Walking Group Issues (pregnancy)

[WalkingTalkingIssues]

I am in a mental health walking group with around 8-10 other ladies - the group size fluctuates on who can attend each week / who feels comfortable attending. Some of the member are newer, some of us have been there since the start. It's run by an NHS mental health team and we walk and talk with three/four therapists and one/two trainees. Everyone in the group is finishing their treatment within the next few months, apart from one lady (PregLady) who is about to give birth.

PregLady has been there since the start, as have I, so we do know each other quite well, and I would go as far as to say we are friends. The friends bit is why I am asking if IABU, as not sure if this is clouding my view. PregLady's husband was involved in a serious accident whilst working abroad and still remains in hospital abroad (this is relevant a bit later on). PregLady has also had another child whilst the group was running (and two older ones).

One of the newcomers has major issues with many member of the group and many of us have commented that it is now a walking on eggshells group. We have raised this and been ignored. NewLady gets upset at the slightest comment, has shouted at people, thrown tantrums, flaunted group rules, screamed in my face etc.

When NL first started PL was in the group and coming regularly, she really helped calm down NL many times. She also didn't suffer fools gladly and would leave a situation if she wasn't finding it helpful. PL then had to go abroad (husband's accident) and was away for six weeks. Those of us that are friends with PL did not know what was happening at first for a few days - she just went very silent on communications. There's a handful of us who have met her husband and other kids. The mental health team then asked a few of us to attend the group but arrive 30 minutes earlier and go to a clinic room beforehand. We were then all told what was happening, were allowed to ask questions, but were asked not to tell the wider group as it involved someone's medical situation. We were also told we could discuss it privately with the team if we needed. Husband's family were at his bedside, children were flown across - it looked really dire at some points.

We were assured that PregLady would continue to get support.

Preglady returned home a few weeks ago as for some reason she had to come back much sooner than the actual birth. She returned to the group and told everyone what was happening, husband improving but still a very long way to go, everyone else fine etc.

Last group we had on Wednesday and PregLady is about to pop. NL suddenly says well we won't be seeing you for a few months. We had all been asked beforehand if we were all happy with the baby coming. Every single person said that was not an issue. PregLady already has a nanny for the other three kids but said 6 weeks ago that if there was an issue she could organise another for the newborn to walk close to us, but not with us (which is what her husband did with the last one most of the time, sometimes the baby did join us until it was about 6 months). Agreed this was not needed.

NL has now going to the directors and PregLady has been told she cannot bring the baby to the group, needs to find at home childcare and has created friction in the group by suggesting brining the baby was an option. PregLady doesn't want to fight it but is not pleased. NL has said she will not attend the group if there is a baby there because she decided not to have children and now at age 45 she is regretting it and is "triggered" by babies.

Am I being unreasonable to be absolutely livid? In doing this they have removed four hours of support per week (twice weekly group) from PregLady.

Yes, it's very one-sided.

I agree with the PP who said it's a badly run group. For starters, taking some of the group and not others aside to tell them all about PL was very divisive.

It is probably my anger that has made it one sided.

I think PregLady would agree with all of you who are disagreeing with me.

Everyone should stop going so NL is on her own.
That should get the message over

@Aprilx I thought that too.
A mental health group is for adults and not children. I know people say that babies will just be in prams or slings and sleep. Babies and pregnancy can be a trigger for some people. (It certainly can be for me)
If I want help with my mental health I don't want children there, I would like adults there. I feel like the therapists have ran this groups badly.

It sounds like you need to feed back to the department who coordinate the treatment. The leaders aren’t promoting an optimal therapeutic environment both in not managing somebody who you claim is throwing tantrums and screaming at people, and allowing long-standing group members to decide that another long-standing member can bring their baby. Babies cry and grizzle and not everybody wants to spend what should be their relaxing therapy time listening to somebody else’s baby make a racket or otherwise act as a disturbing distraction. It shouldn’t be up to a group of longer standing attendees to decide that they don’t mind a baby being present and they’ve been there the longest so any new attendees who disagree can go fuck themselves. New Lady might not be particularly pleasant, but what if another new attendee was just too polite or shy to speak up about not wanting the baby there and having their therapy be less effective than it should be?

Yes, NL has joined a group with adults.

I think she has a right to object to PL bringing her baby. Surely that's why all group members were asked?

It sounds a bit like popularity is at play here and that if no-one particularly liked PL, and they all loved NL, they'd have a problem with the baby too.

Very cliquey by the sound of it I'm afraid.

PregLady has said exactly the same - that people may not have felt comfortable about speaking up, particularly the new people.

I was hoping you would all agree with me and disagree with PregLady saying not to raise it but so many people are saying exactly what she has said I will not be raising it.

It seems like there are 2 issues here.

is NL BU? (Yes! Enormously!)
should baby come to the group? (probably not if it’s a therapeutic thing for adults - and the dismissal of her regret about being childless and being triggered by babies is a bit mean, tbh. It is possible for someone to be an objectionable arsehole AND have legitimate issues.)

feels like the whole thing needs a more effective facilitator who can manage any bad behaviour.

NL is an asshat and wildly jealous of PL. (I suppose a silver lining here is that NL didn’t procreate 😬)

The group will be an unhappy place until NL leaves, which she won’t do, because she has no mates. Because she is so horrible.

