Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

because she is likely to suffer from Munschausen's syndrome by proxy

Sally Clark died of a broken heart because of what Roy Meadow accused her of. Has everybody forgotten the one in 72 million chance he conjured up to underline her supposed guilt? It took a member of the Royal College of Statisticians to say he was talking bollocks, not one of his medical colleagues. Has everybody forgotten David Southall, Meadow's MSBP colleague diagnosing Sally Clark's husband as the murderer because he watched a television programme?

Damn I'm angry about this and I'm angry that people are still defending this atrocious system and the doctors who step out of their areas of expertise, paediatrics, to pronounce on the mental health and future actions of people they have never even met.

Trupti Patel was found not guilty at trial afaik.

and we do not know all the facts. we only know Fran Lyon's side of the story. we do not know what evidence ss have to back up these recommendations, but two judges have ruled that this baby should be removed at birth, so there must be something to back that up.

And was Martin ward-plat discredited after Angela cannings/the patel case? was he brought before the gmc? because if not you are treading on very dangerous ground by implying that because he was a witness in two cases where 1 proved to be a miscarriage of justice and the other did not secure a conviction he is dodgy.

If he has not publically been discredited and has not been brought to account on any grounds, then I would suggest you have your posts referring to him deleted, because some of your comments about him border on lible.

roy meadows has had nothing to do with this case.

you are being ruled by your own emotions here and not by the facts. the facts which we do not know.

BTW, there seem to be people here arguing about the term Muenchhausen by proxy , but it seems to be presumably accepted that there are parents that do induce and fabricate illness in children ...not being funny...but it's the same thing without calling it by the "discredited" name....

However....not sure on what grounds this Fran person is accused of this...

No wannabe I'm not being led by my emotions. I know the facts and they made me angry. That way round. But it's interesting how often the defenders of this ruling on this thread have reduced themselves to insults; Sophable for example was calling people nuts. Either you have an argument or you don't, but stick to the facts rather than throwing out silly insults.

For example you have obfuscated real facts e.g. the fact that this woman's baby will be taken into care, pretending instead that it is a recommendation.

Roy Meadows was the first paediatrician to step out of his area of expertise and to take it upon himself to diagnose parents, doctors like Martin Ward Platt and David Southall have then followed where he has led. That is the connection. What is your interest in this? Are you a social worker?

3andnogore, child abuse exists, nobody is denying that. However to prove child abuse you need evidence, something these experts like to ignore (or maybe they just can't find any because it doesn't exist) preferring instead to diagnose people who aren't even their patients with imaginary psychiatric illnesses.

is a very sensitve issue but surly they could heavily and i mean heavily monitor mum and baby to see if the baby was in harm?rather than take baby away althogh ive only heard one side really

I believe that there are parents/carers who harm their childrfen by fabricating or inducing illness in them. I believe this as much as I believe that there are parents who cause significant harm to their children by neglecting them or by abusing them in other ways, eg direct physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional abuse other than through FII. I believe that FII is likely to be very rare but that it does it occur and that if it is considered in the context of a range of behaviour by parents in response to illness in their children then it is less of an outrageous concept than many portray it to be.

As the baby is as yet unborn there cannot be any proceedings or Orders made allowing the immediate removal of this baby.

the appeal was in all liklihood an application for Judicial Review of the Local Auhtority's decision to reccommend removal at birth.

The fact remains that the Local Auhtority cannot remove this baby at birth until such an action has been sanctioned by the Court either by way of an emergency protection order or an Interim Care Order. Thus some form of judicial approval will have to be given before the LA are entitled to remove this baby.

I missed this:

"And was Martin ward-plat discredited after Angela cannings/the patel case? was he brought before the gmc? because if not you are treading on very dangerous ground by implying that because he was a witness in two cases where 1 proved to be a miscarriage of justice and the other did not secure a conviction he is dodgy.

If he has not publically been discredited and has not been brought to account on any grounds, then I would suggest you have your posts referring to him deleted, because some of your comments about him border on lible."

I haven't implied he's dodgy. I've stated clearly that he has been involved in two cases where the women accused were found innocent one of whom spent a long time in prison. That is not libellous however you try and twist it.

Interesting that you are so committed to your argument that you are willing to accuse people who disagree with you of libel though.

You've got a better memory for these cases than most people do. I have to say I'm surprised you're still defending the system knowing what you know.

So Elizabetth-it cannot be a fact yet that this baby will be taken into care are no proceedings yet that need to be brought before a Court

try again---it is NOt a fact that this baby will be taken into care-it is still only a reccommendation. There has to be some form of Court sanction AFTER the baby is born

Ladida..I completely agree with you....but to me, it really doesn't matter what the fabricating etc...is called...the label doesn't change a thing, does it!

Elizabeth...by the way...forinstance whilst I believe this Mbp or whatever you want to call it does exist...I am not claiming that this Fran suffers from it, as the Info gotten through media, certainly does not indicate this....

however, yeah tis hard to judge this either way...but still feel sorry for Fran, if this will happen , if she isn't given a chance....

