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:
3Kids3 · 06/11/2014 11:42

It is important to remember that foetal alcohol syndrome can occur before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Some woman have issues with their menstrual cycles ( such as PCOS) which means they do not have regular periods and so may not find out they are pregnant until they start to show. This could be the 2nd trimester. The first trimester is when all of the main architecture occurs in the brain and drinking in this time is severely damaging. However, many will do so without knowing they are pregnant.

This isn't a black and white argument. I feel people who have children with FASD are judged very harshly without people really understanding the facts. Too many allow themselves to be sucked in by tabloid headlines about 'feckless parents' which is totally inaccurate.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 11:43

As for men who impregnate any woman suffering from any sort of substance misuse, if course they're equally responsible but the male isn't the one forcing her to drink/take drugs. (Unless of course he is, in which case he should be prosecuted too. And if the woman is really being forced into it by someone else then she should not be held responsible, but that's a whole different thing).

CattyCatCat · 06/11/2014 11:45

Where do you draw the line though, Pretty? If drinking in pregnancy could cause abnormalities then what about the mother who has another pregnancy after a premature birth? There's a good chance she will have another premature birth with consequent health implications for the baby. Is she a criminal who does not give a fuck about the child? Criminalising the bodily autonomy of women is a very slippery slope.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 11:47

I don't think there is any doubt in cases where a woman has been drinking 50 units a day regularly. We are not talking about women who have had a glass of wine a week or those who didn't know they were pregnant until very late on (which I do accept is a grey area which will be hard to prove / disprove). There are some women who have had more than one baby with FAS. Why should they be allowed to go making repeated mistakes which have a lifelong impact on multiple children without any fear of being made accountable for their irresponsible actions?

Cherriesandapples · 06/11/2014 11:48

I think that the culture of heavy drinking is very prevalent in our country and actually many people have no concept of the harm that it is doing to themselves. In these cases the harm that it is doing to their unborn children. Much more investment is needed in prevention programmes and mental health services. We spend very little on looking after people's mental health and excessive alcohol consumption is a result of this.

mamaslatts · 06/11/2014 11:49

This case was brought by a council who are currently responsible for a child's care who has FAS. From what I can tell, it has zero to do with protecting the rights of unborn children and preventing harm to the foetus and everything to do with wanting £500,000 to pay for caring for the child. They don't want to stump up the money themselves and seem happy to crimanalise the mother so someone else will pay.

As a pregant forty year old who is currently on prescription meds (Nope, not ones I can stop without serious harm to myself) I suspect I would be 'in the frame' should my dc be born with DS or other disabilities.

This is a dangerous precedent.

Cherriesandapples · 06/11/2014 11:53

What about families where the children are disabled because the parents are closely related? This is a problem in certain ethnic groups within this country. Would a court criminalise the mother in those relationships too, for knowingly marrying their first cousin? Or would they prosecute the grandparents if the marriage was arranged? Or what about families who have a history of Cystic Fibrosis? Would they be prosecuted too? This is why this case is a slippery slope!

TheFamilyJammies · 06/11/2014 11:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 11:58

If it could be proven that they were drinking 50 units everyday whilst pregnant and not attempting to address the issue then I believe that they should face prosecution regardless of whether the child has fsa or not. In the same way I would expect a parent to be prosecuted if they left a young child at home alone regularly even if the child did not come to any actual harm.

I don't know what an appropriate sentence would be, I would hope that the CPS along with other Relevant bodies would produce the sentencing guidelines and decide what punishment is appropriate.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 06/11/2014 12:01

Excellent blog post.

What about women who are overweight during pregnancy or who don't take folic acid? Shall we criminalise those too?

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).

People who drink 47-50 units of alcohol a day don't tend to have control over it any more, or control over much else in their lives. Can you say how it would help to prosecute them?

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 12:02

I've already explained where I would draw the line. Women who do not actively intend to harm their child and seek any help and support to help should not be criminalised.

Women who are continuously offered help and support and refuse it knowing the things they're putting into their bodies is harming their child should be.

It's not the same as having parents closely related, it's not the same as having a child that has a risk of inheriting a life limiting illness. It's the fact that they are forcing their unborn baby to consume excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs knowing that their child is going to be seriously harmed.

It shouldn't be about the woman by this point. It should be about the baby who has been born suffering from severe health problems and is going through the agony of alcohol and drug withdrawals. Have you ever seen a tiny baby suffering from that? Do you know the amount of pain they go through? The fact that some have to be put onto morphine and weaned off of it slowly and gradually or else the withdrawal effects will kill the child.

Do you think that's fair? Can you honestly argue that it should be legal? If that was your niece or nephew, your cousin, your sibling, would you still think the parent had every right to pump themselves full of stuff knowing that it was going to cause that amount of pain and suffering for the child.

CattyCatCat · 06/11/2014 12:07

As long as I believe that women must have full and complete autonomy over their bodies then I have to think that's fair.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 12:11

Can you say how it would help to prosecute them?

