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?

It's apparently very common for women who have had children removed to get pregnant again and again in the hope of keeping the next.

If it common, it is because there are too many selfish people and selfish people make selfish parents.

Why would you want to have another child when you couldn’t care for any of first 4?

Children are humans with needs not toys for mother to keep.

This crossed my mind too.
And before anyone bleats that they would've been scared of being spotted, tone could've gone and done it alone. I really don't believe that one adult on their own buying a blanket or something wouldn't have raised the slightest bit of interest from any retail staff.

Their first child came to the attention of SS because she refused medical attention despite travelling in a Zika risk zone while pregnant, gave birth using what staff suspected (correctly) was a false identity, her rapist partner assaulted two female police officers in the maternity ward (and had to be restrained by a fellow new father), and was then taken to live in a mouldy tent full of wet clothes and bottles of piss next to a main road

Not sure how any of that is down to her family disapproving?

It’s very difficult to remove - or relinquish - parental rights, it would need to be shown to be in the best interests of the child. You can privately petition to be given parental rights, most commonly done by none married fathers, but you’d need to establish paternity or established relationship with the child and again it would need to be deemed in the child’s best interests and that decision isn’t made on the basis of who has the most money.

There will definitely be more to it than that.

From what I've read in news articles her first childs removal was prompted by her affluent family's disapproval of her relationship and the removal was enforced when she fell out the window
The child was removed because the police suspected her partner had thrown her out of the window. Not that she fell out of the window! She went back to a convicted violent offender.

This is the last thing I’m going to add because this case is so awful. I really feel that the level of cruelty and lack of compassion towards that child puts them on a par with people like Fred and Rose West for me. They will never have remorse for the death of their baby and the only thing I can hope is that their surviving children have an opportunity to live normal, happy lives.

I don't understand why you think the public stance should have been softer?

They can't lie and say Constance you aren't in any trouble.

The public needed to know they posed a risk. She was clearly besotted with him. The report says she was the dominant personality despite his violence toward her, and he had attacked many people.

Imagine some soft-hearted mum had tried to help her due to a soft picture and ended up dead.

It’s more complex than that, I think. It is selfish, but that isn’t the primary motivation. It’s a desperate desire to have a child.

That is not a statement on the rights or wrongs of either forced adoption or women who continue having children.

Having understanding for why people do something and even compassion doesn’t mean you stand in agreement with their actions.

I agree with this, they're both appear to be sociopathic.

I’m curious. How did you feel about it?

A friend of mine has adopted 2 children, and her son’s birth mother wanted to keep in touch, and my friend really disliked it.
She thought it was very disruptive to the new family life routine she was trying to establish.

His mum got bored of it, in the end.

Why would they bother with the whole “you’re not in trouble” thing? Does anyone believe it when the police say that? And it certainly wasn’t true in this case, and everyone would have known about it, further undermining any future, genuine police appeals.

I used to work in a contact centre where you would come across many parents who didn't care much about their children's actual welfare and used to bleat on and on about their rights and various authorities taking their kids "off them" they would lie about why they had to leave the sessions early etc this was mothers mostly. I do think we need to acknowledge that just because a woman gives birth it doesn't make her a decent mother or human.

This is highly naive. There are no circumstances and language under which this pair would have trusted police or social workers, regardless of how softly softly they approached them. IMO with the details that have now been released I think police and authorities in general should have gone harder.

I think in this case it's because she was a wealthy woman from an aristocratic family. There must be some kind of ingrained forelock tugging feudalistic desperation to believe that the aristocracy are somehow 'better'. If she was someone like Karen Matthews there would be almost no tying in knots to justify her behaviour.

They were offered opportunities for contact via a contact centre when the children were in care
they just stopped turing up
How damaging was that for their poor children and also proves the point that they really were never that interested in their children or they would have done everything in their power to prove they could be selfless caring parents offering stability

I was replying to the poster creating a picture of vulnerable mother when that mother willingly put that criminal above her children.

I would have compassion if there was a minor neglect. But she failed 5 of her children one by one by not taking advice of SS or medical staff because she was so deeply infatuated with a criminal.

This family was pure chaos. Unreachable, unfixable, disastrous. We all know the threshold for taking kids off parents is INSANELY high. This family had FOUR taken into care. This baby stood no chance. I don't care about her mental health. Her kids have suffered and will continue to. I hope these two rot.

and again i raise the matter of compulsory contraception for both men and women.

This is such a worrying post to me, proving how people make snap decisions based on gut feeling and their own experiences without doing any research at all.

This is how so many people decide how to vote.

Psychotic has a specific meaning. One which I don't think you know.

Just look at the cctv in the fast food place, the baby is a few days old, hardly dressed properly and not lifted with any head support and without an ounce of maternal or paternal care, just moved into the pushchair. That tells me all I need to know and support the police in what they did - they had to be found and were very good at hiding, it had to go public

It sounds highly implausible. If custody were transferred from mother to grandparents by a court, it wouldn't be because the grandparents were wealthy. Able to provide a stable home perhaps, but many other (non-financial) factors would feed into the decision.

Not sure what the OP meant by "private court case" but in all custody hearings the court can request reports from Statutory authorities if it's thought necessary before a final decision. And the best interests of the child are uppermost in decision-making, including:

"The legal starting point is that it is the child’s right for both of their parents to be involved in their life unless there is a very good reason for them not to be. In the cases where the court does not order time with a parent/carer, the court will have been satisfied that the child’s welfare or safety is at risk. For the court not to order contact is unusual and it must be satisfied that contact with their other parent would be harmful to the child... Things like non-payment of child support or other conflicts between the adults is not a reason for the court to prevent time with the child’s other parent or carer." (quote from the Cafcass website)

@Commonsense22

Have you read this article? Constance didnt attend visitation for children in care.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0zkg4g4zyo

How often do children need to sit in a contact centre, sometimes taken by taxi or a SW if foster parents can't attend, and wait and wait to see if mum or dad might turn up.

How id that right for thr child?

Seriously have you read anything on this case or anything on this thread. I don't give a fuck how vunerable she was you don't have a tiny baby in a babygro in the freezing cod whilst you and your rapist partner are wrapped up all warm in a coat. An the lidl bag does matter because it showed how little she cared for the baby by discarding it like rubbish. Frankly, I hope she rots in hell when she gets there and no idea what her family have anything to answer for.

She is a victim as well, as far as I can gather, from her mother and from him.

But in any case, I’m not really talking about CM. Believing actions were right and justified in one case doesn’t make it so for every case.