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.

actually - anyone feeling they need more information about the case before they can write and to help them make an informed decision can email the Victoria Climbie foundation. [email protected]

sorry, strike my last. the address is [email protected]

actually, baffled, without knowing the full story behind the exact reasons why Baby E was taken into care (and i'll admit, i don't know, although from what i do know it seems dodgy as hell) the issue can't be whether Baby E should have been taken into care or not. the issue really is that no provisions were made for Miss W to continue the breastfeeding relationship. also - because of the secrecy of the family courts - if you write to Tracey Chapman or Ed Balls to talk about why Baby E was taken into care they'll just say they can't discuss individual cases and that's that. if you write with concern about the lack of rights for nursing mothers whose babies are taken into care - for whatever reason - with reference to this case, it's a whole different ball game.

it's an especially contentious issue because the government has assured us - the voting public - that the rights of a nursing mother will be protected, and yet time and time again, SS trample all over those "rights" and nobody challenges them.

I think understand what you mean now. The point you are making is about the lack of arrangements for breast-feeding not the case per se.

I don't believe for one moment that the circumstances are exactly as portrayed in that blog.
I've worked in child protection for years and the only people who can remove a child without a court order are the police.
SS (and especially Essex SS, whom a know a number of) are more than aware of this.

It doesn't happen that a child is removed without cause, it doesn't happen to meet quotas because there aren't any and we don't don't blinking well do it on a whim.

One side of a story is just that - a story. it isn't the truth nor is it anywhere near to the truth in this case.

Whether you know the person or not, I don't care, but don't spread rumour and supposition.

anyone who wants to see what social services are like in action might like to watch the bbc documentary about the rochdale case, there is actual video footage of real life interviews. i challenge anyone who has seen that to continue to believe there is never smoke without fire/children are not taken without good reason/ss have a modicom of intelligence. i was shocked by what that footage showed. no wonder they tried to stop the bbc publishing it
www.religionnewsblog.com/13246/bbc-wins-removed-children-ruling

and as ''Social workers Jill France and Susan Hammersley both continue to work in child protection'' I stopped sleeping easy in my bed I can tell you, they were truly truly appalling. honestly, watch the video and you will see

Yes I have to agree Morocco, the fact that the SW's responsible for this fiasco, who broke every rule in their own book, were promoted and still work in their industry at a higher level than they did then, really brings it home what sort of shambolic profession it is.

I'm sure there are some individual really good SW's. But there is a systemic failure going on, when the people responsible for Rochdale are still allowed to work in child protection. It's as if the police officers who beat up the Birmingham Six were now chief constables. It is absolutely indefensible.

morocco, I'm being dense I know, but I couldn't find the link to the video on the page you linked to...?

mrs pnut, the voice of reason - in the end it is the court who will decide whether this baby is safe to be with its mother , not teh SWs are anyone connected to Social services . parents will be entitled to legal representation and teh baby's interests will be represetned in court too via Cafcass. i am not a SW but feel angry that they are so badly portrayed when in many cases they prevent children living truly horrendous lives and sometimes being killed.

How would you feel if it were subsequently revealed that the reason she'd been told to stop breastfeeding was that she was taking crystal meth five times a day?

It sounds terribly sad all round from the blog, but there's not enough information to make a judgment.

Morroco - The Rochdale case (along with what happened on the scottish Islands) was very sad and shouldn't have happened but it was in 1990. The children act 1989 had just been implemented and different working practices were being used then.

There is now a registration process in order to work and be called a social worker and this does investigate and take action against social workers where necessary. (Community Care has reported about a number of social workers who have had their status removed recently) but no profession is without it's rotten apples.

Agree pipsqueak - am not a social worker either but we just don't know enough about this case to be ranting about social workers or to be saying that breastfeeding should have been preserved at all costs. Sometimes in these cases you have to leave it to the people who DO know the case. There may well be factors that we don't know.

A few years ago I nursed a child with severe burns which the mother had concealed for several days - the cause of the burns was never discovered as nobody in the family gave a consistant story. A SW who was called in by a concerned neighbour took the child straight to hospital. At case conference the child's mother and family ranted on and on that the child had not been put in a car seat when taken to the hospital but they had no insight into the fact that the child had been in pain for days with no medical treatment or that the SW just wanted the child seen urgently. They equally went to the press with their own one sided argument and had people saying "how dreadful".
Personally all I could think was how dreadful it was that this child suffered days of pain because nobody in her family were able to put her needs first. The child was left with scars that will last a lifetime - but at least is now safely adopted away from the people who left her so damaged.

Sorry - a bit of a rant I know but I do actually feel that SWs don't remove children on a whim - they have to have very good grounds otherwise every teenage mother, unupported parent, homeless parent - I could go on - would be at risk.

Even if this mother was living rough or taking drugs or anything disreputable it still doesnt excuse the ss's behaviour.
Surely it is the in the childs best interests to support the mother not treat her in a way that is storing up problems for her psychologically in the future. That is a nice present for the child.

Um, actually I think it makes a HUGE difference if the mother is taking drugs. Would you seriously let somebody feed your child milk that was full of heroin? No? This baby deserves exactly the same protection.

"Support" is all very well in theory but sadly it's inadequate sometimes, and a more direct intervention is necessary.

Please understand, im not supporting "disreputable "behaviour, but this sweeny type action in taking the child, could have been differently handled . Why leave the mum in the street , they could both be picked up in two cars , grandparents or supportive other people brought in to get the mother in a safer place so that they could be monitored.It is clearly a crisis situation and seems to be handled in a half cocked way.
By the way I brought in the drug reference, to make a point not to say it was a factor in this case.

