Constance Marten case — I feel the police have some responsibility too

[Siff]

I know Constance Marten and her partner made dangerous and illegal choices, and I’m not excusing that — a baby died and that’s heartbreaking. But I can’t stop thinking about the way the case was handled and whether the police have some responsibility in how things unfolded.

As a mum of four who’s struggled mentally after birth, I keep thinking: if I had just given birth, was vulnerable, and felt like the whole world was hunting me down — would I have thought clearly? Probably not. The media coverage was intense, and the police were everywhere. The pressure must have been overwhelming.

I honestly believe the fear created by the police operation pushed them into making more and more desperate and risky decisions to stay hidden. It wasn’t just a search — it felt like a witch hunt. No safeguarding, no attempt to reach her as a vulnerable mother, just a hard push to capture and punish.

I think that approach had consequences. The police must take some responsibility for creating the kind of fear and pressure that led to this tragedy. The way they went about it likely made things worse — not better — for the baby.

It’s easy to say she was selfish or unstable, but mental health in the postnatal period is fragile. People don’t always think rationally when terrified. I just wish there had been more humanity in how it was all handled.
Anyone else feel the same?

this. Its why i mentioned compulsory contraception. people are allowed to make terrible choices for themselves but not wjen they affect others and particularly when those others are babies

This is a boggling lack of finding information in the public domain @Pancakesandcream33

Apart from the falling from a window and her partners criminal history I haven't read one thing that indicated her children should be removed - no drug or alcohol issues, no ss reports of inadequate housing, no domestic violence.

Both parents were known to be habitual drug users who were regularly manifestly under the influence when engaging with authorities.

In one of her later pregnancies after their first child had been taken into care, they were living in a mouldy tent near a busy road and their sole preparation for the upcoming birth when evaluated by SS was to have purchased a 5 pack of baby grows which they thought was perfectly reasonable.

Apart from ‘falling’ 18ft out a window whilst pregnant, resulting in a shattered spleen and internal bleeding, where he blocked ambulance care afterwards, you think it’s unlikely there was any more DV? I have some magic jelly beans to sell you.

It is staggering to me the excuses that will be made to deny that some women can be shit parents. That getting pregnant and giving birth does not mean someone will be a good parent and that it doesn’t buy them a get out of jail card - literally in this case - when they show repeatedly that they are incompetent at best and purposefully dangerous and neglectful at worst.

Even if we ignore everything up to the point her child dying, if she was a caring mother driven to desperate measures, she would have been grief stricken. She would have given her longed for child a burial.

Instead she wrapped her in a shitty nappy, put her in a bag for life and dumped her under a rubbish pile on an allotment to be left to the elements or animals. And then denied access to her to avoid her having a decent burial - all to keep herself out of trouble. And not once has she shown any shame or remorse for this.

No one with a shred of care or remotely decent would do this.

You seriously need to stop projecting and actually read all the background reports, of which there are many. They lived in a tent with another baby off grid too, so the babies were not all taken away as you describe.

And her 'affluent family's disapproval' was spot on.
Your disapproval of affluent families is irrelevant here.

You clearly have very little understanding of vulnerable individuals. I've worked with ex offender rehabilitation, and the patterns of behaviour are simply beyond imagining - you have to experience it.

The one thing I can think of that might make a difference would be some sort of independent charity - my work was via a charity, and vulnerable individuals have measurably different relationships with non-authorities and volunteers.

It would have to be an adjunct to safeguarding laws - anonymous check ins permitted with no report on location and plans except to confirm the safety of the baby and pass on any needed support. But even then there would be distrust.

This. 100%

and again this is why i mentioned compulsory contraception.

That kind of messaging could’ve made the pair feel safer and less hunted — possibly leading to calmer, more rational decisions.

Do you really think a seasoned criminal like him would have acted in calm and rational way or allowed his partner to leave with the baby?

Her sex offender partner hadn’t just given birth. Was he thinking straight?!

He was a massive safeguarding rust and she thought she knew better and put him above the needs of her child.

They both knew what they were doing and deserve to live with the consequences.

You seriously need to stop projecting and actually read all the background reports, of which there are many.

I doubt that some of the goady fuckers who've posted are going to do that, or even come back.
Their work is done.

I get your point but I really struggle to have empathy for a woman who repeatedly chooses an abusive man over her kids. I understand coercive control, but she acted incredibly selfishly with her previous children, let alone the baby in question.

She lost custody of her kids, had the previous child taken by SS at birth and she still chose to stay with him and get pregnant again.

She was given support and the chance to see her kids and she repeatedly chose him instead.

SS and the Police had to step in to protect her kids because the parents wouldn't. If the Police hadn't bothered searching, the public would've been going mad. Look at the National press and general vitriol every time a child is killed by parents, and rightly so, but SS come in for an absolute battering every time. They were doing their job here and they were right to get the Police involved.

That baby's death is on the two of them and I hope their sentences are anything but lenient.

I know of a woman whose family took parental responsibility of her child in a private court case simply because they thought they could offer the child a more lavish lifestyle - more holidays, private schooling, tutors and private sports facilities.

Could someone with legal knowledge confirm if this could feasibly happen within the UK? It doesn't sound plausible to me. Surely there was more to it than that?

