It's not often talked about: the grief of parents whose children have been received into care, and the long term impact of what is, essentially, a form of bereavement.

The system - if you can forgive such a broad brush term - is set up to prioritise the child or young person above all else.

In a children's hearing room, for example, the focus is on the child or young person and their needs. They are at the centre of the decision making process and, while empathy is there for the parents or carers, panel members are there to focus on the child.

So a new report, exclusively published in the Herald on Sunday, from the charity One Parent Families Scotland was a welcome and interesting look at the practical and emotional implications for adults when their children are received into local authority care.

Small boats week was a farce of relentless Tory failure on asylum issues

The report talks of parents struggling financially or even being pushed below the poverty line when their children become accommodated because they lose child benefit and other welfare supports such as reduced housing benefit or Universal Credit.

One Parent Families Scotland makes a number of suggestions to deal with the issue, with straightforward suggestions such as local authorities ensuring all families involved with the care system receive an information leaflet with financial advice.

At a government level, it suggests the Scottish Government work with COSLA to review how parents whose children are received into local authority care are protected from homelessness or being moved to accommodation that prevents family reunification.

The charity's report also suggests that the UK Government should ensure that benefits income is protected for at least six months from when a child becomes looked after away from home.

OPFS chief executive Satwat Rehman is quoted as saying that there are "hard hearts out there" who would fail to support this and she's right, it's a tough sell: child benefit is for the child, so why continue to pay it to parents who are not then spending it on the child, will be the most obvious response.

One of the issues raised throughout the report and which is dealt with in the recommendations is the stigma that families feel due to poverty. The report explicitly says it is vital to "address stigma, shame and perception" around poverty.

Another section reads: "Parents told us that they felt shame and guilt. They also felt judged and not taken seriously."

Planning refusal gives hope to community looking to fight off Glasgow drive thru

There is a very high test for accommodating children and young people away from their family; this is not a thing that happens lightly. Usually the reasons are complex and multi-faceted where the trauma and challenges facing a family are difficult to resolve.

So it was a surprise, particularly against the backdrop of calls to challenge stigma, to see the experts involved in the report grossly over-simplifying the issues.

My fellow writer-at-large for this paper, Neil Mackay interviewed Fraser McKinlay, chief executive of The Promise Scotland. Neil writes: "When asked if children were ever sent into care because their families were just too poor to feed or clothe them adequately, McKinlay replied: 'Instinctively, my answer is yes'."

In other words, he can't prove it but he's taken a punt on an answer entirely lacking in nuance. In nearly 12 years as a children's panel member I've never come across a case of a child being accommodated simply because his or her parents did not have enough money.

I asked around several senior figures in social work and this claim came as a surprise to them too. It's an extraordinary claim that children are being removed from their homes purely because of a lack of parental funds, and no other reason, particularly without hard evidence.

Poverty is interlaced with the issues that families involved with social work supports face. Parents with addiction issues, mental health issues, with chaotic backgrounds, are more likely to live in poverty.

Children will be accommodated because of domestic abuse in their homes; they will be accommodated because poor parental mental health or addiction has caused them to be neglected or the home environment to be unsafe.

These issues exacerbate poverty and poverty exacerbates these issues. In turn, there isn't enough emergency housing for women fleeing domestic abuse; women's refuges are under strain.

We also need to be very careful around how we phrase the need to use third sector supports.

There is stigma and shame around accessing foodbanks and refuges, but it's right and responsible that parents access every support available, whether food or accommodation, in order to keep their children at home.

Girls are asked to give examples of street harassment in Glasgow

Last week it was revealed that vital community links workers are going to be lost due to local authority funding pressures. Reinstating these crucial supports is more useful - and more immediately implementable - than backing, as the report also suggests, minimum income guarantees, which doesn't address the costs of childcare, housing and other structural pressures.

But local authority funding pressures are really key: policy quangos can make all the sweeping assumptions they want without having to pinpoint exactly how their suggestions will be operationally delivered or funded.

Useful would be to argue that class must become a measurable data point when recording every case required agency intervention.

Exaggerating an already sensitive issue is no way to address stigma; suggesting poverty-based persecution of certain families is no way to encourage shame-free interactions between families and the system.