Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think this mother should not have been arrested?

258 replies

KeinBock · 17/03/2014 15:02

Apologies if this has been posted before, but this story is just so heartbreaking. The baby is seemingly being adopted against her mother's wishes. Surely any mother would kidnap their own child to prevent this from happening?

OP posts:
FlockOfTwats · 17/03/2014 19:41

YANBU.

FWIW, I'd do the same as her TBh. Only i'd not get caught.

CinnabarRed · 17/03/2014 19:42

OurMiracle - I found your post deeply moving. Very best wishes for the future.

MrsDeVere · 17/03/2014 19:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 17/03/2014 19:45

The problem is Needasock, it generally IS a civil matter unless court orders are in place. It's not for the police to decide where children live. How can they be expected to do that at 8pm on a Friday night, for example?

Quite correct,but I should have been more precise,I'm talking about when the absent parent has no PR or court orders are in place.

Spero · 17/03/2014 19:47

And how would you not get caught?

do you have access to lots of money? Or access to men like Ian Josephs who might give you some money to leave the country?

Because that is what you would have to do.

I understand from what I have read that 'members of the public' tipped off the police and told them where to find the little girl and her mother.

I just don't see HOW you would not 'get caught'

morethanpotatoprints · 17/03/2014 19:48

Spero

I realise this and I'm not suggesting this isn't the case here, but it is just the assumption that many have that frightens me.
I am adopted, my mum did nothing wrong I was just born when society was less tolerant of single mums.
Already we hear daft comments about people believing that dc should be taken into care if parents smoke, are on benefit, unemployed etc.
Whilst the majority don't hold this view, society does get their belief system from people in general.
How long before this is considered normal.

Spero · 17/03/2014 19:53

morethan - all I can do is keep on repeating that it is difficult to get a child subject to a final care order with a plan for adoption.

There must be real evidence that the child is suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm.

See this post.www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/the-law/key-legal-principles/significant-harm-key-legal-principles/

Evil SW CANNOT just 'snatch' cute blue eyed babies to meet completely made up adoption targets for spurious reasons. This is illegal. This doesn't happen.

BUT sadly because there is a group of quite vocal and well connected politicians and journalists who spout their drivel, their nonsense takes on a status of 'truth'.

Its really dangerous and horrible, because it fuels cases like these - the mother would be encouraged NOT to work with SW because they were just after her baby, she had done nothing wrong, she was just a normal, loving mum.

FlockOfTwats · 17/03/2014 19:54

I'm not going to comment on the girls situation. Because i dont know her. Clearly people here do. But if it were me, and the social worker i had (Who was thrown out of court for being incompetant and wasting the judges time when my ex took me to court) had got her way, i certainly wouldn't be telling anyone where i were going. Not a soul. That's her first mistake right there.

Children change remarkably fast. It wouldn't be that hard. People go missing all the time.

I don't trust social services. I've had good experiences, but i've experienced enough of the bad too. I'll never trust them TBH.

Shewonthelpherself · 17/03/2014 20:00

I don't trust SS based on experience - as a victim of sw in 2 counties - they were utterly useless.

Furthermore I think it is absolutely disgusting that any child can be adopted out when NO criminal proceedings have taken place and the parents have not been found guilty in a court of law.

I have been told so many times bout our justice system and the importance of innocent until proven guilty yet we subject parents to life sentences with less burden of proof than we expect of rapists and child abusers.

Plus my experience as a victim tells me when a SW sets down a path they refuse to admit they are or maybe wrong.

Nicknacky · 17/03/2014 20:07

She, what is your suggestion then for children who are repeatedly exposed to harm not amounting to criminal behaviour, and for whom by the time it becomes criminal may be too late?

Do we just let that child suffer when all other avenues have been tried and failed?

MrsDeVere · 17/03/2014 20:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 17/03/2014 20:12

Shewont

Suppose you have a little girl age 5 whose soul parent is her dad. One day she tells her teacher that her daddy put his finger in her vagina. In the same conversation she says there are fairies at the bottom of her garden that give her sweets.

Medical examination shows abuse is likely but not definite.

The experts reckon that it is "more likely than not" that the father has abused her but they are just not sure.

Do you:-

  1. Put him in prison, have her taken into care, eventually adopted
  2. No criminal charges, have her taken into care, eventually adopted
  3. No criminal charges, leave her with daddy???

Spero will confirm but under British law I think 2 would happen.

I agree with this.

He has rights to not be imprisoned for something without evidence.
She has rights to not be left where she is likely to be abused.

Bemused33 · 17/03/2014 20:13

I worked at the contact centre she took the child from! I used to supervise contact. I have no idea how she managed to take the child like that. Anyway ss do take children away for a failure to protect them. Domestic abuse is incredibly harmful to a child even if the child is never touched physically. I assume she did not cut ties with the father or. Boyfriend and he may have a relevant criminal record. It's easy to get emotional about these things but the brutal truth is I would be surprised if it is not the right thing to do for this child.

bochead · 17/03/2014 20:19

It's the children that are handed life sentences when SS muck up, & they do from time to time. A mistake means that a child is ripped from a loving home to be placed where? We just do not have enough information made available to us in this article to judge whether adoption is the right choice for this child, or a terrible tragedy.

Looked after children are all too often not looked after at all, as numerous scandals from Rochdale to Islington have demonstrated to us all. Indeed a quick glance at the number of children in care who leave school with no qualifications, or that go missing never to be seen again tells it's own tale.

