Tracey Conelly *baby p* contact with her children may trigger

[whatsthestory123]

hi, i saw some of this on Jeremy Vine but have been out most of the day and cant see any threads on this so

metro.co.uk/2018/12/03/baby-ps-mother-allowed-contact-with-surviving-children-from-inside-prison-8202299/

she wants contact with her other children,words fail at what that women is responsble for

i dont think she should be allowed but if her children want to write to her i dont think we can deny them but i dont think she should contact the first for her own selfish needs

i dont believe she has shown any remorse or has changed

i know she herself came from a very abusive home but i dont think that should be an exscuse for what happenend to that little boy

Whilst she's a despicable person, it's the child's right to have contact with their parents, not the other way around. So, if the kids have asked and their mother and, if necessary, the Court agrees then contact is probably the way to go.

We don't have to like it though!

Has I recall one of the odd things was that the older children were all well cared for. It was just Baby Peter Who was abused and who died.

As the older children were well cared for I am not surprised they might want some contact with their Mum. Has it definitely come from them or her. I think even if the worst cases there is still letterbox contact once a year,

yes that was my feelings that if they want to write to her ok but i dont think she should be the first to write,if the children want to it should be their decision not hers

it says her SW is encouraging it

It's completely normal and it's not as if the letters just flop through their letterbox. They're vetted heavily and the kids don't have to look at them if they don't want to. But they'll stay available to them for when they're ready.

Who knows how they feel about their mother but it's the right thing to do for her surviving children.

It is dispicable. But they are at an age also when they can decide to contact their mother. If they don't want to have anything to do with her, they can throw the letters aeayand refuse contact, but if they do than it has to be supported

We don't know how old the children were at the time of events (it was all protected for their privacy). Being that Tracey is now 35, the eldest ones could be adults, or nearly so.

but should the mother be able to make the first move??

i dont think she should be allowed to

but if the children want to make the first move that should be supported

it sounds like the mother who instigated contact here which i dont agree with

im sure she will be using the fact that she has them as a reason for an early release,she was released once and got called back

The article is quite vague , would the children be asked if they wanted contact even by letter ? Im sure the older they get ypu cant force them to accept contact?

well one must be fairly young as wasnt she pregnant when convicted

she deffo had another after peter died

i hope the children are all happy and settled and have a good life

so many times we forget about the ones left behind

It's the expectation that the parent writes first. Its the children's decision whether they read the letter and if not it is stored for the child to have access to when they're older should they choose.
The alternative is far worse; children putting all that anxiety and emotion aside to writing a letter and not hearing from the absent parent.
The parent writing the first letter gets guidance on what to say and how to broach the fact they hadn't been in contact as well as some questions to ask the child so that the child has something straightforward to respond with, if they choose to write back.

None of this changes how vile she was to baby Peter of course. But there's rationale behind the planning.

How do you know she has never felt any remorse for that poor little boy's treatment and death?

Most of us will never be able to get our heads around something like that but people do change.

It's really up to her children. Not our business, a pity there is any publicity.

well if you read the article it says so

yes yes i know it hasnt come from her before you say it

Has I recall one of the odd things was that the older children were all well cared for. It was just Baby Peter Who was abused and who died.

As the older children were well cared for I am not surprised they might want some contact with their Mum. Has it definitely come from them or her. I think even if the worst cases there is still letterbox contact once a year

It’s not correct that the older ones were well cared for. Go and read the serious care review, the older children were dirty and not well cared for. There were reports of incidents of violence involving the older children which is why she was involved with police and SS before Baby P’s death. She also ignored Steven Barker abusing her other children. I can’t say what the worst incident of abuse against the older siblings was, because it is illegal for anyone to say it, but there was very serious abuse involving other children and convictions were made in respect of that - you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work it out.

In the serious case review there was testimony from the older children saying how terrified they were living in that house and accounts of things like sleeping behind their bedroom doors so they would be woken up if anyone tried to enter their rooms in the night. They also spoke about being dirty, smelly and unkempt. The account of the house is that the whole place was a stinking hovel covered in dog shit and piss all over the walls and ground into the carpet. It’s absolutely incorrect to say any of her children were adequately cared for, let alone well cared for. There were also accounts of their father desperately trying to keep them with him because he knew something was wrong and saw Peter’s nails had been pulled out and the rest of them were dirty, unkempt and scared. Connelly sent the police around to get them back.

The accounts I have read have suggested that it has not come from either herself or her daughters but was a suggestion of the parole board as part of her preparation for release. It is only letterbox contact and will only be permitted twice a year and will be censored. The youngest sibling must be around 15 now, the eldest I’m fairly certain must be around 20 now and the other somewhere in between. I imagine it will be up to her children whether they choose to receive it or read it at their ages, I suppose they must have at least some willingness for it because it could be refused at their ages.

I do wonder if possibly her children feel the need to have answers from her about what happened during their childhood and that is part of the impetus for them. I do hope that her children have been involved in this decision and feel empowered to refuse it if they are not happy with it. If they don’t want her in their lives that should be respected. Likewise if they do feel a need for contact that’s okay too.

I’ll never forget that Serious Case Review, it was incredibly harrowing and those children have been through so much.

I forgot she’d had another child. So that child, Barker’s, must be 10/11. Fairly certain that child was removed at birth for adoption, so I don’t think it will be that child she is having contact with. I think that will be very much a closed adoption and she will no longer legally be that child’s mother. Very unlikely that child is included about this. The older children, Peter’s full siblings, are the ages I refer to there and I think must be the children referred to.

She’s a fucking revolting human-being but this is no one else’s business except hers, her children and I assume social services.

I can’t begin to imagine how her children feel about their childhoods, their “mother” and poor little peter but all this speculation can’t be helping them.

i didnt even know she had other children, i guess its up to them if they want contact.

I think its completely normal for the other children to want some kind of contact with their birth mother. As Pp said you just have to have faith it’s welll controlled

She should have been kept in prison until she hit the men's pause. The idea that she could have another child disgusts me. 

I’d be amazed if she were released

To be honest I'm more horrified that she was released on licence in 2013 according to that article.

well they are looking at possible parole

she got parole a few years ago but was caught making indecent photos online so was put back in prison

im guessing she revoked her license

Convicted 2009. Released on licence 2013. Four years

The sentences concerning Baby P’s death were pretty derisory. They were those ‘indefinite terms’ which have been scrapped as against human rights. They were a bit of sneaky legislation Labour brought in which allowed them to look tough at the time of sentencing (“We can keep them in jail as long as we want”) but in reality most people with them were allowed out close to their minimum terms which they hoped would receive little publicity - it was a way of making sentencing look tough when it was actually anything but.

Barker received his life sentence for the related rape conviction, not for Peter’s death, but Connelly was found innocent on that charge which is why she didn’t serve long.

Has a pp really trotted out “people can change” regarding the horrendous abuse Peter and his siblings endured. Really?

Wow.