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?

I think it’s really unfair to say those people did not have a moral compass.

YABU

I completely disagree and am quite sick of people going in circles trying to absolve her or make excuses. The way she behaved over the course of the trial shows you how awful they both are

Direct contact should be the default position just like 50/50 should be the default in parental separation cases but in reality it doesn't work for most children. However guidance from the family court is clear that we can't go into adoption care plans assuming that letter box is the default any more. We have to justify why not face to face.

Yes not just guidance from the family court but masses of research that direct contact is better for the child and actually is more likely to prevent adoption breakdowns. As you say, we work on the basis of it should be in place and if not, why not.

But she refused to part from him, even when he thre her out of a window. They raised their existing children in squalid and unsafe conditions and multiple safeguarding concerns were raised. When they were taken, she refused to go to the contact center to see her existing children, even when told they were greatly distressed because she didn't want to reveal her pregnancy.

I felt sorry for her initially for all the reasons mentioned in the OP. However, even allowing for an element of coercive control-possibly-she is clearly floridly narcissistic and a totally unfit parent. DH knows one of the many barristers she went through and she was one of the most difficult clients he'd ever had. Even now she refuses to accept any fault in her child's death. Even allowing for the totally appalling partner, I would have convicted her. My DD was actually born on the same day and the idea of sleeping in a flimsy tent without even a mattress in the depths of that winter is incomprehensible. Her newborn died because of her actions.

Ok maybe they just hadn't switched theirs on. A little more curiosity and a simple phone call might just have saved the baby's life.

It's pretty unfair that she died.

Yes not just guidance from the family court but masses of research that direct contact is better for the child and actually is more likely to prevent adoption breakdowns. As you say, we work on the basis of it should be in place and if not, why not.

I work in a different part of the UK, direct contact is considered here, but not the default position. In terms of research, I’d be interested to see the adoption context for the research, ie has it been where children have experienced significant harm at the hands of their parents, where babies have been relinquished or where adoption has been actively consented to by parents. Context makes a huge difference in terms of direct contact improving adoption outcomes, I don’t think there have been any UK based longitudinal studies, but am happy to be pointed to some if they do exist.

This is the report which recommends direct contact. It mentions "masses of research" but fails to detail it - bizarrely it mentions one Australian study (adoption in Australia is not the same as here) and something in northern Ireland. I would love to more about this research.

I know that many adopters contributed to the consultation and our views were all but ignored.

Imo this move is simply a shifting of the sands in adoption practice, where the wishes of a group of activist adult adoptees and repentent birth parents have been incredibly influential. People like my daughter who doesn't want contact, who isn't an activist, are not being heard.

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/wholesale-reform-to-adoption-process-is-needed-says-public-law-working-group/

How does continued contact work when one parent is violent ? No adoptive family would want that parent to know where they lived. Same as CM ‘s mother … too fearful of MG. That’s a very big fear

As an adoptive parent I listened to my daughters wishes, and put their welfare first. Not the welfare of the birth parents who neglected and abused them.

Tbf it would be at a contact centre or over zoom. It would be supervised by a social worker. But the naivety shown in the report i linked to in a previous thread is astonishing if they think that neglectful birth parents will manage this contact appropriately, that it won't destabilise the children, that adopters will want to go ahead under these circumstances.

That's simply not true. They were already living a life off grid - they had over 30 burner phones, had purchased cars in cash with no insurance or documentation. When CM was pregnant first time they were living in a 2-man tent behind a tesco car park in Wales. And they intended to remain in this tent.

I'm afraid they simply had form for this. They were running from invisible threats to begin with. Sure, they may not have been forced to camp quite so soon, but they would eventually have been camping.

Her mum tried to get the kids, but on reading the files she back out. Fearful of MG, clearly fearful for her life.

Her mum tried to get the kids, but on reading the files she back out. Fearful of MG, clearly fearful for her life.

It would have been too easy for Gordon and Marten to track down the children whenever they get out of prison. Better they go somewhere they can have new identities and G&M won't know where they are.

I wish I could stop thinking and reading about this story. It makes me so sad

Oh, another detail that was reported during the trial:

When her 4th child was born during Covid, she was told that if she left the hospital leaving the child behind it would be considered abandonment. She went anyway, albeit to a court hearing about her other children. Even though she had been offered an online hearing. When she returned to the hospital she was refused admittance because she refused to take a Covid test.

A test.

Not even a vaccination. She would not take a test. On principle.

But it doesn’t appear to be pure speculation. While a criminal case on this would have been virtually impossible to pursue (due to Constance supporting her partner’s version of events and possibly their chaotic lives and drug use), various witness statements caused a family court judge to surmise that on the balance of probabilities this was likely what happened.