Can some of you perhaps meet up seperately for your own walks and not tell the others?

Depending on what you’re getting from
this group, I’d be inclined to quit it completely and arrange my own walks. It sounds to me like it’s terrible for mental health. Being shouted at? Separating a new mother with a sick husband and fragile mental health from her newborn?!! Everything changes, perhaps this group has had its hey day and the universe is now calling on you to create something better. Without NL.

So I think the key here is that it's a mh walking group and everyone in that group has different needs which is probably a difficult balance to find at times. It's also very possible the NL is really struggling to settle into the dynamic of the group and may struggle with relationships in general and is acting this way because of that. I think it's fair to be as flexible as possible in terms of childcare etc but the overall needs of the group need to be taken into account and if NL would genuinely be impacted by the baby coming then it's now as much her group to have a say in as everyone else's. It also may be the case where the therapists or whoever is running the group has felt that actually it may be a safeguarding concern to have the baby there as I do think that's an unusual arrangement in general. Maybe it's been flagged up further up the line and they've been told it's inappropriate. I also don't think I would want my baby in a setting where someone could be shouting and becoming volatile or unpredictable because they're having a really hard day and I'm surprised it would be allowed at all. In the group I run we've allowed it in the past but it's very much dependent on who is in the group at the time

Thank you all for making me see some sense.

Off to the group now and will listen to PregLady and not open my mouth.

Be Kind. Be Kind. Be Kind.

Given that this group seems very focused on privacy, I’m amazed that you’ve given so much information here.

Anyway, that aside, it sounds like you have an unhealthy attachment to your pregnant friend and have turned her into a bit of a Queen Bee.

I’d love to hear NL’s side of this story.

@HunterTheDanceInstructor There does seem to be a touch of hero worship here, which is what makes me think NL going against the grain, has put some noses out of joint.

I actually think if PregLady is prevented from using the group because she needs to have her baby with her, she may be being discriminated against.

Have a look at this info from the Citizens Advice.

The right kind of psychologist would have a field day with the whole thing and get their PhD out of the resulting paper on group dynamics in a supposedly therapeutic setting.

First of all I thought NL was out of order and PL should definitely be allowed to bring her baby. But the more I think about I I’m not sure. If it’s a mental health walking group then the mental health of the adults involved should be paramount and a baby would be a distraction. It’s tricky because NL sounds annoying and lacking consideration for other people.

Also - the reality is baby loss and infertility can really affect peoples mental health. We don’t know who else in the group might also feel upset by being in close proximity to a newborn baby and the conversation that this will inevitably bring up.

We don’t know who else in the group might also feel upset by being in close proximity to a newborn baby and the conversation that this will inevitably bring up.

True, they may feel unable to speak up given how absolutely livid (her words) it's made the OP.

Are those people attending voluntarily or is it part of ongoing therapy?

You, PL and any likeminded people can just arrange to meet as social friends and walk together wherever you like, with her nanny care

If that happens at the time when you would normally be with the MH group, then the MH group will be sadly depleted and its leaders will soon get the message they backed the wrong horse and their paid job is at stake

NL sounds like a pain in the arse and I’m really reluctant to side with that…

But in the context of a walking group for adults, then yes, I think one person does get to veto others on a baby being present.

That’s not what this group is.

I’d be even more conflicted about siding with the arsehole if it really meant PL was going to miss out on vital support. But come on, she can afford a nanny to cover the walks?

I don’t think this is your business, and whilst I’m highly suspicious on NL’s motives, I still think she gets the veto.

Bloody surprised about all the resources available for this group, which sounds fantastic. My sister has serious MH issues and can’t see the same NHS counsellor for more than about 4 weeks before the go sick or quit, and then the 10 week period ends anyway.

The group is NHS run but funded externally.

I'm not livid that NL has said no baby - I am livid she hasn't raised this in the months before and that final decisions were made six weeks ago. We all had plenty of time to discuss and were encouraged too. PL was more than happy to organise a nanny, and has organised a new nanny for the evenings, but has given her children a chance to get used to it before the new baby arrives. That was why it was all raised months ago.

So my anger has come from the fact that NL has literally left it to the last second and gone above everyone's heads (ie the facilitators) to raise it at director level. PregLady says I don't know that it wasn't raised with the facilitators but they have said today they were unaware there was any issues with the plan.

The only person the group is mandatory for is actually PL. It's up to the rest of us whether we attend or not, but it is part of her "plan". The rest of us all attend at least one other group (most of us two), but PL cannot attend these due to them being too vigorous or being indoors (and being high risk due to covid they said it was a health and safety matter). Not all the groups are run by the NHS Trust as well.

I left the group after half an hour today because the atmosphere was horrible.

Ugh NL sounds dreadful. Although I have to wonder, if NL was a nice person who you were friendly with, would you feel the same?

Although I have to wonder, if NL was a nice person who you were friendly with, would you feel the same?

I honestly think if she was a nice person I would tell her that raising this at this point and not in the many months before wasn't acceptable. As it is, I've kept quiet.

It's hard to imagine yourself on the other side of situations though.

Tbf the more you say about these facilitators the worse they sound - they shouldn’t be discussing “the plan” with the group and telling you somebody in the group went above their heads. Very unprofessional. I’m not surprised NL did go to the directors - the facilitators sound incompetent and potentially harmful to the therapeutic and recovery process.