Constance Marten & Mark Gordon - Baby A case

[SportMum1982]

What have I just read? What the actual fuck is wrong with the world. That poor baby. These utter idiots. Sorry I’m so so angry.

Constance Marten and partner ‘killed baby to keep her out of care’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/24e56090-f175-4bf8-ac07-380621d9954f?shareToken=186074e86c05c4df704ef1889186acdc

Whatever the real circumstances of his crime and detention, he will have emerged from it institutionalised and emotionally disturbed. That's not an excuse, it's a partial explanation for a character ill-formed to exist in any caring relationship. Unfortunately, he and CM met each other- and she didn't run away, she recognised something in him that she matched with. Terrible situation. I hope they are both detained for a very long time and their surviving children are able to live happier lives, well away from them.

Whatever the real circumstances of his crime and detention, he will have emerged from it institutionalised and emotionally disturbed.

Surely he must have been disturbed in the first place if he broke into a house and raped and threatened the householder with a weapon?

Disturbed boy or entitled male criminal caught early? Or bit of both?

It is very true that there is a problem with the 'adultification' of Black children especially ones who have committed crime in the US.
But my understanding is at that time his case will have been automatically 'direct filed' by a prosecutor to be charged and processed as an adult, because of the nature of two of the 'felony charges' (there's a 2nd home invasion crime) and Florida's tough stance on felony crimes. A white boy committing the same felonies in that era would have also been direct filed to be charged and treated as adult. Yes lots of racism at play, but not the reason he was treated as adult and sent to an adult facility.

Things have calmed down a lot from Florida's fears of a class of 'superpredators' emerging at a young age, and not all prosecutors direct charge young offenders into the adult system automatically any more, but at that point to the best of my knowledge they all did across 20 Florida circuits. Black, White, Hispanic made little difference, though yes he will absolutely will have carried the issues of racist attitudes as well as disgust as a home invading rapist as a young Black offender.
14 + Juveniles involved in gun lead 'home invasions' are to this day likely to be treated and charged as adults.

The juvenile system in Florida is aimed at rehabilitation, the adult system at punishment. That's how they run, and how they generally like it.

If a 14 plus yr old does something bad enough, they want it on the persons record for life, which treating as a juvenile doesn't allow for, as juvenile records are sealed in the persons mid 20's allowing them to start again.

Some felonies there including his, are seen by Florida as things you can't come back from, and they want their young perpetrators labeled for life, kept out of some professions, to have to do extra to be ever considered acceptable tenants in social housing (public housing) and prevented from future voting in Florida to keep things that way.
Then it was quite simple: commit certain crimes, get treated as an adult with loss of education rights, adult sentencing, and adult jails.
Removal of supposedly 'soft' prosecutors was a major issue there not long ago.

Wintersonata, if his original conviction was sound then he must have be an immensely disturbed child. At 14 he must have learnt this violence from someone whilst growing up. If he had been rehabilitated in a facility for young offenders maybe he would have stood a chance of changing himself into something better.

Obviously, wintersonata, nobody is claiming that he was not already a maladjusted adolescent.

I keep debating with myself.

1. Were they parents who loved their children but couldn't care for them. Lacked the insight to see that it was for the best they didn't have them and therefore felt victimised by social services. Did they really want to make a go of it once and for all and have their little family together. Did they run out of options when the police started looking for them; their bank no longer accessible without being caught and felt forced into making risky decisions. Did they try all they could for Victoria but ultimately fail?

2. or were they doing this, not out of love for their child but simply to prove they could? Was it really about proving their love for each other by becoming a family? Was Victoria never really the main thought here? Were they of sound minds but making awful decisions for their own selfish desires? Did they keep Victoria's body, not out of love, but out of fear of being caught, now with remains? I mean, there are plenty of stupid social services dodgers who can't see their own failings. Too wrapped up in their own selfishness to see the needs of their children.

But they could have had an abortion or surrendered Victoria. By keeping her, they must have been prepared for their lives to change, that there was a risk they'd get into serious trouble. They risked their freedom and being able to be with each other whilst in prison, for this shot at keeping Victoria.

My initial instinct was #1. They were naive (potentially with mental health issues) who cocked up big time. But since seeing the CCTV of her plonking Victoria into her pram with little support, and having seen their reactions when arrested, I'm no longer sure I can see that love. Surely any loving parent would know the gig was up and let the police have Victoria's body to deal with humanely? Surely they'd want to spill everything, even if that involved blaming social services in part. Surely the moment others found out would trigger tears and a meltdown? Reaffirming your beautiful baby was dead? It didn't seem that way to me. Mark was more concerned with mayonnaise and Constance with "daddy bear".

I hope we find out more. There so many moving parts to this.

Clearly poor mental health was evident. Buying unsuitable cars, spending over a thousand pounds on taxis and little on food. Neglecting a new born in freezing cold weather.

RunningThroughMyHead there behaviour one caught reminds me of the Philpotts. They were more concerned about their Chinese takeaway order then the 6 children they had killed.

• their behaviour once caught.

@RunningThroughMyHead Very interesting post. I think at the moment it's hard to understand any of their rationale as there is very little background to go on. We know facts but very little context.
I really hope there is some more clarity this coming week. It has been said in the press that this week the prosecution will focus on forensics (which I doubt will be able to clarify many certainties given the timescales) and their involvement with Family Social Services. I think SS testimony should shed more light on the situation.