Genuine question: when adoption involves direct contact with birth parents as a requirement, as discussed above, how is it really different, in terms of the emotions & roles involved, from long term fostering?

I mean, do the adopting parents rather feel that they are not actually parents/family, but temporary carers, given that the child will be required to regularly see the ‘actual’ parents & will be very conscious that they are her ‘real’ family? How does it work in terms of the impact on emotions & relationships of those involved? Does it affect adopters’ commitment to, & emotional engagement with, the adopted child?

@PrinceRegentLady from an emotional standpoint I would be fine with it, if it was in the my children best interest. It wouldn’t happen weekly, long term foster children usually see parents every other month, and if it was beneficial to do this for their sense of self and well being I’m all for it.

what in not all for (not directed at you princeregentlady1 ) is the very focal group at the moment pushing direct contact as the norm in all situations without the nuance of understanding that this is NOT right for all children. One of mine is very invested in her relationship with her birth parent. The other wants nothing to do with them, won’t let us talk about them, likes to pretend they don’t exist. During her time in foster care they would turn up to contact sporadically, and children with trauma need consistency, predictability and routine. When they did turn up it would take her two days of deregulated behaviour, before she would settle back to her normal self, the contact centre would report that dad loved to rile her up, like shaking a bottle of coke and loved watched her explode, she was scared of them. In what universe does a court say it’s in her best interest to maintain a face to face relationship with them. It’s her choice if and when she is ready to do that.

I can only answer for me, but if we had been forced to have direct contact the adoption would probably have broken down. My oldest was 5 at placement and had been trained by birth family that this was just temporary, they would reclaim him/her, told not to do as the adopters said, not to settle. S/he had been taught nursery rhymes with the words changed to family members names, addresses etc, to try to fix the info in his/her head so s/he would seek the birth family out and was told to try to seek them out as soon as s/he had access to a phone or computer. Direct contact would have reinforced all that damage.

Plus, s/he hated the fact s/he was adopted, hated being 'different' to peers, never wanted to talk about it, never told friends s/he is adopted (unlike youngest who thinks it's a thing to show off about, fun juggling those opposites!). Having direct contact would have given a child with attachment difficulties so much more difficultly attaching.

No one will convince me that direct contact would have benefitted my DCs when they were small children being asked to trust and feel safe in a new 'forever family '. It might have benefitedy some members of their birth family, but not the children and the children should trump the adults every time.

Your child's circumstances wouldnt have had a plan of direct contact then.

What people are talking about is the principle of direct contact being the norm, when assessments are made and the adoption plan put together, the determination is whether that is right for the child, if its not, a rationale is set out to say why not.

The same way that there is the principle of no order within the Children Act, it doesnt mean that no children are ever subject to orders (of a myriad of types).

An assessment determines what is right for the child.

Sorry I feel like this is slightly derailing the thread but the chances are that if direct contact was assumed to be the norm at the time, it would have been planned for us. My DC were not considered high needs, their level of needs wasn't clear at all at placement. They were seen as easy to place. They had no diagnosed LDs, ND or attachment disorder (then).

Some members of birth family were recognised as being an extreme danger to children but others were not, because they are a different type of danger One member of birth family caused a lengthy court battle (years), not because they wanted to harm my DC, not at all then believed they were doing it for the DC,but they are unable to see or understand how their choices harm DC. They're not capable of understanding that. And to bring it back to Marten and Gordon, that's probably in there with them too - they're not capable of seeing how their choices harm their children. They just can't see it so see 'the system ' taking the children for their own safety as the system having it in for them. They only see their own needs and what they think should happen.

A lot of people don't understand that the welfare of children isn't even a consideration to a lot of birth parents like CM. I'm sure lots of us have seen or heard of what has happened in contact centres in front of children (screaming matches/fights). To imagine some of these people being trusted to have face to face post adoption, even on zoom, its unthinkable.

Maintaining contact would be good for some but as you say, expecting most birth parents to manage the contact appropriately, I can't see it happening.

im very sorry if that’s your experience of letterbox contact. We have never had to write a letter from a script, have never had anything censored, send quite long and informative letters, get quite long letters back, my child has an input on what is said about her, and reads the lovely letters she gets back, and for her it is a relationship, a connection. And when she’s old enough to make an informed decision I will support her in any way to meet them face to face.

You just said that direct contact would have undermined the child's ability to settle and attach. That is the assessment of why it may not be in their interest to have it, nothing more, nothing less.

Lots of adopted children still do have direct contact and certainly do with siblings who are either in care, or with extended family or also adopted.