If you are rich, white, married and have the right postcode you are far less likely to endure the dark side of SS, no matter what goes on behind closed doors.

YABU - & I'll reserve ALL my compassion for the baby, who on turning 18 may feel totally robbed of the childhood she should have had. She will at least have the comfort of knowing her Mum did everything possible to hang onto her. I'd do what this mother has done if only to make sure that in later years, my child would never ever feel unwanted by myself. Giving my child that last scrap of reassurance possible for me to do, would mean far more to me than any damn law when confronted with the reality of her loss forever. At that point the opinion of wider society would beyond it's capacity to influence me in anyway shape or form.

MrsBW · 17/03/2014 20:42

It's the children that are handed life sentences when SS muck up, & they do from time to time. A mistake means that a child is ripped from a loving home to be placed where? We just do not have enough information made available to us in this article to judge whether adoption is the right choice for this child, or a terrible tragedy.

Looked after children are all too often not looked after at all, as numerous scandals from Rochdale to Islington have demonstrated to us all. Indeed a quick glance at the number of children in care who leave school with no qualifications, or that go missing never to be seen again tells it's own tale.

If you are rich, white, married and have the right postcode you are far less likely to endure the dark side of SS, no matter what goes on behind closed doors.

YABU - & I'll reserve ALL my compassion for the baby, who on turning 18 may feel totally robbed of the childhood she should have had. She will at least have the comfort of knowing her Mum did everything possible to hang onto her. I'd do what this mother has done if only to make sure that in later years, my child would never ever feel unwanted by myself. Giving my child that last scrap of reassurance possible for me to do, would mean far more to me than any damn law when confronted with the reality of her loss forever. At that point the opinion of wider society would beyond it's capacity to influence me in anyway shape or form.

Bold 1 - how do you know whether thats because children were taken into care, rather than events leading up to it?

Bold 2 - except put her child's needs above her own and leave an abusive relationship?

Overly simplistic attitude, putting the rights of the mother over those of the child.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 17/03/2014 20:53

Often just leaving an abusive relationship is not enough.

Spero · 17/03/2014 21:00

Mumoftwo - if a young child was able to make such a clear complaint about what was done to her, I hope criminal charges would follow - because while there may be innocent reasons why a child says they have seen a fairy at the bottom of the garden, I can't think of any 'innocent' explanation for a child clearly explaining that an adult penetrated her with a finger.

But other than that, I agree with your analysis. If we insist on the criminal standard of proof in care proceedings, there will be children who get left with abusers who shouldn't be.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 17/03/2014 21:11

Spero - good point - I've been reading a book by Diane Chamberlain which had that accusation (fiction - but she's an ex social worker) in it which is where it came from but I guess it needed to be less clear.

I think you do an amazing job btw.

Fusedog · 17/03/2014 21:20

poster Mumoftwoyoungkids

It's funny people who have "wrongly had there children" removed in your view don't seem to prove any one wrong and contact is a prime example

do you know that many LA pay BP to have contact with there wow children don't you

And I am afraid all criminal trails would do is give the BP a criminal record so they could not move on and also it would be a certainly that any other children would have to be removed rather than given a chance

namechangesforthehardstuff · 17/03/2014 21:22

Spero just had to pop in and say how amazing it is that you have the energy to do this on posts like this over and over again always patiently, always cogently... As a prospective adopter I'm grateful to you. 'nuff respeck Wink

Honourable mention to Mrs Devere too Smile

OneOfOurLilkasIsMissing · 17/03/2014 21:24

Oh not the old criminal proceedings bollocks again

Sorry if I sound very frustrated, but I am, that this gets tossed out again and again, in the face of the blindingly obvious reasons that you cannot use criminal behaviour as the marker of whether a child should be adopted or not

I mean really, how could you fail to understand why that doesn't work??

Let's say we have a mother with severe learning disabilities who has a baby. She can't look after herself without help, let alone a baby, but her mother can care for the baby. Under this mythical crime only system, the baby can't be taken away from the mother and grow up with the grandmother because guess what, it's not a crime to be profoundly disabled

Or lets say we have a case of sexual abuse, with a young child who, because of the abuse, now has serious emotional problems. There's no good physical evidence of abuse, and it hinges on the childs word against the parents, but the child isn't in a state where they can be a witness in court. Chance of getting a conviction? Let's say the jury have to find not guilty because there's a small amount of doubt. Under this only-convicts-lose-children system, the paedophile parents get to take their child home immediately to abuse them some more

Oh yay. What a great system

Jesus

Fusedog · 17/03/2014 21:24

Add message | Report | Message poster MrsBW Mon 17-Mar-14 20:42:23

Sorry but this is not the case Rochdale happened because children are left with abusive parents far to long then removed when a pre teen

and then because these children are so damaged they are unable to live with in a foster family and can only live in a children's home

However if that same child was removed at the same age this little girl was they might of been adopted a stood a chance

Fusedog · 17/03/2014 21:27

poster OneOfOurLilkasIsMissing

Also it would force children to give evidence against there parents it's means children 3,4,5 years old being cross examined and half the time these children don't even know there being abused often the abuse /neglect is generational and they think it's normal not to brush your teeth of wee on the floor

namechangesforthehardstuff · 17/03/2014 21:35

And Lilka, Lilka deserves a medal too...