Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

will stop now then....

Sorry 3andnogore, that wasn't referring to you ,it was the barrage yesterday.

No name the sw's might not sit in the delivery room but it must feel like they are to poor mothers like Fran.

It must be so intolerable spending the last few months of what should be a happy restful time trudging back & forth to court/MP's office's /meetings with SW's god knows what the stress will do to poor Molly.

phew noname...although, I knwo I can go on about things...just a bit...when I go off on one...

Bossy, indeed, this can't be good for Fran nor the unborn child...

bossybritches I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying regarding the traum of living with that scenario pending delivery.

I don't know the answer to prevent it happening, sadly it does happenwhere a cause for concern has been identified and the wheels are put in motion.

I trust that everyone involved does their best for all concerned. We may not agree with some situations or the ultimate outcomes but we as society cannot ignore signs of potential problems.

Thing is...the authorities can't do right for doing wrong anyway...if anything would happen to Frans Baby, they would be doomed, and of course if anyhing would be fine but Baby is permanently removed they are doomed...

I really don't think though, that a decision to take away a child is generally taken lightly...

3andnore, please don't think I meant to disparage people's concerns regarding FIIM/SBP and the potential for misdiagnosis.

It's a subject with lot's of theories and twists and turns.

My feelings are/were yesterday that although it was mentioned in the paedtiatrician's letter . none of us know whether there are other perhaps more relevent details which have resulted in the proceedings to protect Fran's baby.

noname, indeed, ...I think the focus has been so much on MsbP because that was mentioned in the report...but for some reason I think there must be more to it then meets the eye...afterall, I am sure SS now have a certain pressure on them, because it's become a "public" affair, so, surely they would be making very very very sure that they proceed in an over correct way, etc...I can't imagine them wanting to take any risk to keep themselfs open to criticism, iykwim

nonametoday

I have tried to stay off this thread too but it appears that people are getting highly anxious about fran's baby because they donot necessarily understand the early stage of the procees that Fran is at. So far there has been an initial case conference in respect of the unborn baby at which a reccommendation has been made.

It is probable that there has been an application for judicial review of that reccommendation-which appears to have failed.

Before there can be ANY removal of this baby there must be an Order of the Court allowing this to happen. Such an Order cannot be obtained UNTIL the baby is born

There will be a Court hearing hopefully in the County Court or the High Court during which Fran will receive hopefully representation by Counsel. The Court WILL only auhtorise removal if there is evidence that the child is at risk of future harm of an identifiable kind-and only then if there is no other way to protect the child from that possible harm.

The Court will have access to all of the information-which we donot have on this forum.

Thank you chipkid, excellent post with accurate inormation regarding procedures.

I hope others read it and appreciate the procedural 'duties & responsibilities' involved.

Have just read this terrifying thread and would like to quote Ruty's excellent post about MsbP:

"If it does exist, I think it is probably extremely very rare indeed. It is also dangerous in many other ways. For example, if a child has a inexplicable and recurring illness, it seems as if the mother may have the finger pointed at her, now this syndrome has been discovered/invented. If the mother has any history of mental health problems, then god help her. A mother may be overly anxious about her child's health, for various reasons, because of trauma at birth or PND or a number of things. She may be a bit of a hypochondriac herself, and go to the doctor with lumps [imagined or otherwise] here or there, and try the doctor's patience. Now, the mother may need some sort of help, but a mother who is overly anxious/hypochondriac is very different from a mother who is deliberately harming her child. I worry that doctors and SS cannot always see the difference."

Sometimes no explanation will be found for a child's illness. It must be tempting for medics to wonder if the parent is imagining/inventing things rather than admit they just don't have the foggiest idea what is going on.

Agree also with the other posts that child abuse is simply abuse in whatever form. Where it is suspected, paediatricians should not be diagnosing adults they have not met with syndromes that may be themselves fabricated by medical professionals! Where the potential for future abuse of an unborn child is highlighted due to a history of mental health problems a psych team should be involved at the very least. Something urgently needs done about the secrecy of the family courts - why can't these cases be reported as rape cases are where it seems perfectly possible to preserve the anonymity of those involved?

just a thought in respect of the secrecy of the family Courts-oft referred to are the cases of sally Clarke and Angela Cannings-but these cases were tried in the Crown Court in the full glare of publicity and yet it did not prevent these tragic cases.

I work in the "secret" family Court system-and can say that the parents usually have very experienced lawyers who fully scrutinise the evidence presented. I have said it before and will say it again-most cases are very straightforward where the answer is glaringly obvious.

Chipkid, your post raises two more questions:

After the baby is born and pending the hearing's outcome, will Fran be allowed to keep her baby?

Will this court hearing be held in secret such that if this child is taken from her mother we will never know if the "identifiable risk" was really plausible?

I would never have asked the latter question if I had not been truly sickened reading about the many cases where the "evidence" against the mother seems to have been spurious at best e.g. Clarke, Cannings, Patel, Gay...

there will be an urgent hearing following the birth of the baby.

The hearing is private-but fran will have representation. No doubt experienced counsel given the publicity that this case has generated.

Once proceedings are issued it is a contempt of court to discuss the details without prior authority of the Court. The result will therefore be private yes-but there is an appeal process and appeals are generally conducted in open Court!

please refer to my previous post regarding the cases of Clarke, cannings etc which were tried in public

chipkid, I would like to ask you a question but am not sure that this thread is the right place. I do not have CAT facility at present.

Please ignore the question if you feel it is improper.

Do you feel there could be an element of contrived manipulation in this situation?

"given that no-one seems interested, and takes my posts as "nefarious" defence of the diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, I won't bother you all on this thread again.

