White Christian girl put into foster care with non-English speaking Muslim family

First topic message reminder :

A white Christian girl was reportedly put into the care of a non-English speaking Muslim foster family where the mother wears a niqab.

The child, aged five, who speaks English as her first language, has been looked after by two different Muslim households in the past six months. She was allegedly encouraged to learn Arabic in one household and was begging not to go back there because "they don't speak English", according to a confidential report from the local authority seen by the Times newspaper.

She is said to have told her mother since the placement in Tower Hamlets, London, that "Christmas is stupid" and European women are "alcoholic". The girl was reportedly told to remove her Christian cross necklace and was not allowed to eat carbonara because it contained bacon. In one of the homes, the mother wore a niqab, while the in the other the mother wore a burka, both of which fully cover the face.

The child and her carers have not been identified.

Local authorities are supposed to consider religious, racial, cultural and linguistic background when making fostering decisions, under The Children Act 1989 which states the authority should "have regard to the different racial groups to which children within their area who are in need belong.”

Tower Hamlets is one of the most diverse areas of the country, where only 31 per cent of the population were white British at the time of the 2011 census. It is not known whether the council has a shortage of white British foster carers.

Tower Hamlets council have not said why the fostering decision was made.

A spokesman for the council told the Telegraph: “We are unable to comment on individual cases or those that are subject to court proceedings.

“Tower Hamlets Council’s  fostering service provides a loving and stable home for hundreds of children every year, and in every case, we give absolute consideration to our children’s background and to their cultural identity.

“All our foster carers receive training and support from the council to ensure they are fully qualified to meet the needs of the children in their care."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/28/white-christian-girl-put-foster-care-non-english-speaking-Muslim/

sassy wrote:

So if she was born into a Muslim family the mother and is now a Christian, how does that make it okay to place her child with Foster Muslims?

Seriously?

eddie wrote:Was just coming to uodate this thread as I knew the story was complete wank.

Council in fostering row hits out at 'errors' in Times report

A council at the heart of a fostering row in which it was claimed that an English-speaking child was placed with a family whose use of Arabic confused her said that the five-year-old had in fact been placed with an English-speaking family of mixed race.

Tower Hamlets council said the placement was a temporary measure and hit out at what it said were errors in the reporting of a highly sensitive fostering case.

The Times had published an article on Monday after seeing confidential local authority reports, in which a social services supervisor describes the child sobbing and begging not to be returned to one foster carer because “they don’t speak English”.

The reports state that the supervisor heard the girl, who at times was “very distressed”, claiming that the foster carer removed her necklace with a crucifix on it. The paper reported that she was a “white Christian child” who had been placed with two Muslim households in London over the past six months.

A spokesperson for Tower Hamlets council said: “While we cannot go into details of a case that would identify a child in foster care, there are inaccuracies in the reporting of it. For example, the child is in fact fostered by an English-speaking family of mixed race in this temporary placement. We would like to give more details but we are legally restricted to do so.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/29/london-tower-hamlets-council-questioned-after-placing-christian-girl-with-Muslim-foster-carers

Plus I know which bird brains will try to talk their way round that and twist and turn.

Okay it definitely seems the Times was not telling the truth, hence why I said to wait for an investigation


The mother of the five-year-old ‘Christian’ girl who complained her daughter had been placed with Muslim foster carers was herself born into the Islamic faith.

Court documents released on Wednesday show the girl’s maternal grandparents “are of a Muslim background but are non practising”.

Her mother had protested that her daughter is a Christian and should never have been placed with devout Muslim foster parents.

The dispute has caused a furore amid allegations the child’s foster carers had taken a necklace from her that contained a cross and refused to allow her to eat her favourite meal - spaghetti carbonara - because it contained pork products.

Tower Hamlets Council, which had taken the child into care after concerns for her safety were raised by police, said it did not recognise the claims.

The court papers show the girl was placed with foster carers who were “not culturally matched” because of the urgent need to find a safe home for her.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/30/mother-christian-child-islamic-foster-row-Muslim-family-court/

I'm not sure it's that relevant what the girl's religion is - it's being placed in a home where she can't understand what people are saying which is the issue, and the wearing of the burka, which is probably quite scary.

There are conflicting stories, but obviously something wasn't right.
I don't think the main issue is the faith, its how its translated to a small child.
A Muslim family could foster a Christian child....or vice versa, and as long as they don't try to indoctrintate that child into their beliefs there is no harm.

If the child spoke English as her first language, it would be right to speak to her in that language......not confuse her by speaking in a language or dialect she is not familiar with.

But that photo was never passed off as being of the girl?
The photo was a stock one altered to show a burka. None of which excuses Tower Hamlets many failings

The girl was placed with a family who were not culturally matched? Thought there was wider family that wanted to take her.
We shall have to wait and see what comes out I suppose. But if they did take her cross from her they want horsewhipping.

Miffs2 wrote:The girl was placed with a family who were not culturally matched? Thought there was wider family that wanted to take her.
We shall have to wait and see what comes out I suppose. But if they did take her cross from her they want horsewhipping.

