To wonder if social services are involved?

[HickDead]

I'll probably get flamed for this but finding the whole situation desperately sad for the child(ren?) involved. Who does this and in the full glare of the media too, I'm getting that they are two damaged individuals but come on, this is awful if true!

www.google.co.uk/amp/metro.co.uk/2017/07/05/jeremy-mcconnell-confirms-stephanie-davis-pregnancy-and-truth-behind-horrific-hotel-fight-6756942/amp/

It's pretty depressing.

I must admit, at first I though they were putting on a "stormy" relationship act to make money from their z-list tabloid careers.

It's gone far beyond that tho :-( Poor babies.

Totally agree with Will.

She may be a shit parent to her 6mo and that may be relevant to SS, but she is not a parent to her unborn baby until it is born and until then what she does is her business and no one else's.

She might have a termination, and then whose business would it be? No one's.

will I am literally doing pre birth assessments at work right now and have a legal planning meeting next week to consider whether we will issue care proceedings once the baby is born. One of the main arguments for/against will be the mother's engagement in treatment services.

Pre birth assessments are an integral part of social services work and babies can and are put on child protection plans when still in utero.
You are wrong, utterly wrong, to say it's no business of social services if a mother drinks or uses drugs when pregnant.

You did not state from a legal stand point though you just said it was no ones business and it is bloody every ones business if a woman is getting sloshed whilst carrying a child.

It is very relevant to her 6mos old child if she's beating people up and getting sloshed especially whilst preggers and especially when the person she beat was the children's father.

but she is not a parent to her unborn baby until it is born and until then what she does is her business and no one else's

How irresponsible would it be for socia services not to intervene until babies are born? How would that be in the interests of either the baby or the mum?

We don't start pre birth assessments until after 24 weeks.

Both a pair of arseholes of you ask me and it won't be like no until they r both back on this morning! So tragic I feel sorry for the babies!

You did not state from a legal stand point though you just said it was no ones business and it is bloody every ones business if a woman is getting sloshed whilst carrying a child

From every standpoint. It's not your business. It's not anyone's business.

Once you make the contents of a uterus everyone's business you are in serious trouble.

Will
Do you understand that social services can and do intervene with pregnant women (once past the legal abortion limit and the point of viability) because they will be mothers to a vulnerable newborn not because they are carrying a foetus?
Do you understand that the purpose of the intervention is to prepare them to safely care for the baby after it is born not to police their behaviour when pregnant?

I remember them posting a video of them a couple of months ago when they were feeding Caben baby rice. He looked completely puzzled as to what was happening. It was like they were playing famiies

will and others who are doubting this - Social Services can and will commence child protection procedures at 20 weeks pregnancy. An unborn child can be made subject to a child protection plan, and whilst you are correct that no-one can force the mother to comply, if she doesn't, and particularly if there is history of non-compliance this can go to court pre-birth with agreement to remove a child at birth.

I'm not suggesting that the removal at birth is the norm, just that it can and does happen, and that a pre birth CP plan is very common in instances where a woman with alcohol/drugs issues/known DV books in her pregnancy as medical staff have a duty to refer to SOcial services.

It's not untrue. It is no business of SS WHILE she is still pregnant.

But it is untrue Will. I posted a link up there which confirms it. It's not unknown for unborn children are the subject of child protection in utero. They refer to them as Unborn Surname in the proceedings. I know this because I've been involved in 2 cases to date (from a health perspective).

Drink and alcohol dependence is one of the reasons SS can get involved. We're not talking about a glass of wine now and then obviously, but a mother who they feel is dependent on alcohol.

What goes on in society is everyone's business.

Why can't you get that?

*Drugs and alcohol dependence

I think she should be nicked for what she has done to his face and for that level of violence. His injuries are terrible

I'm glad people are coming onto this post to clarify the position regarding protection of unborn child in general terms. Specifically I hope this mother and mother to be is offered the support she patently needs.

What goes on in society is everyone's business. Why can't you get that?

A womans uterus is not society and has nothing to do with society and is not your business. Why can't you get that?

To disagree with me means you think women should be forcibly stopped from living their lives as they choose while they are pregnant. You would have to lock them up for 9 months.
You are quite right, a woman cannot be locked up for the duration of her pregnancy to prevent her from drinking or taking drugs. She cannot be forced to comply.
However, Social Services can and do take action to remove the baby from her care at birth if she has made no effort to protect her unborn baby from alcohol.
It very much IS Social Services' business

It is no business of SS WHILE she is still pregnant. She doesn't have to engage with them in anyway. They can act AFTER she is pregnant, when there is an extant child.Not before.
You are just plain wrong. She doesn't have to engage with them - that is correct, but they will still have a case file open and they can begin proceedings to have the child removed at birth if she does refuse to engage.

Will would you care to respond to any of my posts at all?

Will do you accept that the baby could be removed at birth in these kinds of circumstances?
If so (which is an inescapable fact) then you must accept that SS involvement must begin before birth.

Oh lord, its painful, it really is. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Nobody can do anything about a woman drinking in pregnancy if she chooses to do it.
All this SS stuff you are talking about is what happens the the foetus when it is born, not before. You are actually agreeing with me!

Well obviously they can't remove the child before it's born Will, that would be impossible. But to say SS can't have concerns or take any action to immediately ensure the safety of the child as soon as possible isn't true. They can't take the child or force the mother not to be a selfish dick to stop drinking during pregnancy, no, but they CAN have involvement/interest during pregnancy, and they can make decisions for post birth based on choices made during pregnancy. Hope that clears things up.

No doubt SS will be involved due to her current child she has and no doubt will continue to be involved when her baby is born. As harsh as it sounds she would better off terminating and focus on being a single mother to her child she has with help with her MH problems. Both behaviours have been appalling but if he's went for her first she was within her rights to use reasonable force to protect herself and unborn child I would have done the same if a partner attacked me when pregnant. That been said no one knows who went for who they post photos of their injuries for social media, it's evident there's extreme violence on both sides for such a short relationship with a baby involved.

Nobody can do anything about a woman drinking in pregnancy if she chooses to do it.
Nobody has argued that they could

All this SS stuff you are talking about is what happens the the foetus when it is born, not before. You are actually agreeing with me!
No, we are not in agreement at all because this is just wrong. In order for SS to remove the baby at birth, they have to be involved BEFORE the birth. The mother may refuse to cooperate and she cannot be forced to cooperate but it is most definitely their business and they will begin the process before the birth. The protection order will be put into place while she is pregnant.

But my feelings are not relevant and neither are yours. The only person who can decide whether to drink or take drugs is the person themselves, and we cannot stop them.

I think this is a load of rubbish. Social pressure and social attitudes are an important and influential part of society and have the power to make huge changes. For example it is now almost totally socially acceptable for mother's to work or people to be gay or to have sex outside marriage when going back 40, 50 years they were not really acceptable or completely taboo.

It's not always a negative thing, social attitudes have made it unacceptable to be openly racist or homophobic.

I would say that doing something likely to cause another serious harm like drinking heavily when pregnant forms a positive part of that, social pressure not to do it forms an important deterrent.