coke. Methadone is a hard one as it could show that the person is on a course to get off heroin.

 

[Marzipan_girl]

I took alot of cocaine before I realised I was pregnant. I came clean about it when I was booking in because I was so scared of harming LO but was so addicted (psychologically) that I thought unless I said something...what if I kept doing it every now and then and then really harmed LO?
Because I mentioned it at my first appointment, I was then drug tested at every appointment. This helped me stick to the straight and narrow and I haven't touched it since...because I was so scared of a) harming LO and b) having LO taken at birth because I failed the drug tests.
It's really tough though...I think it's very selfish if you know you have a problem but don't admit to it and then continue the pregnancy potentially harming your unborn child.
Much less selfish to fess up and do something about it.
Yes, if you don't at least try, and LO is born with withdrawal symptoms, then LO should be taken away, at least untill the parents can get their acts together.

 

[Marzipan_girl]

Fact is, a drug addicted parent is not a fit parent....a drug household is no place for an innocent baby.
Hard drugs make you very selfish. All money is prioritised on it. And they're not cheap. So whatever money you have goes on it, and LO may have to go without essentials. No doubt the parent feels guilty about it, but so what? That doesn't make them a good parent just because they show remorse for what they're doing. The only way they can be a good parent is if they get help and sort it out. And stay CLEAN. Because no child should have to be exposed to their mother snorting lines and behaving erratic, or shooting up and then passing out on the floor when the child is hungry and needs to be fed. And then not having the attention deserved inbetween times because the parent is so irritable and is focused on when the next high is going to be and where it will come from...
That child deserves a proper upbringing. He/she didn't ask to be brought into this world.

 

[annawrigley]

If the mother is still using and has no intention to stop then yeah I think the child should be removed at birth. If she is trying to stop/has stopped I don't think so but should be closely monitored x

 

[tallybee]

I suppose I mean drugs like heroin, crack, coke. Methadone is a hard one as it could show that the person is on a course to get off heroin.

Not necessarily. Some people take the methadone because it's free on prescription and continue to take heroin as well.

 

[flubdub]

I suppose I mean drugs like heroin, crack, coke. Methadone is a hard one as it could show that the person is on a course to get off heroin.

Not necessarily. Some people take the methadone because it's free on prescription and continue to take heroin as well.

Thats why I said "it could show" but I agree, its swings and roundabouts and you would struggle to prove it either way x

 

[tallybee]

I suppose I mean drugs like heroin, crack, coke. Methadone is a hard one as it could show that the person is on a course to get off heroin.

Not necessarily. Some people take the methadone because it's free on prescription and continue to take heroin as well.

Thats why I said "it could show" but I agree, its swings and roundabouts and you would struggle to prove it either way x

You're quite right, it's impossible because the two as opiates are similar in their molecular makeup, same goes for codeine too.

 

[flubdub]

I suppose I mean drugs like heroin, crack, coke. Methadone is a hard one as it could show that the person is on a course to get off heroin.

Not necessarily. Some people take the methadone because it's free on prescription and continue to take heroin as well.

Thats why I said "it could show" but I agree, its swings and roundabouts and you would struggle to prove it either way x

You're quite right, it's impossible because the two as opiates are similar in their molecular makeup, same goes for codeine too.

Really?? So would a bloodtest not be able to show either way whether it was heroin or methadone in a persons body, or even codeine? x

 

[Lightworker]

Straight into care. Parents should be helped and continually monitored for drug use. They can be allowed supervised contact eg once a week. Would like to see them getting holistic care, so in addition to drug rehab, would like to see therapy, training and career, community involvement etc. Children to be returned after parents have exhibited competence for a set period of time, with no lapses.

 

[tallybee]

I suppose I mean drugs like heroin, crack, coke. Methadone is a hard one as it could show that the person is on a course to get off heroin.

Not necessarily. Some people take the methadone because it's free on prescription and continue to take heroin as well.

Thats why I said "it could show" but I agree, its swings and roundabouts and you would struggle to prove it either way x

You're quite right, it's impossible because the two as opiates are similar in their molecular makeup, same goes for codeine too.

Really?? So would a bloodtest not be able to show either way whether it was heroin or methadone in a persons body, or even codeine? x

I believe there are different testing techniques, some of which can more accurately differentiate than others but none are perfect at all. Some can only test for the major classes of drug (opiates, amphetamines, marijuana etc) rather than specifics. The problem is how similar the molecules of the drugs themselves are as well as the metabolites (the substances the body breaks them down into). So yeah prescription meds like codeine would come under the same.

