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

There’s always a few people who blame everyone or anything other than the people who actually are at fault.

Deluded (but think superior).

Be under no illusion that this is a terribly traumatic trial to listen to and read about. It's a justice system. It's not an entertainment channel.

I'm not being daft. Do you struggle with reading comprehension? Or expressing your thoughts clearly? If you weren't comparing living in a tent to an unheated house why would you ask that question?

I listened to a podcast on tb Joshua who ran the cult CM was said to have been in and the stories on there were horrific so if that's true it would go a long way to explaining why she had such an odd worldview. From what she has said so far she struggled with anxiety and a persecution complex believing that her family were tracking her and professionals would barge in and take her baby at any moment.

She spoke about her family being bigoted and not accepting MG or their children and using or withholding her trust fund to control her, there was obviously a connection with MG and she felt she had to choose between them and cut them off to escape their control. So far it seems to me that she is vulnerable and was in a constant state of panic the whole time they were in hiding. People speak about her being privileged but coming from a background where she could have whatever she wanted and being shielded from a lot of "normal people" struggles would very likely cause her to feel completely unequipped and out of her depth when faced with the real world. Add trauma and probable mental health issues to that and you get a situation that the rest of us will struggle to comprehend, sadly with an utterly tragic outcome. I'm not saying any of what she did was right but I can't condemn her

If the unheated house had mold and a pestilence issue would you be happy for a newborn baby to go back there?

If the flat was in a neighbourhood with drug crime related issues would you be happy for a newborn to go back there?

Be of no doubt that there's hundreds of thousands of homes that are not fit for human habitation.

@placemats i thought that over the last few days so many kids being brought up in less that ideal surroundings I think her family have put a lot of pressure on the situation which I dont think would of happened with a less privileged family.

They also removed the children because of DV in the household. I can’t believe people here are seriously defining living in a tent wirh a newborn in winter without appropriate sleeping bags, clothes, hats, gloves etc. you really think that’s an appropriate Environment for a newborn? 🤦🏻‍♀️ and please let’s not compare to the ice ages or people living in igloos. What a silly comparison.

The reason I believe CM can't change is that she was told in her first pregnancy that living in a tent is dangerous and 5 babies later she's still convinced that their choices were safe and that they looked after the baby well enough and that it's other people's fault that she died. Despite the literal worst thing happening she doesn't take responsibility for their choices. What kind of support does anyone think would have made a difference to this couple? Sometimes there just isn't a magic combination of words that can be said to get through to people. People are usually willing to accept this fact when talking about domestically abusive men, but struggle to accept it when talking about mothers/parents.

@Sonora25 i don't think they are making that comparison, that was Constance.

Read back placemats posts.

if RowanMayfair is a social worker, I’m certain she’ll be well aware of the extent of unsuitable housing, drug deals, danger and more. That’s not the issue here. We have two parents whose 4 older children have long term care plans. That doesn’t happen without extensive attempts to work with parents before and during care proceedings. This pregnancy was concealed, baby’s welfare never checked by medics. The images of her crying, wearing only a baby grow , living in a cold festival type tent - how can that be the responsibility of anyone other than her parents.

they’re clearly ‘vulnerable’ but that doesn’t mean they’re freed of responsibility for the decisions made

Someone here said we survived the ice ages, well many babies died. Read up on statistics of child and infant mortality (and health issues) of inuit and other populations living in igloos and similar, and it’s very naive to think and say it’s an appropriate environment for a newborn.

Not even to mention that this baby had no appropriate winter clothes or even a hat. 💔

CM comes across at best as wilfully naive and at worst, as thick as pigshit.

Yes, there are children living in tents in Mongolia. Those are children whose families have been nomads for thousands of years and are experts at surviving the conditions of their environment. Their children are dressed appropriately for the weather, and they live in yurts, which are semi-permanent structures which can be heated with fires and stoves. This is a world away from a shitty tent you’d throw away after a long weekend at Latitude. And despite the appropriate clothing and expertise in living in very harsh conditions, the infant mortality rate is unsurprisingly still much higher in Mongolia than the UK.

“CM comes across at best as wilfully naive and at worst, as thick as pigshit.”

probably a bit of both combined with entitlement and delusion. Still can’t get over her moaning over her trust fund and that her family didn’t buy her a house and then saying her family are bigoted.

But babies and children do die in unsafe and unsuitable housing, notwithstanding of course that the parent does everything they can.

Be of no doubt that I'm as shocked about this case as everyone else.

placemats - yes children die in unsafe unsuitable housing, notwithstanding parents, social workers etc doing everything they can to get effective help. Forgive me but that’s a political issue, not the same as what led to the awful death of this defenceless dependent baby

It is such a sad case. What I would like to understand is why, when faced with social care AGAIN and AGAIN, they carried on with the same pattern. The children weren’t removed all at the same time. Two were removed at birth - one of which was the one she wouldn’t have the Covid test for, to re-enter the hospital.

what on earth is the thinking there?Does anyone have any insight into how people come to the conclusion that their actions are sensible, when literally everything points to the consequences being catastrophic?

https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/post-natal-depression/overview/

I can't help but think that's it's unresolved PND.

