To think SS killed autistic mother

[YourHazelScroller]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/young-autistic-mum-took-life-32626429

Isn’t the primary concern for the baby though? I appreciate she was a vulnerable adult who clearly needed help but you have to prioritise the infant where there are concerns. If I were having mental health issues I’d certainly hope that SS would prioritise the well being of my children over any negative implications for me.

What on earth are you talking about @donotnormalisemalice - read the inquest report

So the child should suffer to save the mother? That’s absolutely depraved.

If someone's child is being taken from them and into the adoption system then that should be communicated in person in the most humane way possible. Not a fucking email.

Don't know what you're reading but that is not what I said. She had autism and the SS chose not to give her support. As another poster here has pointed out, the inquest, as in a verdict reached by a coroner and judge, ruled that LA was at fault.

It seems SS (and whatever other agencies she was involved with) let her down in terms of support. Sometimes this is inevitable where a person has a level of need which cannot realistically be met, but it is possibly true that she would be alive with more support.

However this does not mean that SS did not make the right decision in terms of her baby.

Oh yes, so “openly vile” to know - like every single person with human morals knows - that the wellbeing of the child trumps absolutely everything else.

Oh, don’t talk rot, fgs!
Shame on you.

YANBU OP, the inquest is clear that SS and the LA acted inappropriately and that caused this young mum to take her life.

You wrote that it was better for a child to grow up in an unstable environment than “allowing” the mother to kill herself.

And how do you think his mother's death is going to impact his wellbeing?

I did not write that, and that is not my view. We do not appear to be having the same conversation.

Fern was never a danger to her child, nor was she suicidal/depressed until after her child was taken from her.

“Fern’s child had gone into foster care almost a month after she was born, in January 2020, after the support her family believed she was entitled to was not put into place.
Her sister Rowan Foster said: “We continue to believe that, in refusing to provide the advocacy, support and the reasonable adjustments Fern was entitled to, Buckinghamshire Council cost Fern her life and a baby her mother.
"With the right support, Fern would have become a wonderful mother.”

Having autism doesn’t make you a “pervert”. What is perverse is your ableism

”While she was pregnant, and up to the point of her child being taken from her, she did not engage in any self-harming or other behaviour that would put her, or her baby, at risk.”

Not at all, one hopes, if she was an unfit parent and he was taken away early.

I’ve read that story, and it’s still not particularly clear (understandably). That says the baby was taken into care at one month old because the ‘support FF’s family feel she was entitled to’ was not in place. That sounds as if, despite not self-harming at this stage, she wasn’t caring adequately for her newborn. What she did in terms of engaging with SS over the next five months isn’t stated, other than that she’d made several suicide attempts at some point.

But the pinchpoint appears to have been how she found out adoption was on the table. This was emailed to her partner by his solicitor. The chain of communication before and after is unstated. Presumably he told her and that prompted a successful suicide attempt? Was she engaging with SS during the five months since her baby was removed from her care? Was she seeing her baby? It’s not clear what she was doing or what she thought would happen.

It’s terribly sad, but it’s sounds like a difficult situation with someone with a long history of self-harm.

How was she unsafe? She did not self harm during or after her pregnancy. SS played preposterous mindgames with her and constantly moved the bar by preventing her from raising the child with it's father, forcing her to be a lone parent by blackmailing her. How well would you do if you were being gaslit and tortmented by SS?

What about the baby ?
There isn't enough information here to know eactly why the child was removed, a small baby can't fend for themselves ,if they are being g placed in danger and or being neglected even if its not intentional, then social services cant just sit back and do nothing..

But that's emotional blackmail, I'll kill myself if I dont keep my baby. SS want to keep children with their parents as much as possible.

I think there is a lot more to this case than what is in the article. Why was the baby fostered in the first place? There must have been significant concerns at how at risk it was and possibly they didn’t feel it was safe for the baby if mum didn’t have 24/7 support which perhaps couldn’t be provided. The autism part could be a bit of a red flag, plenty of people without autism self harm and don’t get adequate support. Plenty of autistic people make excellent parents.

Ultimately, better care for any vulnerable person should be given and nobody should be told in an email their baby is going to be adopted, it’s definitely the kind of thing that needs to have been properly discussed face to face.

"With the right support, Fern would have become a wonderful mother.”

Don't you understand that sentence? As in, in the future after getting support she could be a good mother, but at the time was not. That means the child needed to be taken away but could have potentially gone back.

She wasn’t an unfit parent. She was a disabled parent denied the support she is legally entitled to that would have enabled her to be a successful parent.