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

[Beenleigh]

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

I think the thing is 3andnomore, for what reason exactly are the SS 'witholding' the crucial information that would change all our minds? Fran has given them permission to go public about why they are doing this. this case shows how crucial transparency in the family courts is. After the serious miscarriages of justice done recently leading to the destruction of families and lives, and with the dubious record of Southall and Meadows [to say the least] there should be real questions around such secrecy, when serious mistakes have been made and may be made again. Of course People are going to be outraged when Fran's baby is taken from her without, it seems, any proper evidence that the baby is at risk. The SS have to come clean about this. Or of course, they may not have any further evidence, and be hiding behind the useful cloak of 'you don't know the whole truth but we're not going to tell you'. Which is not healthy or conducive to a fair justice system.

Elizabeth I was not defending the Munch by proxy diagnosis - personally I don't think it exists. I think some people are bad end of and others who do things for attention have underlying personality problems which vary in seriousness and how they manefest. If psychiatrists can't even agree whether or not this is a valid condition then I'm not getting involved. But I do believe it is a title that is banded about by the media and non-medical personel a lot more than it is in the medical community.
The girl I knew accused of Munch By Proxy and monitored by services actually was accused after the birth of her first child - even her husband was concerned by certain behaviours and happenings. All the health services and SS locally were involved in monitoring the situation and the child placed on the "at risk" register. Her marriage ended and the child stayed with her then she got pg to a new partner this next child was on the "at risk register" prior to birth ( or on birth however they actually do it) anyway monitoring continued and eventually both children were removed from the "at risk register". The lady has had a 3rd child who to my knowledge has never been on the at risk register. SS and mental health services eventually recorded that this lady DID NOT have Munch By Proxy and in their opinion had initially been just an over cautious parent who was not handling the stresses of being a new mother well. I am telling you this mainly for the benefit of bossybritches and her family - so they have a positive example as well

Frosty, good to hear of a story that resolved happily - although I'm sure the distress caused by having your children and your unborn baby put on the 'at risk' register is not something you get over easily.

The way I see it is that IF Fran had been violent to her previous children, if she had neglected them, if she had pretended that they were ill in order to gain attention for herself, then it would probably be right for SS to consider removing her next baby before she gets a chance to harm this one.

However, this is her first baby and she has committed no crime.

I can think of absolutely NOTHING that can justify SS taking this baby away as soon as it is born. Fran has had no chance to prove that she can look after this baby I will sign any petition, write to anybody and proclaim from the highest rooftops that she should be given a chance to do so.

erm... that's it really

signed willingly. Having lost a baby thru stillbirth i can appreciate what losing Molly thru no fault of her own would do to Frans sanity. Please let her and Molly make a go of their lives together all be it under some care. GOOD LUCK TO YOU BOTH

You know it's interestng that some social workers on mn say "I find it hard to believe that my colleagues in SS are wrong about this" or words to that effect. I work in finance and wouldn't dream of saying "Hey, I bet my colleagues at Arthur Anderson were wrong about Enron" - professionals of all types can and do make mistakes.

OOh, was just dropping on for a Saturday bump, but find I'm not needed !!!

Have only skim read , but looking forward to properly catching up later.

Very good point WWW, I used to make mistakes all the time in my job thankfully they never impacted upon anyones lives!

Bloody good point, WWW.

Just started another thread in homage to WWW: 'Calling all social workers'. Only one post so far but she did admit they can make mistakes so that's some progress.

Exactly WWW & it's EXACTLY that sort of attitude the SS seem incapable of cultivating. FFS they are only human, & dealing with utter crapola a lot of the time & of course we never hear of the cases where it's "phew thank-god we got the baby out in time" (or as Frosty said a family observed but united-thanks for that Frosty)

What I am very inelegantly saying is the SS need to cultivate an internal culture of support & supervision of the whole system whereby if & when mistakes are made, they are acknowledged,lessons are learnt & the SW involved given extra support & training to ensure it never happens again OR encouraged to move on to another employment best suited to their competance. If the whole system is shrouded in secrecy how can anyone within it learn from each others mistakes AND the positive outcomes?

Message withdrawn

Just to quote from that article -

"Ms Lyon said she made her decision to move to the Midlands after receiving a copy of her birth plan from social services earlier this week.
It outlines how the baby girl, who Fran has named Molly, must not be breast-fed and must have contact with her for no more than 10-15 minutes after she is born.
Ms Lyon said: ?I have been told that I am not to breast feed my child in case I try to poison her. As far as I am concerned the birth plan is abusive and I will just not stand for it.
?It would leave Molly isolated from anybody who loves her from the first few minutes of her life. It is barbaric and it deprives her of a basic right.?

The birth plan orders that two midwives are present at the birth, that the child is removed to foster care ?as soon as practically possible? and that police will be asked to intervene if Miss Lyon does not co-operate.

Ms Lyon, who suffered from a mental illness as a teenager, claims that the social services decision to take the child into care is based on a psychiatric report from a doctor she has never met.

She has obtained a number of separate psychiatric reports saying there are no grounds to suggest she would be a danger to the child."

Barbaric is right. What is being outlined there is child abuse yet they are claiming to be acting in the best interests of the child. Anger levels have gone right up again.

