Constance Marten case — I feel the police have some responsibility too

This is the last thing I’m going to add because this case is so awful. I really feel that the level of cruelty and lack of compassion towards that child puts them on a par with people like Fred and Rose West for me. They will never have remorse for the death of their baby and the only thing I can hope is that their surviving children have an opportunity to live normal, happy lives.

From what I've read in news articles her first childs removal was prompted by her affluent family's disapproval of her relationship and the removal was enforced when she fell out the window
The child was removed because the police suspected her partner had thrown her out of the window. Not that she fell out of the window! She went back to a convicted violent offender.

It’s very difficult to remove - or relinquish - parental rights, it would need to be shown to be in the best interests of the child. You can privately petition to be given parental rights, most commonly done by none married fathers, but you’d need to establish paternity or established relationship with the child and again it would need to be deemed in the child’s best interests and that decision isn’t made on the basis of who has the most money.

There will definitely be more to it than that.

Their first child came to the attention of SS because she refused medical attention despite travelling in a Zika risk zone while pregnant, gave birth using what staff suspected (correctly) was a false identity, her rapist partner assaulted two female police officers in the maternity ward (and had to be restrained by a fellow new father), and was then taken to live in a mouldy tent full of wet clothes and bottles of piss next to a main road

Not sure how any of that is down to her family disapproving?

This crossed my mind too.
And before anyone bleats that they would've been scared of being spotted, tone could've gone and done it alone. I really don't believe that one adult on their own buying a blanket or something wouldn't have raised the slightest bit of interest from any retail staff.

It's apparently very common for women who have had children removed to get pregnant again and again in the hope of keeping the next.

If it common, it is because there are too many selfish people and selfish people make selfish parents.

Why would you want to have another child when you couldn’t care for any of first 4?

Children are humans with needs not toys for mother to keep.

This might help clarify things for those of you who think Marten and Gordon should have been given more chances

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11x1xgj78o.amp

What would you have done OP?

Constance Marten spent months at 'torture' church, friend tells BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce77wd5ne60o.amp

The first 3 children were in foster care and had supervised visits with the parents right up until CM got pregnant with the 4th, when they stopped contact. Apparently they were told that this was affecting the older children but ignored it. The 4th child was then discovered and also taken into care. I believe this was when they were in the closed adoption, not straight away. The father is a convicted killer and was thought to be abusing the mother but she still went back to him.

@Jellycatspyjamas is correct. The can be contact (i think visitation is the Amerocan term). In my child's case we facilitated direct (face to face) contact for a number of years until birth parent stopped coming because their new partner didn't like it.

What “news articles” are you reading?

as this is completely different to the news articles I have read.

a child would not be removed from a mother because her family disapproved of her partner ffs. Can you imagine the amounts of children in foster care if that actually did happen?

You should have done better research before making a thread pointing fingers.

Can I also say that being ‘on the run’ was no excuse for not going to a charity shop and buying or stealing the appropriate level of clothing for their newborn to wear in the middle of winter. The CCTV of that poor baby in nothing but a vest while the parents ate is one of the things that cemented for me that they were neglectful narcissists with no regard for anyone but themselves.

*The one thing I can think of that might make a difference would be some sort of independent charity - my work was via a charity, and vulnerable individuals have measurably different relationships with non-authorities and volunteers.

It would have to be an adjunct to safeguarding laws - anonymous check ins permitted with no report on location and plans except to confirm the safety of the baby and pass on any needed support. But even then there would be distrust.*

There are many charities doing excellent safeguarding work supporting families and families do have very different relationships with workers, because they often see them as being “on their side”. Ultimately safeguarding needs to be a statutory responsibility because someone needs to have a duty, and the associated powers, to protect children. The NSPCC have authorised status, but never actually use it, because it’s legally complex and they have a reputation to maintain.

Theres a tonne of support available through social work and predominantly through third sector agencies, only when that has been tried and has repeatedly failed do statutory services look at removal, unless there’s an immediate risk of significant harm. And at that point someone needs to say “enough”, with the skills, knowledge and professional power to do something about it.

@Siff their first baby also lived in a tent as a newborn. It was smelly, dirty and the area was littered with bottles of urine. The family offered to buy her a house, she refused.

She wasn't in a tent because she was on the run but because she thought that was fine for a newborn.

Poor Victoria.