Probably because the worst thing that can happen to a parent, after the death of their child, is the loss of their child by removal. It's not as simple as saying 'they knew what the outcome would be if they had another child'. They obviously knew that this baby would be taken at birth which explains their actions during the pregnancy, birth and afterwards. But the desire to parent one of their children was so strong that they risked it. I've been following the trial and they had a plan to go abroad after a certain amount of time although had not thought that through enough to realise that they wouldn't have been able to get a passport for the baby without a birth certificate. And I know that I'm going to get slated for what I'm about to say but I do get it and feel sorry for them. Losing their children would have caused unimaginable pain and trauma no matter who's 'fault' it was. Of course it goes without saying that the consequences of their choices were devastating for the baby involved. It was extremely unfortunate (for them and as a result baby Victoria) that a series of events from the burning of their car to being effectively hunted down by the police, press and public to a degree, led to their baby's death. Of course baby Victoria would still be alive if she had been removed at birth but the same could be said if they had not been on the run and able to live in a safe, environment with her. But I can see why, given their experiences with agencies, they had no contact with any throughout the pregnancy and afterwards. I am in no way condoning what they did, how could anyone given the outcome? But I am trying to answer your question as to why they did what they did. In her eyes, Constance was doing everything she could to keep this baby and to keep her safe i.e not removed from her care. It's just such a sad story for all involved.

I've been listening to the 'In Court' podcast on BBC Sounds and it's interesting to hear about MG, his behaviour when arrested and later when questioned, his somewhat grandiose statements about only answering questions in front of a jury and then not testifying last week.

Any views on him as the focus has largely been on CM or the couple? She seems overly concerned about his welfare at times and wants to protect him, perhaps understandably considering his criminal record.

There are two adults involved here.

In her eyes, Constance was doing everything she could to keep this baby and to keep her safe
Yet hadn't the simple wit to dress her appropriately.

What Jacqueline1970 has said is also true, (and kinder) but I don't think they ever think about 'sensible.' They live in fantasy's as the central characters, make poor choices and then justify them and develop sound bite narratives about everything being everyone but their fault. They never take actual responsibility, they have no taste or often training for it. Its actually harder for those with a background of choices to reject. They believe those working for the authorities are automatically wrong and below them. But I'm somewhat prejudiced.

On my way up I've met a few women from comfortable backgrounds who were wholeheartedly embracing sliding downwards by choice. All centered their universe around some 'misunderstood' sorry arsed bloke who 'understood them' but did little more than impregnate and drift.
They squatted and did festival circuits as Freegan New Ager types and rejected contraception amongst other things.

They looked down on and were quick to criticize those squatting from homelessness, battling to create normal homes, and keep children clean and well turned out, and gain better lives. They sneered at bleach, soap and bedtimes and were contemptuous about money or stability or relatives wanting to help their children.

They saw precarious living, as some adventure, alternative, political, and every part they disliked was proof of one or more conspiracy against them.
Every last one of them was self centered, self assured, and lacked basic common sense, especially over their kids. They were the ones who stayed put for eviction day so they could use their scared kids as props to their protests and would be put onto the street and then start looking for another abandoned property, even though we'd been to court got bailiff dates, and peacefully moved, protecting our kids from the realities. We'd end up having to take their kids in while they found somewhere, and 9 times out of 10, they'd take advantage of it..

Oh I agree that what they did with Victoria, child #5 makes total sense in the light of the other removed children. It’s mind blowing that things got this far though - dreadful decision making. Surely the penny should have dropped way earlier that if a social worker says “jump” in these circumstances you say “how high?”

They children were removed one by one and they didn’t always show up for contact visits. The numerous cars that would all break down, the endless burner phones, giving birth unassisted a few times - all stuff that makes social services climb all over ANYONE, yet they believed they were right.

And bizarrely that by explaining their unorthodox views in court, and their inability/unwillingness to ever properly engage with social care, they think they can persuade a jury that their actions were not reckless.

Yes. In her eyes she was caring for the baby sufficiently. But in reality she was not, and the baby died. I feel sorry for the pair too. They have had a shitty time and will have a shitty future. Having your baby die is horrific however it happens. Carrying her body around must have been traumatic. But they caused her death, by terrible decisions they made, starting before the baby was born. The fact that they had a plan is irrelevant really when it was a totally impractical and dangerous plan from the start. The other aspect that this perspective overlooks is that Victoria would almost certainly have been at risk of significant harm even if the couple had cared for her in a house. Whatever the circumstances of the removal of the first 4 children likely persisted.