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:
Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 17:31

Who cares about the vast numbers of children with FAS who go on to become criminalised themselves? People with FAS are significantly more likely to be involved in crime due to behavioural characteristics linked to their condition (or so research says). If the children affected by FAS can be criminalised then so should those who made them more likely to be criminalised.
Or does it come back to the argument of 'the foetus has no rights and the mother should not be held accountable for her actions because she is entitled to full bodily autonomy'?

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 17:31

Miss, as I understand it, abortion limits are broadly set at a gestation when the foetus might survive outside the womb (and as soon as it is outside the womb I think it becomes a person)

As I understand it, drinking in pregnancy is most damaging before 24 weeks and after 24 weeks is likely to result in a smaller but not disabled child.

Adoptakid · 06/11/2014 17:44

I adopted a child with FASD.

so the woman child grew inside couldn't stop drinking for only 9 months out of her WHOLE life yet my poor kid has to live with their affliction and all the problems it brings for my DCS WHOLE LIFE, and I am the one that has to deal with the fallouts and meltdowns and learning difficulties and everything else my poor childs got because a selfish bitch just HAD to have her drink (and a LOT of drink) for a few months.

and same with a lot of people who adopt children with FASD.

and yes, last time I looked only women can bear children, why some people find this sexist is Shock Hmm

Adoptakid · 06/11/2014 17:45

and what missunreasonable said.

ChoochiWoo · 06/11/2014 17:53

As someone who has experience in social work, I would actually like to see some form of compulsory contraception for addicts tbh, you cant take 0 responsibility you just can't, there is more than enough support for people who want it tbh.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 17:54

Adoptakid, I am really sorry that happened.

If the birth mother of your child had been criminalised because of her actions, do you think that would have made a difference to the outcome?

ChoochiWoo · 06/11/2014 17:58

Id like to clarify, i dont mean sterilisation or anything barbaric but anything inbetween until their issues are sorted. Without this conveyor belt of addicts just acting as surrogates for the care system, children who are unlikely to be adopted as they are so ailed by health/physiological problems such damned lives often its horrible, its hard to be "oh think of the poor women".when you're looking into that abyss of ruined childhood, and probably adulthood.

chillychops · 06/11/2014 18:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PrettyPictures92 · 06/11/2014 18:37

But Choochi isn't many forms of contraception ineffective when alcohol is involved? I know the pill is, and it's ineffective if you've recently been ill too. So short of coils/implants then what other form of contraception could someone who has substance abuse take that would actually be affective?

Cherriesandapples · 06/11/2014 18:44

So people would criminalise or force women with addictions to have implants or be sterilised. What about teenager girls who are groomed and coerced into sexual exploitation and plied with drugs and drink by their frightening and manipulative exploiters? Would the state ignore the exploitation (it has done to date!) and just target the women? These women may well have parented children with this condition. Is it fair to punish them again?

BigChocFrenzy · 06/11/2014 18:56

Would criminalisation even be legal under European Human Rights Law ?

. What of the women who don't realise during the early months - the most dangerous for FAS - that they are pregnant ? Must be more likely for alcoholics. Or must every woman refrain from any alcohol until the menopause (as some US rightwingers propose) ?

. Would overweight women have to pee on a strip before being sold alcohol, same as showing ID ?

. An alcoholic might have to choose between an abortion and being convicted of harming their foetus, maybe jail.

Adoptakid · 06/11/2014 18:57

*what about the women who are none of the above but choose to carry on drinking when they are pregnant when they go out with clubbing?

I am actually quite aghast by this. Your article focuses all on the mother and very little on the poor boy who wont be able to live a full life because of her actions. No, he doesn't need further pain by his mother being prosecuted because he has suffered enough and will suffer more. Where is his justice? I am absolutely amazed at how you outsource the blame of the mothers actions to everyone but her. No one held the bottle to her lips.*

and Without this conveyor belt of addicts just acting as surrogates for the care system, children who are unlikely to be adopted as they are so ailed by health/physiological problems such damned lives often its horrible, its hard to be "oh think of the poor women".when you're looking into that abyss of ruined childhood, and probably adulthood.

both of the above.

