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

WakeUpFromYourDreamAndScream

@BirdsgottaflyI don't think you can ever refer to someone as going on to 'parent successfully' when one of their children ended up disabled due to their neglect and or abuse. That's a ridiculous statement. If a parent allows that to happen to their child they are never ever going to be a successful parent and should be locked up for life not allowed to have more children.

Exactly.

Was Tracy Connell6 abused?

Connelly

"People who were abused as children are affected for life"

"to blame Connollys choices to torture her kids on her own abuse is repugnant."

You don't see the contradiction there? Or does it only count if those affects are not along the line of self harm?

And I know about the feeling shit thing. I was sexually abused. Had the whole "ooh, if you were abused does that mean you're going to abuse as well". Doesn't mean I don't see that for some people there is a pattern there, of abuse in one generation leading to abuse in the next.

Yes, Tracey had a difficult childhood, but, my understanding is that Tracey herself never actually hurt the children. She was certainly lazy and neglectful. The problem is, she met Barker who did abuse her kids and then when his brother also moved in with them, it seems the abuse escalated. Her crime was not protecting them against the abuse and making efforts to cover up the abuse. She wasn't interested in taking care of them, and she was very good at lying to those around her and not taking responsibility for what happened.

Barker and his brother are actually the worse of the lot of them. Both paedophiles, sadists and very disturbing individuals. I pity anyone who comes into contact with them.

"She was certainly lazy and neglectful."

The gaming addiction in her case smacks of a form of self medication or avoidance of having to deal with reality/with her feelings. From what I've read she grew up not being protected by her mother, she did the same.

It's tragic. All of it, including her childhood.

She chose him over her kids. In doing so, the children's lives changed forever and one of them died in the most horrendous circumstances.
She has shown she cannot be trusted out of prison. She is damaged beyond repair and should not be allowed to have any contact with children or vulnerable people. Especially those she gave birth to.
She has shown no remorse, no counselling has changed her outlook.
There are thousands of people that were abused in their past and have turned their lives around but not at the cost of a life. The cycle has to stop somewhere.

i wonder if Conelly has contact with her own parents and if so what her relationship is like

it said she was friends with Rose West dear god

The worst part of this is that those children know who they are

And may have learned of this from the media

They probably didn’t. The oldest ones at least won’t have done. They were old enough to remember everything happening and it’s quite well documented that their father was a decent man who worked and tried very hard to rescue his children from the situation so it’s unlikely they have shed their old identities entirely and probably stayed with him.

I think the discussions of whether Connelly could change or not are irrelevant, she wouldn’t be allowed to keep a child. Ditto “scapegoating”, Peter wasn’t really a scapegoat, all the children were neglected, mistreated and worse although Peter seems to have faced extra violence as Barker saw abuse of boys as more acceptable and part of a ‘toughening’ process.

Connelly apparently had a tough and neglectful childhood rather than abusive. Certainly nothing horrendous enough to justify what happened to her children. Particularly given that her older children had a relatively normal start to life because their father did all the housework and parenting alongside his job while she drank and played games. It was only after they split the wheels came off. She didn’t want to care for her kids but she didn’t want to give them to their father either, presumably she didn’t want to lose the housing and benefits they brought to her. But she did know how a relatively good family functioned and seen a decent parent in action.

I have an awful lot of sympathy for people who struggle to parent because they’ve never experienced good parenting. But when that extends to leaving a toddlrr with a broken back for weeks, watching a grown man punch him full in the face knocking his teeth out, pulling his nails out with pliers, being burnt with cigarettes and bitten all over their head by a Rottweiler - whilst ignoring a toddler being raped to boot - them that well of sympathy runs dry. Nothing justifies that.

If one of my parents or relations did something as evil as that the only contact I would want is someone confirming to me that they were dead.

It is hard to comprehend how people like Social Workers and Police can miss catching on such serious abuses.

