Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 10:19

If mothers are criminalised, who will benefit?

The child, because as in the test case, if it is agreed that a criminal act has taken place the child becpmes eligible for compensation from the criminal injuries board (or whatever the correct name is). That compensation can be used to provide therapy and support that the child needs. Do you not think there is any benefit to that?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:22

Miss, I think there is benefit for better financial support for children with this condition (and any other disabilities) - but why from the victims of crime pot?

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 10:32

Why not from the victims of crime pot? Somebody was harmed by another person who behaved in a way that they were aware could cause the harm. If we applied that to any other circumstance it would be a crime.
Obviously the judge will decide if it should be a criminal act and I actually don't think he will but I personally feel there is a good argument for it (as presumably so do the other 80 cases of FASD who are waiting to see what happens in this case before deciding if they too can apply for compensation).

lougle · 06/11/2014 10:36

"If it was proved that an alcoholic man's poor sperm quality led to disability, would he be criminalised, Lougle?"

I think a fairer comparison would be 'if a man fathered a child knowing that his sperm quality had been affected by alcohol to the extent that FASD would result, would he be criminalised?' (My answer: yes)

I may not have been clear, but my position is:

Unknowingly pregnant when drinking, then stopped drinking as soon as you found out: not guilty.

Knowingly pregnant and continuing to drink: possibly not guilty of insufficiently aware of the risks or unable to access support/treatment to stop drinking.

Intentionally conceiving in the full knowledge of FASD (esp if you have already had one child with FASD) and continuing to drink: guilty.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 10:40

So we should ignore the fact that women who drink excessively and take drugs while pregnant effectively harm their child for life? What a load of rubbish.

If a mother poured alcohol or drugs into her child after the child was born she would be arrested, charged with child abuse and the child taken away from her -quite rightly too. She's still doing the exact same thing as that, the child just hasn't been born yet. What's the difference? It's still child abuse.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:41

Miss, your argument for criminalising the mother was that this would get money for the child.

Therefore my argument was that money for the child didn't follow from criminalising the mother as there should be money for all disabled children.

saying "well why not from that pot" doesn't make it right to criminalise the mother.

So, I'll rephrase: if there were sufficient money from the healthcare pot or whatever to support children with FASD, what would the benefit be in criminalising the mother?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:44

I think a fairer comparison would be 'if a man fathered a child knowing that his sperm quality had been affected by alcohol to the extent that FASD would result, would he be criminalised?' (My answer: yes)

Ok - my answer to that is that he would not be, and nor would society think he should just because he is a man (as you seem to think from your above post that women are getting special treatment over and above how men would be viewed)

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:46

The difference, pretty, is that until birth, she is doing that to her own body.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 10:48

Yes thre should be money for all disabled children but different money can come from different places. Children injured through medical negligence can make a claim for medical negligence and receive compensation, children with other disabilities cannot do that but that doesn't make it wrong.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 10:48

She is also doing that to the child she's carrying, who, funnily enough, is a real person. And a defenseless baby too. How can that be right in any way?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 10:51

So even if the child did not need any further money, you still see a benefit in criminalising the mother, miss?

scoobydooagain · 06/11/2014 10:55

where would you stop? Having a child when you know there is a strong chance of a genetic life limiting disease? Would you criminalise then? What gives us the right to decide what is an "acceptable " disease?

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 10:58

Scooby there's a difference between a child getting a genetic disease and forcing disabilities onto them by deliberately drinking and taking drugs while pregnant.

With one you're not intending to harm your child, with the other you're deliberately harming your child. One is genetic, the other should be classed as child abuse.

scoobydooagain · 06/11/2014 11:05

If you knew there was a risk, why is it any different? End result could be the same. Only one is about criminalising vulnerable women without a voice who I doubt is "intending to harm" her child.

SquattingNeville · 06/11/2014 11:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WellnowImFucked · 06/11/2014 11:22

Isn't this all jumping the gun a little.

