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

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

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.

no Puffin she is NOT a birth mother, DC was a Saturday night and a whisky bottle conception.

as another poster said (why are you digging at me and not others then?) quite rightly a 'surrogate for the care system'.

she didn't want DC when DC was born.literally threw DC away. that's not any sort of mother.

and yet again, someone expresses anger on behalf of someone who cant speak for themselves and the '

'are you getting support' 'counselling' 'do you have depression', are you mentally unstable ' brigade come out of the woodwork. FFS.

ASD is not caused AFAIK by alcohol btw, nor is down syndrome and most other disabilities/conditions.

Im going. Ive had enough of the defence of abusers here.

Adopt, birth mother is the standard term for woman who gave birth.

Look, I think her behaviour was crap and you are doing great with your DC. I don't want to be an apologist for her.

I hated the man who killed my friend and I wanted him to die too; but I oppose the death penalty on principle. This is like that, to me - if a foetus has personhood, which the courts have said is required for this to be a crime, then all kinds of things may follow regarding abortions, other drugs etc.

Adoptakid
Your anger towards the anonymous person who unknowingly harmed the child you now love is understandable.
I wonder whether you would say what you do to her face.
Because she is the birth mother of your child.

Sadly I think that cases like the one currently in the appeal court will make the situation worse for children like yours - because mothers will lie and hide and do anything to avoid contact with the criminal system

Then an unsuspecting caring person will adopt a child without an honest history.

If the money currently being spent on the courts and lawyers was instead diverted to finding effective forms of contraception for such women while their mental state was improved
AND
was spent on increasing the level of support adoptive parents like you receive
would that not be a better use of taxpayer funds

than by making a criminal out of a parent?

You know, mum and mother are pretty subjective and personal terms. I might say them all the time, but other people really aren't comfortable with them, and I find it offensive to keep saying to someone who is clearly finding this thread difficult and painful enough as it is 'but she IS your childs (birth) mother'. My eldest never uses the word birth mother, would you keep trying to suggest to her that she's somehow wrong? I don't think the woman who gave birth to DD1 is her mother in any sense at all either. Flame away by all means. But I'll leave DD1 aside because alcohol and drugs has nothing to do with her adoption at all

But my other 2 kids birth mum (and, being subjective and situation dependent, I do think she's a mother and often have called her simply 'mum') has alcohol problems, and some of DD2's issues are likely caused by alcohol pre-birth. She's never been formally investigated for FASD though, so it remains but a strong suspicion in my mind and others who have given her support.

I do not think criminalising her birth mum would be the right way forwards, and as a very pro choice woman i worry about anything which might then infringe upon abortion rights

No objection to giving children compensation, but it would have to be a different newly created fund which isn't dependent on a criminal offence being committed.

But compensation can't take the place of the robust support services that are actually needed. Support for families is fucking woeful. Focussing purely on compensation would be a total cop-out to distract from that fact.

lilka
You are right : the children are now yours and the accident of their birth is a distraction to their care
BUT
it would have to be a different newly created fund : Where from?

It would come out of the SS fund _after the lawyers extract their £5,000 per day fees I've written the cheques, I know

"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?"

No, because we criminalise the perpetrator of the crime. In your example it's a man. In the case of a woman who knowingly pickles her child with alcohol, it's the woman.

The woman who made the point about alcohol affecting contraception is a really good point actually, although the copper coil works well enough.

Well, from nowhere probably, because there's no money now for even basic bloody support which would make a difference to families and their disabled children

I was just saying that if it were ever to happen, it would have to be newly created

But as I said, no one must think that that in any way makes up for or replaces proper support services

The lack of which is a serious problem, and I will stand on my soapbox about it for hours and hours!

How on earth has having an ASD child been compared to FASD?

Choochi, Puffins has a child with ASD who has displayed some of the behaviours Adopt has described.

I guess there is a genetic component to ASD? I think puffins was asking that, as she is knowingly at risk of having a second child with ASD, should she not have a second child?

