A toddler who had been taken into care died after being found floating in her foster parents' swimming pool.
Anna Hider, 17 months, was discovered unconscious in the water by the couple at their home in Hampshire on Sunday evening.
She was taken to the Queen Alexandra Hospital in nearby Portsmouth, but was pronounced dead an hour later.
Last night, Anna's devastated parents blamed the decision to take their daughter into care for her death.
It is believed the foster family were entertaining guests at a party at the house when the tragedy unfolded. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471778&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
2007-08-02 17:38:25 · 27 answers · asked by Boris of London 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
It is impossible to comment on whether the child should have been in care or not - we are not told the reasons why she was.
However I would question as to why Hampshire Social Services were using foster parents with an obviously unprotected swimming pool to house a toddler/young child.
ANY parent knows the danger of water and young children! Children love water and will always head towards it, yet it is possible for a small child to drown in one inch of liquid. Pools and ponds should always be covered in a secure, weight bearing substance if youngsters are around. If such protection was not in evidence at this house then it should never have been deemed suitable for fostering youngsters - teenagers yes, but younger children definitely not.
This was a tragic accident, but one which could, and should have been easily avoided. Both Social Services and the Foster Parents themselves need to be investigated and charged with negligence if this is found to be the case... at the very least a review and policy change is needed across ALL Social Services depatments as to the placing of vulnerable youngsters in homes with obvious dangers.
2007-08-02 19:14:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
This really upsets me .... as anyone with kids will know - when you hear these stories you think of your own kids.
My daughter is 15 months - and into everything! I have to have eyes in the back of my head with her - even though she's just started to walk - even when she crawled she could get almost anywhere she wanted to!
So, yes, where were the foster parents ... entertaining?! I don't have the time & money to 'entertain'! If I did - and my daughter was still up, then she's be with me ... with everyone making a fuss of her.
I don't know all the facts - none of us do - so, maybe this is a bit harsh. But as I said, I'm comparing them to me & my kids ... and if I had a pool in the garden I'd be ultra aware that she'd want to investigate - and keep her away from it.
Poor wee soul - it makes me want to cry.
2007-08-10 11:23:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should have watched the child like a hawk as this is what they are paid to do being foster parents!! It is unbelievable that they would be too busy throwing parties than to watch a 17 month child who was placed in their care.
This poor child had already been let down by her natural parents and ended up in foster care where she was just as neglected
2007-08-02 19:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by Lady Claire - Hates Bigotry 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Let it be a lesson to others to be very careful and pray
for all parties concerned. Can you imagine the horrible
overwhelming sense of guilt the foster parents are feel-
ing as well as the parents? Tragic, but not a deliberate
crime.
2007-08-10 04:39:21 · answer #4 · answered by The Bright And Morning Star 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
another tragic death of a child that was avoidable
who ever gave the foster parents the child is responsible.
some children go into care for all sorts of reasons not always because the natural parents are bad.
2007-08-07 10:26:39 · answer #5 · answered by Jezabel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looks like the foster parents neglected the child.
2007-08-02 19:51:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
another tradgedy people (foster & natural familly) need to take safety of children so seriously, they are precious and at that age reliant on us to protect them from the dangers that they innocently dont see! why where the foster parents allowed to take on a toddler if their pool wasnt safely cordoned off? maybe it was the fault of the government to place her with incapeable foster parents, but surely she was in danger with her natural parents for her to be in care in the first place?
2007-08-07 13:44:53 · answer #7 · answered by tryingforafootieteam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What struck me about this was how differently the Press treated it from the McCann case. One headline read 'Toddler drowns in pool while parents party'. We never had 'Child Abducted while Parents Party. In both cases negligence seems to be the common factor but both are treated so differently.
2007-08-03 00:10:51 · answer #8 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
the foster parents are to blame without a doubt.the child should have been watched 24/7.water takes so many children's lives and extra vigilance should always be in place with small children.i hope they lose their jobs they are not fit to look after anyone's children.
2007-08-02 21:33:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Swimming pools are much more unsafe than guns, surprisingly enough. A child is more likely to die in a swimming pool than by a gun. The best people in the world can lose a child this way: it's quite common. But because the child was in foster care, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. For details on death rates of children in pools compared to guns, read the book, "Freakonomics."
2007-08-02 18:43:30 · answer #10 · answered by Katherine W 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