Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think it would be kinder to sterilise Baby P's mother?

142 replies

Nokidsnoproblem · 13/10/2013 11:16

I've been thinking about this since the other day. On the Baby P thread many poster's were saying that if Tracy were to get pregnant again then the baby would be removed at birth.

However I cannot help but think that the more sensible option would be to not release her until she agrees to be sterilised?

This may seem cruel, however she has unfortunately proven that she is not capable of looking after a child. Any child she brings into the world will be taken into the care system, where there are already thousands of children needing a home.

Unfortunately there is no perfect way to deal with a case like this. You will get criticism whatever your opinion. However I feel that this would be the kindest option for all involved.

OP posts:
Lazysuzanne · 13/10/2013 15:58

Of course my gut reaction is that never mind sterilisation she should be euthanised, but rationally I know that there are no simple solutions when it comes to people who commit heinous crimes

mrsjay · 13/10/2013 16:00

I must have missed that post you are right Dawn where would it end it just doesn't seem fair that women can get pregnant and have babies regardless

SoupDragon · 13/10/2013 16:08

is there not optional chemical castration for paedophiles in the UK as part of rehabilitation?

Note the word optional in your question.

WorriedMomtolovelyDD · 13/10/2013 16:10

It has all been done before. The US and UK governments were both in favor of compulsory sterilization for people that they thought were not suitable for breeding. Some of the leaders at the time made statements that could easily have been attributed to Hitler. So no, I do not think that she should be sterilized.

dipitydoyou · 13/10/2013 16:17

I do not condone forced sterilisation.

However I truly hope she never goes on to have any more children.

She stood by and did nothing for months as Barker tortured and then killed her son, she did not raise the alarm, she did not seek help she instead went out of her way to cover it up. And (iirc) she also stood by and did nothing as he raped her 2 yr old DD.

I can't say i'm confident that say six years down the line, Connelly gets pregnant, she has a job, she has a partner she is seen as 'settled'. I'm not confident that at that point any SW would take her baby away from her. I do not think she should be allowed to have the chance to mother any other children when she let the ones she already gave birth to down so so badly.

so I don't know what the answer is really Sad

CerealMom · 13/10/2013 16:34

My mum fostered for 20+ years. I have heard stuff from my foster siblings that would make you all weep. Make you sad, make you sickened.

  • So no, I don't think anyone has a 'right' to be a parent.

There was a radio 4 programme on years ago. It was about the children who were removed from their parents and how the adoptive parents coped with a rage of difficult behaviours caused by the abuse/neglect.

I remember one adoptive mum spoke about the difficulties of her children. They ranged in age from toddler upwards, all siblings. The older ones couldn't be left at birthday parties for example. The all ate until they were sick. They had all been starved so badly that it had damaged the 'full' receptor in their brain. They just couldn't stop.

This particular set of siblings had been removed when one had been killed by a parent. I think it's why this particular programme stuck in my mind. The years of misery for those children only stopped when one of them was murdered. Who knows if either of their birth parents has children now. Hopefully, they don't.

pumpkinsweetie · 13/10/2013 16:42

It's awful cereal and i agree with you, some people should not have the right to procreate for the future childs sake.

It's time children were put first, if a man or woman are proven to be an ultimate danger then i think sterilisation can only be a good thing if a life sentence or the death penalty cannot be used.

Dawndonnaagain · 13/10/2013 16:58

So pumpkin how do we decide who has the right and who doesn't? Which mental illnesses count as dangerous?
What about people in my situation, my mother of the double barrelled surname, local headteacher, abusive bitch from hell, she who told the police that I was an attention seeking, mentally ill child?
More importantly Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

candycoatedwaterdrops · 13/10/2013 17:25

Peter's mother was a product of severe neglect herself. I am not and will never ever condone her behaviour but I think people could do with remembering that.

BasilBabyEater · 13/10/2013 17:28

Yep, I think it's a bit of a cop out to say that the way we should deal with abused children, is to sterilise them rather than ensure we have systems in place to ensure that they don't repeat the cycle of abuse.

