Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?

When child "protection" social services take new born babies from their mothers do they consider the potential risks to health of baby and mom from not being able to breastfeed.Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?As long as they get cash incentives they do not care.Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?
While breast is best, it is not universally so, which you seem to assume. It is quite simplistic and naive to assume that in every situation imaginable, a child would be best to be left with a nursing mother. Here is a specific example: If a heroin or meth addicted mom is breastfeeding her baby, the risk is undoubtably more than if the baby were formula fed. It is safer for the baby not to be living in a meth lab than to breastfed. It is not safer to be left with a mother who is strung out and turning tricks than to be breastfed. There is a recent case of a woman in Oakland CA who was prostituting and left her unattended 5 week olds in a car for over two hours. Certainly they are better off with someone who actually cares about their safety and will not leave them unattended for hours on a street in a ghetto than to be breastfed around her "job". Social services tries to keep children with their parents. Sometimes it simply isn't safe to do so.Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?In most cases, social services takes the baby because the baby or mother tested positive for drugs. I do AGREE with you in cases where the mother had a child taken previously, when there is no evidence she is currently using.



Honestly, these religious organizations that make a habit of bullying young mothers to get their healthy babies to adopt to their members, would do their religion far more proudly if they set up homes to help these former drug addicted mothers to keep their children. There isn't enough care to help support these moms and usually a year is all that they need help.
I'm sure the options are weighted. Consider that for a baby to be taken from it's mother, abuse or neglect has to be proven. No one just comes in and takes a baby on hearsay or rumor. So, in that case if a baby is being hit or shaken it is much better for that to stop and baby to have to drink formula than to receive breastmilk and possibly die from shaken baby syndrome.Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?When a court order is in place to remove a newborn baby believe me the risk of harm to that baby from the mother herself far outweigh the risk of that baby not being breastfed.



A newborn is only removed in very serious circumstances where a mother has already done something to show she may cause very serious harm to that baby or neglect it to the point whereby she would be risking it's life.



It is much safer for a baby to be in a safe place on formula that to be at risk of harm or even death but be breastfed and that is if the mother in question is even bothered about feeding her baby or capable because of any kind of mental state she may be in or drugs she may be abusing.Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?
They also risked Baby P's health. They are too stupid to recognise good from bad mothers. They don't care about risking babies' health. They don't care about the feelings and even less the welfare of the mothers.



All they want is bonuses for successful adoption.



Shame on Shoesmith. She's gonna get 400,000 pounds (yes, pounds, not Euros, not Dollars).
the reason SS are taking that child away is to protect them, regardless if the child is being breast-fed or not. Not all children are breast-fed as sometimes it's not naturally possible for either the mother or child.Are child "protection" social services risking health of babies?
she prolly meant if they had to. and i dnt think so just as long its for the safety of the child.
yo udont hav to breastfeed, its just recomended.
You don't HAVE to breastfeed the children.