Yes, I agree. Considering how they handled Victoria it looked like they had no clue or care. And the fact the baby had very little cover, not even a blanket is telling.

They could have left her beside a hospital or somewhere where she could be found but chose to dump her like waste...that's unforgivable.

In fairness, they were offered the chance to get their children back by attending contact sessions etc. And they just stopped one day. Their treatment of Victoria (clothing, lack of medical care) is pretty illustrative of someone unfit to be a parent. I love being a mum, but I’m under no illusion it’s my right, or more important than the welfare of my children, and I’m quite certain nothing would stop me seeking medical attention if they needed it. That’s not being self-righteous, I actually don’t think I could physically stop myself because the fear of them dying or being hurt would be overwhelming. That was missing in these two people.

Parents who avoid engagement with services designed to look after children are always trying to hide something. Maybe that’s that they’re struggling, maybe it’s that they don’t trust them, whatever. But they’re hiding something. And the point at which that hiding becomes more important than the child’s survival - be that with or without you - is when you’re no longer a fit parent. Maybe you don’t know those are the stakes because of illness or ignorance….still doesn’t mean you get to continue on your merry way. People should step in, because children can’t defend themselves. Their care is actually everyone in society’s responsibility, and parents who think they have a special right to the control of their children are actually usually pretty toxic.

I don’t think there was a way to win here, short of the mental health services being more adequately funded in order to treat people like her before harm occurred. Maybe ss should have been more involved with her as a child - wtf is all this about a cult in west Africa?! There is a host of failures in Constance’s life, but eventually, as is often the case, she perpetuated those failures and went on to harm her own children. And there isn’t any excuse for that. Plenty of people have atrocious childhoods and manage to be good parents. The way the police and ss reacted in the end was the only way they could have.

I also really think that the same classist attitudes that meant her parents weren’t investigated by ss are the same that cause so much weird sympathy for CM now. If she was a drug addict on benefits, would this even be a discussion?

Nope don’t “ blame “ the police one bit, the only video I saw was of two parents well wrapped up themselves in freezing cold with the mother, using the term loosely, lifting a newborn baby by the arm and almost throwing her into a hard pushchair while she was wearing a thin baby gro
I don’t doubt she had trauma growing up, moneys not everything obviously but to keep defying the courts and police and denying their culpability I have zero sympathy.

@Pancakesandcream33

Even when children are removed at birth there is a long court process involved before permanent decisions are made about the child's future.
During that time the foster carers will facilitate family time with the parents, social workers will be working with them with the aim of reuniting the family.
Its not just a case of removing the child and giving them to the next passing adopter.
I have a foster carer friend who looks after babies. She has had several new borns straight from hospital. She had those babies for 9 months to a year whilst decisions were made about their future.

@Siff their first baby also lived in a tent as a newborn. It was smelly, dirty and the area was littered with bottles of urine. The family offered to buy her a house, she refused.

She wasn't in a tent because she was on the run but because she thought that was fine for a newborn.

Poor Victoria.

*The one thing I can think of that might make a difference would be some sort of independent charity - my work was via a charity, and vulnerable individuals have measurably different relationships with non-authorities and volunteers.

It would have to be an adjunct to safeguarding laws - anonymous check ins permitted with no report on location and plans except to confirm the safety of the baby and pass on any needed support. But even then there would be distrust.*

There are many charities doing excellent safeguarding work supporting families and families do have very different relationships with workers, because they often see them as being “on their side”. Ultimately safeguarding needs to be a statutory responsibility because someone needs to have a duty, and the associated powers, to protect children. The NSPCC have authorised status, but never actually use it, because it’s legally complex and they have a reputation to maintain.

Theres a tonne of support available through social work and predominantly through third sector agencies, only when that has been tried and has repeatedly failed do statutory services look at removal, unless there’s an immediate risk of significant harm. And at that point someone needs to say “enough”, with the skills, knowledge and professional power to do something about it.

Can I also say that being ‘on the run’ was no excuse for not going to a charity shop and buying or stealing the appropriate level of clothing for their newborn to wear in the middle of winter. The CCTV of that poor baby in nothing but a vest while the parents ate is one of the things that cemented for me that they were neglectful narcissists with no regard for anyone but themselves.

You should have done better research before making a thread pointing fingers.

What “news articles” are you reading?

as this is completely different to the news articles I have read.

a child would not be removed from a mother because her family disapproved of her partner ffs. Can you imagine the amounts of children in foster care if that actually did happen?

@Jellycatspyjamas is correct. The can be contact (i think visitation is the Amerocan term). In my child's case we facilitated direct (face to face) contact for a number of years until birth parent stopped coming because their new partner didn't like it.

The first 3 children were in foster care and had supervised visits with the parents right up until CM got pregnant with the 4th, when they stopped contact. Apparently they were told that this was affecting the older children but ignored it. The 4th child was then discovered and also taken into care. I believe this was when they were in the closed adoption, not straight away. The father is a convicted killer and was thought to be abusing the mother but she still went back to him.

Constance Marten spent months at 'torture' church, friend tells BBC

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce77wd5ne60o.amp

What would you have done OP?

This might help clarify things for those of you who think Marten and Gordon should have been given more chances

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11x1xgj78o.amp