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

As soon as she found out he was a time served rapist she should have ended it there and then .

You're talking about mentally well people, who aren't hiding in fear, whether imaginary or not. I'm not excusing her, and definitely think her partner is dangerous, it's just clear to me that she was very desperate and very scared.

Even just the write up of this family court case, the risk factor was clearly his violence, and his likely control over the lack of medical care was highlighted by him attempting to refuse paramedics when she was shouting for help.
Why was it dealt with by removing the children, rather than putting a legal ban on him having any contact with her or the children, and then supporting her.
If he breaks the ban, put him in prison.

OK thank you @WestwardHo1

No it was described as an "income" from a trust fund. It wasn't just ad hoc hand outs.

I have never seen a newborn baby wearing nothing but a babygrow in winter, even my own childrens birth mother wouldn’t have done that. If you were desperate to keep a child you would surely feed them, prevent them from freezing to death and not expose them to a rapist.

I don't honestly think they would have taken the 'messaging' well, however it was phrased

They wanted to do what they wanted to do in the end. Damaged as she was they were both still culpable

Was this income money she was given by her parents?

In the Metro, it said they had £600k’s worth of legal aid.

If she were that desperate to keep the child she wouldn't have let it die from exposure. People who want to keep their children buy them coats.

I think there are hints that she was quite a damaged character as well - the weird cult church she was a member of for a while, her own mother being weirdly aloof, her father absent. The suggestion that rather than have an open discussion and support their adult daughter, they "disapproved" of her partner (albeit I wouldn't want my daughter to be with somebody with that history) and allegedly hired detectives to track them. Whether that was part of some psychotic delusion she was having, or whether it was an accurate picture of their relationship, it's not good.

Mark Gordon was clearly a nasty character from a very young age, it's not a schoolboy mistake he was arrested for, it was a horrific pre-planned violent crime, yet they must have seen something in each other, I think the quote from the family court judge is telling:

“The strong impression given by the parents is that of two people who are fiercely united in an unrelenting struggle against a non-existent opponent.”

My armchair psychologist guess is that they have both been through experiences which are generally rare and difficult to understand from the outside (a cult; prison) and that bonded them over and above any history or reason that Gordon was imprisoned in the first place, and cemented this general idea that it was the two of them against the world, and put them into an automatically defensive position against authority. It's not an uncommon scenario for abusive relationships, and the fact she had a lot of connections and relationships, career ambitions etc and then it all suddenly vanished when she got together with him fits the same pattern.

I do think there is a general discussion to be had about how authorities can better reach and relate to people who have those feelings, because I think that the current way it's handled at much earlier stages in the relationship between an adult and the authority in question can and does make things worse. But that's not a change which can happen overnight. In the case that you have two people who are known to be paranoid and completely anti cooperation and significant concerns for such a vulnerable child, it makes total sense for the focus to be on finding the child by inviting such publicity.

Of course the pro adoption lobby will claim it isn’t the default option, and those against forced adoption will state that it is.

The truth is betwixt and between the two dogmatic beliefs on either side I suspect.

This really couldn't be further from the truth. How have you formed this opinion?

That's my point. She IS rich. She just refused to spend her own money on representation. She had an income of £250,000 a year. It was reported on yesterday.

While other people who need it much more are denied legal aid.

Or do you actually think I meant that she shouldn't have been allowed representation?

Obviously that's not excusable, and I've unfortunately seen a lot of children and babies dressed inappropriately for the weather, I'm sure we all have. I still think it's tragic and she was desperate to keep this child.

Reading about them, they had contact through a contact centre and it was them that stopped turning up.

I assume a lot of control from Gordon and aristocrat or not she didn't stand much of a chance with her parents and that weird cult she joined.

But how else were the police supposed to find them?

I feel bad for her, obviously for the poor baby and children, but also her.
She clearly had mental health issues and was under control of a terrifying violent man.
Given his history, when he refused her treatment after the push or fall out of the window there should have been a condition of zero contact with her as part of his release.
If that had happened there was every chance the children she currently had could have remained with her with intensive support.
There's nothing to indicate that she, without his influence, was a danger to the children if given close supervision and support, and kept away from him.

I assume she wouldn't give evidence against him, and she was realistically the only witness.

There wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him. She denied he had done it.

I am sick to death of excuses being made for this. A baby is dead because of those two.

They only had those children removed after a very long period when SS tried to support them. It ended when Marten's partner pushed her out of the window when she was pregnant, causing serious injuries, and tried to stop her getting help - but she still went back to him. How could SS possibly have left the children with them in those circumstances? You really need to read the judgments in the care proceedings to get the full picture.

This is a woman so conniving she deliberately told the jury of his previous conviction in a bid to sabotage their trials.

It's not some meek clueless woman.

I'm hoping that some of these posters are just getting their kicks from trolling to be honest. Because the alternative is a bit too worrying.

The more I'm learning about this case the more appalled I am. I think anyone who has any sympathy for the parents or CM in particular, must be either mental themselves or have zero knowledge of the actual case.

We do have open adoption in this country. The presumption should be that direct contact between children and birth parents will happen unless there is a strong risk to the children. I believe that in the case of these parents direct contact with the children would have been extremely harmful. Please remember they stopped turning up to see them during care proceedings before they had even been determined to be able to be adopted.
The language 'forced' adoption is extremely emotive and chosen deliberately to suggest that adoption is something 'done to' parents against their will, rather than something which is sometimes necessary in the best interests of children.