Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

I think one of the reasons they've done this is that they've got a diagnosis and she's been treated for mental problems, so there's no dispute. She can't fight those facts.

On the other hand the stepfather who tortured his daughter to death recently (leaving fourteen fractures in her body) didn't admit to anything to social workers so they didn't bother, even when the family didn't keep appointments. Result one dead child.

They're obviously picking off the easy cases.

Cod you're a magistrate what could we do to help Fran? Is it too late?

I can't just sit here & let this happen.....

I take your point Senora.

Fran Lyon came on mumsnet and posted a link to her site - she appears to have been open about the facts of her case. Does anywhere/anyone know WHY they rejected her appeal and on what grounds?

But Cod, they HAVEN'T jumped through hoops here. Look at the facts (as we have them) - they don't support removal of this baby. She's OFFERED to live in a mother and baby psychiatric unit and to be under constant supervision. And that's been turned down as I understand.

What kind of mad country do we live in that this can happen? I hope John Hemming is still involved.

WWW just re-read the link you posted earlier-

In the photo Fran appears to have a tracheostomy? Anyone know why? May have missed something?

Is this anything to do with her "condition" or maybe a reson why she ccan't lok after her child (can't think why not but....)

Frans website

my ex's uncle and aunt are foster carers.

they had a little girl placed with them over and over again for years because her mother had (the then described) MbP.

some of her injuries were horrific, including one i remember vividly when she was 3. she was sat at the top of the stairs and kicked down them.
she had two broken arms and a wrist, a broken rib and covered from head to toe in bruises with a gash to her forehead.

thankfull after 9 years of being placed back with her mother each time she completed a course of therapy and being re admited to care after she did it again ex's aunt and uncle have now adopted her.

having seen first hand the result of MbP or whatever they wish to call it now...even if it just another form of abuse caused by another mental illness as yet unconfirmed...if this woman has the ability to harm a child in this way then yes, the child should be removed beofre the risk occurs and she should be observed vigilantly and given as much support as can be offered in order for her to stand any chance to have her child back.

this doesn't mean i have no sympathy for this woman. of course i do. i am certain that when she is "well" she misses her child dearly but for some the true test of love is to allow that child a better life, no matter how hard that is for themselves

interesting link

she has angioedema - swelling of the skin - according to this article

snap bb

There has to be more to this surely.

Is it standard practice for social services to be informed of a pregnancy if the patient has suffered from mental illness in the past? And if not, why were they informed on this occasion? Especially given that Fran had been discharged from the psychiatrist some years ago?

I am by no means advocating removing babies at birth, but we really only have heard one side of the story, and given this was in the media before the appeal, I do find it hard to believe that a baby would be removed purely on the basis that the patient "might" harm it, esp given fran has publically said she will go into a mother/baby unit etc and has said she will co-operate fully.

There has to be something that the media has not been told.

mamazon, the point is that the only medical professional who believes that she may (in the future) have mbp has never met her. her baby hasn't been born yet. she is asking to be allowed to go into a mother and baby unit under 24 hr observation so that professionals can properly assess her behaviour with her baby. that chance has been denied on appeal.

but if you read the link her psychiatrist is not suggesting she has MSBP - the police were called during a domestic violence call with her ex and thats why she is under social services care - it is very hard to take a baby into care so there may be facts we are not privy to.

renaldo it is NOT difficult once the system swings into action. Difficult to just get an initial referral maybe but once the might of the SS flexes it's muscles watch out!

Yes maybe there are facts that we don't know about but as Fran herself has been very open about all of her problems, there is hardly a confidentiality issue to the mother is there? She has willingly agreed to be placed in a M&B unit so any assessments can be conducted with the baby safe & secure. If you read her web-site she is very calm & non-hysterical about it all (more than I would be in this situation with all the hormones flying round I can tell you!)and very understanding of how she can see there might be concerns raised by the SS.

it isn't very hard to get a baby take into care, we just like to kid ourselves it is, and ss have targets on adoptions to meet, therefore an incentive to do so. all in news this last year or so.
poor woman and poor baby

I realy don't understand how social services work in this country.

On one hand you have this story about a pregant women who may get some mental illness at some point although there is no proof of this happening. While in the daily mail (not mine, saw at SIL today) you have this story www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488139&in_page_id=1770

Why can we not stop abuse happening whether it is a child or an innocent family.

Exactly Lizziemum.

Ladies ( & gents) if you want to write to someone as I have about this issue please find your MP on this link & email him/her

list of MP's

i must admit to not having read all the information on this case but i feel there MUST be more to this than is being reported.

why was she first placed under SS care? who reported her and what for?

this is not just one court case it was an appeal. that means that TWO seperate judges have agreed with apparantly just 1 Dr?

im sorry but it doesn't make much sense to me at all.
there is eitehr a hell of a lot of info missing or she has come up against two seperate judges who have sserious problems

i simply cannot believe that SS can pick and chose. There must be rigorous policies and strategies in place.

so rigorous in fact that we find many beaten up children becuase ss are afraid of being in another climbie scandle.

I therefore must conclude that until further evidence is seen, that ss made the right decision. We have no knowledge of the height of the ladies mental illness, past history, other children in her care in the past ..etc

i agree totally custy and as a social worker myself ( all be it a seperate field) i can assure you that no Ss cannot just pick and choose cases and no they cannot just decide they dont like the look of someone and remove a child.

it is NEVER down to just one SW to make such decisions, and it is usually a very long drawn out process which involves a great number of agencies

But would thye face the loss of their livelihood?

The woman who made the Cleveland decisions (now known to be patently wrong, and not just by accident, the SW's behaved disgracefully in the affair) got promoted and is now running a SS dept somewhere in Scotland.

So while I agree that openness and accountability should be the norm, even when it happens it doesn't look like accountability is the order of the day.

Oh dear I suppose thinking that makes me part of the conspiracy to undermine child protection workers or whatever that journalist in the link says.

I agree smallwhitecat.

And whyever wouldn't they agree to a supervised mother and baby psychaitric unit if there are concerns?