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!

OP, I don't think it was irresponsible or unhelpful.

Regardless of the cause of death, the parent was not capable of looking after the child properly - that is a huge and dangerous amount of alcohol.

It's a very sad story. Besides the terrible mistake this person made, there are wider questions for the alcohol industry and public health messaging, and indeed the whole of society. There is so much encouragement to drink.

Of course it’s clear that you shouldn’t be pissed whilst looking after kids. Posters aren’t arguing otherwise.

you made a nasty post about the OPs interest in the cause of death being excessive, when actually it’s entirely reasonable to want to know why the baby died, because actually it’s not at all clear that it was the not looking after the baby that led to it’s death.

@NET145 Unable to confirm reasons for infant deterioration but Judge likely to have enough evidence to conclude that if Mum had checked on her infant, she was likely to notice something wasn't right and call for help and child's chance of survival likely to have increased. Incidentally for all parents with their first child https://www.nhs.uk/baby/health/is-your-baby-or-toddler-seriously-ill/

It's a court report about the mother's conviction. It doesn't have to get into the details of why precisely the child died 'so we can learn from it'. To fixate on that and say "we need to know!" is odd. Sure it's not that there's some new cause of infant death that needs public awareness raising. The focus in on the parental neglect and as long as we're not neglecting our DC there's nothing to learn here beyond the things we already knows about childcare and general vigilance. It's a sad news story and the ins and outs of how the baby died is not a learning opportunity for the OP.

They don’t have to put all the details. Saying the article is “irresponsible” is batshit OP!!

It could be a number of things - baby suffocated due to being placed on an unsafe sleeping surface without supervision. Maybe baby was sick and choked, or got a fever and wasn’t cared for.

It doesn’t matter in terms of your learning, because whatever happened, the mum was drunk and left baby unsupervised. As a first time parent, that is the lesson you take - you don’t leave a baby unsupervised and you don’t get drunk if you’re the only one there to care for them. Hope that helps.

We dont lnow if timely intervention on the mothers part may have saved her child's life (at least from the information released). What we do know is that she was not properly caring for her child, she was incapable of proper care due to alcohol consumption and appears to have left her child unattended in an unsafe place. These are things that should be unlawful regardless of whether they actually caused a death. In much the same way as driving whilst over the limit is unlawful even if its unclear whether your actions directly caused a fatality.

OP I for one hear you. The mother didn't cause the death; if the child had not died that night, her behaviour would have caused at most a call to social services, and it is far from clear that her not having drunk wine or gone outside to smoke would have meant that she'd have noticed something was amiss in time to do anything about it ( and what exactly, in case of SIDS?).

Reminds me of the prosecutions supported by Roy Meadows of mothers of babies who died from SIDS. It's just so easy to blame mothers, especially struggling ones.

I agree OP.

I think it’s crucial that the cause of death should have been established before the prosecution was undertaken and it should have been made known in court.

If the baby died from SIDS then it would have made no difference whether the parent was stone cold sober and sat two feet away from the baby all night or intoxicated to the point of passing out, as they couldn’t have foreseen or altered the tragic outcome.

I don’t think this was a genuine good faith prosecution.

On the surface it looks like a case of wanting to stigmatise a (working class?) single mum for daring to drink too much alcohol whilst celebrating her birthday with her friend at home.

There are plenty of middle class Mumsnet posters who regard using alcohol at home as a perfectly normal way to unwind and they'd be given support and sympathy if it was their baby who died.

If it was SIDS, I hope the mother appeals the verdict.

For the record, I am not supportive of parents getting drunk around children and I rarely drink alcohol and my DH is completely teetotal.

It really isn't - she's a new mum and not unnaturally, wants to know what caused the death of the baby as a drunk mother is not a cause of death

It's pretty clear from the OP what the actual fuck she is on about - namely, that: "this type of article is alarming enough to raise anxiety levels but too vague to actually help inform or equip parents and careers"

If you follow basic SIDS guidelines you'll be doing everything you can to keep your baby safe without needing to know the prurient details of someone else's tragedy

Where do you see the OP defending the parent? Am I even reading the same thread?

You do know this is just a news report not a transcript of the full case as it unfolded? I've not RTFT but if you're basing all this on what's reported on that BBC link it's bizarre to assume that it's covered everything that was established and known to the court and hence is a bad faith prosecution. Journalists tell the story from a news angle, not to give a comprehensive overview of all the info.

I’m not agreeing with what the mum did at all but legally where is the line drawn. If a baby dies of sids and is in a cot in the next room to we charge the parents with neglect because guidance says they should be in the same room?

even if they’re sober? You could argue it’s still neglect. What if they’ve had one glass of wine, or two? Or are we only fussed if it’s vodka? I think the alcohol is a red herring to be honest. As I said earlier if your baby sadly dies in the Night, you being a knackered parent may not wake till much later on in the morning. That’s certainly the case with my ex colleague who lost a baby in such circumstances.

For all anyone knows this baby could have died anyway regardless of where it had gone to sleep and certainly regardless of the mum’s alcohol intake. So they’d certainly never have proven manslaughter (someone mentioned this)

Can’t believe that you think being drinking when in charge of a baby isn’t an issue!!!!
if she was sober she would have been able to use her brain!