@Pancakesandcream33

Even when children are removed at birth there is a long court process involved before permanent decisions are made about the child's future.
During that time the foster carers will facilitate family time with the parents, social workers will be working with them with the aim of reuniting the family.
Its not just a case of removing the child and giving them to the next passing adopter.
I have a foster carer friend who looks after babies. She has had several new borns straight from hospital. She had those babies for 9 months to a year whilst decisions were made about their future.

Nope don’t “ blame “ the police one bit, the only video I saw was of two parents well wrapped up themselves in freezing cold with the mother, using the term loosely, lifting a newborn baby by the arm and almost throwing her into a hard pushchair while she was wearing a thin baby gro
I don’t doubt she had trauma growing up, moneys not everything obviously but to keep defying the courts and police and denying their culpability I have zero sympathy.

In fairness, they were offered the chance to get their children back by attending contact sessions etc. And they just stopped one day. Their treatment of Victoria (clothing, lack of medical care) is pretty illustrative of someone unfit to be a parent. I love being a mum, but I’m under no illusion it’s my right, or more important than the welfare of my children, and I’m quite certain nothing would stop me seeking medical attention if they needed it. That’s not being self-righteous, I actually don’t think I could physically stop myself because the fear of them dying or being hurt would be overwhelming. That was missing in these two people.

Parents who avoid engagement with services designed to look after children are always trying to hide something. Maybe that’s that they’re struggling, maybe it’s that they don’t trust them, whatever. But they’re hiding something. And the point at which that hiding becomes more important than the child’s survival - be that with or without you - is when you’re no longer a fit parent. Maybe you don’t know those are the stakes because of illness or ignorance….still doesn’t mean you get to continue on your merry way. People should step in, because children can’t defend themselves. Their care is actually everyone in society’s responsibility, and parents who think they have a special right to the control of their children are actually usually pretty toxic.

I don’t think there was a way to win here, short of the mental health services being more adequately funded in order to treat people like her before harm occurred. Maybe ss should have been more involved with her as a child - wtf is all this about a cult in west Africa?! There is a host of failures in Constance’s life, but eventually, as is often the case, she perpetuated those failures and went on to harm her own children. And there isn’t any excuse for that. Plenty of people have atrocious childhoods and manage to be good parents. The way the police and ss reacted in the end was the only way they could have.

I also really think that the same classist attitudes that meant her parents weren’t investigated by ss are the same that cause so much weird sympathy for CM now. If she was a drug addict on benefits, would this even be a discussion?

Yes, I agree. Considering how they handled Victoria it looked like they had no clue or care. And the fact the baby had very little cover, not even a blanket is telling.

They could have left her beside a hospital or somewhere where she could be found but chose to dump her like waste...that's unforgivable.

I know of a woman whose family took parental responsibility of her child in a private court case simply because they thought they could offer the child a more lavish lifestyle - more holidays, private schooling, tutors and private sports facilities.

Could someone with legal knowledge confirm if this could feasibly happen within the UK? It doesn't sound plausible to me. Surely there was more to it than that?

I get your point but I really struggle to have empathy for a woman who repeatedly chooses an abusive man over her kids. I understand coercive control, but she acted incredibly selfishly with her previous children, let alone the baby in question.

She lost custody of her kids, had the previous child taken by SS at birth and she still chose to stay with him and get pregnant again.

She was given support and the chance to see her kids and she repeatedly chose him instead.

SS and the Police had to step in to protect her kids because the parents wouldn't. If the Police hadn't bothered searching, the public would've been going mad. Look at the National press and general vitriol every time a child is killed by parents, and rightly so, but SS come in for an absolute battering every time. They were doing their job here and they were right to get the Police involved.

That baby's death is on the two of them and I hope their sentences are anything but lenient.

You seriously need to stop projecting and actually read all the background reports, of which there are many.

I doubt that some of the goady fuckers who've posted are going to do that, or even come back.
Their work is done.

Her sex offender partner hadn’t just given birth. Was he thinking straight?!

He was a massive safeguarding rust and she thought she knew better and put him above the needs of her child.

They both knew what they were doing and deserve to live with the consequences.

That kind of messaging could’ve made the pair feel safer and less hunted — possibly leading to calmer, more rational decisions.

Do you really think a seasoned criminal like him would have acted in calm and rational way or allowed his partner to leave with the baby?