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

[Nokidsnoproblem]

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.

There is lots to stop you just vanishing, if you fail to turn up to probation meetings, or lie to a probation officer (not tell them about a relationship or pregnancy) then they have power of entry and can send out a warrant for your arrest in a heart beat.

They are not the joyous little tea and cake meetings that some seem to think!

Of course she should be sterilised!

I'm amazed at the posters that think she can be rehabilitated. She is an evil individual who shouldn't have the option to have another child.

How do you know sleepingbunnies?

Have you worked with her?

Also I'm not sure anyone has said they believe she can be rehabilitated.

People have talked in general terms about one of the basic principles of our judicial system: that rehabilitation is possible. I'm not sure if anyone has categorically stated that in her case it is possible, because no-one has mentioned being personally involved in her case and therefore not qualified to make such a statement.

No we cannot sterilise her. Having said that I think there have been a small number of sterilisations of severely mentally handicapped but sexually active adults. From what I recall it was in a situation where the adults had no understanding that what they did made babies and would have had no possibility of being able to keep the babies, even with huge support.

For the Tracey Connollys I think we have to move from the idea of keeping the family together to the idea the children are the first priority. Early intervention and permanent separation needs to be on the agenda.

There is so much research showing early neglect causes damage which is most likely irreparable.

Sleepingbunnies There is a huge difference between not forcibly sterilising her and allowing her to have another child. The two are not the same thing.

basil no I haven't worked with her

soupdragon I get that, but if SS will have to remove the baby at birth anyway I don't understand why sterilising her is all that different (apart from the obvious operation etc). Either way she should never have the chance to have another child after what she did.

Extreme and prolonged cruelty to a child should carry with it as a given automatic sterilisation. Of course, if those who committed were given a lengthy prison sentence, then the issue would not arise.

That is not the same as saying that anyone with a mental deficiency should be sterilised unless it leads to extreme and prolonged cruelty to a child.

"Extreme and prolonged cruelty to a child should carry with it as a given automatic sterilisation. Of course, if those who committed were given a lengthy prison sentence, then the issue would not arise."

Permament sterilistion is often irreversible and the UK has a poor record for miscarriages of justice. I do think that there is a case for chopping the balls of the men who raped Tracy Conelly's two year old daughter. However we live in the UK and not some despot state with medieval punishments.

There is a tenency in these child cases to forgot about the men who are every bit as vile as the mothers.

I don't understand why sterilising her is all that different

Because it is forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure and that is a very slippery slope IMO. There is also the miscarriage of justice thing too.

Those of you who think it's acceptable to sterilise people for abusing children, why not sterilise murderers of adults too? Many adults are equally as defenceless as children.

People have disabilities - especially LD and MH - would be targeted by a 'policy' of enforced sterilisation.

Because candy the murderers of other adults have not murdered a child doh. I think child murder is much worse in catergory than adult murder. Children are innocents and do not have a voice or any ability to fight back from the abuse they have suffered.

Never did i say all people with mh issues should be sterlised but people that kill children should be.

soupdragon I think there is obviously evidence that in this case it 100% would not be a miscarriage of justice don't you?

The trouble is sleepingbunnies it's never just one case is it? As I said before, where does it stop, who decides and who keeps an eye on those making the decisions?

pumpkin Firstly, many adults are innocent and do not have the ability to fight back e.g. adults with limited capacity or low IQ or perhaps very mentally unwell.

Secondly, I did not say that you said people with MH issues should be sterilised but I am saying that they would be targeted eventually.

No, I wouldn't leave my child with her. However, I wouldn't leave her with anyone on here, either, because I don't know you. I don't think that argument especially holds water.

Some of the comments on this thread have been quite interesting.

My opinion, however, has not changed. TC is still a very young woman. I truly hope that she has been rehabilitated and has been able to start grieving for her child. However, she should never ever be allowed alone with children ever again. She had several chances to prove herself to be a good mother, she failed every time. No more chances. She should be in jail, or free and unable to reproduce.