At last! (Though, as always, getting a conviction is difficult/ next to impossible in many cases.)
But another page of MN has a thread today, worried about a female relative who has had a series of children removed. The poster is not sure of details, but knows the woman is now getting i.v.f., to the horror of anyone who knows the history.
Suggestions are that social services can do nothing to notify the i.v.f. people, (It is not known if it is NHS or private in UK, or is being arranged overseas, and not known what name or address the breeder now has. )
But in any case, nothing could be done until after the birth.
That appears to leave an option for a determined man, willing to spend some money, to get in touch with a woman whose life history includes having a series of children removed, and, according to her family, not caring in the least what happens to them, or what is done to them, by herself (or, presumably, by anyone else, before the s.s. comes to take them away.
Surrogacy to order, for abuse, is known to happen, particularly in USA, but it cannot be impossible in UK, either.
Presumably a pretence of being a couple, or, actually being a couple, to get the infant, would be a man's plan. (Damaging the child during pregnancy, by feeding the mother drugs and alcohol, would not be a problem. It would keep her compliant. If the baby was intended for his filmed abuse, and/ or for hire to other men for that purpose, it presumably wouldn't impair the financial value of it, to have feotal alcohol syndrome, and/ or to be seriously brain damaged with drug withdrawal convulsions)
Must UK law demand each new infant conceived, even to a serial breeder, has to be carried to term and born? An addict or alcoholic will do serious damage to that infant, long before birth.
Must UK law protect, as sacred, the fertility (or even, given i.v.f., just the womb,) of all women involved in serial production of infants they cannot care for?
From replies in the other thread, it seemed that for most babies, even if the current name and address were known, there is no automatic system even to notify social services.
But arguably, surely it would be better to get a court order for sterilisation of both parents where abuse is inevitable.
(And of course, for all men on the child abuse register)
I.i.r.c., court ordered sterilisation can be done, at least for females. (If not both sexes, why not?) The legislation was intended for those who have for those with limited capacity to take their own decisions.
Perhaps that law could be 'tweaked', or could be stretched to include 'the best interests' of any future child, defending it from being conceived or born, to a parent or parents who are already known to be unfit or dangerous to have control of a child, PRE- natally as well as postnatally.
The Baby P mother, Conolly, and the Crichel heiress, Martin, each had seven children removed, before the deaths of their respective eighth infants. Conolly managed to get pregnant with number nine, while awaiting trial (and was allowed to keep it, in jail, to get access to the mother and baby unit, which is an easier place than mainstream prison) Martin is still clearly still besotted with the father of her eight, abused or dead, children, and would obviously have a ninth, tenth and so on, if she could get near him.