I have already stated that; it isn't about helping the mother it is about securing compensation for the victim (the child), which will help improve their life.
If we don't think that victims of FAS should have compensation because the council should be wholly responsible for additional costs relating to the child's condition then why do we allow medical negligence compensation and why do we hold medics accountable for their actions? Nobody has answered that yet. Why can we hold some people responsible for harming children needlessly but not others?

Cherriesandapples · 06/11/2014 12:12

But some families have two or three plus children with genetic disabilities. After the first one, the parents would be told the risk of having another child with disabilities. They would "know" and therefore could be prosecuted. Some of these children have care packages of £1000+ per week. If this case succeeds then local councils may well try to obtain prosecutions in other cases.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 06/11/2014 12:13

I suppose it all depends on whether you are more interested in punishing people or reducing harm.

It's not the same as having parents closely related, it's not the same as having a child that has a risk of inheriting a life limiting illness. It's the fact that they are forcing their unborn baby to consume excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs knowing that their child is going to be seriously harmed.

I don't see the difference. In all these cases there is a known risk (not a certainty) that could be avoided but wasn't.

Is it because you think women with drug and alcohol problems are having a nice time with their substances and are therefore more deserving of punishment?

CattyCatCat · 06/11/2014 12:17

I think Missunreasonable is not understanding that criminalising alcohol intake is the thin end of the wedge.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 06/11/2014 12:19

children with FAS deserve to have enough money to support them. This can be achieved without criminalising vulnerable women, without chipping away at all women's bodily autonomy and without risking increased harm from women not coming forward for help because they fear prosecution.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 12:26

The fact that anyone could argue that a child should be allowed to be born addicted to drugs and alcohol, in pain and suffering and have their lives ruined because of it just so that a woman could do as she pleases to her body and her unborn child disgusts me.

You'd be in a complete uproar if it was legal for a mother or father to feed their baby alcohol or drugs and damage them that way.

My opinions aren't going to change. Shout as loud as you want about a woman's right. It makes zero difference to me when it comes down to the fact that a child is being harmed because it. I'll take the rights of a child to be born free of alcohol and drug addiction over a woman's right to do as she pleases any day.

70hours · 06/11/2014 12:35

So what would you want to happen to the mother Pretty - what would be the appropriate punishment ?

What about those parents on benefits who have children are they not 'disadvantaging' their children bringing them into a poverty stricken background ?
What about mothers who choose to have children knowing they could be born with genetic implications - or those who have them to save the life of another child. What about those parents who can't look after their children when they are here and they end up damaged with mental health problems - should they be prosecuted ? Where do u draw the line. I would imagine drinking that much on a daily basis would mean she didn't even know what she was doing most of the time and I can't imagine it is a pleasant way to live

Chachah · 06/11/2014 12:38

Women who are continuously offered help and support and refuse it knowing the things they're putting into their bodies is harming their child should be.


But this is still a slippery slope... what if the women refuse the "support" because they don't believe they are harming their child, or because they have personal/religious reasons to behave in a way deemed unsafe by the medical community?

Should the parents who refuse to vaccinate their children (because they believe the vaccines are too risky, even though the medical community says they're not) be criminalised too?

TheFamilyJammies · 06/11/2014 12:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 06/11/2014 12:54

Interesting study here on the situation with foetal rights in the US. I don't want us to go down that slippery slope.

Our findings challenge the notion that arrests and detentions promote maternal, fetal, and child health or provide a path to appropriate treatment. Significantly, detention in health and correctional facilities has not meant that the pregnant women (and their fetuses) received prompt or appropriate prenatal care. Our research into cases claiming that arrests and detentions would ensure that pregnant women were provided with appropriate drug treatment or that only women who had refused treatment would be arrested or prosecuted overwhelmingly found that such claims were untrue. In some cases women were arrested despite the fact that they were voluntarily participating in drug treatment. Our findings also lend support to the medical and public health consensus that punitive approaches undermine maternal, fetal, and child health by deterring women from care and from communicating openly with people who might be able to help them

lougle · 06/11/2014 13:28

How can one set of principles allow you to completely override consideration of any other? It's completely blind to say 'all the time I believe this, I have to believe that.' Why can't you admit that there are some pretty unpalatable ends to the belief in full bodily autonomy.

A bizarre comparison, but what if you had an accident and were utterly traumatised, but were actually lying on top of someone else who needed treatment to survive. In order to treat them, you would have to be moved, but you'd get hurt in the process. But you refuse. Does your bodily autonomy allow you to stay put while the other person dies?

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 13:37

What does poor mental health, being on benefits and having an abortion have to do with anything? Is that some sort of dig at me seeing as how I've recently talked about all of those things on mn. Cause I'll tell you right now I'm a bloody good mother.

I am simply saying women who don't give a fuck about their children and drink excessively/take drugs to the point of their children being born addicted while refusing all help offered to them should be illegal.

Same as you think it shouldn't be. You've your view, I don't agree with it. I've my view, you don't agree with it. Fair enough

70hours · 06/11/2014 13:40

But isn't that the irony pretty - did u choose to have a mental health problem, do u want to have one, why don't you just stop with it, aren't you being just selfish - etc etc - addiction is the same- not easy to stop - no one wants it - easy to judge until you work a mile in someone else's shoes !!