Unambitious to say the least.

thebody · 13/10/2013 17:33

no I don't agree with forced sterilisations but in my opinion she and the other men involved should not be out to feel the sun in their faces. they should still be locked up.

unspeakable evil deserves punishment not understanding or empathy.

many children world wide suffer far worse upbringings than Tracey Connoly and still go on to bring up their children to be well adjusted loved and cared for.

I have no sympathy for child tortures and killers.

Lazysuzanne · 13/10/2013 17:44

I think the point of understanding unspeakable evil is to try and work out how people become like that and try and prevent other becoming evil.

GiveItYourBestShot · 13/10/2013 18:07

But basil, the systems we have are failing badly. Haringey Council have been rightly criticised for failing to protect Baby P but a lot of people did try hard to support TC and break the cycle. She prevented Peter's dad from becoming his carer by making allegations of abuse against him which he was never given the opportunity to deny. Once they were on record he was ruled out of becoming Peter's carer. That's what I can't understand - if you don't want to love and protect your child, why not let someone else do it? I can understand being neglectful, if you had a bad childhood yourself and have no good role models, but I can't understand deliberate malice.

BasilBabyEater · 13/10/2013 18:18

Oh yes, I totally agree the systems are failing. But I do think we should have them and I think they should be better funded and made more effective. In reality, the systems we have are really half-arsed and only really scratch the surface of what needs to be done to help people break the cycle of abuse. But that is incredibly expensive and difficult and intensive and it's much easier to just sterilise someone. But I don't think we should go the easy route in this case.

BasilBabyEater · 13/10/2013 18:22

Sorry when I say this case I mean in the case of people who come from abusive backgrounds who need support to break the cycle, not in this specific Tracey Connolly case - I don't have a fixed opinion on that.

Scarlettsstars · 13/10/2013 18:40

No you're not being unreasonable, you're being Oswald Moseley. There are always people guilty of unspeakable evil but to add mutilation into the options in the criminal justice system would make the uk no better than countries like Saudi Arabia and the PRC. The correlation between the existence of state powers to bring about corporeal and capital punishment and horrifying human rights abuses internationally isn't a coincidence.

handcream · 13/10/2013 19:25

I have a question to those who think she should be given a chance in x number of years to keep a child.

Would you trust her unsupervised with YOUR child......

BasilBabyEater · 13/10/2013 19:33

No-one has said that she should be given the chance in x years to have a child.

People have said that one of the principles of our justice system, is that rehabilitation is possible.

At the same time our justice system also recognises that in some cases, rehabilitation will never be an outcome.

None of us know which category Tracey Connolly falls into.

mrsjay · 13/10/2013 19:40

Nobody really said she should have a child in years to come most said she shouldnt have more children by the terrible facts we know

pumpkinsweetie · 13/10/2013 19:44

I don't think it matters how many years away it maybe, she shouldn't ever have children. She will never pay for her mistakes and she will never be safe around children.
A mother that sits by and watches can go on to do exactly the same again.

She put a man first before her own child and let him get battered to death.

FortyDoorsToNowhere · 13/10/2013 19:44

Can I ask a geninuing question.

If she does get pregnant and don't tell anyone, has an unassisted child birth. How would SS or anybody know.

filee777 · 13/10/2013 19:47

She will have to see a probation officer every week, her being pregnant will be pretty obvious.

FortyDoorsToNowhere · 13/10/2013 19:49

Would regular pregnancy test be given as part of probation

mrsjay · 13/10/2013 19:50

she will have a probation officer for years and maybe an adult social worker saying that there is nothing stopping her just vanishing but i don't think she will she probably wont have the skills to do that IYSWIM

TSSDNCOP · 13/10/2013 19:59

Handcream I wouldn't leave that wicked, emotionally corrupt beast unsupervised with anything at all, let alone anything living.