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.
it must be chaos , not like they have a little garden to go play in
and then saying she will be next haha . Meg hun you have been with your boyfriend a year and most of your relationship he has been behind bars and you’re telling people to choose their baby dads carefully 
If people are nothing to do with you what business is it of anyone else. It’s such a boring subject 
