A woman’s baby was put into foster care because she wasn’t considered intelligent or competent enough to look after her premature baby. Three years later, the baby is now well enough to be looked after by any normal person, and so she wants the child back. The local council is fighting to stop her, so the woman is going to the European Human Rights court.
In all this there’s people who’ve been forgotten. Possibly. You see, we don’t know if the foster parents and the would-be adoptive parents are, in fact, the same people.
Let’s, for the sake of hypothetical argument, twist this argument around. The foster parents are the people that nursed this baby to the good health she enjoys now. They took on a seriously ill baby with special needs, cared for it, loved it, and now, three years later they want to do the most natural thing in the world – adopt this child. They have a bond, a relationship. For the little girl, her parents are her parents. From their point of view, the biological mother, now that the baby is well and ‘normal’, suddenly wants the child back, and they’re in the mood to fight to stop this happening. They love this child.
Of course it seems harsh for anyone to have their child taken away from them because they’ve got an IQ of 70 – I do not believe for a second this was done lightly. But this is the problem with this sort of decision. As unfair as it seems for the mother, it is crueller and more unjust still for the child. Children need stability, and to take her away from whom she considers to be her loving parents is not something that should be done lightly, or in fact ever without good cause.
In other words, when you actually start considering the child’s needs first this issue isn’t quite as clear cut as an odious council abusing their power bullying a thicko.
The idea that you can dump a sick child on the state for a couple of years then come back when it’s well again isn’t something we should ever tolerate or encourage, and that’s what I’m afraid of here.
Jennie said...
2 Jun 09 at 10:30 am
As a mother, I agree with this post.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 10:33 am
Perhaps not as controversial as I thought then. That’s a relief.
Stu said...
2 Jun 09 at 10:52 am
My biggest problem is with your very first sentence. “A woman’s baby was put into foster care because she wasn’t considered intelligent or competent enough to look after her premature baby.”
Unless there’s something else to this I’m missing, there’s no clear reason been given for that initial action to have taken place. That’s the bit that I find outrageous. By all means, provide help, support, education, parenting classes, part-time care, whatever, if you have concerns about the Mother – but taking the child away? Without the Mother having done anything obviously wrong? It baffles me, and to some extent scares me*.
Your argument seems to be that because a stupid decision was made in the past, we shouldn’t seek to correct it, but instead make it worse? The issue is not that the foster parents are refusing to give the child back to the Mother, it’s that she’s losing her visitation rights entirely, and she’ll be ‘barred from further contact’, according to the Times. That’s a whole different kettle of fish right there. The little girl is being forced not to have contact or a relationship with her biological mother. Where’s the justification for that?
You do make an interesting point – and I’ll admit I’m probably rather more focused on the Mother’s perspective than I should be – but unless there’s something very much missing from the picture we’ve had so far, I just cannot see what the think behind what’s happened could possibly be.
* Don’t get me started on midwifes and health visitors – we had our run-ins with them when my daughter was born. Most are wonderful wonderful people, but not all of them, by a long shot. The scary thing is that apparently all it takes is for one of them not to like the the cut of your jib, and suddenly you can end up persona non grata in the life of your newborn child.
Jennie said...
2 Jun 09 at 10:56 am
Stu, that’s all well and good, and I can see the case for campaigning to stop this sort of thing in future, but that was three years ago. You can’t go back in time to reverse the initial decision.
Surely the welfare of the child is the important thing?
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 10:58 am
From the sounds of it the only alternative to having the baby put into foster care was having someone live in her house full time to do the caring.
I do understand where you’re coming from though, Stu – especially her losing even the visitation rights – that’s awful and seemingly unnecessary, do doubt about it.
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:03 am
Let’s assume for a second that they’ve not just looked at this woman and said “She clearly can’t do her 12 times tables while saying the alphabet backwards, so she can’t raise a child”. In these circumstances where someone is simply not competent enough to look after their child a line has to be drawn. It’s always these lines that show Liberalism to be a whole lot more deep and “grey” than some would like to make out.
Yes, you can argue that a mother should never have their child taken away, and up until a very extreme point every liberal would agree. But if this woman was clearly and demonstrably unable to raise a child properly then that’s where the liberties of the child MUST come first.
So no, not as uncontroversial as you thought Charlotte, it makes perfect sense to not give preference to a) the adults in this battle and b) the biology. Liberties have to be dealt with more intelligently than using that kind of emotional and/or ageist (in that for some reason the 3 year old’s liberties are lesser than that of their mothers) prejudice.
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:04 am
Of course I meant controversial above, not uncontroversial…doh.
Stu said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:09 am
“Surely the welfare of the child is the important thing?”
