Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO SIGN THIS PETITION!!!

332 replies

Beenleigh · 07/11/2007 21:08

You may have heard the story of Fran Lyon. If not, then this is a simplified version.

Fran is currently 31 weeks pregnant with her first baby
When Fran was sixteen years old, she was the victim of a serious sexual assault, and as a result, she suffered from mental health issues. She received therapy for two years, one year as an inpatient, and less than one following her discharge. She has not received or needed any mental health therapy since that time, and the psychiatrist that treated her has explicitly stated that she has no concerns whatsoever for Fran's mental health.

Unfortunately, early on in Fran?s pregnancy, there was a difficult situation with her (then) partner, and Fran called the police. Due to the nature of the problem and combined with the fact that Fran was pregnant, the police referred the case to social services. Fran was completely honest and open about her past mental health issues, and clear that she no longer suffered from any such problems. However, a ball had started rolling out of control, and a paediatrician, who has never actually met or spoken to Fran, has inexplicably suggested that she may in due course suffer from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. This has resulted in social services deciding that upon her birth, Fran?s baby daughter, Molly, will be taken away from her.

It is abundantly clear that Fran Lyon will be absolutely no danger to her baby, but we suggest that at the very least, Fran should at be allowed to stay in an assessment unit with her baby, Molly, pending an inevitable decision that she is capable of caring for her daughter independently.

Please take a few minutes to watch this clip of Fran being interviewed on This Morning: uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2qHcH_Eaocg

Please please sign the petition here: www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/539543596

Also, please could you copy and paste this post and send it as an email to as many people as possible, obviously feeling free to correct my crappy spelling and grammar!

Many Thanks

OP posts:
Doodledootoo · 08/11/2007 19:25

Message withdrawn

ruty · 08/11/2007 19:29

no don't get it beenleigh. There is a nervousness in the media about these cases, obviously.

southeastastra · 08/11/2007 19:31

can you sign a petition with Anonymous?

ScoobyDooooo · 08/11/2007 19:34

Signed

Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 19:36

yes, sea, lots have!

OP posts:
Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 19:37

ruty, I've just posted a thread asking why in chat. Watch it wither and die!

OP posts:
FranLyon · 08/11/2007 19:39

Hello,

I don't answer questions about the incident that triggered all of this because the information isn't actually about me. The information, if made public, would have dire consequences for another person - and that is simply not my choice to make. If standing by a principle of respect for others means I will be treated with suspicion then I will have to accept that.

As far as I am aware they are not allowed to withold information they possess from either me or my legal team. I was trying to be fair when I said "not as far as I have seen" on This Morning. So far as I know there is nothing they could have - everyone who has assessed me has said they do not believe I will harm Molly and do not support separation.

Thanks,

Fran

Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 19:43

mmj, I wanted to say that surely it would be completely normal for a domestic incident involving a pregnant woman to be reported to SS?? I don;t know about the workings of ss, so coeect me if I'm wrong, but I don;t find this in the least bit surprising or suspicious!

OP posts:
ruty · 08/11/2007 19:43

i cannot understand how the courts will pass this without other countering evidence being offered. That alone is a perversion of justice.

Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 19:46

also, ffs, lets say we're not getting the whole story. Is there ANYTHING that she could have done which would warrant a diagnosis of msbp, and the consequent removal of her newborn baby???

(Fran, just for the record, I trust you and have no doubt that you have been entirely honest and transparent about this.)

OP posts:
Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 20:05

250 people signed petition!!!!!

OP posts:
Jacanne · 08/11/2007 20:06

signed

Elizabetth · 08/11/2007 20:08

Beenleigh, someone linked to a set of guidelines on MSbP on the other thread and all you need for an accusation of MSbP amongst other things are - previous mental illness, being the baby's mother, an "absent" father. It so vague probably about half the women in the country could be accused of it.

Also doctors don't have to have evidence to start the care proceedings, they only have to have "concerns". It's basically a recipe for a witchunt and a witchunt is what has happened.

