Irresponsible and unhelpful article about baby’s death?

[NET145]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c864g0evz9jo.amp

I am genuinely very confused about this article and would appreciate if someone could shed light so we can learn from it.

It says that the mother “had failed to notice her daughter's deterioration” and this presumably led to the baby’s tragic death. But I have no idea what the signs of deterioration would have been? As a new mum maybe it is not as obvious to me as it might be for others.

There seems to be great emphasis on the alcohol and tobacco consumption, but nothing to say that this directly impacted - e.g. baby someone fallen on or got hold of cigarettes so it’s unclear why this is actually relevant? Clearly it is not a crime have booze and fags, so what exactly has happened here?

It seems like there is some fairly crucial information missing? AIBU to think this type of article is alarming enough to raise anxiety levels but too vague to actually help inform or equip parents and careers. And also stigmatises a mother who, other than drink and smoke, does not explicitly seem to have done something harmful. If she has missed some critical signs of declining health then we really need to know what they were!

As pp have said a sofa is the worst place to leave a small baby to sleep for suffocation risk. The baby should be in the same room as the parent until 6 months old. A mother who isn’t inebriated will be checking on her child regularly as instinct not leaving them for 12+ hours. It isn’t illegal to drink with children in the house but in my four years of being a parent I don’t think I have ever been drunk in charge of my children.

I kind of get what you’re saying too OP and there are other articles online which she’s a little more light on the specifics of the offence like this from the CPS which talks about Mum not checking on her baby properly during the night (only checking from a doorway) and presumably being too drunk/hungover to notice baby didn’t wake for their usual feed between 4.30 and 6.30am and only realising this at 9am by which time baby had been dead for a while.

I suspect there’s more to this one than is being shared and that this was even further away from it being a case of a “responsible mum having drinks with her friend whilst her healthy baby was put to sleep appropriately” than it reads.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/news/mother-convicted-child-cruelty-after-getting-drunk-vodka

I don’t think it’s curiosity, but fear.

Who knows OP, but the fact you’re worrying about signs to watch out for means you’re going to be checking regularly.

This is a very unlikely scenario to happen.

There’s a lot of defending her on Facebook which is unusual in a baby death case as people usually massively distance themselves but she has a lot of support from people saying she was a good, loving mum who had drinks with her friend whilst her baby slept and baby died of SIDS. Tragic outcome all round.

The baby was left on the sofa. A healthy baby could roll and suffocate on a cushion, could roll off the sofa, and this particular baby was left overnight on the sofa. That's 12 hours, a baby could develop any kind of health condition in that time. In the past my children when babies have needed immediate attention due to projectile vomiting whilst laying on their backs and febrile seizures. It could literally have been anything. The important takeaway is that babies, even healthy ones shouldn't be left unsupervised for all that time. It is utterly abhorrent that this happened to that poor baby.

I'm curious why you are so fixated on the 'what' happened. You mentioned having a young baby yourself. Are you worried from a health anxiety point of view or a 'I've been leaving my baby in another room' point of view?

The BBC piece was written from a police press release which, while helpful for providing information about the outcome of the case, does not in any way replicate decent court reporting. Unfortunately many local media outlets no longer send reporters to court due to the high financial cost of doing so.

Thankfully the local paper here did send a reporter to court. Their report is here which states that the cause of death is unknown.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/stoke-trent-baby-lay-dead-10508271.amp

There will be an inquest at which the coroner will explore in more depth the reasons for the baby’s death.

Court reporting is not designed to provide advice to parents, and it would be irresponsible for court reporters to do so, unless its advice specifically offered by experts in or outside of the courtroom.

Edited, as I didn't read the article properly the first time.

I disagree that this has been reported for the public to learn from - and I would hope that it was obvious not to drink a bottle of vodka whilst you are caring for a baby. I'd suggest that you look at other sources, where you will find an abundance of information on what to look for, rather than a news article.

Simple. What you learn from this is: to become a responsible parent you don’t drink to excess where you are incapable of looking after your baby/child/children.

You want to know warning signs to look for: Parent your baby, feed them, change their nappy, wind them and most importantly actually check on them. She didn’t do any of this in all that time!

We dont know but there wouldve been something which the mum failed to see as was neglectful. If a baby was sick youd look after it.

Sometimes the courts/judges forbidden certain information to be released during a court case, this could be for a variety of reasons.

In terms of learning from it all you need to know is to make sure there is a responsible adult looking after a baby at all times. A baby can also deteriorate very quickly from illnesses, as in get a high temperature and deteriorate to the point of needing medical attention over a couple of hours.

Also SIDS unfortunately happens and is increased with alcohol use and smoking within a household - which every parent should be aware of.

Just making an educated guess, but I think it probably comes down to the timeline.

The EMTs arrived around 9:30 in the morning and the baby was starting to show signs of rigor mortis. With a baby that's going to start generally around 2 hours after death. Which means she probably died around 7:00 or 7:30 in the morning. She normally had to feed between 4:00 and 6:00 in the morning, but she didn't wake for that feed and the mother didn't notice because she was too drunk.

Had she not been drunk, it's possible that she would have checked on the baby when she didn't wake for her feed and been able to summon help more quickly. If her drunkenness prevented her from being able to summon help in a more timely manner then she's guilty of neglect even if ultimately the baby would have died anyway.

Smoking is a cause of SIDS. Not the sole cause but it absolutely contributes. Smoking during pregnancy is a big risk factor for SIDS. The theory is that it affects the baby’s ability to react to reduced oxygen levels while asleep. Smoking in a house with a baby or co-sleeping with a smoking parent are also correlated with SIDS risk.

