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

The grandparents of the baby did not have the first baby removed. Have you actually read anything of this case?

Her parents didn’t have any of the children taken away, CM and her vile partner chose to act in a way to have their children removed. Why are you claiming her first child was removed at birth?

A violent rapist is more than not up to standard.

I have followed the story after Police turned up in Brighton, on a day I was visiting my friends allotment.(they ramshackle everything).
I cannot help feeling there's something odd in the fact that the parents relentlessly had their daughter followed up, spied on, and each time she had a baby born would send the social services to her door. Apparently she was treated as the family scapegoat/ black sheep despite being described by friends as " compassionate and free spirited woman" and its possible the family was toxic and the man she had chosen was not up to their standards( family was relatives to royals).
She was not given a chance to be a mother since she had to constantly be on the run after the parents had her first baby taken by social sces straight away. I call this harassment to the point of driving someone to desperate measures.
If you heard this happening to your friend would you not find there's something fishy and unhealthy on how the daughter was treated? Relentlessly having all her babies taken one by one, having to run to keep the last one, living in tents in middle of winter?
Is no one else finding that odd?

Across the entire country?

Do you think the police have a database at their fingertips that means they can contact every cab co, cheap hotel, takeaway, etc ?

Totally impractical.

Just another point in relation to the birth parents, and it's one i made way back in this thread - birth parents are rarely prosecuted for the abuse and neglect they have inflicted. I am not entirely sure why tbh. Is it because they simply don't think to pass files to the police? Is it because a successful prosecution would allow the child to claim criminal injuries compensation?

I’m in Scotland, any child protection investigation where there’s allegations of crime involved (eg physical abuse, sexual abuse, severe neglect) are jointly investigated by police and social work. Where there’s evidence of criminality the police will seek to prosecute and the PF will determine whether there’s enough evidence to reach beyond reasonable doubt and whether bringing prosecution is in the public interest. I don’t have figures but can think of a fair few cases where parents have been prosecuted. The issue for those who aren’t is often about not reaching the evidence threshold for criminal procedures.

Just another point in relation to the birth parents, and it's one i made way back in this thread - birth parents are rarely prosecuted for the abuse and neglect they have inflicted. I am not entirely sure why tbh. Is it because social workers simply don't think to pass files to the police? Is it because a successful prosecution would allow the child to claim criminal injuries compensation? Is it because there is no suitable crime for eg starving your child because you spent all the money on drugs? Is it because the birth parents are deemed to have suffered enough? Is it because we as a society don't take crimes against children seriously?

If we took the harm these parents have inflicted on vulnerable children seriously we would be prosecuting them, not signing them up for ongoing contact to the detriment of the child's placement.

That article is superb.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

Very sad case, the officers involved must have been horrified to find the baby in the rubbish bag.

Excellent piece of journalism

I think it's because when dealing with child protection sometimes you need to determine facts that are serious enough to be considered by family court judges but unlikely to proceed to criminal trial or lead to conviction for whatever reason. If it's a one person says this, another says this, the judge will do a fact finding to determine which is true on the balance of probilities so the child/ren can be best protected. So in this case, the family judge may rule that MG through CM out the window on the basis of probabilities. That is super important for the judge to know in deciding care orders, access etc. But there was never a criminal conviction because of lack of evidence needed for that higher bar. It seems counter-intuitive and I've struggled in the past with it, but pragmatically I think it's needed in child protection.

According to the reporting I read the two oldest were removed first and the second two removed at birth. She did go into a parent and baby placement at some point while he was in prison.

The previous poster didn’t specify legal proceedings, she said he had to be included in decisions about the child which, in terms of day to day parenting, he doesn’t.

I disagree. Anyone who passes the threshold to have a child removed to be adopted - and that's a very high threshold - should be presumed to not be able to undertake direct contact. They had their children removed because of their behaviour - what are the chances that they have changed in a few months?

It’s not a few months though, the average time between a child being removed from their home and being placed for adoption is two years. During this time contact will usually have been ongoing so plenty of time for contact to be observed both in terms of the parents behaviour and child’s response to contact.

Not being able to parent safely doesn’t mean they can’t manage very occasional contact. Direct contact in adoptions I’ve been aware of has been once or twice yearly - not the regular contact in place when trying to assess parenting capacity or working towards reunion. It should be a consideration in adoption planning, but not a given and should focus on whether there’s benefit to the children.

And my point about sympathy for birth family was in respect of the damage they have done. Obviously it's severe to lose your children so imo less sympathy for birth parents and more for the poor children.

My kids birth mum has had 4 children removed, 2 of them adopted by me. I’m very aware of the harm she caused them because I live with it every day. I also know enough about her background to know she never stood a chance. I have huge sympathy for her, while knowing she made choices along the way that brought her to where she is now. That doesn’t mean I think she would in any way be a positive presence in my kids life.

They had social services involvement on the first child, there was 3 children when they were removed, that were living with the parents for sometime in between.

It's not incorrect. If there are public law proceedings in place and the identity of the father is known, he has a right to participate in the proceedings regardless of whether he has PR or not. That's a right that applies to all people with PR, but it doesn't mean they have any power over any outcomes.

He didn't have 'custody' did he? Once they came to notice of social services all the children were removed.
Not solely because he was a sex offender, but I highly doubt he would have participated in any risk assessment or intervention around it.

Legally that’s incorrect - unless they were married or he’s named on the birth certificate he has no parental rights.

One of the Rotherham victims was told by social services that her rapist, who was in prison at the time for some of his sex crimes against children, had to be included in decisions about the child she birthed aged 15 from his rape, because he was the father and has rights too.

Thank you - will take a look at this

There is cctv everywhere. They could have informed 1000's of professionals, police, door security, hotels, taxi companies, the public announced drove the couple further underground. IMO.

And how do you suggest they contact these thousands of professionals, taxi companies etc - all over the UK - quickly (because the baby was incredibly vulnerable) without a public appeal?

I disagree. Anyone who passes the threshold to have a child removed to be adopted - and that's a very high threshold - should be presumed to not be able to undertake direct contact. They had their children removed because of their behaviour - what are the chances that they have changed in a few months?

And these danage done - the foetal alcohol, the physical harm. How can adopters be expected engage with this? Letterbox can be difficult enough.

Btw we were open to having ftf contact with wider family. Grandparents declined because they thought it would be too disruptive for the children.

Social workers said no to contact with half siblings, who were now in foster care. They thought it could disrup their placements - because social workers know how upsetting contact can be for everyone and how that can pan out.

I never said adoption was just for adopters but rates are down and people are turning to surrogacy and practices like this are sure to put people off. Once it's court ordered, you have no option but to do it, regardless of the fallout. Adoption isn't long term fostering but this is making it look like it.

And my point about sympathy for birth family was in respect of the damage they have done. Obviously it's severe to lose your children so imo less sympathy for birth parents and more for the poor children.

I thought rape charges would be different.

Drug addicts and people who have been to prison are allowed to see their child if they have not hurt a child. Being abusive to the mother doesn’t stop custody.

I don't think the police could have acted any differently as they were aware of how at risk the baby was.

I also don't believe the parents were 'driven' to mistreat her.