Teen Mum UK #20

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
I think people have a bit of a warped opinion of what the social actually do. Firstly, their aim is NOT to remove children from their parents, their aim is actually to keep children with their parents as much as they possibly can so far as it is safe to do so. With that in mind though, they are seriously overwhelmed, the recent cases of Star Hobson and Arthur are examples of that, and some cases so slip through the net which is seriously sad.

In Megan's case though, I think people just assume the social will see her having a convict as a partner and instantly assume the children aren't safe. That's a bold assumption. If Sonny's crime was in relation to the murder, abuse or whatever of children, then yes obviously there would be a safeguarding issue. But he was convicted of manslaughter (not murder) therefore he didn't intend to kill. They'd look at the facts of his case and see that. I really don't wanna seem like I'm defending him, I'm not. But I think people jump to conclusions about kids being taken away far too quickly. There would also have to be clear evidence that having him around is negatively impacting the kids.
 
Justcametobenosy said:
That's true. But you may find some socials try and cover their asses now since everything came out about those poor children to try and make it look they do everything by the books.
I highly doubt they would be taken from her but their would be some concerns About sonny being in the house...


That's true . Dylan and reanne live in a tint flat. I always forget how many kids they have lol
Click to expand...
I can’t see Dylan taking full custody of them children, from what I remember reading he hardly has them on the days he’s supposed to anyway. Him and Reeanne live in a tiny flat and didn’t Megan say there was a court order about them seeing the kids?
 
WilmaHun said:
I think people have a bit of a warped opinion of what the social actually do. Firstly, their aim is NOT to remove children from their parents, their aim is actually to keep children with their parents as much as they possibly can so far as it is safe to do so. With that in mind though, they are seriously overwhelmed, the recent cases of Star Hobson and Arthur are examples of that, and some cases so slip through the net which is seriously sad.

In Megan's case though, I think people just assume the social will see her having a convict as a partner and instantly assume the children aren't safe. That's a bold assumption. If Sonny's crime was in relation to the murder, abuse or whatever of children, then yes obviously there would be a safeguarding issue. But he was convicted of manslaughter (not murder) therefore he didn't intend to kill. They'd look at the facts of his case and see that. I really don't wanna seem like I'm defending him, I'm not. But I think people jump to conclusions about kids being taken away far too quickly. There would also have to be clear evidence that having him around is negatively impacting the kids.
Click to expand...
That is true. People tend to have either 2 options of social services
1 side that they Do nothing or completely the opposite side where they take children over nothing

Yeah from
hello52718273 said:
I can’t see Dylan taking full custody of them children, from what I remember reading he hardly has them on the days he’s supposed to anyway. Him and Reeanne live in a tiny flat and didn’t Megan say there was a court order about them seeing the kids?
Click to expand...

Yeah from a while back.. didn't she say it was put in place because he refused to hand them back and something about her ramming his car...
 
WilmaHun said:
I think people have a bit of a warped opinion of what the social actually do. Firstly, their aim is NOT to remove children from their parents, their aim is actually to keep children with their parents as much as they possibly can so far as it is safe to do so. With that in mind though, they are seriously overwhelmed, the recent cases of Star Hobson and Arthur are examples of that, and some cases so slip through the net which is seriously sad.

In Megan's case though, I think people just assume the social will see her having a convict as a partner and instantly assume the children aren't safe. That's a bold assumption. If Sonny's crime was in relation to the murder, abuse or whatever of children, then yes obviously there would be a safeguarding issue. But he was convicted of manslaughter (not murder) therefore he didn't intend to kill. They'd look at the facts of his case and see that. I really don't wanna seem like I'm defending him, I'm not. But I think people jump to conclusions about kids being taken away far too quickly. There would also have to be clear evidence that having him around is negatively impacting the kids.
Click to expand...
I would never defend Megan but you are spot on with what you are saying. He hasn’t committed any crimes towards children etc and I know mums who have been to prison for violent crimes and kept custody of their children so her dating someone who’s been to prison isn’t going to be any reason for her to lose custody. I still think her judgment is terrible and she is deluded and cringe but she won’t lose her kids. I’m sure Dylan has them every other weekend too I’m not sure why people think they do 50/50 they definitely don’t
 
Justcametobenosy said:
That is true. People tend to have either 2 options of social services
1 side that they Do nothing or completely the opposite side where they take children over nothing

Yeah from


Yeah from a while back.. didn't she say it was put in place because he refused to hand them back and something about her ramming his car...
Click to expand...
Nothing annoys me more when parents go 'they took my child/ern off me for no reason 🤯 um they clearly was
 
Justcametobenosy said:
That is true. People tend to have either 2 options of social services
1 side that they Do nothing or completely the opposite side where they take children over nothing

Yeah from


Yeah from a while back.. didn't she say it was put in place because he refused to hand them back and something about her ramming his car...
Click to expand...
Yeah she said that him and Reeann refused to give them back and took them somewhere
 
nelly2317 said:
If you have a spare 30 mins read back on these threads. We have all the receipts :coffee:
There are screenshots of sonny’s old Instagram with the same photos that Megan posted (deleted now) Megan commenting on his photos, plus the info on Google. It’s not hard to see it’s him, plus Megan has a tattoo on her hand that says “sonny”.
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading these threads for years :) was just wondering if there was any actual evidence or just pancake lady stuff.
It’s not that I disbelieve it. I just can’t get my head around how she can so blatantly act like it’s not the case🤣
 
tablesandchairs said:
I’ve been reading these threads for years :) was just wondering if there was any actual evidence or just pancake lady stuff.
It’s not that I disbelieve it. I just can’t get my head around how she can so blatantly act like it’s not the case🤣
Click to expand...
Think there’s more than enough in these recent posts? Her ‘Sonny’ hand tattoo, prison Christmas tree photo, the fact he’s hidden on social media, send a prisoner money site screen shot and the fact she never denied it during the pancake lady situation was a big giveaway. The pancake lady receipts were enough tbh as it came out that Reeann was feeding her info. I think she hides it (sort of lol) is because of how serious his crime was, that would come with a lot of opinions and hate
 
Tbh Megan would have been better keeping it to herself that it was ReeAne as when I thought it was a random I thought it could be made up 😂 Once I knew it was Ree, I thought she wouldn't cause all that grief for the kids unless it was true.
Was it Megan that outed that it was Ree or Pancake Lady herself?
 
Just saw this on a local Facebook group.. 👀
 

Attachments

  • 72A23350-C3BC-4CF0-AEA0-263123620EC5.jpeg
    72A23350-C3BC-4CF0-AEA0-263123620EC5.jpeg
    50.7 KB · Views: 724
i doubt megan's kids would be removed just bc her boyfriend has been to prison - i used to work in a prison where the majority were sex offenders and many of them were released to live back to a household with children in - and megans bf isnt even a sex offender (as far as im aware?)
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top