Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: Foetal Alcohol Syndrome - 'my nephew deserves better than the criminalisation of his mother'

318 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 05/11/2014 16:25

Right now, the Court of Appeal is deciding whether or not a council in the North-West of England can hold the mother of a six-year-old girl born with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome criminally liable under the Offences against Persons Act of 1861.

Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is an umbrella term for a number of diagnoses that result from prenatal exposure to alcohol. This exposure can cause problems with memory, attention, speech and language and behaviour, a weakened immune system, and damage to the liver, kidneys and heart. The long-term consequences include addiction, chronic unemployment, poverty, depression, suicide, and the criminalisation of the child themselves.

It is a horrible condition. I know, because my nephew has FASD. I have seen him struggle with his physical and emotional health. He finds everyday activities difficult, and his behaviour is very challenging. It is heartbreaking, watching him trying to navigate life with intellectual and physical impairments that could have been prevented. He finds school difficult because he cannot cope with unstructured learning, such as break time. He requires a very strict routine with clear instructions and finds choices difficult. He also has physical disabilities and needs a very strict diet – another control on his life that he does not fully understand.

As an aunt, I don't want any woman to drink alcohol whilst pregnant because I worry about the consequences for their children. As a feminist, I am utterly opposed to the criminalisation of women's bodies and any attempts to limit women's reproductive freedom.

Criminalising mothers who give birth to babies with FASD would do nothing to support women, and would make accessing services even more difficult. How many women would inform their midwife of their alcohol consumption if they believe they'll end up in prison? Even if women were to approach their midwife or doctor, there aren't enough programs in place to help them. How many beds are there in rehab facilities that are appropriate for women with substance misuse issues? How many are there that cater for women with other children? I refuse to believe that criminalisation would be followed by investment in mental health services. Already, a vast number of women in prison are there as a consequence of trauma, and criminalising pregnancy would increase that number.

The most frustrating thing is that there are so many other things we could do. Research has shown us how to minimise the effects of FASD. For example, we know that access to a healthy diet has a positive impact, which is why poverty remains a major risk factor. This isn't because women living in poverty are more likely to misuse alcohol – it's because a healthy diet can minimise the effects of alcohol on a developing foetus.

We know how to prevent FASD. It requires a properly funded NHS to provide support for women with substance misuse issues. Access to a midwife and GP who understand addiction and its causes is the most important prevention method. We can't see alcoholism in isolation. Amongst women, it is frequently linked to trauma following male violence – and we need a social care network that understands the reality and consequences of this.

This is why criminalising women is not just nonsensical - it's misogynistic.

Despite the fact that our economy would be destroyed if women withdrew all their labour, society still believes that women have less economic value than men. The control of women's reproduction – from access to birth control to abortion, from prenatal care to maternity leave – is about controlling women's labour. Preventing the "bad" women – the drinkers, the drug takers – from giving birth means that they are free to do low-paying jobs, rather than depending on the welfare state. Of course, criminalising them is much easier than fixing the root of the problem by providing better health and social care, and it suits those who should be stepping up to the plate: the local council, which is refusing to take responsibility for its failure to support a vulnerable woman appropriately during her pregnancy, and our society, which is refusing to take responsibility for the harm caused by misogyny and violence against women.

The only effective way to tackle FASD is to create a culture in which women have equal value to men, where male violence is eradicated, and in which women have access to free healthcare without judgment.

I don't want any child to suffer the way my nephew suffers. I also don't want to see women imprisoned for substance misuse. If we genuinely cared about women with substance misuse issues and children born with FASD, we'd be standing on the barricades demanding better investment in social care, the NHS and education - that's where the support and intervention for pregnant women should be. They won't get this support if they're forced into the criminal justice system.

My nephew deserves better than the criminalisation of his mother. And his mother deserves better too.

OP posts:
merrymouse · 07/11/2014 15:16

Is there any way of finding out how much this case is costing?

Also, leaving aside ethical questions, what are the practical, legal ramifications if it is found that damages should be paid?

whogrewoutoftheterribletwos · 07/11/2014 15:17

Trafficjam - Many, many people have to live with the disease of addiction. My father was an alcoholic and I have seen first hand how devastating this illness is. And it is an illness. I'm not trying to minimise the issue. Just pointing out that many different actions of parents have serious long term developmental effects on their children. I actually think that the stress comparison is pretty valid.
This ruling has the potential to disempower over half the population and further isolate a vulnerable section of society. That, I think, outweighs the potential threat to a relatively small percentage of babies born with FAS. I am not for a moment suggesting that FAS is not horrible for those who suffer it by having this opinion, but I recognise that one person's personal troubles should not have undue influence over wider societal implications

trafficjam · 07/11/2014 15:39

Whogrew - I completely agree with you - I don't think criminalization will work. However these debates invariably end up with the "thin edge of the wedge" argument, and other things that may damage a foetus get thrown in - pate, blue cheese, in one case last time this was debated, excessive consumption of broccoli with people suggesting that by addressing fas, eventually that's where we will end up.
I absolutely agree with the principle that my body is my remit. But there are women out there who are devastated when it looks like they aren't being heard or minimised (e.g. a previous poster saying they are whinging / boo hoo). That's why I reacted to the peppa pig analogy.

lougle · 07/11/2014 16:11

I don't think stress is that comparable - it originates from within the woman as a natural process. Even cigarette smoke can be a passive exposure. A foetus can only be exposed to alcohol if the mother ingests it.

