Warped Priorities

Not so long ago, social workers wanted to steal a baby from a pregnant woman when it was born- because she had been treated for an eating disorder and self-harming as a teenager and they had decided that she posed a risk to her unborn child. They said it was all for the good of the child. She eventually had to flee the United Kingdom in order to avoid this draconian decision- one since over-ruled I might add.

But social services don't seem to always be so concerned about "the good of the children".

Social workers put the rights of a teenage sex offender over those of the foster family whose children he went on to abuse, a report has found.

The married couple who welcomed the 19-year-old into their home were not told of his sexual interest in minors.

They only discovered the truth after he raped their two-year-old son and molested their nine-year-old daughter.

Why did they put this family's children at such risk?

Yesterday, social services admitted they had withheld the information because they considered the paedophile to be 'the one in need of protection'.

Sure, a paedophile needs protection- so let's put him in a home with young children and not tell their parents.

The boy had sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl, had exposed himself and touched a young boy sexually at a care hostel and had faced allegations five years earlier of 'sexually inappropriate behaviour' with a young boy.

And yet he was not locked away where he posed no further risk to children. The staff who made the decision to withhold information from the foster family face losing their jobs, but their boss won't-

Three members of the council's 'leaving care' team now face dismissal and could be struck off the social workers register following-further investigation into their decisions

After apologising to the devastated family, director of social services Philip Evans refused to resign, insisting he should stay on to bring in improvements.

But of course.