I don't blame Fran for moving. I wouldn't blame her if she disappeared off to Australia.

You know what I think happened in this case - Fran was open with them. Social workers are probably used to dealing with people who suspect the authorities and thus don't tell them anything, therefore it's hard for them to collect any facts to base any kind of a case on. Fran was completely open and honest and they took that and used it against her.

I agree Elizabeth- they are suspicious ( & given the sort of cases they often deal with I can understand that) of anyone who is articulate & appears open & the knee-jerk reflex is "She must be hiding something" I suspect they have gone so far down a certain route they canot back-track without losing face, so they're plowing on.

So sad Fran has had tp move- is she any nearer family Millie?

Hello,

Thanks again - you are all very kind, and your support is of endless comfort.

I am much, much nearer family and friends now bossy yes - in itself not an insignificant factor in my choice to move.

I am really sad that it has come to this, but I sincerely hope I've made the right choice for Molly. I think things had come to an implacable impasse in Northumberland, and although I'm loathed to say it, I didn't feel Molly was safe any longer (I don't blame anyone for that, or believe it was by design - I just think that in this case it was the sad way of things). I am desperately hoping that things will change now, and that stronger and more positive relationships can be developed between everyone involved. That at least must surely be in Molly's best interests.

Thanks,

Fran

Hello Fran. I'm so glad you've moved away from Northumberland and I do hope the SWs in your new town are decent. Also glad you are nearer to family and friends. Appalling that you've been driven out of your home (and presumably job) though.

That birth plan was just inhumane. What bizarre view of the world they must have, to think that that document has anything to do with 'the best interests of the child'? Barbaric is the right word. They must be the most extreme control freaks to even begin to dream up such a terrible way to treat a vulnerable newborn.

How the hell could anyone adulterate a breastfeed, anyway? It's just not possible! FGS, even if you were dealing with someone evil enough to poison a baby, in practical terms formula feeding would provide an opportunity, not b/f!

And mention of poisoning is horribly linked to the case of poor Ian and Angela Gay, who were wrongfully convicted of killing their adopted son by force-feeding him teaspons of salt - again, something that anyone with any common sense would have known is impossible. (Because it would cause immediate vomiting.)

Bossybritches is dead right - all anyone expects is that SWs should behave professionally and with decency.

On a happier, note, there is a poster on MN who fosters newborns and I remember posts from her about a baby who was reunited with his mum. So thankfully it can happen.

Thanks edam.

I think, without wishing to defend the birth plan, that their concern about breastfeeding is that I would poison myself and thus poison the milk. I have no idea how viable that is, but I do know they have no evidence to support the hypothesis in relation to me. The psychiatrist has indicated that he would support my breastfeeding.

I am relieved to hear of a newborn being reunited with his birth family. I desperately hope Molly and I aren't ever separated, but I pray if they do take her that they send her somewhere safe and loving.

Fran

Fran - I could weep at that birth plan

The people involved in dreaming up that scenario would be better employed writing trashy thrillers rather than holding down positions of responsibility.

For heaven's sake, they were talking about a woman who had just delivered a baby and would be a. in a hospital and b. carefully supervised. How the hell would anyone in that position get hold of any poison and how on earth would they manage to find a poison that would leave them without any give-away symptoms but harm a baby? Ridiculous. Gives the impression that they don't actually have a clue how breastfeeding works.

So glad you are away from those fantasy theorists. Disgusting that they, the ones who dream up these ridiculous ideas, are accusing you of fantasising.

Fran, I'm so glad you are getting away from the Northumberland social workers. What you've told us about what they plan to do to you and Molly when she is born is actually frightening. Don't they know about the importance of bonding between mother and baby immediately after birth and the days afterwards or how vital breastmilk is to a human being's future health?

Edam, you're so right about the fantasies. What they've dreamed up is completely bonkers, yet they are using their professional power and authority to pretend that what they are doing is reasonable.

Thank you.

I think what frightened me (and I know this is going to put me in line for a lot of criticism and disbelief) is just how little "evidence" was needed in order for things to get this far. There is nothing but the letter from the paediatrician that even remotely suggests I would be a risk. And that letter, aside from being written by someone I haven't met, is based on a conditional which has now been disproved.

I am hoping against hope that the new team will be more inclined to give Molly and I a chance.

Thanks,

Fran

This is fucking barbaric. That birth plan is awful. I so hope a terrier-like journalist gets hold of this and starts asking uncomfortable questions of the social workers involved. Surely SOMEONE is accountable (I mistyped accuntable the first time, it was possibly more accurate ) I'd leave the country on a slow boat to somewhere in your position Fran, I really would. I wonder if there's a case for counter sueing for harm and distress etc? Fran, you have given them permission to divulge their reasons haven't you? So why aren't they?

The more I read, the worse it gets. I am so and for you, Fran. I hope that the social workers in your new town are not as daft as the ones in Northumberland.

Oh, and Beenleigh, you deserve a huge glass of delicious red wine and a massive box of Belgian chocs for your wonderful work.

Poisoning breastmilk? FFS. However is one meant to ingest enough of a poisonous substance for a harmful amount to cross to the milk and then be able to give a breastfeed?

Fran, I am impressed at the reasonableness of your posts. In your position I would be utterly out of my mind by now.