How any Social Worker could think it at all acceptable that Connolly should have any contact with her own or any other children is stupid in the extreme.
Unfortunately, I do know for a fact that Social Workers don't really take on board how their actions look to the average person. They don't seem to see where protection should be placed. Most people would think that protection of a criminal convicted of such an awful crime deserves nothing at all but Social Workers, in this case, are not outraged at the idea of Connolly contacting children she allowed to be abused. I could not respect anyone who thought Connolly deserves any contact with any child

It’s not about what police or social workers think in this case. It’s about what the children think and want which takes priority.

If you read the case files they show the older children were well cared for...Tracey Connelly didn’t come onto any radar until the youngest baby (Baby P) was born.

It’s not surprising therefore that they want some contact. Whether that will last long term as they grow and appreciate the seriousness of what happened to their youngest brother remains to be seen.

Even as adults some of Rosemary West’s children remained in contact with her despite having been terribly abusive to them. Having worked through their traumas and having tried to talk to her about it I believe none of them have any contact with her anymore.

As a PP said TC came on the SS radar after Peter was born because she split with the children’s father when he was 3 months old. Once the father was out of day to day life things deteriorated becauzs TC couldn’t parent any of the children

If you read the case files they show the older children were well cared for...Tracey Connelly didn’t come onto any radar until the youngest baby (Baby P) was born.

This is just NOT TRUE! For starters there have been convictions for abuse against at least one of the other children and lots of reports of violence against the other children were made which never lead to prosecution. TC was seen publicly striking one of the older children and was only told the day before Peter died that she wouldn’t face prosecution for previous incidents of violence involving her children the police had been investigating. They were only ever well cared for by their father. They were neglected, intimidated, frightened and abused in that house with her.

They say she cared well for any of her children is simply completely untrue.

Augusta did this predate the Baby P reports though?

It’s still immaterial if the children’s want some contact..,they may be allowed this is they haven’t been placed for permanent adoption.

I know children who were removed from a Mum (narcissistic personality disorder) and who lived with their Dad who suddenly died. They are in care but have regular contact with their Mum as they always did when Dad was alive,

TC may be a crap and abusive mother but providing the children are safe and currently well supported then they should have the right to see her if they wish.

Yes, it did delores. The children had some sort of a semblance of a normal life when their father was at home and he did the washing and cooking and cleaning and parenting. By all accounts she did nothing.

As soon as he was gone the wheels went off entirely. I believe that the first report involved one of the older two siblings being hit in the street. The abuse of another sibling which led to conviction happened at the same time as Peter’s abuse. They were all neglected and abused by her.

It doesn’t seem like this comes from the children themselves but is part of the parole boards plan for her release. They do stress the benefits of familial relationships for those leaving prison so it may be the case that they’re coming at it from that angle.

All the non-adopted children are old enough to make their own decisions regarding contact and refuse it if they wish.

Wanting contact doesn’t even necessarily mean they like her or have forgiven her. It could just mean they want answers from her about their past or that they want the right to know where she is and what she’s doing for their own peace of mind and so they don’t have to hear it from the press.

Just the ability to know where she is, that she’s not in a relationship or having more children or trying to track them down or facing more charges or taking legal action may give the children a feeling of control and protection from nasty surprises. It’s letterbox contact twice a year, censored. It’s not like they’re inviting her to be involved with their lives day to day.

Ewww I don't like that. The children's wishes should be paramount here.

If they don't want to see her that should be good enough.

Augusta, TC was seen yelling at one of the older children and slapping them across the face outside school but this was never reported to the police. I believe the charges that were dropped against TC all related to the injuries that Peter had. SS didn’t seem aware of Barkers presence.

I’ve read SCR before and you can see how hard it was for SS to identify abuse and predict the death of a child, but in Peter’s case that just isn’t true. He had so many injuries on him and there were so many red flags. What that poor little boy went through in his short life just breaks my heart.

Did the father attempt to get custody of the children? He would have known before he left the house that she was at least too lazy to meet basic needs.