Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

elizabeth, social workers and children's doc dont make decisions about parents illnesses they seek help from proffessionals in that area. The proffessionals may use the others reports to inforce their opinion in their report but dont make statements they cant back up and those that do get ripped apart in court.

then it seems odd lisa that evidence from the psychiatrists who knew Fran in this case and actually met with her [best for making a diagnosis?] and who had said there was no evidence that she would harm her baby, was not accepted as evidence in court, apparently. and sorry, can't help myself it is 'professional' with one 'f'. Sorry.

IBS we are interested-just frustrated by the "system" it's been good to have the other side of the arguement.

ruty this case has yet to have proper Court scrutiny. Care Proceedings do not commence until the baby is born.

the only Court intervention in reality will relate to a Judicial review of the recc of the LA to remove at birth-then the High Court is concerned with whether or not the LA acted in a way that no reasonable LA would have acted!

The evidence upon which the LA intend to rely in order to remove baby Molly has yet to be tested

well firstly im sorry if if my spelling is that much of an issue for you, but cant help being dyslexic
i dont know why that professional wasnt taken into account, but im assuming there was good reason or her lawyer could have had a field day. Social workers still have to show the judge reasons for everything and judges dont always side with sw teams.

but chipkid, they would have had to go to court to get the order to remove the child at birth and present reasons why, but your right full court wouldnt have been held yet.

aw sorry lisa only teasing, it is just one of those spelling mistakes that bugs me! Hadn't noticed any others...
I do hope that all the evidence is submissible in court for the right decision to be made.

you cannot apply to Court in respect of a babay who is yet to be born. the application to Court will be made upon birth

if it helps i met a baby doc in court and he was full of shit. i hate him and if i hear he is the professional for any case im on my heart sinks he is usless.
would hate him to look at my kids.

link...maybe those that claim it doesn't exist like to watch this video....

read this from FL

Also this original thread that Fran posted on
I've only just re-read the begining of this thread with the link to Frans original posts & those of John Hemming.

Worth reading for some facts on the case.

ruty, the psychologist that wrote a letter of support, did not actually see Fran in many years, as came clear by the link to the 2. report about this...
I would assume that Fran has recently been evaluated by a psych...otherwise it would, indeed be all ridiculous.

3and I am not one of those who claims it doesn't exist but the fact that it DOES exist is a handy peg for Fran & others to be hung on.

Each case deserves to be judged on its individual factors.

bossy your first link doesn't work.

NO 3and read the link!!!

S Fran says she has no current psyche because she doesn't need one she is well!!!

OOps ok I'll try again!

try this

bossy, of course just because it exists, or one believes in it's existence, it should NOT be used to wrongfully accuse anyone of this.
I think what angers me a bit is, that people use those wrongfully accused cases as the proof somehting doesn't exist,surely that isn't in anyone best interest....certainly not in the interest of children who really suffer through the hands of their parents...

but bossy, surely if they are questioning Frans mindset, then she should be given a psych consultation and assesment , I mena, surely they should base their decisions on everything, which would include the past to some extent, but also the present state of things...
theworld has gone mad , me thinks...

am just reading the website you just linked too, it works now (the link)

I agree 3and but don't you think it has been the "latest" trendy diagnosis? it seems to be over-used in a lot of cases therefore detracting from the cases where it IS applicable, which is a shame as it gets dicredited.

Yes you would think a thorough psyche assessment was vital but it doesn't appeaar to have been done.

I can honestly say, that by Fran's side of the story, I really can't understand....
but of course that is the only side we know...so, hard to base a judgement on that!

see, I haven't really come across it much at all...i.e. in news, etc...so, I really have no idea if it is generally overused, or not....and for the reasons people were wrongly accused, etc....

Told myself I wouldn't return to this thread because of the persistence of some posters constant references to FII/MSBP, doctors whose judgement and findings which detract from the issue of Fran and her baby.

chipkid, I tried to make the same point yesterday about the proceedings once the baby is born and the post natal forensic psychological assessment.

Having read the various reports it appears

1. Fran has had no involvement with a psychiatrist for about 4 years, therefore their supporting letters (not evidence) can only reflect her mental health status at that time. That is not to say she is any different now, only further assessment can show her present status.

2)The paediatrican, whose involvement has been so questioned on here, has given his professional assessment of the risk to the as yet unborn child, based upon the professionals concern on the evidence (we are not privy to this)available.

Social Workers do not sit in the delivery room and remove the bay as soon as the cord is cut!

Fran appears to be an itelligent resourceful young woman who has articulated her fears and has engendered much support for her plight.

Her unborn child's needs for a safe future, must of necessity be presented by the 'system'.

another interesting link about MsbP