Another breastfeeding mother removed from her baby - please read this and email if you can!

[theUrbanDryad]

here

i have to go out now, but will check back in on this later. thanks.

We don't know the full details of the case though do we? Removing the baby from the arms of the mother in the street does sound an unlikely course of action for Social Services. I'm not saying that this was handled right at all, but I do think that there is perhaps more than one side to this story.

For instance, the baby may have been in danger from sources we don't know about. Social Services would not remove a baby based on rumour alone, they would have had to have signed statements from the people involved.

but SS themselves have said that the reason they've kept this baby from her mother is because the mother "is too immature to meet Baby E?s needs as a priority. Miss W is ?headstrong? and is likely to take advice she thinks is right regardless of any advice that might be given, an example of this is breastfeeding Baby E when the Social Worker had advised her that this would probably disrupt Baby E?s ability to take the bottle." NOT because the baby is in any danger of being harmed by her mother or by one of her friends.

either way, as you say, it hasn't been handled very well at all, as regardless of anything else (yes, even disregarding the fact that this baby seems to have been removed from her mother, in the street, without a court order) removing a breastfed baby and not allowing daily access to the baby, and not even passing on expressed milk contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights.

this goes deeper than this case. for me, this whole sorry story is indicative of how little breastfeeding is understood or regarded in this country. the fact that Miss W was told to stop breastfeeding Baby E because it would interfere with the bottle just makes me want to weep, it really does.

I don't think the baby would have been removed for those reasons alone. Social Services tend to be very wary of removing babies from their mothers. I can't help but feel that there must be more to this but we would never know that as Social Services would not be able to release that information.

Who knows, the mother may have been passing the baby around her teenage friends, leaving it people she barely knows, not creating a safe environment for it, getting pissed whilst feeding. We don't know any of these things as we are not there. The breastfeeding thing has been picked up on as a reason why the baby should be with the mother, but don't lets just assume that a breastfeeding mother is perfect.

Because we don't know more about this case, I strongly feel that it's wrong to comment.

Rhubs - even if all this was true (and it's a big if, and doesn't correlate with what I do know about this case) then it would still be against the European Convention on Human Rights to do what Essex SS have done.

i don't understand why people find it so difficult to believe that this could happen! it's happened time and time again, but we don't usually get to hear about it because of the secrecy of the family courts!!

i don't understand why people find it so difficult to believe that this could happen! it's happened time and time again, but we don't usually get to hear about it because of the secrecy of the family courts!! it usually happens to the most vulnerable people (ie asylum seekers, or young mothers, or the mothers with learning difficulties) and they don't usually have anyone to speak for them, it all gets done and dusted, all tied up red tape and no-one's any the wiser.

Ime, SS generally just keep an eye on mum and baby, but leave things as they are. I know of babies and tots that really are neglected and devoid of love, but they are not removed from their families.

It's not a case of not believing Urban, but that without knowing all the details I would feel uncomfortable making a judgement. I would advise that the mother go to her local newspaper and her MP, thus putting pressure on the SS to justify their reasons for doing this.

I'm sure someone in Social Services would know the procedures much better than I, but they really cannot take a baby away like this without some bloody good reason and testimony.

I'm actually so angry I have tears. I'm lost for words.

I think that if it is as portrayed on the website linked to then it is very worrrying. If the rights ad wrongs of why the child was removed are disregarded they still do not seem to explain their reasoning behind refusing the child her mother's expressed breastmilk.

In addition there are countless threads on here where mothers talk of their difficulty in getting their exclusively bf baby to take milk from other sources. SS do not seem to have made any plan as to how they were going to provide nutrition and fluids to this baby once they had removed her from her mother's care.

Rhubs - she can't go to the papers, because of the family courts secrecy thing (i think)

and ime, SS will (and have, on many occasions) taken babies away on the flimsiest of reasons. Sally Clarke anyone?

Lots of teenage mums have babies and keep them, despite smoking and drinking and having tons of boyfriends.

Which makes me think Urban, that there must be more to this story otherwise no teenage mum would be safe.

