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:
TalkinPeace · 06/11/2014 21:53

TBH there is a simple answer to that lady's situation that would have shocked her into sanity, but it will not go down well on this site so I'll not type it.

mymatemax · 06/11/2014 21:56

Talkinpeace. I'm curious now:)

lougle · 06/11/2014 22:02

"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"

Not if they're of similar constitution to the child who fatally stabbed his teacher. The whole point is that he is an immediate danger to society because he doesn't think like other people. In any case, being locked up is what he professed to desire, so the prosecution of someone similar could encourage his behaviour.

"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"

Perhaps it would deter young people from drinking to excess. Perhaps it would encourage someone on the cusp of awareness to seek help. Perhaps it would help an alcoholic woman decide to be fitted with a contraceptive implant while she is in the throes of addiction. Perhaps it would lead to better addiction interventions, because intervention is cheaper than prosecution and confinement. Perhaps it would lead to greater awareness.

Who knows? The issue, for me, is that a child who would otherwise have been fit and well, is damaged by a known toxin, deliberately.

TalkinPeace · 06/11/2014 22:02

you have a message - I'll not post it on here unless you agree

TalkinPeace · 06/11/2014 22:14

Agreed not to post the message I sent to Max
BUT
criminalising will not help those who need support
especially when criminal cases just result in lawyers enriched from the taxpayer funds that should be used to support and help such people.

PuffinsAreFicticious · 06/11/2014 23:06

Adoptakid, at no point did I suggest you were mentally ill, depressed or anything else. I asked if you were getting support from anyone to help you deal with the anger you feel toward the birth mother of your child?

I'm sorry that my well meant and much thought about post upset you. I'm also sorry that you totally missed the point of it.

SoonToBeSix · 06/11/2014 23:25

Adoptakid I say this as an adult who was adopted as a child. You need to change your attitude towards your dd's birth mother before she is older. She is part of your dd's identity and yes she sounds selfish but you sound like you hate her.

YonicScrewdriver · 07/11/2014 00:23

"should we sit back & do nothing??"

I don't think anyone wants to sit back and do nothing. But putting her in jail does not seem like the right "something" to do.

lougle · 07/11/2014 06:33

Criminalising something doesn't mean that the only recourse is prison though. It could mean a compulsory treatment order. Surely that would be beneficial. Both to the woman and society.

I understand the autonomy concept but we can't argue that someone who is addicted can't help their consumption of alcohol and at the same time argue that they have the right to choose to continue as an alcoholic. Either they are exercising a choice to drink, and therefore are responsible, or they are unable to choose and therefore need help.

ChoochiWoo · 07/11/2014 07:04

I have a child with ASD, I wouldn't compare that to FASD at all,

YonicScrewdriver · 07/11/2014 07:07

Are compulsory treatment orders one of the sentencing options open on other crimes ?

So the crime would be "applying noxious substances to a foetus" or something similar and the "punishment" would be compulsory Idrug/alcohol addiction treatment some time after birth when FAS was identified?

YonicScrewdriver · 07/11/2014 07:09

Choochi, understood Flowers.

But Puffins was speaking from her own experience and her own child with ASD exhibited behaviours similar to those adopta described.

ChoochiWoo · 07/11/2014 07:12

Puffins that is the worst non apology I've ever seen.

Missunreasonable · 07/11/2014 07:25

Yes yonic compulsory treatment orders are often part of sentences for some crimes. Non compliance with a treatment order usually lands the person back in court for re sentencing (like any breach of sentence conditions). As you rightly point out, compulsory treatment wouldn't help the child who had FAS but it might prevent another child being born with FAS. Compulsory treatment orders can sometimes be the most efficient way to get the required support.

Missunreasonable · 07/11/2014 07:31

www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/dttos

Info on that link about drug treatment and testing orders. I do think something similar could help alcoholics reduce the risk of subsequent FAS children being born.