BigChocFrenzy · 07/11/2014 16:20

The last few years, the USA has locked up several hundred addicted / alcoholic pregnant women (poor, mostly African American) to try to protect their foetuses. The number is increasing rapidly.
Sadly this hasn't helped the rate of FAS there or changed habits. If jailing people solved problems, the USA would be a paradise.

I think we need far more resources to persuade addicted women to voluntarily accept longterm contraception.
Also - and I know I'll get flamed - explain to pregnant alcoholics that they may have seriously damaged their baby and discuss abortion.

AskBasil · 07/11/2014 16:37

Funnily enough they haven't increased the level of help or support for babies born with FAS have they, just locked up the mothers.

So it's not actually about helping, supporting or protecting babies. They don't give a shit about them. Not the tiniest little flying fart. Obamacare? No way, it's an attack on our way of life and we don't want to pay for it. Lock up addicted women? Yay! We don't care how much it costs, it's worth every cent.

SolidGoldBrass · 07/11/2014 17:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Adoptakid · 07/11/2014 17:47

Wanttosing ive pmd you.

Lilka · 07/11/2014 17:54

I presume that everyone who would like to reduce rates of FASD in society, wants to because they are thinking of the children. It's hardly mutually exclusive with believing in autonomy and wanting to help pregnant women by means of education and more robust support services. If we didn't care about the children, why would we want to reduce FAS?

Funnily enough, when you live with children with these disabilities and violence, sentimentality goes out of the window, and basically stops featuring in life. As for repeating personal attacks against desperate women for the hell of it, i don't have any words left about that won't get me deleted or banned.

Adopakid · 07/11/2014 18:17

HERE HERE Lilka !

TalkinPeace · 07/11/2014 18:29

please remember that this case is NOT about prosecuting the mother
it is about the LA and the NHS haggilng over money rather than sharing responsibility

the ONLY winners are the lawyers - who between them will be paid not far off the lifetime care costs of the child : thus limiting the social care funds to look after other children

Lilka · 07/11/2014 18:47

Out of interest, does anyone know why the LA decided to bring this case? I have to admit, I'm not used to LA's taking this tack.

Although that might be cynically because I'm more used to them seeming to not care about mine and others kids serious issues. In actual fact, one of my children would have been fully entitled to criminal injuries compensation, and a significant amount from what I can see at that. But did the LA apply for it in time on her behalf? No. I was and am not happy with the LA. And I'm not the only person with that experience, seen several messages on AUK over my time to that effect.

TalkinPeace · 07/11/2014 18:51

Lilka
because they want somebody ELSE to pay for the child as their budget is being cut - simple

it has NOTHING to do with the issues that people up thread have diverted themselves onto

Lilka · 07/11/2014 18:57

But doesn't the expense of them bringing the case outweigh anything they would get back? I mean, this must be costing them a lot of money, and compensation for children is kept in a bank account for them until they are adults afaik, so I'm not understanding what money is in it for the LA. If you could explain i would be grateful

TalkinPeace · 07/11/2014 18:59

they will claim costs as well from the CICB - standard form

so the CICB will be wiped out for a few months
if they lose the social care budget will be wiped out

either way the barristers will walk away having earned £5,000 per day each
and the costs of a court case like this run to over £10,000 a day (more taxpayer money)

Lilka · 07/11/2014 19:08

Thanks Talk Thanks

What ~ amount of costs would they be able to claim?

I do completely disagree with LA's spending lots of money on things like this instead of using it wisely, for support.

mymatemax · 07/11/2014 19:24

the nurses that I spoke to who work with babies born to addicts are in favour of a change in law, so that treatments/prevention of pregnancy & punishments can be applied.
So too are the police & social workers & paediatricians that I have come In to contact during the last 12 years.

Sometimes the most important thing to protect is not womens rights.
Sometimes prevention of harm is more important.
Shouldn't we protect the most vulnerable in society often in these cases it is the woman herself.
Often that woman/girl has no concept of "rights" or choice or how to care for herself as she is too consumed by lifestyle & addiction to make that choice to do the right thing.

Why oh why would a civilised society chose to do nothing and allow harm to take place.

FFS we have laws to protect nesting birds in this country but we cant look after our unborn humans

ChoochiWoo · 07/11/2014 19:26

I think you should stop posting if you cant be remotely respectful SGB, you're being deliberately offensive because you're argument isnt strong enough without dissing the opposing view.

mymatemax · 07/11/2014 19:33

SGB I think assuming anyone that doesn't agree with your point of you is a woman hating buckethead is a rather narrow minded, not too mention rude stance to take.
Maybe if you would like the discussion to continue in a sensible manner you would like to be less abusive & more considered in your argument

Viviennemary · 07/11/2014 19:36

I think I heard on the news the other day it's so as it will be the Government's responsibility and not the LA's. But I assumed that the compensation money would be used to care for the child. Surely prevention would be best. I know it's drastic but why don't they in very severe cases section the woman under the Mental Health Act. Like the cases upthread where the woman had ten children all with FAS and is now pregnant again.

