Archers addicts 3!

I agree carerof123. The papers, etc., so often come out with "why didn't they do this" or "why didn't they do that" but the children's services often don't know. If people lie or cover up it is very difficult for them.

In the Archer's case I doubt if Rob even thinks he is in the wrong although he is obviously aware that others think his is which is why he has grown into such a manipulative and underhand person.

Derogatory remarks merlotgran? People are people and being critical of those who are trying to help by supplying information (which is what I assume you are referring to) is just plain rude. Everyone accepts you have the right to answer in the way that is "normal" for you even if it is not the way they would do so. This is not "your" forum it is "our" forum.

I am getting so fed up with those who think any application of intellect should not be allowed - who says?

Thank you so much to everyone who has stopped to think about how real life actually works and has filled in the gaps in my knowledge - I appreciate it.

This thread has taken on a patronising lecturing tone.

after reading lam64 it makes it clearer why SS fail sometimes with cases where children are at risk, too many ifs and buts involved in these kind of cases for anyone on the outside to be absolutely certain no emotional abuse is taking place

Rob Titchener's Parental Rights Explained

Suzied, I understand your worry but, the reality is that in Henry's conscious memory, Rob isn't a relatively recent stepfather. Rob has been a significant person in Henry's life since he was three, so for most of the little boy's conscious memory. He calls Rob 'daddy' and has been asking to see him. Rob has parental responsibility.
So far, there hasn't been a comprehensive assessment of Henry's needs. Children's services were called out by the police to make sure that the emergency placement with Pat n Tony was safe. That will have involved a check of records/police and social work and a home visit to talk with the grandparents and observe Henry in their care. No concerns raised by that, so the assessment stopped there.
Rob is the victim and none of the people involved (including school and the police) have notified children's services about the unsupervised contact. I expect Pat will be on the phone as I type, demanding they "do something:

The answer is probably going to be that Rob is legally in a position to do what he has. The only way children's services can influence where Henry lives is either voluntarily (can't see Rob agreeing to H returning to Pat n TOny) or if they share parental responsibility with Helen and Rob. To apply for an ICO, children's services will need to find evidence that Henry's identified needs can't safely be met by Rob and that 'he has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm". Yes I can hear you all shouting but so far, no one is aware of the emotional abuse Henry has been experiencing.

Would SS really prefer a child to stay with recent stepfather who has been involved in a violent incident, to the natural grandparents he has known all his life?

Whats happened to Jess, she would support Helen, so would the Refuge that she rang. Now Henry is lost to Pat and Tony, how much longer have we got to suffer this before we get the Archers back, if it ever does. I don't know anyone that likes this storyline, no matter if it raises the awareness of abuse in the home, it is too much. It paints a very bleak picture for victims, No wonder they don't want to report it, it hardly encourages anyone to do it.

He is the victim JBF and you are (we do keep going over this ) expecting the characters outside Rob and Helen to know what has been happening, just as we, the listeners do, and they just don't. They wouldn't in this sort of situation. He is in a stronger position than Tony and Pat legally and the only thing that would make child services move Henry would be if they became concerned about Rob's behaviour and they have no reason to be at the moment. The best we can hope for is that knowing Rob has Henry gets Helen talking. This is not about emotion (although it is very much about ours ) it is about the law based on knowledge and on the presumed "best interests" of Henry. Child services have no reason to remove him at this point. Even if they do remove him when Helen's case starts and worries are revealed, child services may feel Henry is better in a foster home if they do not think Tony and Pat can keep him safe (from Rob).

Just read your post merlotgran - foster home more likely than boarding school.

A lot of water will have flowed under many bridges by then Grumpa. Do we know her due date by the way? What will Helen feel about the baby. I think she will have admitted to herself by then that is was rape and it is Rob's baby. Remember, on the evening of the stabbing, she screamed at Rob (in reply to his awful tirade) that there was nothing of him in Henry; it was a very strong feeling. I agree we need a bit of filling out on the character of Ursula. What if all his family know he is a bit of a psychopath (he seems to be to me) and she is the only one who ever had any control over him? We do need to know more to help us know Rob - that could be interesting.

As and when Helen provides Rob with his own son, what interest will he have in Henry? And what interest has Ursula in a child who is not a blood relative? Her characterisation is totally incredible.

I was wondering whether a dispute over Henry could lead to him being put into care.

I'm beginning to think that the poor little bugger would be better off in boarding school after all but I wonder if that will go ahead now?

Rob wants to control Henry but he no longer needs to send him away to achieve that does he?

I mean, it's hardly going to seem likely to a judge that everything was hunky-dory in that household, is it?