Little things like that are very important to children. A favourite toy, a piece of jewelery, something like a cross given to her by her mum or nan could bring comfort, and God knows a child who is fostered out needs all the comfort they can get.

I still treasure a small gold cross my mum bought me when I was about 9.

Thorin wrote:Okay it definitely seems the Times was not telling the truth,

/

No shit!!
So there is more to this story than meets the eye?
Who didn't see that one coming??


This story  was just too overly stereotyped and clichéd to be credible -(the foster mum was a "burka-wearing,  pork banning, non english-speaking, horrible islamist muzzi who could not wait to indoctinate this poor lil christian child''. Yeah right, pull the other one, cos gullible is my middle name. )


The problem is, by the time the full truth finally comes out, gullible readers of these papers have already foutraged their heads off and  burst their blood vessels with indignation.

Jules wrote:

The problem is, by the time the full truth finally comes out, gullible readers of these papers have already foutraged their heads off and  burst their blood vessels with indignation.

Did I not say to wait for the investigation?

Yes or No?

There is still a problem here which you are over looking, as no child should be placed with people they cannot understand properly.

I have seen nothing to show the claims made that her cross was taken was false either.

So maybe you can show in anyway I was wrong?

Newspapers deliberately sensationalise everything to the max and even the so called 'respecatble' ones are not immune to this kind of naughty adornment of the facts.

The cheap tabloids shamelessly pander to our deepest fears and insecurities.


The fact that some of the account came from a mum with an axe to grind - that alone should have rung alarm bells.

It is also a massive insult to people's intelligence to expect them to believe that a person who could not speak the language has a cat in hell's chance of making it thru the strict vetting process for fostering.

Syl wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:The girl was placed with a family who were not culturally matched? Thought there was wider family that wanted to take her.
We shall have to wait and see what comes out I suppose. But if they did take her cross from her they want horsewhipping.

Little things like that are very important to children. A favourite toy, a piece of jewelery, something like a cross given to her by her mum or nan could bring comfort, and God knows a child who is fostered out needs all the comfort they can get.

I still treasure a small gold cross my mum bought me when I was about 9.

Same here I still wear a ring my Nana bought me when I was 11.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:

The problem is, by the time the full truth finally comes out, gullible readers of these papers have already foutraged their heads off and  burst their blood vessels with indignation.

Did I not say to wait for the investigation?

Yes or No?

There is still a problem here which you are over looking, as no child should be placed with people they cannot understand properly.

I have seen nothing to show the claims made that her cross was taken was false either.

So maybe you can show in anyway I was wrong?

Relax Thorin, my post was not aimed at you at all.

I have read this story on several forums and newspaper sites and my post was aimed at all the angry gullible people who were foutraging, without even questioning any aspect of the story.

All the signs were there that the story should have been taken with a large pinch od salt
And btw most of the 'facts' supplied were actually anecdotal, with words like '''allegedly'' and ''reportedly''  attached.

Yes of course placing a christian child with a Muslim mum is a terrible mismatch. It should never have happened.

But let's cut the crap with the OTT lies, cos they are an insult to the intelligence.

Jules wrote:Yes of course placing a christian child with a Muslim mum is a terrible mismatch. It should never have happened.

But let's cut the crap with the OTT lies, cos they are an insult to the intelligence.

I entirely agree on both points.

Thanks Eddie!
I was feeling peckish.
I went and raided the fridge .....

I agree with Jules that any story with 'reportedly/allegedly' attached to the 'facts', should be taken with a pinch of salt...!


However... the child has subsequently been removed from the care of the 'foster parents' because of the reasons of 'misplacement' that were claimed...


And the child has now apparently been handed over to the care of the maternal grandparents... although the most recent news article posted here by Didge says this...


'...The mother of the five-year-old ‘Christian’ girl who complained her daughter had been placed with Muslim foster carers was herself born into the Islamic faith.

Court documents released on Wednesday show the girl’s maternal grandparents “are of a Muslim background...”.

Her mother had protested that her daughter is a Christian and should never have been placed with devout Muslim foster parents...'




Having read this, it appears that there is even more to this story still...


The childs mother says child is a Christian... but this mother is herself the child of Muslim parents (this being the childs maternal grandparents)...


So maybe it is also the case that these grandparents were always an option to get care of child, but the childs mother was against it, so that is why child was taken into care instead... and may still be against the wishes of the mother, as well as against the wishes of the father and his family too...?


I notice that there is no mention of any mention of father or fathers family, or whether the mother is happy with her parents getting care of child or not...!?

The Guiness Book of World Records should be informed of the level of eloquence of the English language being used by that five-year-old, going solely on the alleged quotes used in that newspaper story...

Sure, the reporter was probably using a bit of "poetic licence" to produce a more dramatic and controversial story --  but that's still another aspect that would warn its readers  ?

The mother of the five-year-old ‘Christian’ girl who complained her daughter had been placed with Muslim foster carers was herself born into the Islamic faith.

