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

making a judgement on her parenting is thankfully not something I have to do.

Unfortunately that's just what you are doing. You are judging that she is a fit parent and should be allowed to keep her baby. Sadly there seems to be so much evidence to suggest she is not able to keep her baby safe.

To be honest its a mixture of all sorts of reasons, many have a combination of risk factors, usually MH, substance misuse and DV. often complicated by other disorders such as ASD, ADHD or learning needs.

Once the child comes into care there may be a variety of outcomes, sometimes the parent are placed with the child in parent and child placements, sometimes the risk is too high for that so they would be supported to find housing with the local council but their options are limited, they wouldnt necessarily be priorities for emergency housing but if they are, that housing could be anywhere across a number of counties.

Thanks @bellac11 so it wouldn't be an automatic case that because of unfortunate circumstances you couldn't then be helped to stay together ?

No, @BloodAndFire i haven’t at all.

What I do think is that there tend to be two very distinct camps on these sort of topics.

One ‘side’ if you like believe in crazy theories like social workers snatching babies for profit. They do not listen to reason.

Equally dogmatic and problematic, therefore, is the view that women who have their children removed are somehow automatically unfit parents. I regularly see on these sorts of threads comments like ‘there must be more to it’ and ‘social services don’t just remove a baby because …’

And I think that’s equally as problematic. I think accepting that sometimes people make mistakes, errors of judgement, have prejudices and sometimes just are plain wrong, is part of being human.

To put it another way, if I had been accused of harming my child and I knew I had not (I am not saying this is the case here) I would not meekly hand him over. I just wouldn’t. Not least because I don’t trust SS to keep him safe and well.

For all I know this case might be one where removal of the child is sadly needed. But I do think it opens up a wider discussion about removal of children and that shouldn’t just be closed down with ‘must be deserved’ sort of responses. It’s worth remembering the overwhelming number of women who have children removed won’t have the financial or intellectual resources to fight the system and that does concern me.

Every parent having a child removed gets their lawyer(s) funded by Legal Aid, without any means testing.

Financial and intellectual resources are provided.

Legal aid doesn’t mean someone can’t be taken advantage of. That’s one of my niggles - a lot of the women are products of upbringings that aren’t great themselves, they don’t have a high level of education, they live in areas that are filled with poverty and crime. Obviously I’m generalising here but there is a rough sort of trend.

Clearly I don’t have the answers here or maybe I’d be in politics! But one of the problems is that there are no winners, really, it’s all just very, very sad.

Despite what the media portray and many on this thread, a huge amount of services and resources go into providing interventions that could support parents to care safely for their child. This is overseen by the courts, various assessments are often directed, numerous specialist assessments and parenting assessments with programmes to support parents. Parents that many would think are too high risk to be around children full stop, must be given opportunities to demonstrate their capacity.

On the BASW site there’s a good article by Sacha Samms about independent foster agencies and profit. Apparently In 2019 there were 11000 more children in foster care than in 2011 and 73% of those additional children were looked after by IFA so I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory to think something may be going on ……..

Agree with you @Getinajollymood

The most sensible position given we don't know but we realise that even if we did, the truth can be hard to reach in CP cases, and not just from parents, but from SS too. Who, like you say, do misjudge things at times

There was a documentary years ago about a couple called Marva & Sean. Social services first found them living in the woods with their baby. MH & drug problems etc. The child, and several after that went into care. Then a baby was born - Marva left Sean and was allowed to keep the baby with her/baby in supported house. It looked to be a happy ending.....but at 6ish weeks she went out to Sean's, drunk etc with the baby in tow and did not return until morning. Baby was removed the same day and put into care.

No idea what happened to Marva, but Sean died some years later due to his lifestyle.

It was one of the saddest docus I've ever watched.... available on YouTube called protecting children part 2 or similar.

I become an adoptive mother and some of mine were removed at birth with a policeman stood outside the door. Very sad yes, but absolutely right for my babies (and their birth mother!)