I don't see the difference between neglect to a child/baby after birth than before. Neglect is often the result of alcohol or drug abuse & often leads to long term problems & disability.
Both should be punished.
My neighbour has FAS that resulted in life limiting heart & lung condition, learning difficulties and a list of other medical & developmental problems.
Should nobody be held to account. It was entirely preventable.

Mymate, that's sad for your neighbour.

When do you think personhood begins?

mymatemax
Should nobody be held to account.
What outcome would make it better ?
What outcome would prevent recurrence (surely the whole point of the court system - public punishment) ?
What punishment that would not punish the victim more?

I'm also an adoptive mum. My eldest doesn't have classic FAS, but it's very likely his birth mum drank and some of his difficulties may be attributable to that. It's very tough to watch him struggle and to feel that it could have been prevented - although to add to the rich irony, preventing it in his birth mums circumstances would probably mean he hadn't been born, which is unthinkable :)

His birth mum was very young, incredibly vulnerable and leading an extremely chaotic life. She was the victim of past and possibly present abuse. That is a typical picture of most women who drink in pregnancy to the extent we are talking about. Yes there may be, in technical terms, a choice about getting pregnant and about misuse of alcohol, but those choices are being made in an incredibly difficult context. I don't see that enabling a criminal prosecution of these mothers would be helpful in any way whatsoever - as a pp pointed out, draconian and punitive measures have an atrocious track record in changing the behaviour of very chaotic people.

Would I like to see funds available to support kids with FASD and those affected by other forms of early abuse and trauma? Yup with knobs on - and it would be nice if they were easily available by a less circuitous route than the CICA. And if the government cuts to local authority funding hadn't bit so hard that LAs were forced down this type of road.

Would I like our society to completely rethink its relationship with alcohol, including minimum pricing to reduce availability of cheap alcohol, much less of a drinking culture, well funded addiction support services and strong public health messages about the areas where drinking does most damage, including pregnancy? YES with more knobs on.

My son is a special boy who has huge challenges but works to surmount them every bloody day of his life, as do I. Let's also be careful of embracing a rhetoric which makes him damaged goods that should never have happened - if we are talking personhood, he needs to know that he is valuable and valued exactly as he is, and making his birth the subject of a criminal offence has a complex effect on that.

Lilka - compensation can't take the place of the robust support services that are actually needed. Support for families is fucking woeful. Focussing purely on compensation would be a total cop-out to distract from that fact.

Absolutely. It's not helpful to anyone. In an ideal world, we would all be lovely people and babies who no one gives a shit about wouldn't be born and everyone would be careful and considerate. Life isn't like that though. Some people are damaged and some people just aren't very nice.

But this case winning would chip away women's rights to bodily autonomy. And that's the big picture we need to think about, however badly some women parent (or don't parent, even if they have parental responsibilities).

And I apologise if I overstepped the line adoptakid - this is an emotive topic for both of us.

it is very sad, he is under the care of our local childrens hospice. All entirely preventable.

I don't think its so much a case of when personhood begins but about holding people accountable for their actions. They are knowingly putting that child at risk of serious harm.
Drink driving is a crime as driving while under the influence is a known risk.. probably a crap comparison but why should it only be about the "when a life becomes a life" debate.
I fear that argument will rattle on for years & as neonatal medicine improves & the viability of life versus gestation changes.. who knows!

In the meantime neglectful parents are allowed to continue to re produce children who will struggle with a lifetime of difficulty because nobody will dare remove the rights of the woman to reproduce or lock her up to prevent reproduction.

making his birth the subject of a criminal offence has a complex effect on that

HEAR HEAR WITH BELLS ON

talkinpeace.
If punishment prevents another child being born to the same mother, again with FAS again with lifelong disabilities then punishment has served its purpose.
Surely that is the purpose of the criminal justice system, to prevent harm & rehabilitate.

mymatemax
holding people accountable for their actions. They are knowingly putting that child at risk of serious harm.

Do you really think they are in any fit state to comprehend the outcomes of their actions?

Do you really think that criminalising such behaviour will reduce it?