"

I was the person who used the word "nefarious". I didn't describe the defence of MSBP as "nefarious" I described the actions of some of the people who invented it and promoted it as a diagnosis as nefarious. I would request that you try to read more carefully if you are going to take offense at something that wasn't directed towards you.

I don't actually blame social workers for this case, I've said repeatedly that it is a problem with the whole system, particularly with these doctors who have gone outside their area of expertise into areas they know next to nothing about.

It isn't a secret that the discrediting of Sir Roy Meadow called into question 100s of cases where he had testified as an expert witness. If parents had been convicted of committing a crime there would have been a judicial review, but because children's lives were involved literally nothing was done. That was the first scandal, the second is that it appears that social workers, certain paediatricians and the family courts are carrying on as if nothing has happened - which leads to the appalling situation that Fran Lyons finds herself in.

Thanks for clarifying the procedure CHipkid, that's good to know.

A question that it raised in my mind however. What is the purpose of situation with a "secret" or "closed" hearing?

Given that any other trial/court hearing enables the accused or subject to be present whilst leaving the legal team to actually represent them & speak for them, what is there to hide? If they are bringing out facts that are detrimental to the person accused surely they are entitled to know what the accusations/evidence is? I find it diabolical that one is not allowed to know what is said in these situations. If the safety/security of the child is at risk then surely clarity & openness are paramount? If by discussing the facts might disclose things that further endanges the child then THAT is the time to intervene with removal I would have thought?

How often are applications to take a child into care turned down by family courts? Are you aware of such a thing happening regularly chipkid?

"just a thought in respect of the secrecy of the family Courts-oft referred to are the cases of sally Clarke and Angela Cannings-but these cases were tried in the Crown Court in the full glare of publicity and yet it did not prevent these tragic cases."

Yes, but they were also able to appeal against the decisions publicly and have them overturned leading directly to the discrediting of Sir Roy Meadow as an expert witness. In all the hundreds of secret hearings he testified in his expertise was not called into question (as far as we know), it took a criminal trial where the children were already dead to finally shine a light on his behaviour.

The complacency about the system here, when it has been shown to have massive failings is quite something to behold. Do the hundreds of cases where he was an expert witness where children were removed from their parents not give you any pause for concern, chipkid?

If someone is charged with a crime where they may spend a few years in jail, they are tried publicly by a jury of their peers. If they are found guilty they will be out in a few years and their lives can carry on. On the other hand parents can have their children taken from them in secrecy and they have no recourse, because they cannot publicise their case lest they be held in contempt of court. I'd say having your child taken from you is much worse than a few years in prison, you'll get over the latter, the former is a life sentence both for you and the child.

I'd say Elizabeth-especially if they are then forcibly adopted.......completely lost then.

That's what happened, most of the children were adopted. That's why Margaret Hodge refused a review, because it would disrupt the children's current lives.

I tell you my DD's have had more than a few extra cuddles since I joined this thread...

Elizabetth, this is not solely about MSBP/FII .

If you have a particular axe to grind, a vested interest in any of the situations which have been mentioned or any other tenuous link than that of an 'interested obsrver', then declare it so that all are aware and may possibly appreciate your prejudices.

Your apparent inability to see anything other than a bad paediatrician, poor court judgements etc etc is somewhat strange!

I am sorry but in this world there are some horrible people, albeit clever, conniving, charming, alluring and all the other traits that a con artist has.

The value of the greater percentage of good mothers and fathers should not be lost on here, neither should the dangers of the 'bad'

I think one of the worst things about the system is that it pits the child against the parent, particularly the mother.

People keep talking about "the best interests of the child" ignoring the fact that in most cases they will coincide with the interests of the mother. Social workers and doctors seem to be acting as if they are the child's only defenders, thus they are able to attach a hostile label to the mother (MSBP) when she doesn't cooperate them.

"The best interests of the child" is also what the professionals in these cases are able to hide behind to keep their behaviour unexamined and out of the public sphere.

I don't think Fran Lyon is being protected in this case by their refusal to justify their actions. I think they are.

"Your apparent inability to see anything other than a bad paediatrician, poor court judgements etc etc is somewhat strange!"

I have read the whole thread - and find Elisabetth's stance entirely understandable, unlike yours NoNameToday. You seem to be taking the debate very personally, causing me to wonder if you, yourself have had direct involvement in cases involving MSbP.

All the evidence suggests there are real problems in the way the system works, why are you devoting so much effort to defending it?

Oh you do understand a declaration of interests nonametoday. That's great.

Nope, I'm a disinterested observer who is able to recognise a scandal when I see one. I don't have an axe to grind apart from making sure that the facts are presented publicly and there are indeed a lot of facts surrounding this case because like I said it is part of a larger systemic failure. Perhaps my only interest would be that as a lay person I was once taken in by the idea of the MSBP diagnosis when I heard the stories that people like David Southall and Roy Meadow put out in the media. Then I looked into it more closely and saw it for the appalling fiction that it is, a fiction that actually obscures real cases of child abuse.

As for this thread not being about MSBP, read the title and the first post -

"Woman to have baby taken away at birth...
because she is likely to suffer from Munschausen's syndrome by proxy"

I don't think it could be any clearer. Anybody would think you are trying to shut me up. Are you a social worker, I've lost track? Is this how you deal with clients who disagree with you, resort to obfuscation and distortion of the truth?

"I am sorry but in this world there are some horrible people, albeit clever, conniving, charming, alluring and all the other traits that a con artist has."

I'd agree with you about that. It just depends whether you are using that analysis on doctors, social workers or parents doesn't it? They are all equally likely to fall under the labels given that we're all only human. But really people's character traits aren't what's important here, it's evidence and facts. If you have those you don't need to start demonising people.