First, I would never criticise Julia Hollander for feeling shocked and disappointed when she heard her child had a severe
disability. Feeling shock and disappointment in such a situation is natural and human.
I wouldn't criticise her for privately contemplating hurting her child (even if talking about smashing the child's head
against the wall is extremely and unnecessarily graphic) - out of frustration, despair, anger, exhaustion.
That her husband thought about simulating a cot death to put their child out of their lives is in some ways, sadly, horrifically,
comprehensible. Many of us have bought into the modern ideal of perfect children attainable through good diet and meticulous reseacrh.
That the parents openly discussed ways of killing her is to me shocking, but then, I have never had to face this situation.
Perhaps I would speak the horrible, selfish truth they spoke. Who knows.
That ultimately, she took the decision not to care for her child, but to leave her in someone else's care, is again, not extraordinary.
There are unfortunately many children with disabilities in the care system because many parents make the same awful decision.
What I despise about Julia Hollander is that she:
a) even in her shock and despair was calm and collected enough to listen to the coded references by her GP and vicar
that she could get help if Social Services thought the child was in danger of being harmed. And that she firmly insisted
that yes, her child was in danger in the full knowledge that this would help get the child removed. Her response might
have been honest but it was also cold and calculating.
b) she was keen enough to get all the baby kit out of her home on the day she did not collect her child from hospital and
yet she was happy enough to relive the whole experience by writing about it and being interviewed about it - several times.
Yes, the trauma was such that she had to get shut of the high chair and b ut not so strong that it prevented her from writing a
book about the experience. (BTW, could she not have donated the kit to charity? She appears to be from such a privileged
and cushioned background that she never even considers another child could benefit from the kit she doesn't want. "Second hand?
Charity shop? What's that?" I can hear her ask aloud in her lovely Cotswold cottage.)
c) that she has written honestly about this is no act of bravery. Honesty is very overrated. There are many, many situations where honesty serves
only to hurt. The decent thing to do would not be to write "bravely and honestly" about this very upsetting episode in the parents' lives,
but to keep a discreet and ashamed silence at their own selfish reactions. Her brutal, abrupt writing style is so unsettling to read. Her
honesty is unwanted by me.
d) that she went about the long and difficult process of publishing her memoir. Ask any aspiring writer, it is not easy to get
a book published. JH managed to negotiate her way through the process of finding a publisher and then the PR circuit to flog
her story and book. Again, smacks of cold, calculation to me. Not the act of a bereft mother.
e) that she has repeatedly flogged her story (twice in the Telegraph, once in the Mail, once in the Guardian and once on Woman's
Hour and now in "Pick Me up" - sorry, but that is pure exploitation of the story.
f) JH is quick enough to brag that her famous brother and his pals put on a "hilarious show" in aid of Helen's House and raised
40 grand and yet we hear no mention of JH and her husband putting their hands in their pockets and supporting Helen's House
or Tania. The notable lack of bragging suggests to me that she does not financially support the people who care for her child.
Believe me, this woman is so indiscreet, if there was any charitable giving on her part, we would have heard about it.
g) that throughout, we are subtly given to understand that it was because JH's life was so wonderful that she could not be expected to
cope with this "imperfect" (from JH's POV) child. She doesn't hesitate to drop in that she went to an "academic" school (what on earth
is the relevance of that? Only that she wants us to know she is clever and by extension, doesn't "deserve" anything other than an "academic" child, like she was.), that she was 'gutsy and capable' (gutsy????), that she lived in a lovely cottage in the Cotswolds (ie a wheelchair wouldn't fit
into the postcard perfect piture) etc etc
Most of all, what horrifies me about this whole story (not specifically about JH) is the way the media have picked it up and
trodden on egg-shells all around the story of her "bravery" and "difficult decision". That we live in a world where some selfish, elitist,
boastful woman can write about her horrific decision and be widely given media time on her terms makes me despair of modern society.
This woman puts a glossy spin on her situation and the media are complicit is shocking; the true story is of Tania, who is an inspiration
to those with and without SN children. But the media would never care to oublish a story focussed on Tania because it's just not
going to shift copies.
Yes, JH gets a hard time on MN. But she has a very, very easy time of it in real life, outsourcing the care and love of her child to Tania.