Fran Lyon to keep baby

[ElfPolarBear]

Looking for a link
Not sure whether she's coming back
Fantastic news IMO for Molly and Fran

Hekate, it's certainly how it reads.

I hope Fran and Molly can stay safe from them. The way they are behaving its frightening that they are charged with the well-being of children. They are acting as if weilding power when they want to is all that matters.

So who told the papers that Northumberland Social Services had decided to let her keep the baby when they hadn't?

so nothing has actually changed? Very confusing. A serious investigation needs to be carried out into the behaviour of the SS in this instance.

I feel sure Fran will have chosen carefully when she moved and I suspect she's somewhere where it won't be easy to extradite (for what? She hasn't committed a crime! But they are still talking as if she has by the look of that newspaper report, fking cnts)

Fran, I hope you're ok if you're reading this.
Stay away. And name change and post here if you need any help with new motherhood. Wishing you all the best.

Prehaps Fran can register Molly as a citizen of the country she is born into. Afterall if Molly is a citizen of say Norway (or wherever) then its none of the UK's business whether Molly is taken into care.

Message withdrawn

Fran has done nothing wrong & has no criminal case to answer here as it would be impossible to extradite her & Moly, even supposing the authorities in xx were interested in helping out which they clearly aren't or Fran wouldn't have settled there!

Clearly a load of guff & bluster to try & save face- for all we know possibly leaked by someone in the SS when the powers that be have no intention of raising it again.

I don't thin we need worry- let's keep up theh positive thoughts for Fran & Molly!

positive thoughts yes but this is happening to hundreds of mothers every year and they are gagged by the family courts because their children have left the womb. There is a national scandal brewing here along the lines of the forced child emigrants to australia and we should all be kicking up an enormous stink about it. Ultimately Molly and Fran may have done more than save themselves here.

Lucky Molly to have such a strong, determined mother.

Indeed talktTTB!

You people live in a scary place.

In what way Cote???

Do you mean the UK?

It is a scary place where the state can plot to take away your future babies because of a possible future crime you might commit.

Terrifying.

There are circumstances where most civilised countries would remove a baby from birth.

For example if there is definitive evidence that a parent has abused children. However Fran has never had children before.

However the problem is that Northumberland want to take away Molly because of the opinion of a paediatrican who has never met Fran. This is inspite of the fact that other doctors think Fran will make an excellent mother.

It is very scary and I think that part of the problem is that local authorities are being paid bonuses for increasing the number of baby adoptions. Forcibly adopting Molly is a source of income for them.

re "if there is definitive evidence that a parent has abused children"

It's hard to prove who inflicts the damage, even where there is physical harm, apparently. There was a story about a guy who was suspected to have abused his boy some years ago. Then he remarries and next thing the pregnant wife knows, ss is taking away her newborn baby.

Is that fair?

If the state decides certain people cannot ever be parents, then how about castrating them? Certainly more humane than ripping their newborns from their arms in the hospital.

All very Orwellian.

Surely one is born with the nationality of one's place of birth? So if Molly is born in Finland, say, she will be Finnish. She might also possess dual nationality if Fran chooses to apply for British citizenship. I cannot comprehend a situation where a country would consent to send a baby of its own nationality to another country on any basis at all.

Let alone on this farcical basis. Human rights, anyone?

Can someone clarify how on earth a citizen of one country could become a ward of court of another country, and legally be "extradited" from the country of it's birth?

It does truly sound like guff to me.

Problem is, whole thing has sounded like guff right from the off. But it went so desperately far - and had Fran not had the resources and gumption to high-tail it out of here, SS would have continued with their kafka-esque campaign.

I don't know the specifics of all European countries, but a baby born in France to foreign parents gets French citizenship only as a teenager, after years of proven (and legal) residency. A baby born in Germany to foreign parents gets citizenship at birth only if one parent has legally lived in Germany for a minimum of eight years.

Fran may have found a country where her child would be a citizen at birth. If not, I would think she should be able to demand asylum.

Wow - I am surprised at that Cote! I had thought you immediately were born into the nationality of your place of birth. Given Fran's intelligence, I am sure that she has chosen wisely, wherever she is.

Edam, I agree. I've followed the whole story with incredulity and horror. It is frightening that such power can be abused by so few, with so little recourse for its victims.

I'm so relieved that Fran is (hopefully) somewhere safe.

Re "remember that 13 year old girl that married some guy out in turkey about 10 years ago? she was made a ward of the courts as she was a minor and was returned to the UK even though her parents had consented to the marriage"

Very different story. They only did the religious wedding ceremony, which is not real (legal) marriage.

In any case, she could not possibly have married at the age of 13, especially without the permission of her parents. She can't even give consent at that age, which is why her "husband" was jailed for statutory rape. If I recall correctly, this is why she was shipped back to UK.

"It's hard to prove who inflicts the damage, even where there is physical harm, apparently. There was a story about a guy who was suspected to have abused his boy some years ago. Then he remarries and next thing the pregnant wife knows, ss is taking away her newborn baby.

Is that fair?"

It depends whether the man has a conviction.
If you choose to marry a convicted paediophile then it is wrong to have children. It think its reasonable to ask the wife to choose between her husband and baby.

And yes, there are strong arguements for castrating paediophiles. (Nothing to do with birth control) Paediophiles are evil.

I agree its unfair if there is no conviction. Especially when a few children do make up malicous allegorations.

Social services exist for a reason. I believe that they are being unreasonable in Fran's case, however there are other cases when it is best to take children into care.

What we need is for family courts to be more transparent and stop gagging orders. The problem is that social services make mistakes and there is little recourse.

glad to hear thread title and op
sanity at last

Oh now that's good! That's really good!

Rhubarb, did you see link to clarification - Hexham SS are still pursuing this and say they want Fran to get in touch (yeah, right, like that would be a sensible move...).

reallytired - not all abuse is sexual. In this case, the guy's kid turned up with some bruises and SS suspected him but nothing was proven. No conviction, nothing. Then they snatch his newborn (eight years later iirc) from the arms of his new wife, at the hospital. No warning.

Personally, I am all for castrating men with violent sexual urges, but what to do when the state decides you are unfit to be a mother because you have had depression in the past? Or they suspected your partner of some abuse in the past?

It is a very scary system where the state decides who can and can't have children, in stealth, snatch your baby away from your arms, put him up for adoption, and even if you manage to clear your name, you can't get him back because he is now adopted.

As I said, terrifying. Half way between "Brave New World" and "1984".

CoteDAzur,

I completely agree with you. People are inoccent until proven guilty. Social services should realise this.

We need open and transparent family courts to decide these matters. The problem it is that it is being decided who has and who doesn't get to keep their children behind closed doors. It makes it hard for parents to fight. For example parents in Fran's situation aren't even supposed to contact their MP.

Whether you like it or there are a few people who are competely unfit to be near children. Sometimes social services get it wrong and children end up getting murdered.

Its really difficult and I expect that some social workers feel dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. Prehaps there needs to be royal commission looking at how other countries manage their social services and make such decisions.