Babies do go down hill quickly. This is why SWs have to do a pre-birth plan and decide that a baby will have to be removed at birth. When you attend A&E the first question is "are they still producing wet nappies". Overheating, oxygen levels falling, combined with dehydration, can kill a baby. Signs of deterioration have been outlined. Picking a baby up for a cuddle can restore a baby's breathing, enough for them to rally round. It's possible that there had been low level neglect, ongoing, which inpacts on the health of a baby. Then one twelve hour window is enough to cause death.

I don’t think it’s irresponsible and harmful but it is a bit of a vague article. The woman’s crime is leaving the baby to sleep unsafely all night, failing to get lifesaving help and failing to notice her baby had died (therefore neglect and basically manslaughter). It says signs of rigor mortis were noted, which starts to happen 2-6 hours after death. We don’t know the cause of death but stroke can be caused by suffocation (sleeping on sofa) or it could be SIDS due to something like cigarette smoke exposure.

An unresponsive baby is enough deterioration for concern but other deterioration symptoms could have been floppy body, weakness, differences in breathing, cold to touch, very pale or blue tinge. Obviously not breathing is the biggest one. The mother was presumably breathalysed in the morning when she was still pretty drunk and the ambulance crew noticed when they came to resus a cold dead baby so I think that is relevant - someone shouldn’t get so drunk that they can’t look after their baby properly and don’t notice when they stop breathing/literally die

I understand what the OP is asking, and it’s nothing to do with excusing the mother. She’s trying to understand what part of the behaviour of the mother constituted a criminal act- which, the way the article is written, does make it sound like:

• having a drink after having a baby could be a crime (it’s all about degrees isn’t it.)
• Smoking after having a baby could be a crime (isn’t but personally wish exposing babies to second hand smoke was)
• not going into the room where a baby is sleeping could be a crime (obviously safe sleep guidance says 6 months before they sleep alone, and OFC shouldn’t be on the sofa- but I feel like this could happen to lots of people).

of course all of these together + the level of alcohol consumed + the sofa sleeping + the age of the baby represent neglect- and it’s an awful case - but I understand the OPs question.

Have to say I’m surprised she was prosecuted. Obviously she wasn’t giving that baby her full attention, she’d been drinking and placed the baby on a sofa so from a “moral” pov yes she did things which put the baby at risk and has paid the price.

But a number of babies die every year on sofas, I’ve not heard of a parent been prosecuted before. Normally there is a big jump from a moral threshold to a legal threshold. I wonder if she’d been an upper middle class mum drinking wine at a dinner party if she’d have been similarly prosecuted?

Manchester Evening News

”The prosecution case was that throughout the evening Birks only briefly observed her daughter from a dining room doorway rather than conducting proper checks.
When Rhian did not wake for her usual feed between 4.30am and 6.30am, Birks failed to notice this deviation from routine.
Between 6am and 9am, Birks then failed to recognise her daughter's deterioration in health.”

I think a lot of the anger about the neglectful mum is being redirected at poor op.

Op is a new mum and worried that even sober she may not notice signs baby is deteriorating and because the article doesn't say how baby died she is worried that her own child could suddenly die even though they are not in a neglectful household. My advice op is to avoid these types of articles and follow health visitor / lullaby trust advice.
being a new mum can be horrible i would be scared to go to the toilet in case ds died. Sending hugs Op

OP, none of us are medical professionals but still we usually see if our baby needs help (if we are not too intoxicated). An unresponsive baby, for example, is an emergency and surely you’d react accordingly by common sense.

Your title is inflammatory though. The article has been written to advise of the court findings, not to soothe new and worried parents about the possibility of finding their baby has died. If you want to find out about that, there are other more appropriate sources of up to date information than an article reporting on a court case.

It's shocking how some parents prioritise getting rat arsed over their helpless infants' safety and well being. That baby had died long before her feckless mother chose to check on her. I can't imagine having that degree of disassociation over my baby, I really can't. And for you OP, this wouldn't be you either, as you are interested in warning signs about infants' deteriorating health and seem genuinely concerned about how that might apply to your baby.

This article isn't the place to find it though, that's not its purpose. It's just reporting the bare facts of the case.

When Dd (over 20 years ago) was a baby she slept in her own room, if she hadn’t woken for a feed in the night I’d have slept through. I do actually know someone who on waking naturally at 9am ran to her baby’s room and found her dead in the cot. Someone could be in this position these days, have had a drink the night before….do they get prosecuted? Because the alcohol is probably irrelevant, if you’re asleep then you’re asleep. You assume the baby will wake at some point and cry and wake you up but if they don’t then you sleep through. You don’t set an alarm to check them.

@CameForAVacationStayedForTheRevolution

I think the majority of sofa deaths are exhausted new parents who've fallen asleep accidentally when holding a baby rather than a drunk mother intentionally leaving a baby on a sofa overnight.

Very different situations and nothing to do with class.

5month old asleep on a sofa, I wouldn't even leave the room. At that age they'll either roll off and hit their head or roll the other way and suffocate themselves. Leaving a 5 month old on a sofa for 14hours is pretty much a planned death in my eyes.

Yes, I think the sofa rather than a cot played a major factor here. Sadly though some people assume because it’s flat it’s safe, that baby isn’t rolling yet so won’t fall off. Or they wedge baby in with cushions and make it worse. Baby would actually have been safer on the floor!