Devora · 07/11/2014 19:57

I find these these threads tend to get monumentally depressing. This one has gone the same way. I have been a pro-choice activists for zillions of years. I have worked in abortion clinics. I have had an abortion. I am absolutely not in favour of criminalising pregnant women by giving foetuses the status of personhood. None of that is going to change.

But. I truly struggle with how it seems that to demonstrate your support for women's rights you have to minimise the horror that is FAS, to dismiss it as 'difficulties', to be pathologised for any anger you show towards the birth mother. I also get fed up with the brilliant idea of giving women support rather than punishment - as if that's a quick-route, 100% success guarantee. As if one of the features of addiction isn't relapse after relapse after relapse, with child after child after child being born damaged for the rest of their lives.

Nobody on these threads ever asks what life is like for our children, or for us. Because we're apparently the 'sentimental' ones rather than the 'realistic' ones. Every other mother is apparently allowed to be angry with people who harm her child, but in the case of children like mine - abandoned in hospital on morphine for seven weeks, with no visitors whatsoever, screaming in agony for months, and with a lifelong legacy to deal with, I am apparently not allowed to be angry. Not that I let myself dwell on anger - and I do also feel very sorry for my dd's birth mother - but I make that effort for the sake of my child, not because someone on the internet who has never walked in my shoes tells me I should.

So, foolishly, I reckon that a pro-choice activist with a child born addicted to drugs and damaged by alcohol might have something to contribute to this debate. But instead I always get told what to feel, rather than asked. I have been monstered on previous threads like this, told I should be ashamed of myself for daring to say the things I have just said. And the only way I can understand that is to think that in our sectarian, cops-and-robbers, with us or against us level of debate, though some may pay lip service to the suffering of the children, they don't actually mean it. Women's bodily autonomy is too important to sacrifice, that I agree: but be in no doubt that a sacrifice is made.

Lilka · 07/11/2014 20:06

^^
Devora Thanks

OddFodd · 07/11/2014 20:14

Devora - I agree. What do you suggest is the way forward then? I really don't know.

Devora · 07/11/2014 20:36

OddFodd, I don't have any easy answers but I do think that:

  1. Much more intensive, joined-up support is needed for vulnerable women and families. Women who have had previous children taken into care need intervention started at that point on (if not before) to aim for improvement before the next pregnancy.
  1. But that doesn't necessarily mean support should be entirely woman-centred. By which I mean that there's an assumption on these threads that addicted women will be grateful for any help offered them - if only that offer were made, it would be taken up. That is very far from true IME. Most addicts live chaotic lives and it can be very hard to sustain their involvement with care services. I think those services need to be much more integrated and yes, at times a bit tougher. I used to be outraged at the thought of even offering an addicted woman long term contraceptives - I'm now not so squeamish, and think sometimes a slightly firmer approach is needed to counteract the forces of chaos.
  1. At the risk of sounding like a MRA, and without reducing one jot my sympathy and support for women who are struggling, sometimes I do wonder at the exonerating language we use for women. My father is a lifelong violent alcoholic and I can't imagine any posters would stint on their condemnation if I talked about how he has abused women and abandoned children. Yet a poster upthread got roundly told off for calling her child's birth mother a bitch. Well, not ideal but those who don't frequent the adoption threads probably have no idea of the hell that poster is going through. I for one will not be sanctimoniously telling her to get help with her anger. She needs help, yes, but not with her very understandable feelings.
  1. Above all, what I think is needed is an improved child protection system and far, far better support for adopted children and children with FASD.
  1. On a more trivial level but still heartfelt and something we can all help out with: it would be nice if more parents were aware of the kinds of difficulties our children experience, and don't just put it down to our crap parenting! (Nice, too, if schools could show that some awareness.) And when we explain to you, please don't either insist that as all that happened so long ago our child should have forgotten it by now. Or 'reassure' us that your child can be a right little handful too. Or tell us that we're just being soft and our children need boundaries/ controlled crying/ the naughty step...

But as a society we are probably going to have to live with this for a long time.

wanttosinglikemarycoughlan · 07/11/2014 20:49

It horrifies me what little is thought of children and the low cost placed on their lives
If baby P's mother and her boyfriend had done what they did to an adult they would have had a much longer sentence
My DD is one of 6. One baby died. It was proven in court that BM gave methadone to him on several occasions. She was given a suspended sentence
If she had poisoned an adult she would surely be looking at a life sentence
I find it unbelievable that our most vulnerable members of society are given so little worth
And it is true, on MN if men did the same they would be held fully responsible for their actions
I just want to see more done to prevent births

Swipe left for the next trending thread