Ah now with Sally Clark they thought they had reason, she had lost a couple of babies already and suspicions were raised when it was suggested that her baby could have been suffocated. It involved the death of her baby. I don't think the two cases can be compared fairly.

emailed, it's interesting that the V climbie foundation is supporting this family, i would imagine they wouldn't get involved if they thought there was child abuse involved

yes, i know what you're saying, and perhaps Sally Clarke is a bad example.

what seems to be the problem in this case is that Miss W didn't want to be at the mother & baby unit because she hated it there (she was in the M&B unit as she was waiting was council accommodation) so - under pressure from SS - she signed an agreement saying she would stay at her mother's house. she had an argument with her mother and went to see a friend, and her grandmother. SS used this - among other - things to claim that she was living a "nomadic existence".

from what i can understand, Miss W didn't tick the right boxes. yes, she was a teenage mother; yes, she had made some mistakes, and even her mother says she is no angel, but she's not out there drinking and smoking, and - i think - SS struggled to pigeonhole her. so they did what they thought was best, and no doubt acted in what they thought were the best interests of the child, and took the child into care.

which is all very well, but it still doesn't explain the contravention of human rights blah blah blah...

Personally I don't see why this girl was told NOT to breastfeed her baby - if her baby is hungry she will feed - either by bottle or by breast so it's dreadful that this is being used against her. I think this is sad but also feel that we don't know the whole story. We know nothing about the girl or her family apart from what is in the blog.

If you are right, then obviously it is a travesty. If she has so many organisations behind her and she has this blog on the internet, how come she can't go to the papers again? Seems like it's public knowledge anyway?

Or her MP? She can complain about the way SS has behaved, she can appeal, she can ask for an investigation into her case, she can take SS to court. There are lots she can do. She needs some sound legal advice.

Rhubs - "Whilst the removal of the baby had occurred without a court order, and whilst the family succeeded in engaging a solicitor in that first week, the baby has not been returned. The secrecy in the Family Courts system, has meant that the family have had to stand back, silently, and fulfill all requests made to them, by Social Services, in the hope of Baby E's return. Baby E had been placed on the Child Protection Register a few days prior to the removal, for unfounded, and unproven, allegations of potential harm that cannot be discussed due to the secrecy. They were however, allegations, and Baby E had never come to any harm in any way, and the allegations for the Child Protection Order are not a feature of subsequent paperwork by Essex Social Services. In short, the reasons cited for the protection order, do not appear at all in subsequent arguments for keeping the baby from her mother."

so there have been allegations of harm (from the girls in the M&B unit) and the baby was on the Child Protection register, but Essex SS seem to have dropped that line of enquiry, which i find very interesting.

"
At the emergence of this detail in the confidential reports into Miss W and Baby E, Miss W and her family felt that they had no option but to break their silence and ask for support from the wider community. They have been in touch with many statutory and voluntary agencies throughout this nightmare, and have continued to slog along in the hope that the mess would be sorted. However, given how proud the family were that a young, troubled and not always even tempered young woman had successfully exclusively breastfed her baby despite her problems, and that this success was being cited as reasons to keep the baby from her.. they felt they could stay silent no longer."

this explains why she broke the silence. i still don't think she can go to the press though (i'm just waiting for Miss W's mother to confirm that for me)

btw - that isn't her blog, it's the blog of someone (a friend of mine) who heard about it through the Victoria Climbie foundation.

Well I hope they manage to fight their case, I really do.

i've just realised that Baby E must be a similar age to my own ds. it's so, so difficult to look at this objectively.

I think you have to. Until you know all the details, you have to be objective. You would hope that SS have a really really good reason for doing this, but agree that it's worth fighting, if only to let SS know that we, the public, will always question and debate.

Rhubs - you can help them! please, just take a little bit of time to email the MP's and councillors suggested. there is a wider issue here that must be addressed.

sorry to harp on...

I will do, you know me, I'm an activist and if there's a cause I'm on it.

Have just emailed now.

thanks Rhubs.

the secrecy thing is similar to the Fran Lyon case - once the hearing has happened, if you discuss the case or disclose names then you can be held in contempt of court. there's a hearing in Feb which will hopefully change all that (hopefully, if it rules in Miss W's favour) although of course by then, Baby E will be over a year old. and the breastfeeding relationship will be destroyed.

one thing that's just occurred to me is that Miss W and Baby E - if and when they're reunited - may well struggle to bond in a normal relationship again. if that's the case, then Essex social services have even more to answer for

Surely the main part of this case though isn 't the issue around breast-feeding (although that is important and obviously has been handled wrongly by ss). It's whether or not the baby should have been taken into care. If it is wrong that this should have happened it is wrong regardless of the baby being bf or ff.