I think the people here who've said that we don't know the whole story (as if there was some deep dark secret that's being kept hidden from us) are being extremely disingenuous. They of all people, if they work within the system, will know how easy it is to make these accusations. Good grief, David Southall only had to watch a TV programme and diagnose Sally Clarke's husband as having MSbP and then called the police to accuse him of murdering their sons. It's insane.

edam · 08/11/2007 20:41

The guidelines also suggested that if a paediatrician saw a child whose illness was hard to diagnose - i.e. cause not immediately apparent - they should consider MSbP. If they took it literally, that would be a huge proportion of their case load given that one of the main reasons for seeing a specialist is that the symptoms are unclear.

Madness. Potentially means anyone whose GP says 'Ooh, not sure about this one, think you need to see a paed' could come under suspicion.

And Elizabeth is right about Southwall calling the cops to accuse Sally Clark's husband of murder after watching a documentary, btw. That's how bizarre these people are - Southall and Meadows are the leading exponents of MSbP.

Strange how Southall has never been accused of it, despite putting prem. babies through bizarre, life-threatening and unnecessary experiments. He made false accusations so SS would have children made wards of court so they could be forced into these experiments against their parent's wishes, FFS!

edam · 08/11/2007 20:44

And actually, the case that is held up as 'proving' MSbP exists is Beverley Allitt. Who was a nurse who attacked patients. Just as Southall did.

So why the hell are they persecuting mothers and not doctors and nurses? Huh?

ruty · 08/11/2007 20:48

oh edam it is sickening.

Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 21:04

I could be wrong, but I think that the person who has diagnosed Fran, without meeting her, is the President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. This does not bode well!

OP posts:
VeniVidiVickiQV · 08/11/2007 21:19

Yes, perhaps beenleigh. But the fact remains that he hasnt met Fran, his specialty isnt Psychology/Psychiatry, and his specialty isnt adult medicine either.

If anyone endorses an opinion based on facts that on party has submitted only, then THAT is truly absurd.

Peachy · 08/11/2007 21:21

'The guidelines also suggested that if a paediatrician saw a child whose illness was hard to diagnose - i.e. cause not immediately apparent - they should consider MSbP. If they took it literally, that would be a huge proportion of their case load given that one of the main reasons for seeing a specialist is that the symptoms are unclear. '

Certainly there is an emerging culture amongst the SN communities I know to fear the very mention of Munchausens- especially if (like me, and many due to genetics or just damned bad luck) you have more than one child with a syndrome. I recent figure I was given was that up to 70% of kids never get a dx- my youngest might not as he has crossover symptoms between SLI adn ASD- and there's always that fear that some bright spark might just think, you know-

and the consequence is that it amkes it ahrder and harder to ask for help.

Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 21:27

I know, I agree COMPLETELY, the guy's clearly a ......... god, don;t know where to start saying what he is. My point is though that it will be much harder to get someone so eminent to reconsider his opinion. It would be a big climb down for him, and he's obviously an arrogant egomaniac!!!

OP posts:
Original poster
Beenleigh · 08/11/2007 21:27

oops, my syntax all wrong, the guy isn;t clearly a god, but the guy os clearly an unmentionable idiot

OP posts:
LittleBella · 08/11/2007 21:43

I'm not sure he's even diagnosed her though, has he?

I thought he'd written a letter saying something along the lines of "if FL were suspected of having MSBP then the safest thing would be to remove the child" or something along those lines.

In other words, he didn't even say she had MSBP. Just that if she had, the child would have to be removed. And the ill-educated people who read that letter didn't understand that if isn't a diagnosis.

Don't know if that's right though, I haven 't followed the exact ins and outs of the case.

Yummers · 08/11/2007 21:45

Have signed.

bump

bossybritches · 08/11/2007 22:02

Ten o'clock bump

270!!

FranLyon · 08/11/2007 22:07

You've got it spot on Little Bella. No-one yet (and there are a growing number of potential people) has come forward and said they think I will pose a risk to Molly. In fact, to date, everyone who has assessed me has said explicitly they do not think I will be a risk.

Sadly all these things take time. Those reports, in writing, won't be with social services until the 7th December. The review child protection conference will then be held on the 13th. So until then nothing will change at all and there is no guarantee that things will change then.

Thanks,

Fran