Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 13:40

And TheFamily I don't find you disgusting, I find the argument that a woman should be allowed to do what she wants to her unborn child just because it's her body disgusting.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 13:43

70hours my mental health problems are a result of my mother and my upbringing. Being neglected and told you're hated, kept in your room whenever you're home, never spoken to and shouted at on the rare occasion there's any interaction with you really takes its toll.

And yes I'm getting help for it, yes I'm doing everything possible to make sure it has absolutely no effect on my kids. I accepted every form of help offered to me and as a result my little ones are perfectly happy and healthy thank you very much.

merrymouse · 06/11/2014 13:44

This case seems to be more about the Local Authority getting money from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority than anything else.

I assume the CICA is funded from taxes?

I'd like my taxes to fund children in care according to need, not according to whether their parents can be classified as criminals.

lougle · 06/11/2014 14:21

Substance addiction starts with a choice. It may be a choice made in less than good situations or even despair, but I don't think it's helpful to view it in the same way as mental health.

The only way people with substance addiction will break free of it is if they come to a realisation that only they can stop it.

That may mean support is needed to gain the strength to do so, but the final step can't be made for them.

70hours · 06/11/2014 14:26

Both are forms of illness though aren't they lougle ?

lougle · 06/11/2014 14:46

Both are forms of illness.

However, alcohol consumption is a choice and it only becomes an illness once the consumption of alcohol stops being a choice (by definition). The only way of breaking it is to reclaim the element of choice.

Furthermore being addicted to a substance doesn't mean that you have no control over any part of your life. There are many, many functioning alcoholics. So, being alcoholic doesn't mean that you can't choose not to conceive a baby at this point in your life.

A woman who is taking methotrexate for arthritis is counseled not to attempt pregnancy for a time period after consumption finishes, for example.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 14:49

"Why can't you admit that there are some pretty unpalatable ends to the belief in full bodily autonomy. "

I acknowledge this.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 14:53

And I'm sure women with substance addiction are counselled not to become pregnant also, if under medical care.

Are women who do become pregnant whilst on methotrexate etc criminalised if they proceed with the pregnancy?

lougle · 06/11/2014 15:03

I doubt it.

GritStrength · 06/11/2014 15:08

Great post.

For me this is absolutely thin end of wedge territory and I am aghast that we are looking to criminalise women in this context. That doesn't stop me feeling for the child affected or thinking that the mother made tremendously bad choices but is a clear demonstration of the maxim that "Hard cases make bad laws".

wanttosinglikemarycoughlan · 06/11/2014 15:11

My dd was adopted. She was addicted to methadone and heroin. I was told this is better than alcohol they failed to mention drug addicts often use alcohol too
3 more children have been born since, the alcohol abuse has got worse and one has full blown FAS and the other 2 FASD
I have met many adopters with the same story
My focus would be in supporting those born and trying to discourage further pregnancies. I would like to see financial incentives for addicts to take the pill injection
It is tragic to see the children. They are so vulnerable. Nobody understands the condition
My daughters teacher recently told me it is time for her to move on and 'leave all that behind'
Her bm can produce babies and has no responsibility for them

AskBasil · 06/11/2014 15:16

I think the legal principal being argued here, is whether or not the foetus has personhood.

If it does, that's the end of safe, legal abortion.

In some states of the USA, it has become practically impossible to access legal abortion now. Because of the notion of the personhood of the foetus.

If those of you arguing in favour of criminalising women for being ill, poor, inadequate, alcoholic etc. think the people who want the law to move this way give a flying fuck about the babies, you're much mistaken. (They're not lobbying for better support for families with disabled children, they're not lobbying for better child benefit, more treatment centres, better counselling, more money into mental health services etc. They don't give a flying fuck.) This legal precedent if it is made, will be about restricting women's bodily autonomy; once they've established that the foetus is a person, they will have moved the Overton window and they can start moving towards more and more restrictions on abortion until it becomes in effect illegal.

That's how they've managed it in the USA - gradual erosions of women's rights in the name of the protection of the foetus until suddenly they all woke up one day and realised that if you needed an abortion, you were going to have to travel to another state to get it and if you had a miscarriage, you were going to be arrested. It is already happening in the states, I am astounded that women are so willing to give away our hard fought rights over our bodies instead of fighting for the conditions we need to not have babies born with these conditions in the first place. We can't afford to sit back and think we can give up our right to have sovereignty over our own bodies; we haven't yet established that we do.

I can totally sympathise with the arguments about responsibility, damaging babies etc., but this is all flim flam - none of this is really relevant in the face of the danger we face in having our access to safe legal abortion once again attacked. We just cannot afford to give an inch on this, because we can be absolutely certain that every inch we give will be used to undermine our rights. Just look at what's happening in the States if you think that's hysterical scaremongering. It's seriously horrifying and it could happen here.

TheFamilyJammies · 06/11/2014 15:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SixImpossible · 06/11/2014 16:06

I am not an incubator.
I am not a breeder.

Criminalising me for not gestating my baby according to someone else's ideas would turn me into one.

I am not Offred.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 16:38

I put this on the other thread:

Judge Howard Levenson found that there had been “administration of a poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to inflict grievous bodily harm”.

However, he concluded that the girl was “not a person” in legal terms at the time because she was still a foetus.

The judge added: “I conclude that the section 23 offence cannot be committed by a pregnant woman drinking alcohol during her pregnancy and thereby causing damage to her unborn child and that, in the present case, no evidence or argument has been offered in respect of the commission of any other offence.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10612818/Drinking-alcohol-during-pregnancy-could-be-ruled-a-crime.html

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 16:39

This was the origibal ruling, which is now being appealed.

TalkinPeace · 06/11/2014 16:42

The Council are Suing the NHS
The only winners are the Lawyers

Both posts of taxpayers funds should be merged or at least cross referenced so that the child can be looked after in the most effective way possible without criminalising people and enriching fat cat lawyers

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 16:43

Or even thin cat lawyers!

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 17:05

The judges words (above) went the way I expected but I still refuse to think that the mothers desire to get pissed trumps the rights of the foetus to be safe and healthy. After all, the foetus isn't going to stay a foetus so what about the harm that is done to the child / adult that the foetus grows into?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 17:12

Miss, that was the initial case - the appeal is ongoing.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 17:15

Okay, my misunderstanding, I realise now that those are the words from the ruling in 2011. I still expect the original ruling to stand when the appeal decision is reached and I still won't agree with it.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 17:17

Someone drinking 50 units a day is well beyond getting pissed.

A crime can only be a crime at the time it's committed, I think, Miss. Before the birth, there is no "person" and indeed, the mother may miscarry or abort so that the foetus might never become a legal person. If the foetus had personhood, that must have implications for abortion rights.

magicpixie · 06/11/2014 17:18

totally agree op

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 17:21

Genuine question: if a foetus had no rights why are there legal limits on abortions (time frames).
If foetuses have no rights then why do medical negligence claims get paid out (thalidomide etc)?
Where is the compensation rights of those born with FAS? Criminal injuries seems likely the only compensation they can claim?

TalkinPeace · 06/11/2014 17:26

Who wins in this case?

Not the child
Not the mother
Not the CICB
Not the LA
Not the NHS
Not the taxpayer

Only the lawyers, creaming off their fees which in total add up to enough to have looked after both child and mother for a long time.

Why do these cases come to court?
Why can the different arms of Government realise that there is only one pot of money and they should stop wasting chunks of it on lawyers?