THE ACCUSED ------ CHANNEL 5 now

[RTKangaMummy]

Now

You can fracture a baby's shin by grasping it hard enough.
He could have held her by her legs and shook her. He could have done it when he picked her up to shake her.

I assume it was an injury that is not unusual in cases of shaken babies or the SCR would have made more of it?

The grandmother doesn't have custody. She was going to contact visits.

Watch the documentary again. NOWHERE do they state that the mother was going to contact visits. They worded it very ambiguously.

And Kenzey's social media and things that her friends are saying online don't tally with custody outside the family.

Thank you for your input MrsDV, it's helpful to have someone here who knows the system and how it works.

Mainly I thought Kenzey came across as terribly young and very stubborn, yes am sure people DID sit her down and were frank with her. Unfortunately she went her own way and has paid the price for that.

I've only ever dealt with one episode of Shaken Baby Syndrome...or alleged Shaken Baby Syndrome. It can be very hard to prove but in the case of Kenzey's baby the injuries were overwhelming and obvious. They were also fresh injuries too. Something happened to cause those injuries, it's not one of the question mark cases which is what Kenzey and her Mum seemed to believe. And he confessed.

You are right Alfie. It was very clear cut with regard to the injuries being non accidental.
They were the only two people who were with the baby when it happened.
There is no way out of the fact that one or both of them were involved and if only one of them did it, the other one would have known about it.

Bill the narrator said the gm was having more contact [than the mother] with the baby.
If the baby is within family that doesn't mean with immediate family or maternal family.
And if baby IS with GM I would expect SS to reconsider that position pretty damn quickly after viewing that documentary.

Just hopped on catch up. Thanks for the steer

'Kenzy's mother Maz visits her grand daughter often.....'
Doesn't sound like she has custody of her GD but has frequent contact

Kenzey did use the word contact- well the fact that she hates the word and prefers meeting and it was said her mother accompanied her.

I looked on google at her name after watching this, and found lots of sites where she'd posted for advice on her daughter. One was to an American site called protecting innocent families and she posted the following:

"I need some help or advice. Me and my partner at the time were accused of non accidental injury. We’re both adamant a year after my daughter became unwell that we did not cause her symptoms.

I’m from the UK. I know your based in America but I’m looking for independent medical experts to look at mine and my family’s medical history and also the weeks and days leading up to my daughter becoming seriously un well"

I felt sick reading it. Thank goodess that the jury saw right through their act and that darling little girl is safe from them.

It's like if she said it enough times and with enough conviction it would be true.

Found Mrs deveres posts very knowledgeable and wise.

Was anyone else chilled by the granny repeatedly referring to cot deaths? Seemed an attempt to minimise the harm caused by her son in law "oh well some other babies die for no reason so why is this different" hope I'm seeing it wrong.

Maz 'visiting her often' was said just after the narrator said the child required long stays in hospital. Her serious health problems 'require long stays in hospital, and Kenzey's Mum Maz visits her often seeing first hand the care she requires'. That referred to Maz visiting her in hospital, not visiting her in someone else's foster care. Maz has also arranged visiting a cerebral palsy centre once a month and music therapy privately. Not really the sort of thing you'd do if she was in someone else's care.

What they say about the contact is that 'Kenzey's Mum Maz will also be present'. But it didn't say why she would be present (could include bringing them with her) and didn't describe it as visitation for Maz. Just that she was 'present'.

The wording around it was so careful, no saying that Maz was having any sort of visitation, but not being explicit about why she was there etc I think she is.

According to Kenzey's social media Kenzey was involved in administering her medical treatment up to March that year. And her friends on social media claim she's already been out of prison to visit her in hospital at least once.

People do assume in cases like this that the children will be whisked away and never seen again but they do often stay with family. A boy from a very high profile case lives locally to me with his grandparents while his mother is in prison, but people online swear until they're blue in the face he's been adopted away.

I suspect Kenzey will have some sort of contact when she's let out.

I was cuddling a friend's 4 month baby today. He's just started that giggling little babies do when they take a huge breath then hiccup the giggles out. Brought back memories of my own two as teenies.

Once I got my first one out of the bath when she was a few weeks old. She had great head control from a few days old but this day as I lowered her she let her head flop and it bumped on to the bath mat. It scared her and she screamed for about 20 seconds. I cried for an hour at my incompetence as a mother. Number one rule is to protect their heads. Every fucker knows that.

Anyone who shakes a baby is an evil, evil cunt. A mother who lets this happen is as bad. There are no excuses.

I have a close relative who was in a motorway pile up while pregnant and her son has lifelong special needs as a result. An ex neighbour had pre eclampsia and her daughter is severely disabled as a result. Another friend has a son in his 20s still in nappies through autism. All of them would walk over broken glass if it would help their kids.

I don't even know what I'm trying to say ... but these "accused" deserve everything they've got coming.

I know that Bill. I am a kinship carer myself.
But I also know that the courts do not just hand over children because they are family.
That GM showed no insight into what happened to her GC. She doesn't believe that the parents were involved in the injuries.
As a kinship carer you have to convince SS that you will put the child's needs first, over and above your need to maintain a relationship with the parents (who may be your own child or sibling).

Relatives can contribute financially to children who are in care. It would be possible for the GM to do that.
It would be quite unusual for a child who is sick enough to be in hospital to be realised to go to conductive education though.
If they are well enough to withstand something like that why would they be using a precious hospital bed?

Babies could be with family. Watching that documentary makes me think they shouldn't be with that grandmother. Not if she can't admit her daughter was complicit in their abuse.

