Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

www - but the article says that ss have based their decision "in part" on that doc's letter. It isn't the whole reason.

also the more I think about it, the more I am annoyed by the rape comment. The implication is that she was mentally ill because she was raped, which means she's alright really because she isn't properly mentally ill. It is an offensive implication imo and should have no more bearing on the case than the opinion of a doctor who hasn't met the woman.

(but don't get me wrong. like I say, I think it's wrong to remove a baby at birth like this).

How on earth can this be allowed to happen?

Fran - if you're reading, it might be worth getting the local LLL involved with this. what they're proposing contravenes your baby's human rights to be breastfed. (i'm assuming that - given the chance - you would bf, but given your previous experiences i know that's a hell of an assumption so please don't think i'm just being insensitive)

SS are acting on the very edge of their jurisdiction, but it's not the first time and it won't be the last. stay strong, because eventually you will beat them, although i know it doesn't feel like that at the moment.

this was the thread

poor poor woman surely one is innocent until proven guilty.

senora, you make a good point
If she had MH problems but hadn't been raped it still wouldn't be ok!

i don't understand why they won't let her go in a m&b unit.

Somthing like 80% of women on psychiatric wards are survivors of rape or sexual abuse. It's not unreasonable to think that rape could make a person mentally unstable.

I think the fact that she was raped then the police called in social workers when her partner was apparently abusing her which is now leading to the threat of her child being removed just adds to the structure of misogyny surrounding this case.

Apparently social workers will threaten to take children from women who refuse to leave violent men. Somehow our system is set up to steal abused women's children but not to lock up the violent abusers or rapists in the first place.

Oh, I'm so very sorry for Fran. Sadly there is a shocking history of SS and the courts wrongly removing babies based on assertions rather than evidence re. MSBP (now renamed factitious illness or something in a vain attempt to evade scrutiny). Margaret Hodge was supposed to review the practice of SS depts in the light of the Cannings, Clarke and other cases but obviously nothing has changed - hardly surprising as she basically asked SS to investigate itself.

Have mentioned it before, but even the past president of the General Medical Council was threatened when he refused to go along with one SS witch-hunt.

WWW is right, this is misogyny at work. And the family courts are shot through with hit.

elizabetth - I know that rape and sexual abuse can trigger mental health problems. I'm just questioning the use of it in that article really: I don't see why the exact trigger for this woman's mh problems is relevant, and I think it is offensive for people who have had mh problems without such a violent trigger, that's all.

I think the article has been carefully written to give the woman's side, and I think there is more to the story. I don't think it's useful to use facts given in it as a basis for argument in fact.

But I do think it is wrong in general to take babies away at birth, and I think the secrecy of the family courts should be looked at.

It's her story. Why shouldn't it be reported what happened to her and the circumstances surrounding her mental health issues?

You seem to be advocating that her rape should be swept under the carpet. For no good reason as far as I can see.

I think you're ignoring the bigger issue that there is a scandal in the family courts and social services surrounding women having their children stolen from them under a spurious diagnosis that has no basis in science.

It's also worth remembering that once this baby is born, none of us, including Fran will be able to discuss this case lest we or Mumsnet be accused of contempt of court.

The secrecy with which these people are allowed to operate is quite frightening.

Oh, this is HORRIFIC!

i am sick just thinking about this. poor poor woman. and when you think about the situations that some children are left in by social services.

A petition is good but individual letters are more useful as most official departements have to log the nuber of complaints/objections they recieve. What we need to do is co-ordinate responses so they hit the most effective targets. Her MP for one -I know he's on her side but if he can say I've had over 300 letters...dah-de-dah- does anyone have media contacts?

Could MNHQ do a statement on our behalf?

When is the poor girls EDD? I feel like spiriting her away out of the country I'm so farking about this!!

(taken ages to type this so apologies for anything already said or done!)

Seems like there are a few issues here -

1. Fran Lyon's situation

and to stop the same kind of thing happening to any other woman:

2. End secrecy in the family courts

3. End targets for social workers to meet on adoptions

4. MSBP still being used as a diagnosis long after it's progenitor Roy Meadows has been completely discredited

so sorry to see today's news

I was fairly confident that NO court in this day and age in an enlightened country such as ours would take such a draconian step in the aftermath of Sally Clarke, Trupti Patel, Angela Cannings (I could go on, but won't)

Shows how fucking stupid you can be to trust the system, doesn't it.

Fran, if you're reading this, you have probably united every mumsnetter in support of your case (which believe me, is bloody hard to do, this lot could argue about whether day was night)

Wishing you the very sanest of magistrates if it gets that far

This is disgusting I cannot believe this is happening. This woman has done nothing wrong. How can they take her newborn baby away from her?

I was raped a few years ago and I also self harmed for a while afterwards. I have dealt with that part of my life and have moved on. I am now in a loving realationship and we are ttc #1 should I be concerned that my baby may be taken from me?

It is ridiculous. Surley they should be offering this woman support for what she's been through not treating her like she's a potentially evil person because she was unlucky enough to be a victim of abuse.

i dont hink itd be tolly out o the blue surely?

Apparently 2000 children were removed from their parents last year and put up for adoption, a threefold increase from a decade ago.

This is all very fishy.

It is very fishy, surley parents should be given support not have their children taken from them at birth! . I know myself from experience that when you suffer abuse that the hardest thing to come to terms with is that it wasn't your fault. To then be treated as though you have done something wrong because of the abuse is just an awful thing to have to deal with and my heart really goes out to Fran.

but having seen a case or tow progress tbh they jump through HOOPS before they take kids htese days

in some cases far too many..
oyu nee dto see it to belive it

I just can't believe this case, obviously we don't all know the full details but taking a baby at birth seems seriously over the top, if they were that concerned should the woman not be given a chance to prove herself ie an assesment or even some time in a secure place with supervision. I just think its so extreme when the woman hasn't yet commited an offence.

I am so very sorry for fran and it is so very wrong to be tried before you have even had an opportunity to commit a crime

Also agree with Hun / Cod, which is why I am so very shocked- have seen SS leave kids in famillies where quite clearly they need immediate removal because they 'vanve to try first'- even when homestart (me and everyone else were terrified what could happen and there was clear abuse admitted

A complete unmitigated mess

Seems very disturbing - and thinking of the awful situations where children have been wrongly taken (the cot deaths treated as suspicious, the child abuse that wasn't - wa that the Shetlands or somewhere?) But then again, social services don't usually take children at birth. My SIL adopted a young child, the birth mother had had her previous child taken for adoption as well, both after cases of neglect/abuse. When the woman fell pregnant again, SIL was asked if they would consider adopting the next child if needed as they were officially approved for 2 children - SS watched the mother carefully, and after 6 months deemed the child to be no longer at risk, so SIL was told they would not be adopting this one. So what has made the SS act differently in this case?

What i don't understand is why when children are at risk or already being abused the social are to busy or don't think the child is at risk but the will take this baby without giving her a chance to prove them wrong? its disusting