Court documents released on Wednesday show the girl’s maternal grandparents “are of a Muslim background but are non practising”.

Her mother had protested that her daughter is a Christian and should never have been placed with devout Muslim foster parents.

The dispute has caused a furore amid allegations the child’s foster carers had taken a necklace from her that contained a cross and refused to allow her to eat her favourite meal - spaghetti carbonara - because it contained pork products.

Tower Hamlets Council, which had taken the child into care after concerns for her safety were raised by police, said it did not recognise the claims.

The court papers show the girl was placed with foster carers who were “not culturally matched” because of the urgent need to find a safe home for her.

On Wednesday, Sir Martin Narey, the Government’s official adviser on fostering, intervened to insist it would be wrong to ban carers from looking after children just because they were a different religion or ethnicity.

Sir Martin told The Telegraph he will publish a fostering report at the end of the year which will make ethnicity and religion of carers a ‘secondary’ issue. Sir Martin said: “Skin colour and religion do not matter in 2017.”

The eight-page written order published on Wednesday shows the child was taken into the care of social services on March 10th after police intervention. It is understood the mother suffers from alcoholism and a possible cocaine addiction and had been arrested for prostitution.

Judge Khatun Sapnara ruled the court order made on Tuesday be published to clear up confusion over the complex case.

She will now consider whether to allow the grandmother to take the child abroad to live. The grandmother wants to return to her country of origin, according to the court documents.

There had been complaints that the child had been placed with a foster family that did not speak English - a claim vehemently denied by the council. The court order suggested the girl’s foreign-born grandmother needs a translator.

The order shows that Tower Hamlets applied for the child to be placed with her grandparents - after a six months with foster parents - and that the judge agreed.

The order states: “Documents including the assessment of the maternal grandparents state that they are of a Muslim background but are non practising. The child’s mother says they are of Christian heritage.”

The mother first complained about the foster placement some months ago but a court hearing in June heard that an independent court-appointed guardian had visited the carers and found the child “is settled and well cared for by the foster carer”.

The local authority then went back to court in August to apply for the child to be placed with her grandmother in the “long term”.

The mother, according to the court order, opposed the council’s plan. According to the court documents “the child’s biological father has not been located”.

Tower Hamlets Council said it welcomed the decision by the family court to publish the order and that “it supports our position that we always had the child’s best interests at heart”.

Debbie Jones, director of Children’s Services at Tower Hamlets, said: “As a local authority, our number one priority with foster care is ensuring a child is placed in a safe and loving environment.

“Our foster carers are qualified people from different backgrounds, with vast experience of looking after children. They represent the diverse make up of our borough which is a place where people of all backgrounds get on with one another.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/30/mother-christian-child-islamic-foster-row-Muslim-family-court/


I do hope the shit stirring Murdoch press will be apologising.

Why, if true, did they remove her Christian Cross?

nicko wrote:Why, if true,  did they remove her Christian Cross?

did they though? if they did then that is wrong. even putting religion aside it may well mean a lot to the child to have it

i haven't read the article itself but let's face it, the DM will put their own spin on things, maybe just stopping short of outright lies, but definitely twisting things to suit themselves in the same way as the Guardian does and any other newspaper.

too much doesn't add up. and there is not enough correct info available to us the public to make a judgement on this.

like i said, my parents were foster parents for years and there are a whole load of reasons why a child may be placed in temporary care.

my best friend from school was a qualified childminder for years when my kids were young and the amount of rigmarole and training and assessments she had to go through was mind boggling and that was just for childminding.

i'm guessing the DM has spun it into some evil Muslim conspiracy with the council to convert this child and marry her off to great uncle Shabnam in pakistan in a few months time

Yes The DM and DE used to be good papers but not anymore. Really we should take anything they say with a piece of salt, in fact all the papers.

I read something this morning that evens up the argument of placing a Christian child to be fostered in a Muslim household.
One Muslim woman has fostered over 60 children of all faiths, colours, backgrounds.
How she handles diversity....if one has wanted a bacon sandwich she will say "You cant have one in this house, but we can go out and find a café that sells them, you can have one there"

win win. x

They should use Quorn fake bacon ...

Does it taste the same?
I doubt to bacon lovers it does.

I only ever had quorn as a meat substitute once...it was horrible.

Syl wrote:Does it taste the same?
I doubt to bacon lovers it does.

I only ever had quorn as a meat substitute once...it was horrible.

It does actually, and it smells the same. The texture isn't the same though. However, as an alternative, it might work.

Syl wrote:Does it taste the same?
I doubt to bacon lovers it does.

I only ever had quorn as a meat substitute once...it was horrible.

Quorn Swedish meatballs are delicious. Better than meat ones.

Jules wrote:Thanks Eddie!
I was feeling peckish.
I went and raided the fridge .....

This my post I've quoted looks quite random and offtopic, but I was actually trying to explain that I left my PC and nipped downstairs to the fridge, hence why there was a brief delay in replying to you, Eddie.