The fact they decided to stay 'on the run' for almost 2 months after Victoria's death - not allowing for the post mortem CM said she wanted, makes no sense. With Victoria's death they lost the very reason they were running. Why at that point would you not just hand yourself in or at least make contact with someone?

Oh I hadn't realised they were going to review the past social services information. You're right, I think they may help contextualise what's happened a bit.

When I think about how I'd respond, theoretically of course so can only go off how I think I'd act, I also think I'd try to stay on the run. It's not logical, but why would anyone choose prison over living rough with your loved husband? Now, obviously if you sit down and think about it, most would realise that there's no way out now, but I can see why they stayed out. They didn't want it all to come crashing down. Their bubble had burst and they didn't want to face the music.

It's all so strange. They risked it all but in such an illogical and risky way. My only suggestion is they're either a bit thick or have addictions or mental health issues. No one in their right mind, with average intelligence, would think this would end in anything other than tragedy.

Yes, which I guess leads us to the view that they simply didn't give a toss. This was all about them, their wants, their relationship. But why risk it all for a baby if you don't truly care about them?

The problem here is that we are all seeking a rational explanation where there probably isn't one. These are not rational acts and few, if any, of us will ever understand them.

RunningThroughMyHead I think they were just used to a chaotic and delusional life and the poor baby became part of it briefly rather then deciding to deliberately risk it all to keep the baby. They could have gone abroad if they really wanted to keep the baby. They also had a hatred of social services, probably wanted to get one over them.

This report of the 'agreed facts' read out in court raises a lot of questions

She had access to a fair bit of money before the birth of her first child, but they were already living as down and outs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68415935

This is heartbreaking

“Once they had been separated from their children they continued to have "contact sessions" at which their interaction with the children was described as "excellent".
But their attendance at the contact sessions was inconsistent. The children were distressed by this. One child became quiet, withdrawn and inconsolable, saying on one occasion: "Mummy and daddy cancelled again."

This article also includes among the agreed facts things that they were warned about as concerns for a previous baby who was taken into care as being dangerous but also continued to do with Victoria. This is the baby where they pretended to be Irish and gave false names

• CM was warned by social workers of the dangers (overheating, suffocation, positional asphyxia etc) of sleeping with the baby against her chest. CM had said that she had taken this on board yet her explanation of Victoria's death reveals she did the same thing.
• CM and MG had made few preparations for the previous baby and were told be SW that nappies and babygrows were not enough for a newborn to be safe in cold weather (a pattern that appears to repeated with Victoria)
• CM and MG were warned with the previous baby that living in a small "festival" type tent was unsuitable for sleeping with a newborn in cold winter weather.
• "A care professional said social services “had a number of concerns, including falsifying of names and that Ms Marten and Mr Gordon had been living in a tent”."
• CM and MG did not really accept the concerns of SS for the safety of the previous baby and said they were being judged for their "alternative lifestyle"

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/24147739.constance-marten-put-fake-irish-accent-evade-social-services/

Looks like history repeating itself.

But they removed the previous baby.

I sort of felt for her on the issue of falling asleep over your baby, it can be easily done (I did it in a rocking chair at 3 am one morning during breastfeeding - luckily I must have woken quickly). Though with those warnings, it would make you much more aware of the danger. Difficult to keep a baby warm in a tent if its not directly on/between you. We had a Moses basket to avoid danger (also not living in a tent, so had central heating!)

5 kids since 2017. She's been pregnant a lot of the time. So oldest must be around 7?

Poor children, they didn't get a good lottery ticket with this pair : (
Hope they are happy in their new families.

It's just a long, long train crash isn't it?

This is very common unfortunately, and yet when we're still in care proceedings with children the courts often, with the Guardian often supporting, continue to direct contact, the parents counsel are often very aggressive about it, yet the kids are let down over and over, the courts are often very adult centered instead of child centered

Honestly I've never experienced contact being ordered to continue during proceedings when the parents aren't attending consistently. It's either reduced in line with what they are able to commit to or paused unless/until the parent does XYZ to demonstrate they can be consistent in cases where they don't turn up at all.

I'm afraid I have and its a consistent theme, why cant the LA do this or that, pay for cabs, arrange it in a more convenient location for the parent, more convenient time, etc etc the list is endless, all the while there's constant excuses for non attendance

We had to take our daughter to weekly contact a three hour drive away, due to her age she couldn’t be in her car seat for that long so it would be a four hour journey if we were lucky and she only needed feeding and changing on our stop. Her birth mother didn’t attend beyond the first session, it took a further 13 weeks for arrangements to be changed.

That's bloody ridiculous. I totally believe you but it's mad and I've never come across anything like that (been involved in a LOT of care proceedings) so maybe there is a variation in the culture across different judicial areas.

This all makes me so sad. Poor children. I still don’t understand why they both behaved this way. So far still no mention of mental health or addiction problems, just “alternative lifestyl3”. But living in a small tent in the winter in England with a newborn is not “alternative” just madness (not talking about different cultures obviously). They had access to housing and money!

The one thing I think is being reported unfairly is that CM left her baby in hospital BUT that was to attend a court hearing about care proceedings - yes they were offered a video link but solicitors will often advise it’s better to attend in person (and often the links don’t work and the case goes ahead otherwise) so I do feel she’s being portrayed unfairly in that one instance