Sometimes all the support in the world makes no odds. I agree that there is not anough support - children and family services are still woefully underfunded despite what the Daily Mail would have us all believe.

From the blog it seems this girl was offered support - a mother and baby unit to start with - and let's be clear here - these places are few and far between - there have to be good sound concerns to even get a place for a Mum in one. This makes me wonder what the other facts NOT covered by the blog are.

Most 18 year olds who have babies are not in Mother and Baby units - they go home to their Mum or sometimes (sadly) to appalling accomodation which counts as "housing" these days. They don't have (or need) SS input, they don't have anyone even suggesting it - they are supported with Young Mums groups, NCH, Children's Centres etc. and their children usually thrive. So - again - why was that not the case here? We don't know but there will have been GOOD reasons.

Breastfeeding is great and all kudos to this Mum for persevering BUT it doesn't take away the fact that this baby was deemed to be at risk in her care - for reasons unknown to us. If the baby had died or come to harm all the breastfeeding in the world would not have made a difference and many here would be castigating SS for not acting sooner.

I really do feel strongly that we cannot make any judgement in this Mum's favour without knowing the facts.

.. and I agree moyasmum - this does sound as though it was handled very badly.

ok - a few facts here i feel.

firstly, Miss W was not told to stop bf-ing because she was taking drugs. she was told to stop bf-ing because Essex social services felt it would interfere with Baby E taking a bottle. SS have been quoted as saying this.

secondly, even if SS desperately wanted Baby E to take a bottle, why could Miss W's expressed milk not be used? Why, why was the EBM not given to Baby E?

thirdly, Miss W was in a M&B unit whilst awaiting council accommodation. she actually got a flat the day before Baby E was snatched, and she has spent every night there since. it's a pity Baby E is 30 miles away, eh? young mothers do not just stay in M&B units because they're on drugs. the most common reason for a young mother to be in a M&B unit is because there is no council accommodation and they are unable to live with their own family.

fourthly, as i've said before, even if there were valid reasons for Baby E being removed (other than drug taking, which wasn't the case here) then the lack of support for her mother, and the lack of recognition that Miss W was a breastfeeding mother is still against the European Convention on Human Rights.

this case isn't really about Miss W and Baby E, it's about the status of breastfeeding in this country. i have no doubt that SS acted in what they thought to be the best interests of the child, but that doesn't remove the fact that a well established breastfeeding relationship has been destroyed by ignorance and incompetence.

I have never ever known a teenage Mum be admitted to a M+B unit just because they are awaiting council housing - there are just not enough places in these units (or enough of the units themselves) to allow that. Having worked in one or two in my time I've never known anyone admitted because they need housing - the places are just too scarce sadly. The people I have worked with in these units generally have mental health, drug and alcohol or other very serious issues - sometimes going back many years.

I agree that it's a travesty that breastfeeding is not supported in cases where babies are removed - I don't understand why EBM could not be given in this case either. In a positive way it's one thing a Mum can do for her baby even if she has not got control of day to day care.
But I am not a SW, I don't know this girl or her family and I don't know the facts.
On a safety point of view there is also the risk that the EBM may be deliberately contaminated in some way - believe me when I say that there are people out there who would do this unfortunately. Am not suggesting that is the case here but it is another factor to consider - how do SS monitor that and what would be the cost of doing so? I guess we're back to underfunding of children's services again.

I do think this issue does need debate though, however, I would probably only campaign about it in more general terms rather than raising it as an issue in a case I know only one side of.

Must leave this thread now as I don't think I can add anything else - will keep reading though as some good points have been raised here.

The point is that the facts aren't known. Perhaps SS gave the "not wanting to interfere with bottle-feeding" as the reason because it's not defamatory to Miss W and doesn't destroy her right to privacy. SS may know perfectly well that there are compelling reasons she shouldn't be breastfeeding (crystal meth was just the first example I thought of, but it could equally be something like anti-psychotic medication, or even chemotherapy). If there WERE such a reason, they wouldn't be able to release it to the public, quite rightly, for reasons of privacy or prejudicing an upcoming hearing. It wouldn't be fair to Miss W to have her medical history all over the internet.

There is not enough information available to the public to rule in OR rule out drugs or any other legitimate medical reason she shouldn't breastfeed.

Have read this with interest (mother was a social worker and they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. She had her nose broken by a client when she told this woman that her children were being taken into care. The woman was a violet (obviously) drug addict whose children were entirely neglected.)

I do think we don't know the whole story and I would just caution against making this about bfing. It clearly isn't about bfing from SW point of view (to be honest, in child support and protection they've got more to worry about than how a child is fed). Although it's mentioned in the report, it seems more likely to me that that's just a very poorly written element of the report written by social workers trying to justify what may well be a wrong decision. I'll reserve judgement on that till I know the whole story. But I'll bet this isn't about bfing.

On a wider point I don't think that established breastfeeding is prima facie evidence of good mothering or even adequate mothering. Sorry. She may well have been a lovely little mother but bf does not prove it. TBH I would put the fact that she walked out of two homes with her baby as greater evidence in the other direction (I think this is perhaps evidence of immaturity than anything more serious but I think it's more important than the fact that she was bf).

However, what does trouble me about this case is that the SW would take the child without a warrant and I would have thought that there was scope for legal action on that point, regardless of the need for secrecy in the family courts. To be honest, that's what's making wonder what else is going here that we don't know about.

Not passing judgement here I hope. Just suggesting there's a wider story we don't know about. If the SWs got it wrong, fine, but they won't have based their wrong decision on bf.

oh, and agree with ninedragons.