YonicScrewdriver · 07/11/2014 07:32

Thanks, Miss.

chillychops · 07/11/2014 07:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YonicScrewdriver · 07/11/2014 07:53

Chilly, it is not seeing the unborn child as nothing. I'm sure that all posters, whatever their stance on criminalisation, would want treatment and support accessible ASAP in pregnancy to protect both mother and foetus.

At present, I think there are only two crimes that can be committed before birth - foetal destruction and unlawful abortion. Any other crimes on the statute books can only be committed against a legal person and our law does not give a foetus that status until birth.

I know it sounds like a very "dry" argument but if the law changed to consider unborn children as "persons" in this instance then it would have knock on effects elsewhere, particularly in abortion rights.

People are saying, "well the mother would be prosecuted for /abuse if she put drugs/drink in a bottle for the baby post birth" - well, that's true. But by analogy, if the mother put drugs/drink in her own body post birth, she would not be prosecuted for child abuse.

I may not be posting again for a bit as I have a lot on today but thank you to all who have helped me understand FAS better.

wanttosinglikemarycoughlan · 07/11/2014 07:57

Adoptakid
As an adopter you, according to the law of mumsnet outside of the adoption board, are not allowed normal feelings. You must be able to cope with the most challenging children whilst accepting you are not their 'real' mother and must put the 'real' mother first. You must accept she is a victim, not responsible in any way for her actions and never voice any anger towards her
In any other circumstances mumsnetters seem to realise you can vent anger and thoughts on here without them spilling into RL. But not if you are an adopter
If you are an adopter and you voice those feeling then YOU ARE NOT FIT TO BE AN ADOPTER
That was my experience anyway and you seem to have had similar
Perhaps if people lived with the reality of FASD or see a baby born addicted and GI through withdrawal they would be less sanctimonious

lougle · 07/11/2014 10:17

"People are saying, "well the mother would be prosecuted for /abuse if she put drugs/drink in a bottle for the baby post birth" - well, that's true. But by analogy, if the mother put drugs/drink in her own body post birth, she would not be prosecuted for child abuse."

No, she wouldn't be prosecuted for child abuse by putting drinks/drugs in her body. Nobody is. She would be prosecuted if a child in her care was harmed while under the influence of those substances and she would otherwise have had the capacity to prevent that harm (either by not neglecting her child or not hurting her child or by being able to save her child from injury, etc)

This is not about the sequestration of a woman's body during pregnancy. This is about recognising that the only source of developmental nutrition open to a developing foetus is the woman who has become pregnant and decided to continue that pregnancy.

I am, in general, anti abortion. What I mean by that, for clarity, is that I personally would resist abortion for myself and I would exercise my right under law to abstain from the instigation of abortion if I were treating a patient as a nurse or doctor. However, I would support to the best of my ability, a woman undergoing abortion or post abortion. That said, I recognise the right of women to request abortion on any of the specified grounds and I understand that 'I don't want to be pregnant' is likely to qualify as mental harm to the woman in continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

In relation to addiction, I would understand a woman who finds herself to be pregnant saying: "I am not in a physical state that would make pregnancy a wise option, so I'll terminate."

I would understand a woman saying 'I want the baby so I'll get treatment.'

I don't understand: "I want the baby. I have to drink. So I'll play Russian roulette and hope for the best."

SolidGoldBrass · 07/11/2014 11:33

Thing is, , Lougle, it doesn't matter what you understand or don't understand, because another woman's pregnancy is simply not your business. Same goes for the rest of the whiners. It might be regrettable that some women drink too much while pregnant which in some cases causes harm to foetuses. But it's an acceptable price to pay for women's autonomy, when the alternative is the removal of rights from all women.
This argument is the same old misogyny as the boohooing about those (NON-FUCKING EXISTENT) 'selfish' women who would, if permitted, have abortions at 32 weeks on a sudden whim. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that this actually happens, or has happened, though there are plenty of cases of women dyingalong with their dead or unviable foetuses due to other people's sentimental objection to abortion.
While it's true that some women drink in pregnancy to an extent that they give birth to babies with difficulties, the majority don't (and sadly many babies are born with a variety of problems despite their mothers' self-denial, obedience and best efforts during pregnancy - just as some women who drink a lot or taek recreational drugs give birth to perfectly healthy babies.) Women have to own their own bodies, and the contents of their own bodies, and if they choose to do things that may not be good for a foetus then basically tough shit. Their business. |Oh and waa, waa, NHS funding for sick babies - people are not denied medical treatment if they've broken their necks hang-gldiing and therefore will need constant care for the rest of their lives. We belong to ourselves, all of us, not the state, not the taxpayer, and not a lot of idiots waving their imaginary friends around.

