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?

@BabyCatFace the layers of just how much they did not care about the baby get darker and darker.

They may not have gone through with it but to even consider it puts to bed any notion they were desperate for a child.

I was inclined to blame drugs for some of their behaviour but reading how they behaved in court and how they behave in jail - it’s not drugs, it’s two deeply arrogant, entitled, self centred arseholes.

To be sitting in a trial where you are accused of killing your own child and send a note to the judge to ask if you can go for a coffee because you are falling asleep - implying bored - is not what a desperate mother would do in those circumstances. It’s also not what a vulnerable l, cowed woman unable to assert herself would do.

After reading this… I wouldn’t blame the police at all.

They were terrible neglectful parents to the other children they already had, they didn’t give a hoot about them, nor for the baby they killed. If they had, things wouldn’t have come to this.

Agreed, both should be sterilised.

Please don't use the term forced adoption anywhere ideally but especially not where your friend can hear you

its on youtube.

This too.

@BabyCatFace i was using the term used by the person I was replying to. What term would you use? Also I know my friend better than you!

She ran out of cash and didn't want to withdraw any more as it would have alerted the authorities of their whereabouts. They lost a bunch of cash in the car that burnt down.

That’s not accurate, her babies weren’t all taken from her at birth, she fled to Ireland with more than one of them and it’s only when she returned that they were taken off her. And it was a long catalogue of refusing antenatal or postnatal care plus the suspected DV window incident that led up to it. I cannot fathom all these posters sympathising with her. Not one of her actions seems to have put her children’s needs above her own or that of her partner.

I hate the term "forced adoption". It doesn't reflect the reality of the situations where children are placed after order by the Courts now, at the end of a very long road for them (or their older siblings) where parents have been given much support.

It more accurately reflects the situation eg 60 years ago, where young women who had done nothing other than get pregnant unmarried, who had harmed noone, were actually forced to give up their babies because of lack of support and societal opprobrium.

Court ordered adoption is a better descriptor. Social workers don't permanently rehome kids to other families without that.

Adoption. 'Forced adoption' is an emotive and redundant term. Thankfully we are a more evolved society than many and very few babies are relinquished for adoption these days so almost all adoptions are carried out after public law proceedings. Many parents do in fact accept the outcome before final hearing even if it wasn't what they would have wanted. The use of the word 'forced' focuses the attention on the experience of the birth parent not of the child. It's just not necessary.

It's scary how many people on this thread think CM is an innocent victim. As far as I can see she has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that she is not worthy of being a mother.

Constance was quite unique in that not only did she have the support of the authorities to leave Gordan, but she also had an “unearned” income - there was no real barrier to her leaving Gordan and prioritising her kids other than herself. I wonder where her family play into all this? I had wondered why they didn’t have custody of her children?

@BabyCatFace ok noted. As I say I was using the term used by the person I was replying to who said the U.K. needs to have a system whereby contact with the biological parent continues even if [court ordered] and I was saying it does.

By sending her to live with a cult? Odd way of trying to get a troubled teen back on track.

@BabyCatFace @Uricon2

Thank you for your clarification around use of the term forced adoption.

This has been one of the many reasons why I found this thread profoundly depressing.
The number of people who seem to think social services will intervene just because parents disapprove of a partner, or hope they dont get custodial sentences because they've suffered enough, that its sad they will be separated, or why didnt they just go abroad so social services would leave them in peace etc etc etc.
Every adopter, foster carer or other professional working in child protection will be shaking their heads in disbelief.
Ive had my fair share of ropey social workers but I don't believe any of them have initiated actions to remove children without very good reason.
It's blatantly obvious that all the children involved in this case were at serious risk and it was only a matter of time before one of them ended up dead.
Spare your pity for a tiny baby who lived a miserable painful existence before her death.
RIP Victoria

That version of events was put forward by CM herself. At the first trial, I think.

Social services absolutely do not remove children from their parents merely on the say-so of other family members. If I remember rightly, CM insisted that her father had a lot of influence in this regard because of his aristocratic background. This is also bollocks.

So the OP hasn't come back then?

Must be busy reading all the press reports they managed to miss entirely.

I do actually feel sorry a bit for the fact that they will now be separated.

Co-dependency is not love. Remember she was screaming ‘help me, help me’ to the paramedics after he pushed her off the first floor balcony and he refused to let the paramedics in to treat her.

Separation is the best thing for them. It’s a shame it took the death of a tiny baby to bring about the change.

I think you're right.

Rebellion and "This is us against the world" are very common traits in adolescence. And running away with a newborn baby and camping out to evade the authorities, etc is something I could just about grasp in two very young teenagers.

But this woman was, I think, 37 when Victoria died, and the man around 50.

Their behaviour in court, too. It's like they thought that they were getting one over on the establishment, socking it to the man. . . while rather saner people look on thinking how pathetic it is. And, in the circumstances, how disturbing.

They may have agreed, been assessed and deemed inappropriate.

Not all birth family members are allowed to take on children.

Four children would be a handful for most people. Chances are that social services wanted to keep the children together.

They could well be challenging to parent given their early life experiences - they have lots of risk factors.

It can sometimes be difficult for grandparents to meet the needs of both their own child and the children. Sometimes if you don't agree no contact with your child, they wont place the children with you. Some parents can't bring themselves to do that.

Yes they need to be separated.

So sorry to hear what you went through.

I hope you and your dog are thriving now.

They didn’t start camping until they were front page news. Before then they were booking into hotels.

the police were trying to enlist the help of the public through the media but got the worst possible outcome instead.