I doubt a Reporter was even in Court. The article looks as though it’s been taken from this page published by the CPS and the photo is just a stock photo of the Court rather than a specific photo of the Defendant.

The baby may have died anyway however,none of these things helped.
Leaving a 5 month old baby asleep on the sofa
Not checking on them properly for many hours
Drinking to excess
Going out frequently for a cigarette
The minimising on here is ridiculous.

how would I know? What’s the value in trying to guess? A five month old was left unsupervised in an unsafe environment with no food or water for over 12 hours. So many risks and possibilities for death, and that’s not even taking into account the baby’s condition before that night, given that the mother has demonstrated neglectful behaviours.

there is something odd in your attitude that a) the mother’s neglect is unconnected to the baby’s death and b) the public should be told the cause of death as a learning opportunity.

the learning opportunities are clear: follow safe sleep guidance (never mind the sofa, the baby should not be sleeping alone at that age because sleeping alone under 6 months increases SIDS risk) and do not get paralytic drunk when you are responsible for a baby. Your focus on signs of illness and distress in a baby is unneeded because if you are sober and present, you will notice that your baby is unwell. That’s the whole point.

It gives the detail needed. Drunk mum fed a baby to sleep and then left her on a sofa unattended, which is an unsafe place to put a baby to sleep, and then didn’t check on her properly at all. Baby may have choked throwing milk back up, or turned sideways to the back of the couch and suffocated etc, we don’t need those grim details. Mum neglected baby and didn’t notice baby deteriorate - so they clearly felt she missed opportunities to make her baby safer. It’s a case of child cruelty and neglect - you don’t need the post mortem report.

She laid her baby on the sofa after feeding. Baby could have choked on milk/vomit or rolled over, unable to lift its head. Either was baby has either suffocated on its own vomit or as a result of it being face down. She clearly wasn't sat next to baby keeping an eye on her. Definitely wasn't in close proximity.

Mother failed to properly check on baby. Mum observed from a distance. She was clearly blazay about baby and was more interested in vodka and going outside to smoke.

She didn't directly kill baby, but she failed to check on her properly = failed to see baby had deteriorated. If she'd gone up to baby, she'd have noticed baby choking or babies mouth/lips would have gone blue/black. This is a sign that baby wasn't breathing/in distress.

Basically she's fed baby, then walked away allowing her poor baby to die whilst she drank and smoked.

Why does a BBC news article need to be your source of education around baby health? Strange.

Also OP the current advice is that baby sleeps in the same room as you are in until at least 6 months. The Mum in this case did not have the baby in the same room as her for the whole of the night.

If you want some information on safely sleep for your baby the Basis website is very good.

"I agree it probably has triggered concerns in mums to be or new mothers, because it implies mothers should get up intermittently through the night to check on a sleeping baby, when that’s not necessarily needed"

Yeah - this what would be freaking me out

I'd hope it'd only be freaking you out for 30 seconds till you googled proper resources (like several PPs have posted) and saw that this isn't the case. It's only an issue if you take your childcare advice from perceived implied messages in news reports about a random court case. I know we're all extra sensitive with newborns, but to get freaked out from reading such things into an article like this is OTT. The takeaway is not to get pissed and ignore your baby. Don't overthink.

And also stigmatises a mother who, other than drink and smoke, does not explicitly seem to have done something harmful.

…you don’t think getting absolutely smashed out of your face, leave you baby alone on a sofa for 14 hours, is harmful?

She was convicted of child cruelty, not of actually causing the poor baby’s death. There were probably quite obvious signs that the children were not being cared for. The poor baby had rigor mortis so had been dead for a while before she even noticed. I imagine the poor soul also had bad nappy rash if she was being left alone for that long. Why was she even on the sofa? Did she not have a moses basket or cot? Leaving a baby on the sofa alone is dangerous as it is not a firm, flat, waterproof surface, and is not clear. Most sofas have a slight incline, which babies can roll into and then struggle to roll themselves back, so can suffocate. Falling asleep on the sofa with your baby raises the risk of SIDS by 50 times more than co sleeping in a bed.

The lullaby trust has some good advice about safe sleep:

Safer sleep for babies: the basics
Following this advice for every sleep, day and night, reduces the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS, previously known as cot death). Our safer sleep advice has saved the lives of over 30,000 babies since 1991.
The safest place for a baby to sleep is in their own clear, flat, firm separate sleep space (e.g. a cot or Moses basket) in the same room as you.

1. Lie your baby on their back.
2. Keep their cot clear.
3. Use a firm, flat, waterproof mattress.
4. Keep baby smoke-free.
5. Avoid your baby getting too hot.
6. Sleep your baby in the same room as you for at least the first six months.

https://www.lullabytrust.org.uk/baby-safety/safer-sleep-information/safer-sleep-overview/

Doesn’t sound as if any of those six bits of advice were implemented by the mother in this case, potentially the baby may have suddenly died regardless, but seems likely that a combination of the risk factors contributed to her dying from SIDS.