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/

There is no case for per birth involvement when the only issue is drinking in pregnancy. And if you pretend you do that I call liar

So your issue is around thresholds? Because mine was a point of principle around whether or not it is the 'business' of social services if a pregnant woman is drinking. Of course we wouldn't be involved unless the drinking was clearly problematic and dependent in nature. But that doesn't change the point that you were wrong.

Rinabean oh my god yourself. Will said that drinking in pregnancy is none of social services business. Nothing at all about whether the woman engages or her level of participation. She said 'it's nobody's business, not even social services'. Which is wrong. And untrue. And not what you have paraphrased her as saying.

So Auto it's ok to drink and take drugs that will severely damage an unborn child. There is an abortion limit I'm talking about a baby that has been born with fetal alcohol syndrome and disabilities not one that has been aborted. Hard as it may be for you to believe some of us still believe in the sanctity of life.

Yes Chester it is ok. That's the way the law stands. I don't get what's so hard to understand really?

Abortion is illegal where I come from. There has been many threads on the topic and I don't want to derail this one. But just reminding you that there is a part of the UK where woman are not given the same rights.

I know. It's a terrible shame

Chestervase1 no, you absolutely aren't allowed to believe in the sanctity of life on MN, because apparently it means you are an evil misogynist who want to deny women their rights. Not that you just have a different opinion.

YADNBU. I feel so sorry for their little baby, and if she is pregnant their unborn one too. They are an absolute pair of idiots.

wombling it's not really about opinion is it? The discussion is about how There is no way to stop her drinking when pregnant.

You thinking that she shouldnt isn't really relevant

From 2014. (FWIW I don't think a woman should be criminalised for drinking during pregnancy)

"The Court of Appeal heard a landmark test case this week to decide whether a mother owes compensation to her child, which was born with foetal alcohol syndrome, on the basis that the child was a victim of a crime.

The Offences Against the People Act 1861, s23 makes it a crime to maliciously administer a ‘poison or other destructive or noxious thing’ to another person so as to endanger life or cause grievous bodily harm.

It is argued by the local authority, in whose care the child now is, that the mother was so reckless in her consumption of alcohol during pregnancy that this constitutes poisoning.

At present Parliament has never enacted any laws which purposely criminalise the actions of pregnant women, although this is not the case in the US, where mothers can be sent to prison"

metro.co.uk/2014/11/06/alcohol_pregnancy-4936034/

I remember that case- it didn't get anywhere though did it?

Autofillcontact I haven't got the intelligence to get into a morals and ethics argument, but it's not that I think she shouldn't, it's that I think it should be illegal.

@Autofillcontact - not it didn't, and I agree with the Court's decision.

It really does become a slippery slope and where do you draw the line?

The Poll results are fairly even though. 53% 'No' and 47% 'Yes'

Personally I think it's great that something like this is playing out in the media. Not great for the children obviously but great in the sense that it educates people.
There are fools who look up to these z listers, if even a few of them have gained awareness about domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse then that's a positive.
People in the public eye are not above the law anymore than Joe average.

People in the public eye are not above the law anymore than Joe average

they should not be but in some cases it seems they are,they are not treated the same as me and you and there is no level playing field as i see it

I don't think Will is being at all controversial.

In the US a few years' ago a woman got arrested because she tried to kill herself while pregnant. So it was protection of the unborn child. UK does not do that. I understand that is all that is being stated.

THE issue that I and others have disagreed with Will about is the stated view that it is 'no business' of social services if a pregnant woman is drinking.
Obviously with the caveat that it has to be problematic drinking, that is absolutely wrong. Will has made some other later points about bodily autonomy but they are essentially straw men since the issue people disagreed on was not bodily autonomy of pregnant women, but rather whether social services can or should get involved pre birth due to alcohol misuse.

Um yeh it's ss business. The dv will trigger the referral if there isn't one already. The foetus is at risk already and the caben baby too.

I'm on the fence whether there would be a pre birth or straight to an initial child protection conference.

Toxic trio of dv/alcohol abuse and mental health issues definitely present here plus dad drug abuse.

It's true you can't stop idiots taking heroin when they are pregnant but you can get a court order and remove the baby at birth luckily.

Autofillcontact I really don't have to defend myself to you or explain myself. I am not talking either about the occasional glass of wine or drink. However if a woman puts her unborn child at risk of disability or long term harm I think it is everyone's business as someone somewhere inevitably has to pick up the pieces and care for that child. I think you are being obtuse asking why it is difficult for me understand.

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. But you seemed to be surprised and confused that no one can stop a pregnant woman getting drunk and I still don't understand why? Did you think they could be arrested or something?

Can't be arrested - that's an immediate consequence but there are longer term consequences for wilfully putting a foetus at risk as this is significant harm according to the law

What are they queen?

And don't say taking the baby away.

There are no legal consequences for putting a foetus at risk of harm.
there are legal consequences to neglecting or abusing a child. A foetus is not legally a child until it is born. But there are consequences to not engaging in support and treatment before the baby is born, that become felt only after the baby is born.

But consequences indicates a negative. That's an assumption that the mother will care when their child gets taken away. She might be relieved.

That's a stretch. I've never met a mother who didn't care.

The consequence is risk of likely care proceedings which eventually may result in the baby being removed at birth. Other outcomes include a court ordered mother and baby placement or a supervision order. With a new born an interim care order is the most likely due to the risk and vulnerability.

It is not a given consequence in the sense of a criminal charge - but a likely outcome