I've even heard it's possible to test positive for opiates just from eating lots of poppy seeds in the diet (since poppies are where opium comes from in the first place), it;d have to be a lot of poppy seeds but still within the realms of possibility that someone could test +ve for hard drugs having done nothing more ominous than eat a lot of eastern european bakery products

So it's far more difficult than folk think; clearly far more attention needs to be paid than just a pee or blood test before decisions like removing children are made

https://www.mahalo.com/answers/can-...or-methadone-or-is-it-all-in-the-opiate-class

 

[Mummyplus3]

My heart says yes, there are many people out their who would love them children more than the parents and bring them up in a better enviroment...
But my head says no. If we removed the child from their parents from birth, some would just keep popping them out with out a care (not all just some).

I have never been around drugs so i am rather bias. My friend's mum is a social worker who deals with drug users and she gets involved when they are pregnant too. She has said on many occasions that the mother has changed their ways but it rarely lasts and the child ends up in care anyway.

Each case should be dealt with indavidually... if they know a women isn't going to change and it is in a childs best interest to be rehomed then yes, from birth they need to be removed.
There should be a special rehabilitation home for drug addicted mothers with their babies and also mums to be, so they can be monitored 24/7. All their benefits should be removed to stop temptation and also to go towards paying for the care. Then slowely introduce other home maker responsabilites (including money management) when they have mastered parenting and are drug free.

I agree with this, there should be places available amost like hostels where mothers with addictions/mums to be can be properly rehabilitated, work through parenting and drug progammes and have the sercurity of knowing that there is no access to drugs and they are safe. There would I imagine also be help and support for future housing, benefits and education etc..

But on the flip side of signing up for this kind of programme its all or nothing IYSWIM if you fail a drug test or are caught with them etc.. then you are terminated from the programme and the child is taken into care.

I do not agree with people having chance upon chance to change that do nothing but breed the next generation of drug users and criminals (not all children from bad homes are like this though!)

 

[summer rain]

My friends mum (who's sadly passed away now) was a foster mum and most if not all the babies and young kids she cared for were born to mums with a drug problem, some of the cases were really horrible; one baby she cared for who was born addicted to drugs; her older sister had been allowed to stay in the care of her biological mother, then the older sister somehow managed to fall from an upstairs window and was brain damaged and only then was she put into care when it was really too late for her

 

[blahblahblah]

My heart says yes, there are many people out their who would love them children more than the parents and bring them up in a better enviroment...
But my head says no. If we removed the child from their parents from birth, some would just keep popping them out with out a care (not all just some).

I have never been around drugs so i am rather bias. My friend's mum is a social worker who deals with drug users and she gets involved when they are pregnant too. She has said on many occasions that the mother has changed their ways but it rarely lasts and the child ends up in care anyway.

Each case should be dealt with indavidually... if they know a women isn't going to change and it is in a childs best interest to be rehomed then yes, from birth they need to be removed.
There should be a special rehabilitation home for drug addicted mothers with their babies and also mums to be, so they can be monitored 24/7. All their benefits should be removed to stop temptation and also to go towards paying for the care. Then slowely introduce other home maker responsabilites (including money management) when they have mastered parenting and are drug free.

I agree with this, there should be places available amost like hostels where mothers with addictions/mums to be can be properly rehabilitated, work through parenting and drug progammes and have the sercurity of knowing that there is no access to drugs and they are safe. There would I imagine also be help and support for future housing, benefits and education etc..

But on the flip side of signing up for this kind of programme its all or nothing IYSWIM if you fail a drug test or are caught with them etc.. then you are terminated from the programme and the child is taken into care.

I do not agree with people having chance upon chance to change that do nothing but breed the next generation of drug users and criminals (not all children from bad homes are like this though!)

There are places like this around. There's one in the next town to me, although I doubt many more will pop up - who'd want to live next door to one? I knew a toddler that moved from foster parents back to his mum on the condition they lived there. I doubt it went well, seeing as she couldn't cope with the first child (hence him being fostered), was pregnant again and still struggling with drug addiction

However, it's extremely rare to not know you're pregnant when you give birth - I imagine it's rare to not know by what - 20 weeks? I don't know about getting clean but surely with effort it can be done in less than 20 weeks? In which case, if the baby is born addicted, in most cases the mother has continued to take drugs knowing she's pregnant?

To me, the moment a woman who knows she is pregnant takes drugs, that is where the line is crossed.