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?

@Toohotforaduvet I think she wanted this baby more than anything but the exhaustion of moving around and sleeping in a tent, which she was only doing out of fear.

What's your excuse for Victoria not have any warm clothes on or even a blanket when her parents were all rugged up to the nines?

Are you having a laugh? So this could happen to anyone? This pair of degenerates should never see the light of day again.

They'd had 4 children's worth of chances. Not sure what else police were supposed to do. They were clearly already well down a path of escalating neglect and abuse, it likely wouldn't have ended well whatever anyone did.

That’s how they started though, it didn’t start out as a manhunt or witch-hunt, it had changed as things progressed and it became clear soft approach is not working

All of this.

The way some people will find any angle to try to absolve these vile creatures of responsibility is nauseating. I understand victims of DV projecting their own feelings and experiences onto CM initially but with all of the information now available, there’s absolutely no excuse to paint her as a victim. They’re both dangerous and disturbed and their actions alone are the reason that poor baby died.

I hope Victoria is at peace and that her siblings have been placed with a loving family, and are receiving the support they need.

I think it's appalling to put any blame on the police for the actions of a violent rapist and a wealthy woman who made the choice to have multiple children with said rapist.

Constance Martin had the financial means to have a life beyond what most people could dream of. She could have easily funded support and assistance beyond many.

Instead she ended up in the situation where her children were forcibly removed as a last resort. Even after this, with the means to live anywhere in the world with assistance, she chose to go on the run with him and repeatedly endanger the life of her baby.

In time it may emerge that other services could have done more, but criticising the service who were left in a race against time to try and protect a vulnerable infant is extremely low imo.

We do have open adoption in this country. The presumption should be that direct contact between children and birth parents will happen unless there is a strong risk to the children. I believe that in the case of these parents direct contact with the children would have been extremely harmful. Please remember they stopped turning up to see them during care proceedings before they had even been determined to be able to be adopted.
The language 'forced' adoption is extremely emotive and chosen deliberately to suggest that adoption is something 'done to' parents against their will, rather than something which is sometimes necessary in the best interests of children.

The more I'm learning about this case the more appalled I am. I think anyone who has any sympathy for the parents or CM in particular, must be either mental themselves or have zero knowledge of the actual case.

I'm hoping that some of these posters are just getting their kicks from trolling to be honest. Because the alternative is a bit too worrying.

This is a woman so conniving she deliberately told the jury of his previous conviction in a bid to sabotage their trials.

It's not some meek clueless woman.

They only had those children removed after a very long period when SS tried to support them. It ended when Marten's partner pushed her out of the window when she was pregnant, causing serious injuries, and tried to stop her getting help - but she still went back to him. How could SS possibly have left the children with them in those circumstances? You really need to read the judgments in the care proceedings to get the full picture.

I am sick to death of excuses being made for this. A baby is dead because of those two.

There wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him. She denied he had done it.

I assume she wouldn't give evidence against him, and she was realistically the only witness.

I feel bad for her, obviously for the poor baby and children, but also her.
She clearly had mental health issues and was under control of a terrifying violent man.
Given his history, when he refused her treatment after the push or fall out of the window there should have been a condition of zero contact with her as part of his release.
If that had happened there was every chance the children she currently had could have remained with her with intensive support.
There's nothing to indicate that she, without his influence, was a danger to the children if given close supervision and support, and kept away from him.

Reading about them, they had contact through a contact centre and it was them that stopped turning up.

I assume a lot of control from Gordon and aristocrat or not she didn't stand much of a chance with her parents and that weird cult she joined.

But how else were the police supposed to find them?

Obviously that's not excusable, and I've unfortunately seen a lot of children and babies dressed inappropriately for the weather, I'm sure we all have. I still think it's tragic and she was desperate to keep this child.

That's my point. She IS rich. She just refused to spend her own money on representation. She had an income of £250,000 a year. It was reported on yesterday.

While other people who need it much more are denied legal aid.

Or do you actually think I meant that she shouldn't have been allowed representation?

This really couldn't be further from the truth. How have you formed this opinion?

Of course the pro adoption lobby will claim it isn’t the default option, and those against forced adoption will state that it is.

The truth is betwixt and between the two dogmatic beliefs on either side I suspect.

I think there are hints that she was quite a damaged character as well - the weird cult church she was a member of for a while, her own mother being weirdly aloof, her father absent. The suggestion that rather than have an open discussion and support their adult daughter, they "disapproved" of her partner (albeit I wouldn't want my daughter to be with somebody with that history) and allegedly hired detectives to track them. Whether that was part of some psychotic delusion she was having, or whether it was an accurate picture of their relationship, it's not good.

Mark Gordon was clearly a nasty character from a very young age, it's not a schoolboy mistake he was arrested for, it was a horrific pre-planned violent crime, yet they must have seen something in each other, I think the quote from the family court judge is telling:

“The strong impression given by the parents is that of two people who are fiercely united in an unrelenting struggle against a non-existent opponent.”

My armchair psychologist guess is that they have both been through experiences which are generally rare and difficult to understand from the outside (a cult; prison) and that bonded them over and above any history or reason that Gordon was imprisoned in the first place, and cemented this general idea that it was the two of them against the world, and put them into an automatically defensive position against authority. It's not an uncommon scenario for abusive relationships, and the fact she had a lot of connections and relationships, career ambitions etc and then it all suddenly vanished when she got together with him fits the same pattern.

I do think there is a general discussion to be had about how authorities can better reach and relate to people who have those feelings, because I think that the current way it's handled at much earlier stages in the relationship between an adult and the authority in question can and does make things worse. But that's not a change which can happen overnight. In the case that you have two people who are known to be paranoid and completely anti cooperation and significant concerns for such a vulnerable child, it makes total sense for the focus to be on finding the child by inviting such publicity.

If she were that desperate to keep the child she wouldn't have let it die from exposure. People who want to keep their children buy them coats.

Was this income money she was given by her parents?

In the Metro, it said they had £600k’s worth of legal aid.

I don't honestly think they would have taken the 'messaging' well, however it was phrased

They wanted to do what they wanted to do in the end. Damaged as she was they were both still culpable