Social Services trying to remove 3 day old prem (breastfeeding) baby from mother

[GreenMonkies]

Morgan Gallagher can confirm that yes, she has been asked to prepare an advocacy statement on behalf of a three day old baby, born at 35 weeks gestation. Yes, Birmingham Social Services are planning to remove the baby from mother, and take it to foster care until June. Yes, the baby is breastfeeding.

WTF??

What can be done about this? When will we start to support vulnerable mothers instead of just taking their babies away?

doesn't even begin to cover it.

I'm sorry but your link doesn't say anything about it. Do you have a link to the story in Birmingham?

Not yet, Morgan has confirmed she has been asked to help, but hasn't had time to update the website. The link is just to Morgans website so you can see what she does.

Sorry but wihtout seeing more then we can't judge whether social services are right or wrong. Just because mum is breastfeeding doesn't automatically mean that baby is better off with her. Babies aren't taken away from their mums lightly.

On what grounds are they trying to remove the baby?

Very hard for any of us to comment on this story without us knowing if the child is at serious risk, and what of.

BUt the age of the baby and thefact she is breastfeeding is irrelevant if there is a significant risk to the child that would lead to the need to remove it from the mothers care in the first place.

You really have to go some to have a newborn removed form your care.
Bfing is irrelevant.

The parents are aged 16 & 17, and both grew up on care homes. Instead of help and supporting these vulnerable teens to become safe and responsible parents Birmingham Social Services are proposing to take the baby (a prem baby which needs breastmilk for optimal development) away and place it in foster care. This will end the breastfeeding relationship, impact on how the parents and baby bond, which is likely to have far reaching consequences for the physical and emotional well being of this family.

This kind of knee-jerk reaction to doubts over the parenting abilities has to stop. It's the same old story over and over.

And the fact that she's breastfeeding is relevant. Studies show over and over that breastfed babies are less likely to suffer neglect etc. Like it or not that's true.

These young parents need support and help, and that baby needs it's mother and her milk.

Obviously, whenever possible, babies and mothers should be kept close together, under supervision if necessary.

But they should not be kept together at all costs - breastfeeding or not.

In extreme cases, mothers are living in circumstances that endanger the well-being and even the life of the baby, and are unable/unwilling to change these circumstances (violent partner, partner with history of child abuse, I am sure we can all joint the dots).

Without further information, how can anyone unconnected with the case even have an opinion on it?

I X posted with GreenMonkies last post.

Sorry, GM, while all you say about bf and the need for it to be supported for long term benefits is true, no one can tell what the details of this case might be, that make even intensive support of these parents inadequate to ensure the baby's safety.

I know Morgan, I know that she knows a lot more details than she can share and that she is helping, just like she helped to get Ben back with his parents when Fife Social Services took him on false pretences.

I am only suggesting that pressure needs to be put on Birmingham Social Services to make very sure that removing the baby is the right thing and not just a knee-jerk reaction.

what are you trying to achieve with this thread? To whip up a frenzy over social services even though there is very little information on the case?

Breastfeeding is irelevant. What is relevant is the welfare of this child, and if this child is potentially at risk then he should be removed, breastfed or not.

If the mother was able to care for the baby then she would be supported with the baby - the baby would not be taken away because she is 16 and has been in care.

In my foster carer support group there is a 16 year old and her baby being supported in foster care.

If the baby is being taken away then there would have to be very strong grounds.

I don't really like your inference here GreenMonkies that the parents aren't capable of neglect because the baby is b/fed.

I don't think this thread is very helpful, you say that pressure needs to be put on Birmingham SS so you come here, give us very little information and expect people to apply that pressure simply because many of us are pro-breastfeeding?

We are not pro-breastfeeding to the exclusion of all else.

There is enough evidence that breastfeeding, per se, is a factor in well-being of all kinds, and may enable parents to attach better with their infants (known to be a challenge with pre-term births, anyway, when the baby is in need of medical and nursing care). So it should be supported. Disrupting bf is not good, and should only ever be done for over-riding issues of safety.

This is not the same as saying the bf somehow indicates a lack of potential parenting problems - it's not a reason, in itself, to keep a mother and baby together. In fact, whether the mother is bf or ff, newborns in general belong with their parents - but if a bf mother and baby are separated, then the disruption of the bf relationship is an additional negative factor.

I say it again, no one outside a position to have full details of this case can possibly have an opinion on whether separation is a wise strategy or not.

I refer you all once again to this.

"Like any new mother, Kerry Robertson spent weeks excitedly preparing for her first child's arrival - and yet 13 days after his birth, all the carefully arranged baby paraphernalia remains unused.
And yet today Kerry and her partner, Mark McDougall, 25, will finally be able to lay their son Ben down to sleep in the basket they bought for him with such hope.

Kerry, who {allegedly} has mild learning difficulties, and Mark went on the run from their home in Fife, Scotland, last November after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.
They hoped that by escaping to Ireland they would be left alone to be a family together. But when Ben was four days old, social workers caught up with them, marching into the maternity ward and forcing them to hand him over.
Only after a court hearing last Friday were the parents told they will get their child back - albeit under supervision.
Today, Kerry will move into a mother and baby unit where the 17-year-old will be under constant surveillance - but that is undoubtedly the lesser of two evils for the couple, given that they feared they might lose custody of the child they fought so hard to keep.

Kerry and Mark say she has never even had a formal psychological assessment. And the couple point out that before Kerry became pregnant herself, she worked as a childcare worker with children at a local school - and in fact, with considerable irony, holds a certificate in child care."

Social Services took this baby away without looking into the situation properly.

I am not trying to whip up a frenzy, just making sure people know about this, so that it isn't done on the quiet without the right questions being asked.

FFS.

You refer us to a totally unrelated case, involving a totally unrelated couple and a totally unrelated SS dept?

FFS yourself.

but this is not kerry robertson. So your comparison is invalid.

Couldn't the mum pump and provide breastmilk for the baby? Or feed him or her under supervision?

Well, ok. If no one else thinks this is alarming, or needs treating with caution, and thinks it is not in any way similar to the Kerry Robertson case obviously I'll be quiet. But Social Services do fuck up. They take children who are not in any actual danger and leave children in situations that are damaging. They are not infallable, and considering the power they wield, should be answerable to us all.

It may be that this couple won't do a good job of raising and caring for this baby. I don't know. But Kerry Robertsons baby was removed before "the world" knew and could stop it. My concern is that this bears all the markings of another knee-jerk decision based on vague details and assumptions which may have long term repercussions.

I think they have too much power to never be answerable to us

GM YABU. It is simply impossible for you to know the full details of this case unless you are the client.

They ARE answerable to us through the appropriate channels of complaints and through the GSCC, the CQC etc.

Not thank goodness, answerable through trial by ill informed chat room postings or trial by media.

well they dont seem to understand, listen, take notice of what I, THE CLIENT, is telling them at times

and they have scary amounts of power when they decide to act on the wrong information

Of course SS make mistakes sometimes, but on the whole they have the best interests of children at heart. My cousin was left alone by SS and she had twins aged 15, and a LOT of children who have been fostered go on to have babies when they are still very young. SS don't take them all away, so I doubt that SS are just applying a blanket policy WRT this particular couple and their baby.

It is sad if a BF baby is separated from its mother under any circumstances, but we can't possibly know what the reasons are for this - and they must be pretty compelling, to convince not only the SW but also the judge(s) who have to approve this.

Trinity, sorry to hear of your problems

however I'm commenting on this ill-advised thread.