I don't believe a court would hand a child over to a father who is involved in a court case like this one. Certainly not until everything has been sorted out as to the previous everyday life of the family.

No, I haven't got Ursula either Iam. Rob father sounded controlling but it is far from necessary that controlling fathers make controlling sons. She seems a bit downtrodden with him but not in any other situation. I don't get her yet - but I don't like the character. I have tried to see what others are saying on the web but there is little out there the only thing was a quote in an article from the guy who plays Rob. “There are hints that she is the only person who has ever been able to influence Titchener’s behaviour.” Interesting

Good summary Gracesgran - yes I did hear Rob working on Henry, makes your blood run cold doesn't it. I agree that the novelty will wear off, we've already heard Rob losing his temper with Henry, who has learned to try and avoid winding daddy up. The 'obedience' incident was another chilling little snippet, do you know what obedience means Henry? It almost had me cowering in the corner when he said he'd teach him. Rob talks about loving his son but I am unconvinced he's capable of love, its all about power and control, as it was with Helen. He's a scary individual because he does acting normal very well doesn't he.
Ursula is a very scary woman who has no love for Henry but is drawn into supporting Rob. None of us understand their relationship or the way her character changes in an instant
For Pat n Tony to succeed in persuading a court to return Henry to their care they'd have to provide evidence to a court that Rob can't provide safe care and meet Henry's needs. As we've all said, currently no such evidence exists. Pat and Tony will face a barrage of criticism from Rob. He had to bring his mother to stay before the stabbing because Helen wasn't coping with Henry and her parents weren't doing anything to help. Up hill struggle for the Bridge Farm lot.

They have started - that's good but they still may not get Henry back. Henry will probably want to stay with his daddy - did you hear Rob already working on him Iam? Hopefully if Pat and Tony take this to court, even if they don't win, the children's services will keep a regular eye - more so when the court case starts and the evidence starts to come out.

Don't forget that if Rob can't manipulate the situation it could be dangerous for Henry and I agree merlotgran the novelty will wear off. Apparently such people have an expectation of children which is not relevant to their age and expect too much of them - we still don't know how he explained to Henry what "obedience" means but he is using him rather than loving him. If they have script time I would hope, to be true to what does happen, that Pat and Tony will be nonplussed again a couple of times - still not believing someone can behave in such a way, but Tom has always had a clearer view so that should help.

I agree with you too that Henry will eventually "kick off". He will be good for a while. He has lost his mummy and feared loosing his daddy but expections of his behaviour will be high and he will not be able to have any granny and granddad time. Yes, we should see some toddlerish tantrums imo.

I really did feel better hearing Pat getting some strength Iam, like you I thought it sounded more like the old Pat and you are right merlotgran Johnny is developing nicely.

Will they have Jazzer back do you think? They could do with the help but he may have burnt his boats.

I think things will start to unravel at BHC when the novelty wears off for Henry. He's happy to be back there with Rob at the moment but he will soon start to seriously miss Helen. Ursula won't know how to deal with it and Rob will be more and more irritated by Henry's questions.

Henry doesn't really know Ursula. He may like her but he loves Pat and Tony and with the three most important influences of his early life suddenly gone, he's eventully bound to kick off.

Very impressed with Johnny BTW. Plenty of backbone there but then he wasn't brought up as an Archer and they can be a wussy lot.

Pat was good tonight though. No point in giving Rob and Ursula any ammo.

I've just listened to tonight's episode, Pat sounded more like the Pat of old. Clear thinking and determined. She needs to talk to Kirsty about why K gave Helen the phone and to establish what K knows that could help their application in the family court. Also, Kirsty knows that H spoke to Jess - they would be sensible to talk to Jess who can tell them what H told her and also about her own experience of Mr Control Freak. it isn't a lot but its a start. One problem may be that it sounds as though Henry may tell an independent social worker that he wants to stay at BHC which combined with the lack of clear evidence, in the absence of evidence from Helen ……..

Oh yes! That's going to be interesting. Poor old George has been tarred at a very early age but I see shades of his character being painted

?

But Eddie's dodgy bro was splashing cash too, buying rounds of drinks. Was it George that told Clarrie her dodgy BiL had moved her handbag when she found one or more £20 notes missing.

I thought George was the culprit due to him splashing the cash. It was also hinted at on the Ambridge Observer quiz, being the correct answer to the 'who did it' question, but maybe they are just guessing too!
ambridgeobserver.blogspot.co.uk/

Do ten year old boys go into a jewellers and buy expensive watches without an adult accompanying them?

George has always been a wrong'un. Just ask Rob.