'I need to keep an open mind'. No you don't. You need to catch on that your child almost allowed her child to die.

Released, not realised

That does raise another issue though.
Its very hard to get long term foster carers for such complex children.
So they end up staying in hospital for far longer than they should.
This also impacts on their development because they cannot possibly get the stimulation they need. Even with the best and kindest staff.

Another consequence of their actions.

Absolutely spot on MrsDV, she had no insight at all into the fact that her daughter was complicit int he injuries to that baby. Even if she didn't see the shaking happen the injuries were so severe that she needed to acknowledge it DID occur and act accordingly. She didn't do that but continued to excuse him, cover up for him and minimise what occurred. I could scarecely believe what I was hearing when she started saying "but there were no marks or bruises". I wanted to shriek at her and ask her what she thought the injuries inside that baby were all about.
Utterly utterly unable to put her baby first. I would have been in hospital with my baby and no way would any potentially guilty partner get near us. I would have backed th police and the doctors all the way.
She moved with him to another town and had another baby. No baby is safe with her until she addresses these issues.

MrsDV, as a child grows up - in these circumstances - will they be sensitively made aware of why they are not with parents? Will they ever have the chance to decide for themselves if they want contact as an older child?

Friendly it would depend on who they were with tbh.
If a child is placed for adoption the new parents will be encouraged and expected to do lots of 'life work' with the children. Once the child is adopted its entirely up to the parents though. As it is for birth parents, they get to decided what the child knows about their past.
A foster carer would have to talk to the child with the support of the sw.

Family carers, like myself, are expected to do the same but not everyone does.
WHich is one of the reasons its so worrying that the GM could have residency.

No way is she going to explain to the younger child why her sister is so disabled. If the injured child is able to understand what happened to her it would be a proper facer for anyone, however experienced, to explain it

Contact is always a possibility unless the courts/SS explicitly recommend against it for safety reasons. Even then a 15/16 old can simply search on FB and jump on a bus if they are determined.

Lots of children want to have some sort of contact at various stages in their lives even in the most awful of cases.

In our case birth mum just turned up at our door at 2am one morning

Must have been a bit 'challenging' for you, MrsD. Is there a good book dealing with these sorts of issues?

Sorry - MrsDV - probably seems a strange book choice! I have very personal reasons for wanting some advice on the subject. But obviously only if you can easily recommend. You sound like you are very experienced in the area....

Rocky bird, you bring back a memory where I accidentally got locked out of the house and baby was inside. I was practically hysterical thinking he would use up all the air and die. Obviously crazed Mummy thinking.
That sort of animal like instinct was completely absent from mother and GM, something badly wrong there.

There are some good books out there Friendly but its been a while since I read any!
I recently donated mine to a couple waiting to adopt.

You would get good advice on the adoption boards.They are extremely knowledgeably and helpful. I wouldn't want to give you out of date advice.
I recently learned about at totally new concept on MN that wasn't a thing at all when I first got my DS home.

Your question may not relate to an adopted/fostered child but I think the books/advice are relevant to any child who needs to know why they don't see a family member.

In my experience books can really help but you can't avoid the hurt and confusion. But you can get advice on how to deal with the fall out. Sorry

Hello

Thanks for all your questions - here are the answers from the director Rob McCabe. (I'm afraid some of the very last questions posted may have missed out - apologies).

[From MarmiteMakesMeHappy] I would like to ask Rob what he thought Kenzey's motive for being part of the film making was. It's a huge undertaking to be so publicly exposed without knowing whether you will be exonerated or vilified. She must have had her reasons and I'd be interested to know what they were.

[Rob] It was a huge undertaking for Kenzey - and one that she had to give a lot of time and thought to, including lengthy discussions with myself and her lawyers. In the end, she felt that she was innocent and that her experience of being accused of a crime should be known. Quite simply, she felt it was her chance to tell her side of the story - and felt that she’d regret it if she’d not had her say.

[From Laki139Love] Has there been a serious case review or learning lessons review in this case that can be read?

[Rob] I’m not yet sure - but it is something I’m currently trying to find out. I’ll let you know.

[From SassyMuffin] I would like to ask Rob after spending time with Kenzey and her defence team if he agrees with the verdict.

[Rob] My honest opinion is that I personally don’t know if Kenzey is guilty or not. There were huge amounts of evidence against Kyle, and plenty of evidence to suggest her guilt, but I do feel that in terms of her accusation there are many question marks too. That’s not me trying to avoid the question - it’s very much how I feel.

[From HalfShellHero] I would like to ask Rob if there will be anymore documentaries like this to come?? I thought it very interesting to see the the actual process of cases like this and how lawyers like Richard Manek can truly work for their clients even in frustrating circumstances.

[Rob] Yes, absolutely. I’m currently finishing episode 2 and hope to start filming a third episode soon.

[From FriendlyFlicka] I would like to ask Rob if he felt he manipulated Kenzey in anyway, through filming her? That perhaps she might have dropped her stance if she had not been on film, and playing a role for the camera.

[Rob] Not at all. Of course I could be wrong, but having made documentaries for 20 years I feel like I have a good sense of when people are manipulating the process. I spent lots of time with Kenzey - on and off camera - and feel that we she was a very honest contributor.

Was it conscious editing to make the mother and daughter both seem so obsessed with their appearances through scenes of them putting on make up, and with clothes changes - who suggested that?

[Rob] No. To be fair to them I don’t think that her mum combing her hair and Kenzey putting make-up on a couple of times points to an obsession about their appearance! And the editing process can’t really emphasise clothes changes - we just showed her as she appeared on different days.