AskBasil · 07/11/2014 11:41

"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"

Does anyone really think that a woman being sent to prison for having a child with FAS will stop other vulnerable alcoholic women drinking and doing the same thing to their foetuses?

Really?

Alcoholics go through the most appalling degradation in the pursuit of their addiction. They are utterly, bewilderingly, staggeringly impervious to all the sensible reasons we can give them for not being an alcoholic. It just sounds like fantasy-land to me, to believe that holding up an example of a punished woman will stop the others. People get sent to prison all the time for drunk driving, but it doesn't stop alcoholics drunk driving because they are not in control of their compulsion to drink. It stops ordinary normal people drinking and driving of course, but that's because we're amenable to reason and don't have an addiction. Ordinary normal women who are amenable to reason and don't have an addiction, don't need criminal sanctions to look after the foetus in their womb and the ones who aren't ordinary and normal, won't be affected by those criminal sanctions anyway. All the existence of criminal sanctions would achieve, would be a greater policing of women's behaviour than is already acceptable and that means a weakening of our social status and human rights. This would affect ALL women, pregnant or not, alcoholic or not. To be in favour is to be like the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas, IMO.

BigChocFrenzy · 07/11/2014 11:44

The legal case ongoing is almost certain to reject criminalisation, due to practicalities:

. The vast majority of UK women are pro-choice and 200,000 women annually choose to have an abortion. They would not accept this right being curtailed by giving a foetus rights before 24 weeks - and the FAS damage occurs in the early weeks.
Difficult legally to say a foetus has rights to avoid injury but not to avoid death.

. There are nearly 15 million women of childbearing age in the UK. They would not accept being required to prove they are not pregnant before being sold or served alcohol.
So, pregnant women would be required to cooperate in tests to incriminate themselves.

. Difficult to retrospecively criminalise behaviour that was not illegal at the time: the foetus was not legally a person at the time of damage.

. Difficult to justify detaining pregnant women as a "precaution", when studies show 95% of babies born to problem drinkers do not exhibit FAS. There are a huge number of other factors involved in FAS.

. If a pregnant alcohlic were to be detained, then at any time up to 24 weeks - and probably beyond - she could obtain release and avoid any legal consequences by choosing an abortion. Any solicitor would present this option to their client, or do we ban legal representation ?
So that is a possible way laws might indeed reduce the number of babies born with FAS, but not in a way some here might intend.

lougle · 07/11/2014 11:45

That's a very aggressive post, SGB. This thread has, so far, been very civilised.

The statements you make as fact aren't actually true. A woman does not have complete autonomy. That's why social services can and do get care orders proactively in anticipation of a birth, for instance, and why there is a legal requirement for two doctors to agree to a termination at any stage of pregnancy.

I don't think it's helpful to post in such rude and disrespectful manner, but you do and you will. Possibly you feel that your posts have added gravitas if the basic thread running through them is 'if you don't agree with me you're stupid'? Ironic when we're talking about personal freedoms.

whogrewoutoftheterribletwos · 07/11/2014 11:46

In relation to addiction, I would understand a woman who finds herself to be pregnant saying: "I am not in a physical state that would make pregnancy a wise option, so I'll terminate."

I think then that you don't understand addiction. It is an illness which affects how a person's brain works. If they were capable of a rational, objective approach to the subject of their addiction then they wouldn't be addicts.

Swipe left for the next trending thread