Sam Thomas in Ireland and her baby Ellie-Jay

[johnhemming]

The story about Sam Thomas's baby is now in "Fabulous" the news of hte world's magazine.

www.fabulousmag.co.uk/features/feature_baby_issue_040.php

Some day we will make some progress on sorting out Public Family Law in England and Wales.

www.fabulousmag.co.uk/features/feature_baby_issue_040.php

Link sorted.
As they count down to their due date, most mums-to-be are busy putting the finishing touches to the nursery and packing their hospital bags.

But not 19-year-old Sam Thomas. In the last weeks of her pregnancy, she became so terrified the British authorities were planning to take away her baby, she fled 262 miles from her Somerset home to Wexford in Ireland, where 7lb 5oz Ellie-Jay was born on September 30.

"She's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my life. She makes everything I've gone through worth it," says Sam.

sounds like she mis read the letter

Not on the basis of what other things were said and documented.

It sounds like it was in the letter but not ticked, as if you'd notice that.

If the letter format wasn't to blame then why :

A] Deny it in the first place &
B] Change the format.

fair enough, but wouldn't you think her or her mother would have queried it before moving country??

What about the second letter, saying she couldn't leave hospital with her baby without ss approval? YOu wouldn't see me for dust if I got one of those.

it said social services needed to be notified. I agree it must have been frightening for her but I do also feel social services have a duty to protect any child they feel could be at risk. Better to be safe than sorry. She was never actually told her baby would be removed.

So if you got a letter saying you couldn't take your baby home from hospital until ss had been notified, you'd just think, oh good, nice to see them being thorough? I'd be buying a plane ticket, no question.

Note that there was a child protection conference in Ireland at which a social worker from Somerset attended and continued to argue for the baby to be removed at birth.

Better to be safe than sorry.
There has to be a limit to state intervention. This argument can be used to intervene at all births where there has been no psychological assessment of the mother or father.

I accept that the news story does not have everything in it.

well, I wouldn't be getting one so it's a non question really if I had self harmed and been involved with ss then it would be different obviously...

Some of the nicest, best people I have known have self-harmed. My neighbour's 20 year old daughter had a history of self-harming and anorexia, and she was the best baby-sitter I ever had. Sensitive, intuitive, kind, conscientious and clever. It is appalling that a history of mental illness/self harm is used to take babies away from mothers.
I don't think any of us can be so sure it would never happen to us. It doesn't take much. Any of can develop a mental illness.

Her issues are 4 yrs in the past, when do things you have done and moved on from cease to rule your life.

Theletters they sent were badly worded and unsubstaniated as far as i can see.

Similarly with the other mum, issues at 13 which were resolved should not be pulledup again out of the past as a reason.

Should I know who sam thomas is?

I wonder why Social Services didn't get involved with Princes William and Harry, I mean Diana was a bulimic self-harmer, wasn't she. Better to be safe than sorry.

good point Bella!

probably because Diana didn't look after her babies - she had nannies

Yes and this young woman had her mother.

depressing to see the same old, same old SS extremism. Why the hell is this kind of ludicrous, deeply harmful practise still common-place?

You could almost excuse the 'oops, the form was misleading' but if they went to the extent of attending a case conference overseas in order to demand the child was removed...