Mum pregnant with 13th baby, 12 taken by ss

[ChopsTheDuck]

here

Feel so sorry for the babies, being born under those circumstances. A case for enforced sterislisation if there ever was one!

it's not entirely an informative story (well apart from giving a timeline that could potentially out any of the children ). Sounds pretty tragic all round. QOD - I'm very sceptical about that quote about the financial motivation - fits the benefits scrounger agenda of the Mail a bit too neatly IMO

The benefits was mentioned as they have no means of supporting a family and that the state would have to do that. Perhaps if they truly had changed they would have found jobs and proved they were capable of supporting a child.

To take 13 children away, SS must have a pretty good case and hopefully the children will grow up in stable homes.

I cant imagine how they would feel if they found out they were only brought into the world to get one over on SS. Not to mention the medical condition which is being passed onto the poor children.

Enforced sterilisation is extreme but so is what she is doing.

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/5935665/Mother-whose-13-children-were-taken-into-care-is-pregnant-again.h tml
The children are being removed because of neglect and her and her new partner admit to their aggression. Four of her her children had a rare degenerative genetic condition, and one has since died.

Have seen support offered to some families when nursing.Some people get lots of support at a massive[money]cost and it makes little difference and children are taken into care.Some support has been successful[from what I have seen]but in minority.Is also very expensive and I do think this is a case for sterilisation....are the babies experiments?
It is utterly bonkers.

I wasnt reading it that SHE would benefit herself, but that it was like she was punishing the state by making "them" keep paying to bring up her kids.
Very sad, for the kids. Friends have just adopted 2 girls, the birth mother has learning disabilities and severely neglected them, those kids have to live with that early childhood & then, in the future, may meet their mum and realise who/where they came from. She had 6 taken away....

I read this story in a different newspaper, SS offered them group counselling sessions and the 'parents' refused saying the didn't want to air their issues with strangers. If they cannot even attend sessions once or twice a week they aren't that comitted to having another IMO.

I do think their incoe is relevant in terms of they have more income than I do (working), they could attend private counselling (which is what they demanded SS pay for). Also the dad has said he will work to support a family but he is not allowed one so is not working.

It's nice for the couples out there looking to adopt that this couple's babies have gone to people desperate (and hopefully suitable) for a child. Sad to read their son with cerebral palsy has never been adopted though.

What are these kids going to think of their mother if they go looking for her when they are older?

There is a lengthy court process to go through to jusstify why the babies should be removed, a decsion made by a Judge.
I am sure there are many more reasons why those abies were removed aside from what was reported.
I expect all of those children are far better off with their new families than with those 'parents'

Message withdrawn

I do feel a bit sorry for them but I don't see the point tbh in continuing to have children.

My MIL is a foster carer and she had a little boy for 15 months from 3 days old. His father was violent to his 2 children from a previous relationship. From what MIL was last told they are now expecting their 4th who will be taken away at birth. They have vowed to keep going until they are allowed to keep one. The Mum has been told if she leaves her partner she will be able to keep the baby.

It is really sad as the little boy has been adopted with his younger sister but he has 2 siblings somewhere that he doesn't know about.

When I was young I briefly had a boyfriend who had just come out of the care system with his brother. They were temporarily living with the GPs. Their six siblings were all looked after by the LEA yet his mother still had another baby every year or so.

I had never met anyone so damaged at such an early age before. He was a pathological liar, trusted nobody, stole anything that wasn't nailed down and above all saw any sort of kindness, affection or compassion as a weakness to be exploited.

Needless to say it didn't last long but I couldn't help feeling very sorry for him and as time went on, for the women he ended up with and the children he had with them.

Very sad but at least the children of this couple have a chance. Well you'd hope so.

That doesn't say much for the care system, ninkynork

Well to be fair it was a while ago, and I always felt that the sporadic contact he had with his siblings in and out of it and his mother was what really did for him. I often wonder how he'd have turned out if adopted at three months or so as I was.

Sadly these cases are really common. The emotional response of a mother to the forced adoption of a baby is akin to the bereavement response eg have another baby.

Hence there are lots of cases like this.

Each baby costs the state about 200K so it would probably be cost effective to support the mother to have one child and look after that child and use proper contraception rather than having 13 children removed and cost the state £2.6 Million.

One case in Birmingham involved a mother who was having children removed because she was epileptic.

Very sad

god, how terrible.

"One case in Birmingham involved a mother who was having children removed because she was epileptic."

Just in case it was missed johnhemming. What on earth? Surely SS is supposed to be primarily a support system?

It's really not unusual for women to keep having babies to replace those who have been taken into care. Talk to adoptive parents: many of them will tell you that after they have adopted the social services keep coming back to them to offer them new siblings who have been born and taken straight into care.

It's not so surprising. Talking about these women being 'selfish' kind of misses the point: they are often so chaotic, so focused on the present, so unable to plan for the future, so damaged, so unaware of what good parenting looks like, that they are not calmly thinking through the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they will have been offered support, sometimes not, but the kind of damage they will themselves have endured is not easily overturned.

It's desperately sad.

Haven't clicked the link or read the thread but prepared to bet that this is another DM article.

Isn't it time we had a Daily Mail schlock-horror topic?

Epilepsy as a reason to remove children? Really? That's the whole story? How bizarre.

It's desperately sad when children are removed for valid reasons and the mother carries on having more children as a response to this bereavement. That woman needs support - as John Hemming says, it would make financial sense as well as being the right and decent thing to do.

But if the removals are unjust, it beggars belief.

very sad for the poor children.
but what can be done??
we don't live in a Big Brother state, that would have her sterilised

perhaps she will be shamed into it?

We did win one case for a mother who had previously given birth in a wood to avoid having her baby taken at birth. That baby was taken and adopted, but a later baby we managed to win the case to ensure that she continued to look after the baby.

That case was basically about the mother's ex partner.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of enforced sterilisation, not because of the Nazi connotations AN Wilson cites, more because who are we to judge? You don't KNOW those children will become the criminals of tomorrow. Statistics bear out that they will but there's no certainty.

I'm confused as to what she gets from having all these babies though... as each one is taken away, surely she loses and child benefit etc associated with them, so apart from her £190 she gets in her 25th week, she can't benefit financially from each baby.

HeadFairy, she'll also get the £500 surestart grant probably.

they're just objects aren't they - she wants to keep 'a' baby rather than having stopped and fought for the first baby taken away and done whatever was necessary to get him/her back it was another one and on and on. like getting another puppy. what a horrible back story for those children to have to own when they're older.

someone mentioned the grief response - keeping on getting pregnant. apparently that's true of some women who have an abortion too, they keep deliberately or 'accidentally' getting pregnant wanting to have their baby but the rational circumstance, fears etc are still the same so it's abortion again.