To think SS killed autistic mother

[YourHazelScroller]

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

Yes I wondered if the father was possibly autistic as well and that’s what drew them together, it’s still quite strange that Fern’s mum or sister didn’t take the child as a kinship care arrangement.
its such a sad story and as a mother myself with autism and mental health problems, I can really empathise but my own experiences tell me that there’s way more issues here than just autism and mental health problems, she must have been putting the baby at risk of significant harm in some way even if it was not malicious or intentional.

Oh? She MUST have been harming her baby. I suppose that is why there is no mention of that whatsoever in any of the reports.

And yet it's been said she "stopped harming herself" while pregnant, which rather suggests that's exactly what she was doing before and may well have continued to do since the birth whether the child had been removed or not

Of course this is a tragedy - though it's one where there's a lot we don't know - but children don't exist as some sort of bandaid for their parents' difficulties; they exist in their own right and need protecting, and sadly that will sometimes mean removal from the home

Oh? She MUST have been harming her baby. I suppose that is why there is no mention of that whatsoever in any of the reports

Because the reports are based in the inquest into HER death - it's not based on any of the CP reports - if there is a review then the concerns will be outlined.

'harm' is a very broad spectrum - from physical harm to neglect - neglect isn't always intentional - it can be complex but it still places children at risk of significant harm - which triggers removal

But there are also no mentions of the coroner or anyone else suggestioning that removing the baby was the wrong decision. Why are you so convinced it was?

The coroner’s summing up specifically says it’s not assigning blame or attributing negligence

I haven't seen it, but in what's undoubtably a complex case involving human choices that's no surprise

Unfortunately the media - always in search of a shocking headline - will usually drag in emotive hyperbole such as her "being killed", and it's only natural for the shocked and bereaved family to go along with this

Let's just hope that, in time, the child will be found a settled home and can be raised free from any more of this trauma

but could that be to protect the baby from the father, rather than because the father was under 18?

In that case the social worker would be allocated to the child, not the father.

What you don't know are the details of this case.

I said placing the baby at risk or harm not actually harming the baby. Please read carefully in future. That’s the legal requirement to remove a child from a parent ; the child must be at risk of severe harm . I don’t make the law but that’s the way it is ,
if you bothered to read properly you’d see I’m not Condemning Fern in any way and find the whole thing horribly tragic so take your nasty looking for a fight attitude elsewhere yeah?

Sorry, I must have missed that. But it makes more sense now. I know that removing a baby is only an option in cases of acute harm, or where a parent hasn't taken up the support of suggestions of social services . From my experience I have seen social workers do everything they can to try to keep a child with their parents, but the parent is just sometimes not in a place where they can accept this help, through no fault of their own, due to MH, adduction, DV or other past trauma. In my 20 years of work in paediatrics I have never seen a child removed where there was any other safe option for the child, in fact often as health professionals we feel they wait too long and give the birth parents too many second chances before removing. The 3 re unification I have seen, 2 of which were opposed by health professionals and did break down again and the children were removed again. So there is such a strong bias towards keeping children with or returning them to their parents

So she was offered help where she could stay with her child, but declined to take it up for fear of being watched. I fully get that it would have been uncomfortable for her, it would be for anyone, but its a huge shame she didn't give it a try. She might still be here now if she had. And she might not - we will never know.

And that's why the coroner didn't apportion blame. We don't know whether, even if she had got an advocate, whether that would have changed the outcome.

The only fact, is that this is incredibly sad loss of life, for the extended family, but especially for the baby. Who may wish to search for their birth mum when they turn 18, and they will find out that they will have no chance to get to know her.

I don’t have mental health problems and I’m not depressed.
What a silly sweeping statement!

God I'm shocked that anyone would suggest that if they was a risk of suicide than children should never re removed.

SS have to and should remove if they feel that the parent is unable to parent safely regardless of what the parent threatens .

Bonkers that anyone suggest otherwise

Perhaps she was too unwell to engage with support. But SS don't just knock at the door and remove a child for adoption. There is a lengthy process and ultimately a Judge makes the decision based on recommendations from SS, the child's guardian and possibly Independent assessments, including from MH services. It's incredibly sad but the welfare of the child is paramount!

I work in this field.

Very very unlikely this baby was removed because of mh and autism.

There will be other factors and risks that are not known to the public.

However, I feel there is a massive massive gap in mh support for women who have had their babies removed.

Perinatal mental health teams won't keep them under their care. Regular community mental health teams aren't equipped to deal with the issues.

This is something that desperately needs resolving imo.

In my 20 years of work in paediatrics I have never seen a child removed where there was any other safe option for the child, in fact often as health professionals we feel they wait too long and give the birth parents too many second chances before removing

Yes, and if - god forbid - anything had happened to the baby, that's exactly what many would have said: "Why didn't they step in earlier?", "What the hell does it take for a child to be removed?" and more

As usual we hear a cry of "there's no support!!", but now it turns out things were offered and refused. Of course the mum has a perfect right to refuse whatever she wants, but whether that's wise is another thing and anyway the priority quite rightly has to be the child's interests

Does no-one realise why the family went through this long four year inquest process?

That one day an 18 year old child will need to know the whole unbiased truth about what happened and led up to the tragedy as reported by the coroner.

Of course we do
We aren't thick

Absolutely, and they were completely right to do so, both so the baby can know what hapennned when old enough, and also to see if lessons can be learnt by professionals about how to potentially do things differently in the future.

Thank you for your understanding Bushmillsbabe.
The purposes are exactly as you say.
I have no more to comment.

I have no idea. What I do know is that it's not possible to reach any sort of valid opinion merely on a report in a British newspaper.

Fern might not have been given the support that legally she should have, which is actually all the inquest found, but it's clear she was an unfit parent within the first few weeks if the baby was taken for fostering. The bar for removal is very high.

Children aren't there to be social experiments. Frankly, why should they get fucked up while social services wait to see if someone can pull it together or not? How much harm is okay to cause a child?