It's still, as I read it, strongly thought that there is a genetic component to FAS. Understandably it is a very difficult area to research as you can't really have a true control group.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 11:23

Pretty, the woman has an intent to put those substances in her body.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 11:31

Ok suppose that you decided to have a child knowing they could end up with a life limiting illness. For the sake of argument let's say the it's downsyndrome as they can test for that quite early on and you're given the opportunity to terminate because of it.

As life limiting as downsyndrom can be many people with it can still live a relatively normal life. They get jobs, form relationships, have families, they can live relatively independently. Some people with down syndrome (the same as anyone without) can be hugely successful in life.

It does go for others with life limiting genetic diseases too. MS, ME, cancer (since there's a link between genetics and the probability of someone getting it), other motor neuron diseases that severely limit a person's physical and/or mental abilities.

The big difference is, these children who have these diseases receive the best possible care they can get. The families of these children don't pour drugs* and alcohol into the child's system, they don't deliberately take substances knowing it will cause further harm to their child. Yes, a child born with any sort of disease or illness is heartbreaking. But the fact is, many many times it's unpredictable and the parents have hope that their child will be able to escape that gene. No illness is 100% guaranteed to be passed on to a child. It would be cruel and heartless to deny a family the chance of a child just because there is a chance that the child could inherit some illness or the other.

In the same breath, women who have unprotected sex and falling pregnant knowing they have no intention whatsoever to give up alcohol or drugs and deliberately ignore all advice, help and support to overcome their addictions therefore deliberately harming their child should face criminal prosecution as they have deliberately inflicted harm upon a child.

There are many women who have fallen pregnant while drinking excessively and/or taking drugs. There are many women who have sought help to overcome these addictions in an attempt to give their baby the best possible start to life. Some women who have sought help and overcome their additions/are in the process of overcoming their additions still have children affected by whatever the substances have inflicted upon them. It's heartbreaking but the mother was actively trying to do something about it and that, in a way, counts.

Many women choose to ignore all advice, help, warnings of what will happen to their child. They pump them full of alcohol, weed, ecstacy, heroin, whatever else and that child is born severely disabled with a mother who couldn't give a shit. To me that is wrong, to me that should be criminal. Not the women who have children knowing there's a chance their child could inherit a genetic disease, not the women who try their damn best to overcome whatever addictions their facing to to the best by their children but them women who don't give one shiny shit about the life they've helped to create.

Sorry if that's a bit long and rambled, but I hope I've explained it better?

TheFamilyJammies · 06/11/2014 11:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 11:32

*Oh, and by drugs for children with disabilities I don't mean medication prescribed by a doctor, but things like ecstacy, heroin, coke (I'm not sure of the proper name for that one) etc etc. Obviously if a child needs medication to help then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 11:34

A woman who has caused FAS from drinking 47-50 units of alcohol a day whilst pregnant (as is the amount being discussed in the current test case) is not even comparable to situations where a child has a condition related to a condition which the mother suffers from and is beyond her control (gestational diabetes etc).
Can people really not see that the two situations are entirely different?

TheFamilyJammies · 06/11/2014 11:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CattyCatCat · 06/11/2014 11:39

I don't think it can be right to criminalise a woman for behaviour whilst carrying a child. Technically, abortion is available to a late point in pregnancy so how on earth can the law 'protect' a baby who could also legally be terminated at that point. You can't drink a bottle of wine but you can end the baby's life by lethal injection to the heart. It would make no sense, there has to be rationality of law.

I will be outraged if women are held criminally responsible for drinking alcohol whilst pregnant.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 11:40

A woman who takes any help, advice and support to overcome her addictions (whether she is successful before her child is born or not) is not acting with criminal intent.

A woman who does not take any help, advice and support and doesn't give a fuck about her child is criminal in my eyes.

I'm not talking about someone who has no help or support. I'm talking about the women who do have it and choose to do nothing about it.

SquattingNeville · 06/11/2014 11:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.