I suppose it depends upon how you look upon it. If you call it MSBp then you are implying some sort of psych diagnosis in the carer whereas if you call it FII then it perhaps focuses more on the affected child and doesn't give any reference to a judgement on the mental health of the parent/carer.

Aware that this may sound like a poncy technicality.

It still is the same thing...and, tbh...any parent that does it, has some psych probs...one way or another....or are you now talking about the stigma of the title?

3andnogore - I agree very much with ladidah in that there is a distinction here worth making. the writings on munchausen's syndrome by proxy imply that it is a diagnosable psychiatric condition, of which I am not convinced. However, parents have and do induce injury and illness in their children. that there is some doubt over whether this has psychiatric aetiology does not diminish this.

I take issue with your comment that any parent that harms there child has psychiatric problems. This is not the case. To synonymise the "mad" and the "bad" is IMO offensive to those living with mental illness. When I worked in a medium secure unit (detention facility for mentally disordered offenders) we were called upon to assess a woman who had abuse a child, leading to that child's death, as assumptions were made that any mother who could do such a thing "must" be unwell. a team of psychiatrists could find no evidence of mental disorder (including personality disorder, which we treated at the unit).

I'm still with Elizabetth on this.

i think some people are being utterly patronizing and burying their heads in the sand TBH.

IBS...hm....so, you think one could commit any crime and there is no wrong wiring in anyway? So, some people are simply purely evil wihtout anyhting being wrong with them?
I find that thought really disturbing.
Now, I am, by no means implying that anyone living wiht mental illness would be automatically capable of abuse, etc....
however....surely somehting must trigger people to do something as nasty as inflicting pain on another being...
what I am trying to say, badly, I realise is, that of course mental illness does not mean automatically a person would be capable of doing anyhting wrong/evil ,but that evil acts must be triggered by some wrongful wiring in the brain, etc....possibly through earlier experiences of the abuser or I don't know...truely due to some chemical imbalance causing disturbances...
surely abuse is not just purely down to opportunity?

ruty...care to expand a bit....did scroll down the thread and you have not commented at all (or I scrolled past you)...so, trying to work out what your stance here is

3andnogore - thats exactly it yes. its very frightening thought but there are a large number of people in cat A prisons all over the world with absolutly no mentall illness registered.

there was a lot of research into this and i cannot think who it was by right now (it will bug me into getting into my mums loft to find out though im sure) basicly back in the 90's when there was a lot of research into frontal lobe injury and killer instinct.

it was found that a very high proportion of men that had been convicted of murder had been found to have some form of frontal lobe damage. either from birth or as teh result of an injury later in life.

they had no mental illness at all, but they did have this physical injury.
it was a really interesting study that took place over about 10 years and involved most of teh high profile killers in amercia.

but thats off point.

i have commented earlier on. I do think the medical profession is rife with misogyny, particularly when it comes to women's mental health issue. I do think the SS are badly organised and the courts system is terribly flawed. I do think people are innocent until proven guilty. I do know that if you admit to having PND you are very much dependent on how understanding your GPs and HVs are, and some like wielding power more than others. I find the whole system deeply flawed and against women. Hope that is clear!

i'll just add a personal experience. After a very traumatic birth experience, and then an emergency c section, and then a horrible midwife who took my baby away without my consent and fed him, again without my consent, within an hour of giving birth, I was left feeling very traumatized and started getting terrible nightmares about something bad happening to my son. I eventually went to see and NHS [female] counsellor, who told me my nightmares were submerged thoughts of not wanting my baby, or wanting something bad to happen to him. I cannot express to you how that made me feel. I had gone to her for support and then felt like i was a terrible mother. Luckily i was able to see another counsellor who is also a psychologist at a top hospital and she totally pooh poohed this other counsellor's ideas. With her help and support i was able to recover and stop having nightmares. It just shows you how different personalities inthe medical profession can have such a dramatic influence on their patients, for better or worse.

Clear as day
And sadly I don't think one can even disagree with it...the system is not working and well, as everywhere else, SS has to safe at the wrong end...just as the NHS....always to many chiefs and not enough indians

mamazon...but if a physical braininjury impairs on the way the brain works and changes the persons actions,there must be something you can class it as?
Hm...I do know what I mean, but am all confuzzled....

ruty, problem with councellors is...well...it's not a really regulated profession, is it...and anyone can do a 2 year councelling college course and they are a councellor...however, without true background knowledge of human psychology, I would think it boils down to "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"!
I really think only psychologist should be able to become councellors, or at least the person becoming a councellor has to show an extensive knowledge of psychology....

Btw...really sorry about your terrible experience...have had a similar one with my youngest child and it takes so long to overcome, and whilst you are in that bad place it's so hard to cope and there is so muhc guilt within us making us feel even more inadequat....

teh study was fascinating but i dont think it is widely accepted.

i think that if you were a very rich person with a pretty fantastic lawyer you could maybe get brain scans and prove you were not to blame for killing someone as it was a physicla impairment....but im not sure.

it was totally off topic..it just reminded me of teh study which was very intersting. sorry to cloud the waters lol