Family missing with newborn....

[ChocChocYum]

www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/23233264.bolton-m61-appeal-help-finding-missing-family-newborn-baby/

Where are they? How can they go missing? Hope they are ok

@MeinKraft - I am not necessarily disagreeing with you ‘recollections may vary’ but that was not the account given in a high profile case recently. In that instance not only the birth mother but also a charity she was heavily involved with were under the impression she was keeping her baby.

I realise misunderstandings may have taken place but as above I do think there’s a grey space between women who simply can’t care for their children and social services who always act in the child’s best interests. Neither are always true and I try to bear that in mind in cases like this.

She is living like this by choice. She has had 3 children removed previously and has clearly not made any changes to the risky behaviours that led to that.
Surely if its a case of doing things out of desperation she would have made the required changes to keep the baby safe?
Or does 'her baby her rules' and give her a chance still trump that?

Every child that is born in these circumstances, the parents get reassessed. They could change their situation and keep the baby.

They have chosen to go in the run instead.

Not seen anything about this? Kind of proves your point!

I’ve no idea @MichelleScarn . Do you know something I don’t? I don’t know why they want to remove the baby and I don’t know if they are right to believe what they do.

At the time of writing, the escaped murderers were the 9th highest story on the BBC news app. The Constance Marten story wasn't on the front page at all.

@Getinajollymood no doubt failures of care do happen, but given what we do know about this case I think it's fair to presume this isn't the case here. We are talking about a family who have had multiple children removed, we know the father has a conviction for a violent sex crime, we know the mother joined a cult at one stage and we know they've intentionally made themselves and their child homeless, and they've intentionally denied the child medical care. And what we know only scratches the surface.

@MichelleScarn How do you know she has 3 other children? I haven’t read any articles that mention this. However, I agree that SS don’t remove children from birth without a good reason. It’s usually because the mum engages in risky behaviours, lives with someone who is dangerous or doesn’t live somewhere that’s suitable for a baby/child.

@Getinajollymood if it’s true that Constance has had other dc removed from her care and she’s engaging in risky behaviour then the best place for the baby isn’t with his mum. She seems to have had plenty of opportunity to end this relationship and seek support from her family (she became estranged due to her family not approving of her relationship).

It’s been said repeatedly on the thread that people know from Facebook she has 3 older kids who obviously aren’t with them on the run (so not in her care) but its been mentioned many times

Have seen this too, similar as you describe.

It’s a bit creepy that people hunted down her Facebook!

@GelPens1 I think it was also strongly implied, if not stated, in the newspapers that Constance's older children had been taken into care. Apparently her publicly available Facebook profile shows her with pictures of her older children.

It's not unreasonable to work out what's happened from that - they've been taken into care, she's aware or suspects that this new baby will be taken into care at birth and she's decided that the best option is to avoid medical care and go on the run sleeping in a tent.

It's terribly sad and I hope she's found soon and that she and the baby are safe and well but every night they're sleeping in a tent I fear that's less likely.

Oh come off it, it’s pretty standard to look people up on Facebook in this day and age, hardly creepy 🙄

I have not looked at the woman’s Facebook myself, making a judgement on her parenting is thankfully not something I have to do.

In very general terms I think it is wise to bear in mind that it is not always the case that SS only ever intervene as an absolute last resort, ergo if babies are removed it is wholly, entirely justified.

Sometimes this is the case, sometimes, perhaps, it is a bit more grey than that.

That is not me saying this lady should or should not keep her baby, it isn’t my place to judge and all I will say is that I have every compassion for her whether or not the removal of her child is ‘right.’

It opened my eyes to the care system. They were good people. Good intentions, but utterly chaotic, messy, unkempt. House was full of clutter, stuff on every surface. Dogs barking etc. General “unwashed” feel to things. But they were caring for vulnerable adults and babies.

You don't need to look at someone's Facebook to know that having a baby and not getting any postnatal checkups at all (for either mother or baby) and then keeping the baby in a tent in literally freezing conditions (it's been minus 8 here in London overnight this week) is not good parenting and it's not putting the baby's welfare first.

Also, no decent father/husband would allow his wife/baby to suffer like this. But I think we know he's not a decent bloke already.

I am aghast at how many people think this woman is fit to look after any children 🤦‍♂️ 🤬

Exw works in childrens services and it is very common for women to continue having children when they are not fit to look after them sometimes 7-8 times and will still smoke crack or live in dv relationships

its a shame they can’t be sterilised

But she isn’t doing that because (as far as we know) she just can’t be bothered taking the baby to the postnatal checkups, is the distinction, @BloodAndFire

I just don’t know, and I don’t think anybody does, why the authorities wish to remove the child. All I know is that I wouldn’t be handing my baby over either.

Women in DV relationships, IMO, need support in leaving them, not further punishing them by having their children removed. Was it Rihanna who was attacked by her partner and did not leave despite her access to money? If she found it hard doesn’t it explain why to some extent Mrs Jones stays with the man who beats her?

If the baby dies because it's sleeping in a tent in sub-zero conditions or ends up permanently disabled, that 'distinction' means absolutely fuck all.

I find it quite staggering that you are defending her actions tbh. You know nothing about her history with social services and nor do I or anyone else here. What we do know is that in the two weeks her baby has been alive she's placed him or her at massive risk of death/disability/injury/etc. and has prioritised her wish to stay with a convicted rapist over the welfare of her newborn baby.

All I know is that I wouldn’t be handing my baby over either.

Fuck me, this is possibly one of the worst comments ever posted on this site.

The naivety on this thread really shocks me. This isnt the only post of this type

Does someone's desperation absolve them of being culpable of harming their child. Their child comes to harm but its not really harm because they thought they were dedicated?

Parents up and down the land think they are good parents when they're not. They try to be good parents but cant. The harm they cause their child is real, not to be excused because of good intentions

If I had the choice between handing my baby over and keeping him, I know what I’d do, especially if I had access to money.

I have no idea where she is, whether she is living in a tent, whether she is safe and well, whether she is mentally unwell, I have no idea, nor does anyone.

I can empathise with her desperation and anguish regardless of the rights and wrongs.

Unfortunately we have had a number of children come into care because their parents were found by police sleeping tents.

The police will police protect children if they feel that children are in a dangerous situation/being harmed, sometimes we have no prior knowledge of th family, the first we hear about it is that a baby has been found in a tent with parents. No massive man hunt involved.

In this case there isnt any ambiguity about the danger to baby, unless of course someone is harbouring them, which is highly possible.

You've made it very clear that for god knows what reasons of your own, you have decided that the decision to neglect a newborn baby and go on the run with a convicted rapist is to be defended at all costs.

If you have had personal bad experiences with social services, then I am sorry for that, but what you are posting here is indefensible and appalling.

Great that you have empathy for this grown woman who has proved herself beyond a doubt to be an unfit mother, through her actions since this baby was born even if nothing else (and you know there will be a lot 'else').

What a shame your wonderful empathy doesn't extend to the newborn baby who has no choice in the matter at all, and could very easily end up dead.

@bellac11 what happens in those cases? Is it a 'choice' not to engage to find temporary housing etc so care is necessary? Obviously a tent isn't a suitable permanent home just wondering what happens to the family unit?