Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

Elizabeth the Meadows case was a tragedy no-one is disputing that but it IS rare!

And it's the right outcome because the court has granted it....

Unbelievable. If this was happening in criminal courts people would be screaming miscarriage of justice.

So rare bossybritches that here is another woman who social workers are planning on taking her baby from because they think she is going to suffer from MSBP.

Personally I think this case sounds horrendous BUT we have to remember that we don't know all the facts and there may be issues we are unaware of.

Elizabeth if the court believes a child is at risk it will do what it feels is right. Now that MAY be a tradegy for the family but if it stops just ONE child being abused then it's right. However I DO feel there is a lack of transparency in lots of cases & it's this that the main dispute is about. The public would feel more confident if they knew that the cases were subject to being scrutinised. As was said earlier rape cases manage to preserve their anonimity whilst still being pulicised so why not the FAmily Courts.

I don't think we have any idea how often the MSBP diagnosis comes up in proceedings where children are removed from their parents and put up for adoption bossybritches. I don't think it's as rare as you hope however.

I've just been watching a video about David Southall who by 1997 had been involved in 100 such cases including one where he diagnosed a woman as having Munchausens Syndrome by Animal Proxy where three of her puppies were strangled. He said that she did it in order to take them to the vets to get attention. It turned out later her husband who had had a breakdown had strangled them. She was able to keep her children.

May I just throw in here that we should also be aware of the fact, that generally we will only be made aware of a situation when htings go wrong...rarely do we hear about teh many cases where indeed the succesful removal of a child from their primary carer means that they will be save.

Also, the article, well, it wasn't all about discrediting MAMA , but I thought it raised awareness what this also means, that there will be less people actually willing to go to court and testify, etc....which sadly means that abuse will continoue , when indeed something could have been done, because people are to scared to stand up for a child.

By no means is David Southall an angel or anything, and on the link I posted earlier to, the video one, tehre is actually also a video 9well, several) about him, or a documentary about cases where he was involved....
however, he did apparently covet Video tape in cases where they thought something is not right, and found that shockingly in most of the cases their hunge was right and were able to see mothers smothering children, etc....

i couldn't bear to watch the clip you linked to 3andnogore - there are obviously some very deranged people out there.
i still think much more caution and less arrogance is needed in diagnosis of this syndrome though.

hunch even

Obviously ruty, I agree...it should not be an accusation flung about lightly...it's obviously a very serious matter...it should not be used to explain the otherwise unexlainable, and it should certainly not be a label attached to anyone unless there is no doubt about it...
sadly, it seems that this label has been overused which , imo, discredits those using it to easily, but to me that doesn't discredit the possibility of it's existence...

Family courts are held in secret to protect both parents, extended family members who may be involved, but most importantly the child(ren). Whilst this may not seem relevant in the case with Fran's baby, imagine a case where older children were being taken in to care, and the effect on them of having proceedings about them being made public to their friends, teachers, bus-driver or local dustbin man.

Also, IF there are genuine grave concerns about Fran that we do not know about, it would probably not be in her best interests either for the case to be heard in open court - given the publicity she has generated and general sense of outrage we all feel for her, any potential backlash if we were to discover we had been misled could be enormous.

Dr David Southall - what he didnt want you to see - Part 2 (1 of 11)

This is the documentary, and indeed it is shocking what can happen if they do get it wrong

very good point ost

I've seen David Southall 'in action'; he is a scarily arrogant man. He was practising at my local hospital when dd was admitted on several occasions for FTT. I was branded an over anxious mother. There but for the grace of God.

"May I just throw in here that we should also be aware of the fact, that generally we will only be made aware of a situation when htings go wrong.."

No actually we won't hear when things go wrong. The videos I was watching (which I think you've linked to) have only been broadcast in New Zealand. The mothers who were prepared to be interviewed face 7 years in a UK jail for speaking out because by doing so they are in contempt of court. The media here are not allowed to cover their stories.

We don't hear about the cases where it goes wrong except in very unusual circumstances where the child has died or hasn't been born yet.

OST I see your point but why can the identities of these children (& any identifying factors)not be kept secret as in rape cases but the whole scenario/case be publicised. As I said earlier transparency.

You could be right Elizabeth-we won't know till these hearings are made public.

What I meant is, that only exceptional stories tend to be covered by media...not the "every day" kind....I have absolutely no idea why the documentary was only shown in NZ, naively thought, it maybe something to do wiht it being filmed by an nz channel... I have no idea what legal implication the parents would have if they talked...

Can someone shed some light onto why 98% of people diagnosed with MSbP are female?

How comes only women (in the main) suffer from this psychiatric illness which is generally diagnosed by paediatricians, not psychiatrists?

Is that not just a leetle bit strange?

BB

I'm not sure how you can make details of a case public, particularly if the mother has gone public (as in Fran's case) whilst keeping other parties including children anonymous.

In this case, Molly is already likely to be able to Google her "pre-history" as soon as she learns how to use the internet. Can we imagine the effect on her of reading these discussions and all the other net publicity if it is still archived and available in 8-10 yrs time?

Well if the mother HAS gone public (as with Fran) then I would hope she would have a full & frank discussion with her daughter before she got to Googling age! This takes me back to a point I raised earlier- if the case is all reasy in the public domain & Fran has been completely open about her history (which to be fair we don't know if she has- we can only hope she is as honest as she seems) then what's left to be confidential about? Who are we protecting?

ALREADY- gawd dyslexic fingers & I'm tired so typos galore will ensue stay with me

OK ladies-away for a few days now with my family - keep the discussions flowing!

Night.

BB

Well I suppose that is the question... is what is in the public domain

Here's a more cynical take on things:

Link

Weird that a website called NHS Exposed should be attacking a woman who appears to be being victimised by the authorities. Real David and Goliath situation there.

Also interesting that a woman who is fighting to keep her child is accused of attacking social workers. Who exactly is being attacked here? As far as I can see Fran Lyon is the one being accused of being likely to harm her child. I haven't seen accusations like that thrown at social workers or even particular social workers being named. It can't be comfortable being criticised but that situation pales in comparison to the thought of losing an unborn baby.

It seems that any criticism of professional behaviour is seen as a personal attack. Its probably the same reason why people were throwing around accusations of libel here earlier even though there was nothing libellous being said. I think some people are so personally invested in this issue that they are unable to tell the difference between legitimate criticism in the public domain that needs to be answered and unfair attacks.

What's your interest here OST because that's a pretty obscure website?