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?

Just another point in relation to the birth parents, and it's one i made way back in this thread - birth parents are rarely prosecuted for the abuse and neglect they have inflicted. I am not entirely sure why tbh. Is it because social workers simply don't think to pass files to the police? Is it because a successful prosecution would allow the child to claim criminal injuries compensation? Is it because there is no suitable crime for eg starving your child because you spent all the money on drugs? Is it because the birth parents are deemed to have suffered enough? Is it because we as a society don't take crimes against children seriously?

If we took the harm these parents have inflicted on vulnerable children seriously we would be prosecuting them, not signing them up for ongoing contact to the detriment of the child's placement.

Just another point in relation to the birth parents, and it's one i made way back in this thread - birth parents are rarely prosecuted for the abuse and neglect they have inflicted. I am not entirely sure why tbh. Is it because they simply don't think to pass files to the police? Is it because a successful prosecution would allow the child to claim criminal injuries compensation?

I’m in Scotland, any child protection investigation where there’s allegations of crime involved (eg physical abuse, sexual abuse, severe neglect) are jointly investigated by police and social work. Where there’s evidence of criminality the police will seek to prosecute and the PF will determine whether there’s enough evidence to reach beyond reasonable doubt and whether bringing prosecution is in the public interest. I don’t have figures but can think of a fair few cases where parents have been prosecuted. The issue for those who aren’t is often about not reaching the evidence threshold for criminal procedures.

Across the entire country?

Do you think the police have a database at their fingertips that means they can contact every cab co, cheap hotel, takeaway, etc ?

Totally impractical.

I have followed the story after Police turned up in Brighton, on a day I was visiting my friends allotment.(they ramshackle everything).
I cannot help feeling there's something odd in the fact that the parents relentlessly had their daughter followed up, spied on, and each time she had a baby born would send the social services to her door. Apparently she was treated as the family scapegoat/ black sheep despite being described by friends as " compassionate and free spirited woman" and its possible the family was toxic and the man she had chosen was not up to their standards( family was relatives to royals).
She was not given a chance to be a mother since she had to constantly be on the run after the parents had her first baby taken by social sces straight away. I call this harassment to the point of driving someone to desperate measures.
If you heard this happening to your friend would you not find there's something fishy and unhealthy on how the daughter was treated? Relentlessly having all her babies taken one by one, having to run to keep the last one, living in tents in middle of winter?
Is no one else finding that odd?

Her parents didn’t have any of the children taken away, CM and her vile partner chose to act in a way to have their children removed. Why are you claiming her first child was removed at birth?

A violent rapist is more than not up to standard.

The grandparents of the baby did not have the first baby removed. Have you actually read anything of this case?

No, because it’s rubbish.

Grandparents can’t make social services remove children on a whim. There will have been solid reasons.

the bar is extremely high for social services to remove children. Parents are given chance after chance. She was offered help and support, she was very wealthy, she had every advantage to remover herself from these people, hire lawyers of her own.

i don’t disagree the parents may have been toxic, but they don’t have the power to “get her babies taken away”.

I cannot help feeling there's something odd in the fact that the parents relentlessly had their daughter followed up, spied on

Maybe they were (rightly) concerned about her safety and the safety of her children?

Did you get all that rubbish from Tik Tok or did you make it up yourself?
Would Mark Gordon be up to your standards if he came into your family?

Why doesn't adoption work well? Much better children are in safe secure families.

Forcefully placed for adoption because that is the only way for some children.

Would you think a violent convicted rapist was up to your standards if your daughter was involved with one? Marten's parents didn't send social services round, not do they have the power to have her baby taken away by social services, that's not how social services work. I doubt her family are as 'toxic' as she and Gordon are.

When she had her first child she intended to take it 'home' to a tent next to a main road despite having the kind of money most of us can only dream of and already having been offered a house bought for her in London. The only preparations she made for another was to buy a 5 pack of baby grows. She was given a mother and baby placement and she left that baby alone for 17 hours. She abandoned a different one in hospital at birth then when she returned refused to do a COVID test to be allowed back in. When she was pregnant with the 3rd she ended up out of a window with a shattered spleen, in front of her younger children. Please explain how any of that was her parents doing?

She wasn't 'harassed' she was given chance after chance to put her children first and she never once did. Social services were right to keep tabs on her, she endangered and neglected her children and then killed one of them.

Well you obviously haven't "followed the story" or you'd know that most of what you just posted was complete bullshit

You might want to try this as well as the BBC links - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jul/15/inside-the-trial-of-constance-marten-and-mark-gordon

On drugs? Where did you get this info. Nowhere dies it state the mother was on drugs you are just villifying the person. It's the parents who had her first baby taken because they didn't approve of the relationship, plus didn't support their daughter from what I learned recently.

I cannot help feeling there's something odd in the fact that the parents relentlessly had their daughter followed up, spied on, and each time she had a baby born would send the social services to her door.

It probably seems odd because the story you have here is the one CM told in court.

The parents did not ‘relentlessly’ have their daughter followed, there were two short occasions when they asked investigators to try and find her,

Which you might also do if your daughter had gone off grid, tentatively, csmpervsn, with a small child in the company of a man you knew to be a violent rapist and assaulted of policewomen

No the parents did not send SS to their door. SS became involved due to living in a tent surrounded by urine bottles with a baby, violent father assaulting police, violent father rupturing her spleen and kidneys and refusing to allow paramedics into the house, abandoning their baby in the maternity hospital.

The Family Court documents are all available now,

These instances and many other shocking occasions of how CM snd MG brought SS to their own (tent) door are made clear.

Comprehension: Nul points.

Where did you learn this, I wonder?

Martens parents had no power to have her first child removed. Please provide your evidence of that.

Gordon assaulted 2 police officers at the maternity hospital, that is on public record, he got sent to prison for it.

Marten intended to keep the newborn in a tent,that is also in public record.

If they weren't on drugs what exactly led them to think it was a good idea to keep a newborn in a tent full of bottles of urine, when Marten had the means to buy a house and even pay for a nanny if she wanted?

Bonkers drivel.

@Chamille
What I find really, really, really odd is the number of people like you who persist trying to find excuses and pedalling this myth that her parents had the children removed.
It does not work like that.

And whilst Im all for giving people a second chance would you want a convicted violent rapist round for tea on Sundays?

Have you read this @Chamille

Grandparents can contact social services with concerns, just like anyone else. Many children have files full of concerns from neighbours, teachers, medical staff, and yes family sometimes too. I have two adopted children. They were reported to social services by working class grandparents among others. But family can't make the social workers act. Sometimes reports will be frivolous or vindictive. Social services have to take the case to remove a child to a judge. They need good evidence. They don't just do what rich relatives want.

There's none so blind as those who will not see

But someone has to allege the crime and my belief/experience is that they don't push it in cases of neglect unless a child dies. If the child is near to death (as my younger daughter was), they just put them into foster care, feed them up etc and go for an adoption plan. Yes the bus lose their child but they aren't prosecuted. Imo there is a lack of will to look at criminal proceedings.

My younger daughter is furious that her bps weren't prosecuted for what happened to her. The social worker reports said things like "they didn't mean it" but as far as I can see, at no point did they involve anyone from the police to see if a crime had been committed.

If we are going to be child centered, really what many of the children want is ongoing contact with the foster carers, but there is no campaign for that, no court ordered contact arrangements, no pressure on adopters to agree to it. Imo this is often just as important and healthy for the children than birth family.

If your children were removed from their birth parents and placed for adoption it would be highly highly unlikely that a strategy meeting didn't feature at some stage, part of the purpose of which is to determine whether police will carry out an investigation jointly with social services.