Yonic she knew what she was dong as was the same as these posts Ive copied and pasted.

shes now walking round (AFAIK) scot free living the life of riley (her partener was the one who got the snip, meaning she can do it again and again FFS), doesn't have a care in the world and people like this 'surrogates for the care system' -a spot on description couldn't give a feck about the consequences of their actions.

sounds criminal to me.

Adoptakid · 06/11/2014 18:58

copied and pasted posts were supposed to highlight!! apologies.

BigChocFrenzy · 06/11/2014 19:00

There are 80 cases annually of FAS, absolutely tragic, but a small % of births to those mothers who drink heavily. The cause of FAS is definitely alcohol, but the % risk of heavy drinking causing FAS seems comparatively small CDC study compared e.g. to a risk of up to 50% for some devastating genetic conditions.
Why steralise / criminalise women for taking one type of (lower) risk than others ?

OddFodd · 06/11/2014 19:05

I am pretty shocked that so many adoptive parents have such contempt for their children's birth mothers. I hope to fuck your kids never find out.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 19:06

Adopta, would you want her jailed?

And if her partner has had a vasectomy, as long as she is with him, she doesn't need any other form of contraception.

Missunreasonable · 06/11/2014 19:07

The contempt comes from the struggle that they see their very much loved children go through each day. It is hard not to feel contempt for somebody who has caused unnecessary suffering to somebody you love.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 19:12

The prosecution asked for the appeal court to rule that the upper tribunal was wrong and that CP (the girl) was "another person while still a foetus in the womb or became so when she was born - when the offence against her was completed"

(From the Times today)

Court will rule at a later date.

Adoptakid · 06/11/2014 19:13

odd why not adopt an FASD child then come back in months time and make that comment? FFS.

as usual, Missunreasonable has it spot on.

Yonic that doesn't stop HER having sex with other guys does it?

my DC doesn't have anormal life, can NEVER have a normal life.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 19:14

I do understand the anger you feel, adopt, I would feel really angry too.

OddFodd · 06/11/2014 19:18

Anger is fine, contempt isn't. No one drinks 50 units a day for fun.

Adoptakid · 06/11/2014 19:18

As for the OP, 1-why didn't she report her sister for drinking or try and persuade her to stop?

and 2- why doesn't SHE have her nephew for a while and see for herself the effects of FASD?

this thread is making me so bloody angry.

Ive just had to send DC to bed as FASD can cause violent behaviour too and DCs just picked up a chair and thrown it at me (completely out of the blue, nothing to trigger it) and I now have a massive scratch across my face where leg of chair hit me.

not her fault or mine that she does that.

yet shed be branded a criminal/thugette for that no?

and the 'surrogate' runs off scot free. no scars on her, or black eyes, sprained wrists and evrrything else Ive had, and Im sure others have had from theor kids.

YonicScrewdriver · 06/11/2014 19:26

Adopta, maybe she did, or maybe sister/SIL is overseas or estranged?

PuffinsAreFicticious · 06/11/2014 19:30

Excellent post again Louise.

My DS was born with ASD, at times he threw chairs, and knives and fists at me. Does that mean that I shouldn't have had DS2? I'm sorry you're so angry Adopt, are you getting support for that? The woman you're describing is her birth mother, not a surrogate, and at some point, she may wish to find and contact her.

One of the major causes of disability in foetuses is domestic violence, I have been reliably informed. Should we also criminalise women who do not, or cannot leave their violent partner during pregnancy, if that child is born with disabilities?

How about making women who have to take anti-psychotics be sterilised? Or anti convulsants? And if they refuse, because they are adults with bodily autonomy, criminailise them? Totally not the same thing as roaccutane, because that is a choice.

TheFamilyJammies · 06/11/2014 19:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread