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.

Can’t you ask for a second group to be set up at the same time. You, PL and the 2 who left because of NL and then anyone else who chooses to join, the original group can continue with NL and anyone who chooses to remain

@ComtesseDeSpair the "plan" was discussed because we were all asked to make a choice about it. It was a group decision.

The facilitators said today as they were asked about it - they are perfectly within their right to apologise (including to NL) and said they were not aware there was any discourse regarding this.

It’s unprofessional of them to be telling the whole group that one member of the group has made a - justifiable - complaint about something to the directors and single that person out. This isn’t a social group set up by a few local mums who want to make new friends and walk and chat together. It’s a resource intensive (4/5/6 paid qualified staff accompanying each walk) psychiatric therapy for people with what sounds like fairly serious long term mental health problems. The facilitators’ actions are undermining the environment.

@ComtesseDeSpair NL raised it and stated it in the group - then the facilitators apologised and said they were not aware of any discourse / upset feelings. They have been fantastic facilitators. They have handled many situations really well but this is obviously very difficult and very different.

PL has said there are things going on behind the scenes and I am not to say anything in the group, which I haven't.

I doubt I will go back as it is though.

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.

She's mentally ill. Perhaps she tried to be ok with it but then found it was triggering her?

I cross posted with your post just before mine.
I completely agree it's too last minute and it sounds like she's doing it to cause drama / be the centre of attention honestly.

@CheezePleeze we are all mentally ill. And this the third person that's left / had to leave the group because of her.

Why should one person get to impact other people's care like this?

PL is going to need to feed her baby once he/she is born. Of course she should bring them, especially if she decides to breastfeed.

The whole world doesn't stop for NL.

Hand on heart, and your dislike for NL aside, from a safeguarding perspective do you really think this is a suitable environment for a baby? You’re a group where at least one member is on a mandatory treatment programme, which usually indicates a fairly serious level of illness, and all of you have been attending twice-weekly group therapy sessions with 4/5/6 professionals for a period of months, which also indicates a high level of need. You’re portraying New Lady as merely unpleasant, when her unpredictable and volatile behaviour may well be symptomatic of her mental illness or the medication she takes for it.

I think somebody higher up (e.g. a facilitator) needs to make a decision based on whether NL's request is reasonable or not, rather than based on how much fuss NL makes.

For example if bringing the baby was going to slow down everyone's walking for some reason, and it is a walking group, it might be reasonable to say don't bring the baby.

But just someone saying "I'm triggered by babies" is not a good reason in my mind. Someone could be "triggered" by anything. What if NL was triggered by red hair - would red haired people not be allowed to attend?

So ultimately I don't think NL has a good enough objection for PL to be prevented from attending with her baby (particularly bearing in mind PL's very traumatic circumstances).

No one is on a mandatory treatment programme. The group is mandatory as part of the pregnant ladies treatment plan - given that there are zero safeguarding concerns with her other children I am sure they are not concerned about her being in contact with her own newborn.

If NL is shouting in people's faces then she should be ejected from the group anyway. She sounds like a right knob, regardless of whether babies should be allowed or not.

Because she was asked if she was ok with the baby being there and she answered truthfully.

Yes, ideally she should've answered early doors, but like I said, perhaps she thought she was ok with it.

Or more likely, she was worried about speaking up and making people like yourself livid.

While I like the fact that people play devil's advocate on some threads and make people think about the other side of the story, it is quite clear that NL is not suitable for group therapy in this particular group. I think sometimes therapists fall over themselves to excuse the behaviours of people like NL when actually the kindest thing would be to quickly establish that group therapy in this format is not appropriate for her, at least until some individual therapy has been completed, establishing the group rules.

It is possible for people to be both severely mentally ill AND an outrageous arsehole and NL sounds like the latter. I think the facilitators are out of their depth with her and she will wreak merry hell with an established and well functioning group if she isn't taken in hand.

One person's needs do not weigh supreme over everyone's needs. PL was prepared to make back up arrangements which have now been derailed by the late turnaround. Some people are just disruptors and leave a neverending trail of destruction behind them, mainly because they are often skilled bullies and victims. All the accommodations in the world could be made and will never be enough until the individual work is done with NL. Meanwhile, the group implodes.

Your first paragraph is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself. 😬

PL sounds great. I don't see how they can stop her from bringing her newborn, though. If this group is prescribed treatment, then they can't refuse her coming with her baby. That would be discrimination.

NL is clearly jealous and a bit attention seeking, but she is mentally ill also and it is unfair to hate her because of that. NL should be offered more support with dealing with the baby being there. Stagger the starting times so she doesn't have to be near the baby, or organise it so they're on opposite ends of the group on the walk.

But I really can't see how PL can be told she can't walk if she brings her baby.

They can't stop her bringing her baby if the group is mandatory to her care - how the fuck is that supposed to work.

NL is unsuited to group therapy. And the organisers/facilitators seem inept that they have neither put a stop to this carry on or recommended a different treatment for her.

This is not your problem in any way. Let the therapists in charge deal with it. Gossiping about it on MN isn’t helpful to NL, PL or the therapists in charge. I guess it might help your personal discomfort with the situation though. I vote YABU to gossip about the other people in your group therapy sessions.

Maybe you need to put in a complaint to the higher ups if the groups dynamics have now changed because one persons aggressive attitude and that being pandered to in regards to rule breaking.

If the walking group is prescribed as part of PLs mandatory treatment then she brings her baby or she puts in a case for discrimination. After all a baby is a human being, as someone else said if NL decided she didnt like red heads or short people would they be banned too?

Just because someone has mental health issues doesn't mean they can do what they want or have an entire group revolve around them. If a group has previously worked and previously been welcoming to newcomers and now one person has changed the dynamics and made at least 3 people leave then they are the problem that needs solving.

So I've experience working with people with mental health issues + complex needs when I worked for a charity a few years ago. We had similar issues that we had to resolve.
NL's problems should have been tackled and picked up on earlier than now by the professionals. They should be able to see and "assess" her behaviour and perhaps suggest that this group isn't for them. It's completely unreasonable (though it may be true) that "babies are triggering" but that's an issue for her to deal with and overcome rather than "ban a baby" as it doesn't suit.