I remember that documentary.

So sad. Marva seemed to be blooming. But yes, couldn't sustain it beyond a few weeks/months

The child isn’t adopted straight away the courts give the parents so many rights and opportunities and pay for legal representation. However if you don’t make the right choices and follow the recommendations then the ultimate result will be adoption.

They have a choice, stop smoking crack or lose your baby.
Leave the abuser or lose your baby

Exactly this well said

We know for an established fact she is addicted to crack, do we?

In any case, I’m not necessarily talking about this case but musing a bit more widely on the subject, and I don’t think the ‘numerous chances’ thing always holds (and nor should it.)

Certainly, treating birth parents fairly and ensuring that children aren’t harmed isn’t an easy balancing act.

We know that she has chosen to go on the run with a convicted violent rapist who served 20 years in jail for rape and battery, not access any health care for herself or her newborn baby, and is likely to have been sleeping outside in sub-zero temperatures.

It is mind blowing that you are defending this as the actions of a fit parent or a competent adult.

You don't need any additional information - there clearly is far more to this, but even based solely on her actions since the baby was born, she is not prioritising her child's wellbeing. To say the least.

No, it's not an easy balancing act.

The info available in this case is a chaotic lifestyle, a hidden pregnancy, previous children removed, a partner who is a convicted violent/sex offender.

The situation with the new baby would have been assessed from scratch, with no assumptions about decisions re: previous children. That's the law.

Sadly there are some people who put their needs above their child's needs, and some are not even able to see their child's needs and/or see their child as a possession to meet their own needs.

Often that is because their own upbringing was so abusive and lacking. However, I don't think the answer is to allow that to be replicated in the next generation.

Happily, there ARE parent(s) who manage to turn their lives around, and the possibility of losing their child(ren) is the push they need to do that. A friend is a solicitor acting for parents where the LA is taking action. In the majority of cases the child ends up with extended family if the parent(s) can't make the necessary changes.

Agree 100 per cent

Surely though they would have to go out and buy food so would be seen somewhere?!

Yes, me too.

@bellac11 sorry I meant specifically around homelessness, I'm aware of lots of parenting support type activity, it was just that that I've never been aware of what happens, thank you.

I am concerned that posts on here, without any knowledge at all of the specific situation, are sowing mistrust of social services and pushing a narrative that they are evil to separate mothers from their babies, and that this will discourage people from reporting if they do see them.

Also agree, and what annoys/upsets me is that ALL the concern is always focused on the parents, and their upset and how it's affected them. As ever all about the rights and saying its fine if they meet none of the responsibilities because 'poor them'...

Is it?

Mostly, I find the opposite - that people are quick to make assumptions we don’t know are right (addicted to crack) and that only the most grave of cases would lead to removal, ergo, it is ‘deserved.’

Perhaps we all read what we want to read.

I doubt anyone will change their minds - ultimately, I think we all agree that we hope the baby is safe and well.

I am more concerned about the deification of biological mothers, as evidenced here by the 'what a newborn baby needs is its (birth) mother'.

As opposed to consistent, responsive care. Ideally provided by the biological parents, but if they can't/won't then by another care giver able to meet the baby's needs.

@Getinajollymood just curious…do you accept that this newborn is less likely to be safe and well living in a tent, than if it were for example in a heated house with ready access to hot water etc? I sort of get where you’re coming from, but the bare facts of this baby’s life right now are dreadful. The focus has to be on improving that above all else, surely? If this is the very best that this woman can provide, despite her apparent means, then something is massively wrong and she needs help.

Sure, but it’s minimising somewhat to entirely dismiss the relationship between a mother and an infant.

I have said throughout the thread that there are times a baby cannot stay with its mother. I recognise that. It doesn’t mean that being taken from her is an inconsequential action that is all fine as long as ‘someone’ is meeting the child’s needs.