Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

I failed miserably to highlight and undersore the salient points.

As I understand it the key phrase is

"if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available"

The paediatrician quoted wasn't even AT the meeting, the psychiatrist who knows & has treated Fran wasn't quoted or involved in any way so where did they get this "EVIDENCE" ?

Perhaps I don't read this like others, but if there are causes for concern then surely the right and proper thing to do is have them highlighted.

If a postnatal assessment is carried out and all things are well, which they should be if what Fran says is correct, then surely she will be allowed to be with her baby.

I have not read anywhere that states that she will never be allowed to have care of her baby, just that all concerned persons have taken all possible steps to ensure the baby's wellfare.

The other reason why they will want to get the baby away from her quickly rather than sending them to the mother and baby unit is that they can then argue there is no mother and baby bond (despite her baby having been inside her for nine months).

If they waited and allowed a relationship to grow it would be harder to persuade a court to take the baby away further down the line.

The thing that gets me is that SHE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG (OK, as far as we know although we do know of at least 2 men who have wronged her, the rapist and her ex) - the baby hasn't been born yet.

You know, in her position I really think I would be fleeing to another country, as lots of people said on the other thread.

But NNT, I think they're saynig they will take the baby immediately and NOT allow her to unndergo post natal assessment. That's how I've read it anyway

I quite agree with you, NoNAme but as I understand it the plan is to take the baby away at birth. Fran has pleaded to have a post-natal assessment in a M&B unit but it has been turned down. IBS says it's possibly because there has to be a level of trust placed on the mother as they are not supervised 24/7. So it seems that after 7 years of no MH issues the possibility of Fran harming her child is SO great they feel the baby has to taken away AT BIRTH??

Please feel free to correct me if I've any of these points wrong, they are after all only taken from media reports & Frans own web-site.

The fact that the paediatrician wasn't present does not detract from his statement regarding the professionals' concern on the evidence avaialable.

Agreed but he had never met the patient & equally the two letters of support she had that weren't read out, from 2 doctors who DID know her should also have been given credence

and this is still happening.

Martin Ward Platt gave evidence in the trial against Angela Cannings.

It is frightening that a paediatrician is allowed to give evidence regarding an adult's psychiatric state, a field he has no experience or authority in.

I can't believe that after all the scandals over Roy Meadow that this kind of thing is still going on in the family courts. It beggars belief.

I have only just seen this and I find it outrageous. At least 1 in 3 people in this country suffer from mental health problems at some time in their lives does this ruling mean that any woman with a history of mental health problems can have her baby taken away from her at birth? I feel so bad on her and her babys behalf and it also concerns me because of the misogynist principles behind it. As so many of you have said 'she has done nothing wrong'

I know for a fact that in another case the SW and GAL had private meeting with child psychiatrist in which they advised the psych not to believe a word said by the mother as mother is very mainipulative & lies.. (also the GAL and psych were friends) this was the admissable 'expert witness' THe other witnesses (2 psychiatrists who supported the mother, both of wihich had treated mother and long term assessment) were deemed bias so inadmissable.

The familycourt system is completely screwed.

oo and it was a child psychiatrist not adult that ended up giving the evidence. GOtta go for now as dentist but will pop back later.

More info on the drive for social workers to meet targets for adoption:

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2317284.ece

The targets are there to encourage adoption of children already in care who are hard to place. Of course once you bring a baby into care and then get it adopted quickly, the baby will be included in the "successful" figures. The hard to place children will still be hard to place. A recipe for disaster.

Poor thing may lose her home as well

From my experience bossybritches, concerns that are raised during pregnancy regarding the unborn childs welfare and safet are always acted upon in a similar manner to this particular one.

Depending upon the extent of the concerns regarding physical, mental, sexual, and emotional abuse, case conferences are held and thee known facts/evidence are taken into consideration.

Sometimes the decision is to oversee the mum and her care of the baby, this is usually a 10 day stay in the hospital during which her care of the baby is observed and assessed.

Very very rarely have I known a baby to be taken away at birth with no further contact for the mother!

It isn't always the case that it is the mother who is causing concern, it can be partners and/or other family members who are the cause of concern, sometimes even frequent visitors who are known by Social Workers to have 'problems'.

I feel for all mothers who are in this situation, some not by their own actions, some who are truly culpable, but we as society have a main duty to care for a vulnerable child and put their concerns first.

I hope their will be a positive outcome for Fran and her baby, at the same time I will uphold the right of the'professional' to try to do their best in what is a minefield.

Sorry for the long post.

If that means upholding the right of "professionals" who listen to the likes of Martin Ward Platt when he has no training in adult psychiatry as far as I know (he also gave evidence at the Trupti Patel case on the cause of death of her baby when he is not a pathologist) and remove people's children on no actual evidence then you need to take a second look at what your principles actually mean, nonametoday.

Don't apologise NoName we're all doing long posts !

I totally agree with what you have said but if the SW team involved are genuinely concerned, why don't they discuss these concerns with Fran? Why the secrecy & disregard for other professionals judgments?

As other posters have said bossybritches, on here we have only Fran's side of the story.

I am not suggesting that hers is anything but an honest interpretation of her version of the situation, we would have to know everything about everything and every body involved to make a judgement(plus the understanding of the relevent laws,medical, psycological conditions etc.

That is why posts on here are difficult to answer in depth, there is so much involved.

I do not know whether Fran is totally correct in her relating of the situation, I hope she is.

That's the problem, none of us know.

I can only speak from my experience, it may have no bearing on Fran'r situation.

This is so

I self harmed when i was younger but this does'nt meen i'm at risk to my children.

I think she should be given a chance of being a mother. Social services could keep a close eye on her and offer help if she needs it.

Fran- my heart goes out to you.

Well Elizabetth, I don't know what your principles are, nor your qualifications or experience which allow you to judge situations and people.

I do my best and I don't think I could ask anyone to do anymore than their best in any situation.

I can't say I have never been wrong! can you?

I hope I have learned along the way to be tolerant and less judgmental than some folks.

The truth isn't always what we expect and the results can shock us.

If you know more about this particular case, then you may be able to shed light on the decision to take the baby into care.

I don't know the facts, I do know that there are instances wher people didn't always do the right thing, but at the time, they believed they had.

To err is human, to forgive is devine.

Spelling!!! Divine. I'm great with pen and paper, but keyboards... get me very time.

very good non-hysterical article on this here

Of course NoName sorry -just feel so bloody I realise we don't possibly know all the facts but I'd hate he thought that this baby & Mum are going to suffer, & even if it does turn out ok in the end what a trauma for fran at a time when she should be resting & relaxing!