What makes you think that forcing one such woman to have an implant against her wishes will have any effect on any other woman?

What outcome do you want?
Do you really think that criminalising will have that outcome ?

No, pregnant women should not be criminalized for drinking, under any circumstances. Women are people, not incubators. Foetuses are not people until they are born.
WRT prosecutions when someone else has harmed a pregnant woman, either deliberately or recklessly, that's criminal because it's additional harm done to the woman by killing or endangering the foetus - her physical and mental distress are likely to be greater. It;s the woman who matters.

The problems with bringing in such a law would be firstly the lack of proof. The statistics around FAS are a long way from exact. Some research seems to suggest a genetic component to some of the symptoms. Poor nutrition is also implicated - which can be a consequence of poverty and/or linked with an addict neglecting to care for herself properly. Inadequate maternity care can also lead to babies being born with disabilities - as PP have said, threatening to arrest or prosecute women is going to put them off seeking maternity care, even if it were to be fully funded and easily available (which it isn't, always.)
There's also the issue that not all pregnant women know they are pregnant, and not all pregnancies are planned. It really wouldn't be too big a step for woman-haters to start agitating for women of childbearing age to be forbidden alcohol just in case.
It would also be rather convenient for the government to be able to write off all children born with disabilities as the fault of their wicked, selfish, ignorant mothers rather than funding more help for the impoverished pregnant women or more research into various other causes of disability (eg pollution, poverty, male violence, inadequate maternity care).

It's sad when children are born with FAS or other problems. But it would be a whole lot sadder if women's lives were back to being hedged round, policed and restricted because their function is percieved to be incubators rather than people.

I think that's the point I was trying to make though mymatemax - I think it massively unlikely that punishment would prevent women in very chaotic circumstances getting pregnant and children being born with FASD. Unless we are talking forced sterilisation?

I think it's perfectly acceptable and appropriate that women with long term addiction issues and chaotic circumstances be very much encouraged towards long acting reversible contraception until they are in a place to parent a child - in these well funded, easily accessible support services we have such a lot of. But that's what we should have and what I think, alongside real change in how UK society relates to alcohol, would probably have most chance of reducing the numbers of babies born with FASD.

Why do we convict anyone of crimes, then? Nothing is changed by anyone being convicted of a crime that has already been convicted.

But it isn't a crime at the moment, lougle, that's the point. It's selfish, irresponsible, etc, etc, but it's not criminal

Lougle
the little toerag who stabbed the teacher has been locked up for a VVV long time
it WILL deter other little toerags from even thinking about taking a kitchen knife into school

jailing the boy secures the safety of other women until his brain is sorted

the kind of mothers who are so mentally ill that they are quaffing a bottle of vodka a day will have no awareness that they are equivalent to a court case
so no positive benefit will be gained
also what would be gained by jailing her ?

in the case in the court, it has nothing to do with prevention
it is all to do with money and payment for care
and the ONLY WINNERS are the lawyers who will help themselves to hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money to argue the toss

talkinpeace / Threesocks
Yes I do really believe there is a place for punishment ALONGSIDE other supportive measures and investment is support at a young age for people (men & women) living/growing up in chaotic circumstances.
They may be alcohol &/or drug dependant and not fully in control of their actions, but so are a huge percentage of prisoners who have offended and caused harm to people are property. Surely we as a society have aduty to help those that are not in control to protect their unborn child & where there is a likelihood of future pregnancies where the person is dependant on drugs or alcohol YES society should step in.
how can we punish a person for damaging property but we seem to not be able to step in when there is a pregnancy??

I spent many months on SCBU with my son and there were a number of babies came in whose parents were drug or alcohol users.
One baby sticks in my mind, he was born unable to breathe unaided or maintain his own blood preassure & endured very invasive procedures to survive. That mum openly admitted that it was her 4th child & the 3rd that had been in SCBU. She was clearly upset, clearly loved that child & was distressed that again Social Services were there and would remove the child from her care. I genuinely had sympathy as her start in life had been equally chaotic but really, can we, should we sit back & do nothing??