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

They would have known she has a Facebook page open and her kids are all over it. They would have known!

Doesn't mean they were involved in her life. I'm sure I read an article where her mum spoke of how Constance had viewed everyone with suspicion and distrust and that several attempts at reaching out and offering help before had been shut down

Its difficult when parents refuse to give contact details, the courts will be aware of this and will sometimes direct parties to share that information, nothing happens if they refuse of course

There are ways of finding people's iformation and contact details, not always successfully, in this case though the family are not that anonymous so they would have been able to be found quite easily I would imagine

The issue really comes to the fore when you are seeking the ADM decision within the LA. the ADM needs to be convinced that nothing else will do, there is no other option but for this child to be adopted out of their birth family, severing all legal ties. They want to know and see the efforts involved and taken to see if this child could be placed with a family member, what have you done, how have you done it, what assessments were done, etc etc

Only if there is no other option will adoption be agreed as the plan and then the LA can take this to the court as the care plan to see if the Judge will order this.

I’m only answering whether they would have known. I’m sure they would have been aware.

Oh wow - that’s brilliant! It’s been a few years since I left frontline social care so haven’t been keeping tabs.

Thanks @soupfiend , that clears it up for me (in general terms, obviously we don't know what happened in this specific case) - sounds like normal practice would be for all efforts to be made to contact extended family.

@GaroTheMushroom I meant they might not have known the children were being taken into care - I do remember reading that she'd joined Facebook groups which were critical of Social Services, but haven't heard that she announced her situation there.

@ClaraMumsnet In agreement with the OP, if it’s safer to remove this thread then please do so. I don’t think anyone commenting on here wants to see the case fall apart, or get into trouble themselves.

They want to know and see the efforts involved and taken to see if this child could be placed with a family member, what have you done, how have you done it, what assessments were done, etc etc.

What if the family members refuse to take the children? I’m not sure what the ADM is (I’ve googled it but couldn’t find anything) presumably it’s to do with adoption - but would they put pressure on the family members to take the children?

ADM is agency decision maker. A senior manager/panel who are responsible for deciding whether the local authority can make an application to place a child for adoption.

Family members are only assessed if they choose to be. We never pressure family to be assessed as alternative carers for children.

RowanMayfair thank you.

Its not about forcing a family member, its about what conversations and work took place and yes revisiting that several times if someone feels they might be able to but then doesnt follow through or changes their mind, what support might they need to be able to do it, has everything been thoroughly explored, sometimes you need to go back to them several times through the proceedings (because they are very long sometimes) to double/triple check over and over again what their position is.

Sometimes no doubt those members feel pressurised by the constant contact from us or meetings held that they are invited to, but ultimately this is about a child that has no say in what happens to their future.

ADM is the Agency Decision Maker. Each LA has several and a whole host of evidence needs to be put to them to gain permission to present a care plan of adoption.

Thank you soupfiend

Most women who have DC taken into the system have very low IQs. Only 10 per cent of mothers who lose DC have normal
intelligence.

Before anyone howls Rude!, I’m mumbling the unsaid because it’s horribly sad. The system can’t fix it. Addiction and illness can be cleared up. Not so much, low general capabilities.

Anyway, no one needs, or should need, to be a brainbox to keep a baby healthy. But the problem is with us - and unlikely to
improve.

The bar for learning difficulties that trigger support is set really, really low. Even if it wasn’t, the help out there is rightly limited. Judges can’t sign off on a fleet of 24-hr Norland nannies, a driver and a housekeeper paid by the council.

By law you need to be able to parent your children yourself, not just outsource them. The parenting test is ‘to a barely adequate standard’.

Childcare’s clearly the most outsourced job on the planet, but it’s meant to be through choice, not incapacity.

The other great unsaid is that dodgy decisions can kick off chaos if you haven’t got any money. Dodgy choices are more likely if you can’t protect yourself from awful partners or think ahead. Bad decisions aren’t so bad if you & family can afford them.

Often, judges praise parents very heavily in cases involving the above - it’s nothing short of heroic to accept you’ve bitten off more than you can chew, for reasons you can’t control. And to hand over what you love so tenderly.

Just so sad, I echo the pp who said social services had done a good job re the other kids

Im not sure about the statistics quoted there about low IQ. I would say its more like 50%.

Yes this certainly isn't my professional experience. In the past 4 adoptions I've been involved with one involved parents with low IQ (not under the LD threshold however) and 3 involved parents with average IQ and various other issues.

Im saying 50% as a ball park figure based on recent cases. It would be interesting to know proper stats, but its not 10% thats for sure.

I've just re-read the post about IQ and see the poster said DC taken into care not adopted.
10% is really not an accurate statistic. Way, way off. Most removals are because of domestic abuse, drug abuse and mental health conditions that lead to severe neglect.

If this was a tv drama, it would seem unbelievable.

Strange that everyone thinks they know how and what the family of Constance are capable of, should or even what they are doing without knowing any of the details. It’s very easy to judge, especially with a family that comes from wealth. Maybe we all should let the courts deal with the judgement. The identities of the other children must be protected and speculating about where they are, what the rest of the family does is sensational, hateful, nosy gossip and is utterly unhelpful.

I think this conversation is best left until after the case is closed.

Funny thing is people have been this dismissive all along even denying there were previous children taken into care and stating they would never have done anything that would harm their baby 🙄

Strange that everyone thinks they know how and what the family of Constance are capable of, should or even what they are doing without knowing any of the details.

Also, why is it just her family? What about his?

doesn't seem there's anything to blame on the mum's upbringing

@flernei this is such a strange thing to say. What is your conclusion based on? Having money and a big house absolutely does not correlate with a good upbringing at all. Some privileged families produce stable children and some don’t, just like middling or poor families. If you believe that a big house protects you from instability or unhappiness then you have a poor understanding of psychology.

There are umpteen examples of privileged families producing troubled children. And that shouldn’t be a surprise. Money and a big house do not confer happiness. It’s a cliche because it’s true.

No