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?

Poor little mite must have been freezing in the sleep suit, no blankets or buggy hood, if I remember correctly.

Same here. All the social workers loved the birth parents - they had been trying to help them for years. They had built a bond and they were upset that the children were going to be adopted.

They would 100% have pushed for contactfor the birth parents' benefit. But birth parents wouldn't even do the agreed letterbox contact. And we had to reject letters because birth mum clearly scapegoated our elder daughter. She only ever spoke warmly, asked questions of our younger daughter and made spiteful comments about our elder daughter.

Then birth dad was convicted of a schedule one offence and went to prison for 7 years......

I know a lot of adopters who have older children now. Most reunions with birth family have not gone well. The birth parents tend to be in similar patterns to the ones that had the children removed. They take drugs, do low level crime, fight with the neighbours...now they make demands on the children which these nicely brought up kids find horrifying (or they are dragged back in to the lifestyle).

I did notice that the family who were used as the promotion for contact on the BBC website for the contact report featured a birth mother who claimed her children were removed due to domestic violence but she had got out and turned her life around. But what would she have been like in the months and years after placement?

It is crazy imo you think that people will suddenly change and start being able to have contact.

I am all in favour of letterbox btw.

I was thinking about that case last night. The parents got lots of influential people on their side - the social workers didnt want her to go back to the parents but they were overruled. Ellie herself didnt want to go back.The case was influenced by do gooders who couldn't bear for the parents to lose their child.

As an adopter, I have found several people take the birth parents' side. My next door neighbour was always expressing her sadness for the birth mother to me.

You can see it on this thread from some people. Always putting the needs of the parents first.

I think it’s possible to feel sadness for birth parents while also recognising ongoing contact isn’t appropriate for many reasons. Adoption is about finding safe, secure homes for children - it’s not about punishing birth parents or finding children for prospective parents. If we keep that aim in focus it becomes easier to assess whether ongoing contact might undermine the safety and security of their new home or whether it might be beneficial for the children to have some form of contact.

Yes I know. Hardly bears thinking about but seeing the way she was handled in the cafe and her lack of clothing is beyond awful. Pity no one else in there noticed.

She probably died of exposure and severe neglect.

I didn’t know that a rapist was entitled to have custody of their DC, before assaulting his DW.
Did the authorities know about his past? Before the window incident.

I don't think the police could have acted any differently as they were aware of how at risk the baby was.

I also don't believe the parents were 'driven' to mistreat her.

Drug addicts and people who have been to prison are allowed to see their child if they have not hurt a child. Being abusive to the mother doesn’t stop custody.

I thought rape charges would be different.

I disagree. Anyone who passes the threshold to have a child removed to be adopted - and that's a very high threshold - should be presumed to not be able to undertake direct contact. They had their children removed because of their behaviour - what are the chances that they have changed in a few months?

And these danage done - the foetal alcohol, the physical harm. How can adopters be expected engage with this? Letterbox can be difficult enough.

Btw we were open to having ftf contact with wider family. Grandparents declined because they thought it would be too disruptive for the children.

Social workers said no to contact with half siblings, who were now in foster care. They thought it could disrup their placements - because social workers know how upsetting contact can be for everyone and how that can pan out.

I never said adoption was just for adopters but rates are down and people are turning to surrogacy and practices like this are sure to put people off. Once it's court ordered, you have no option but to do it, regardless of the fallout. Adoption isn't long term fostering but this is making it look like it.

And my point about sympathy for birth family was in respect of the damage they have done. Obviously it's severe to lose your children so imo less sympathy for birth parents and more for the poor children.

There is cctv everywhere. They could have informed 1000's of professionals, police, door security, hotels, taxi companies, the public announced drove the couple further underground. IMO.

And how do you suggest they contact these thousands of professionals, taxi companies etc - all over the UK - quickly (because the baby was incredibly vulnerable) without a public appeal?

Thank you - will take a look at this

One of the Rotherham victims was told by social services that her rapist, who was in prison at the time for some of his sex crimes against children, had to be included in decisions about the child she birthed aged 15 from his rape, because he was the father and has rights too.

Legally that’s incorrect - unless they were married or he’s named on the birth certificate he has no parental rights.

He didn't have 'custody' did he? Once they came to notice of social services all the children were removed.
Not solely because he was a sex offender, but I highly doubt he would have participated in any risk assessment or intervention around it.

It's not incorrect. If there are public law proceedings in place and the identity of the father is known, he has a right to participate in the proceedings regardless of whether he has PR or not. That's a right that applies to all people with PR, but it doesn't mean they have any power over any outcomes.

They had social services involvement on the first child, there was 3 children when they were removed, that were living with the parents for sometime in between.

I disagree. Anyone who passes the threshold to have a child removed to be adopted - and that's a very high threshold - should be presumed to not be able to undertake direct contact. They had their children removed because of their behaviour - what are the chances that they have changed in a few months?

It’s not a few months though, the average time between a child being removed from their home and being placed for adoption is two years. During this time contact will usually have been ongoing so plenty of time for contact to be observed both in terms of the parents behaviour and child’s response to contact.

Not being able to parent safely doesn’t mean they can’t manage very occasional contact. Direct contact in adoptions I’ve been aware of has been once or twice yearly - not the regular contact in place when trying to assess parenting capacity or working towards reunion. It should be a consideration in adoption planning, but not a given and should focus on whether there’s benefit to the children.

And my point about sympathy for birth family was in respect of the damage they have done. Obviously it's severe to lose your children so imo less sympathy for birth parents and more for the poor children.

My kids birth mum has had 4 children removed, 2 of them adopted by me. I’m very aware of the harm she caused them because I live with it every day. I also know enough about her background to know she never stood a chance. I have huge sympathy for her, while knowing she made choices along the way that brought her to where she is now. That doesn’t mean I think she would in any way be a positive presence in my kids life.

The previous poster didn’t specify legal proceedings, she said he had to be included in decisions about the child which, in terms of day to day parenting, he doesn’t.

According to the reporting I read the two oldest were removed first and the second two removed at birth. She did go into a parent and baby placement at some point while he was in prison.

I think it's because when dealing with child protection sometimes you need to determine facts that are serious enough to be considered by family court judges but unlikely to proceed to criminal trial or lead to conviction for whatever reason. If it's a one person says this, another says this, the judge will do a fact finding to determine which is true on the balance of probilities so the child/ren can be best protected. So in this case, the family judge may rule that MG through CM out the window on the basis of probabilities. That is super important for the judge to know in deciding care orders, access etc. But there was never a criminal conviction because of lack of evidence needed for that higher bar. It seems counter-intuitive and I've struggled in the past with it, but pragmatically I think it's needed in child protection.

Excellent piece of journalism

Very sad case, the officers involved must have been horrified to find the baby in the rubbish bag.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

That article is superb.