Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

just come across an interesting Newspaper article:
Health Check: 'Mothers Against Munchausen's is not the innocent group it seems'

Sorry to disappoint you upwind, but my only involvement has been as a midwife who has had to carry out the recommendations imposed where necessary.

The 'evidence' suggests lots of things and on here there have been lots of spurious claims purporting to be evidence which were merely news items.

I wondered at elizabetth's ability to very quickly quote and link certain publications, be they factual documents or news reports, found it quite amazing. I admire that ability and wish I had it for all things.

It did make me wonder whether it was all to hand and for what purpose?

There is nothing wrong in questioning, whether you like the answer and agree with it is a different matter.

and your point is 3and.......??

I knew I shouldn't have come back to this thread.

Fran is not about to have her baby removed at birth because she is likely to suffer from MSBP!.

Just becaause the OP posted that, it doesn't mean it's accurate.

"I wondered at elizabetth's ability to very quickly quote and link certain publications, be they factual documents or news reports, found it quite amazing. I admire that ability and wish I had it for all things."

Like I said I followed these cases at the time and remembered some of the key issues like the fact that none of the cases Sir Roy Meadow was involved in were reviewed despite the fact that there were serious concerns about them. Also Google is my friend.

"It did make me wonder whether it was all to hand and for what purpose?"

No purpose, I just happen to have a lot of knowledge in my head about this particular area. It has come in handy for this thread though.

I hope that the family courts mend their ways although it doesn't seem likely at the moment.

Sorry elizabetth, but disinterested? observer able to rcognise a scandal?.

"Sorry to disappoint you upwind, but my only involvement has been as a midwife who has had to carry out the recommendations imposed where necessary."

Does that mean you've had to remove babies from their mothers? If it doesn't what does "carry out the recommendations" mean in practice?

NoNameToday - why do you know more about this case than has been reported in the newspapers?

From The Telegraph
"Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science"

Upwind , you can read either all, or part of what is in the press/publications.

Depending upon your knowledge of the procedures and protocols you can understand more, or less.

You have read and interpretated and made a judgment.

Sorry elizabetth, but if you think that you can write an expose/best seller on the basis of your mumsnet membership then I am afraid it will be without my professional help.

So call me suspiscious, but that's where your posts have led me.

Bossy...well this MAMA thing had come up within this discussion over and over again...
so, thought people might be interested...

Really? That's bonkers.

I'd never do something like that. I think you must be judging me by your own standards, nonametoday.

And also if I was of that kind of persuasion, there isn't much of a story in an abstract discussion about a woman being accused of MSBP/FII before her baby is even born. What exactly is there to expose here?

But unless that line from the Telegraph provided by Upwind is completely wrong, that is the official line:
"Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy"
That is what the council themselves are saying

Apparently all the people here who are actually involved in child protection/children's services/the medical profession are party to special knowledge that us lay people couldn't possibly understand. It's a good way of deflecting criticisms.

Think I earlier mentioned con artists, they have an ability to 'suck you in'

If you let them.

They are found in all walks of life, and both sides of the fence, good and bad.

Just trying to keep up 3and!!

not really here dooing housework honest

lol...Bossy, I really should be doing other things, myself...

Ladies keep the handbags down please!

We're all exploring this issue with a raft of knowledge/opinions & information.

I'd like to post this question again-it was to chipkid but I guess she's found other things to do!I would be interested in a reply from anyone with an insight.

"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? "

I don't really expect to be called a con artist on an internet discussion, particularly on Mumsnet where the people are nice . That's really taking things too far.

Precisely 3andnogore.

It is my opinion that Fran is in an unenviable situation, the rights and wrongs of it I can only suppose.

Anything else, no further comment!

If you are a decent person and in your professional capacity you have intervened in people's lives on the basis that they are a witch might in the future suffer from MSbP you must really believe it.

If evidence then emerges that what they have been accused of is likely to have been itself a fabrication you might not want to know. Even though you have acted in good faith, to protect these women's children you now have to live with the possiblity that you might actually have taken their babies for no good reason. I can see why you might then be vehement in your defence of MSbP or FII as it seems to have been renamed.

You could try an apology Nonametoday.

As for the attempted to discredit MAMA, it is a worry that there might be guilty parents amongst their ranks, but the board is a very useful place to find out the stories behind what we see in the newspapers and a lot of what they have uncovered has proved to be correct.

OK I'll go &do my housework & leave you lot to slang it out together, when you can stop trading insults & get back to the debate I'll be back.

Bossybritches - I think the debate turned to a slanging match because some people are taking it very personally, which is not surprising given the context.

I really, really hope that this case leads to the reforms that seem so badly needed.