I simply cannot see how the welfare of the child is best served by being barred from seeing or being in contact with her biological Mother.
Don’t get me wrong, Jennie, bygones be bygones and all that, and Charlotte’s right that it’s probably best for her to stay with the people who have been caring for her these past three years – but the question isn’t about being taken out of the care of the foster parents (as far as I can see), it’s about the formal adoption meaning that her biological Mother will not be allowed contact or visitation rights.
I’m standing by what I said yesterday, too
Jennie said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:15 am
I think we’re arguing about different things. Contact is good, but that’s not what the mother is fighting for in the reports I have read, and it’s not what lots of people on the blogosphere are talking about either – see Feminist Mums for an example.
John Hemming MP said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:18 am
Remember that the mother was not allowed to oppose the initial legal proceedings through the wrongful use of the Official Solicitor.
Joe Otten said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:28 am
So it wasn’t a case of dumping a sick child on the state, but the state forcibly removing a child from its mother. Rather a different picture.
What bothers me a little about these cases is that “stability” is generally taken to imply “nuclear family” – that if a child is lucky enough to have more than two loving parents, this is seen as a problem not an opportunity.
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:33 am
Finally found the link to the article, seems that our hypothetical assumption can’t really take place. Hopefully some victory can be found on visitation.
measured said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:54 am
The *wrong* appears to have occurred at the birth, but the baby will have been removed if it was considered that the baby was in immediate danger by the actions of the mother. Now it is the best interests of the child according to the welfare list (s1(3)Children Act 1989) that will determine who the child goes with. There is precedent in favour of the birth mother. She will have to demonstrate that she can meet the child’s needs, but why has she waited three years? If no emotional ties have been allowed between the mother and the child, but the child loves the foster parents, it becomes very tricky. Introductions will be made and contact will slowly build up. By allowing the newspapers to sensationalise the case, the birth mother may have won the day but it is not the way to do it, is it? The Judge has to take all the evidence into consideration and I bet we do not know the whole story. Charlotte, a great perceptive post.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 12:05 pm
Thank you, Measured.
I should say that my own biological mother had a 4 year old child ‘taken’ from her by the courts and placed with the father, something which I am still extremely pleased happened and it did, in fact, work out for the best. The rights of the biological mother are never absolute, and the bonds that appear between children and parents are not dependent on a genetic, biological connection.
This idea of putting what’s in the child’s main interest first is something I feel very, very strongly about because of my own history with my family. I also share Stu’s concern that the right is not served by denying this child all access to the biological parent (assuming she’s not actually a danger to the child, or causing some sort of distress and upset to the child during visits/access). Ultimately as this child gets older she’s going to want to get to know her Mum and should be able to make this decision for herself.
Until then, it’s not her decision. It’s not the mother’s decision either.
KeithML said...
2 Jun 09 at 12:41 pm
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
The original decision seems on paper a little strange (unless there were specific circumstances under which the child was in danger) but that doesn’t mean now that it should be corrected. Three years have passed since then; three years in which the child has become alert, talking, walking and generally aware of its surroundings. To take this child from this stability and place it back with the mother, even if the mother were fully capable, would cause disruption to the child’s development.
Charlotte, you sometimes say things which I disagree very strongly with, but on this one you’re right. The child’s interests must come first.
measured said...
2 Jun 09 at 12:41 pm
I have consoled teenage mothers who have done nothing wrong and yet their child is taken from them. I tell them that at least the Authorities will never be able to take away the fact that they are the birth mother. The argument put forward is that the teenage mother can now get on with her life which is true.
The whole process can be heartbreaking and the unscrupulous can engage in emotional manipulation. Foster parents. aided by social services, discourage/disallow contact as it may jeopardise the chances of adoption too. Adoption is irrevocable so once it has been granted, contact is resumed.
I am pleased it worked out in your family. In my limited experience, most decisions are right and in Court everyone is allowed to have their say.
Stu said...
2 Jun 09 at 12:46 pm
I don’t see why the only two options available were taking the child away or having a full-time carer. Apparently, the Mother’s brother and parents all offered to help care for the baby as well. The ‘concerns’ from social workers were raised because she ‘only’ visited her child for a few hours a day in hospital. She was never even allowed to try and prove herself capable of caring for her own daughter, because the Baby K was taken straight from hospital to be placed in care. It appears she’s been fighting this since day one and been stumped by the system every step of the way. She wasn’t allowed to instruct her own lawyer. The appeal court also said that “[her] love for her daughter is not doubted”.
As far as I can see so far, this baby should never have been removed from her Mother in the first place (the final paragraph of this post is somewhat harsh considering the facts revealed so far, I’d say). The foster parents could be the most wonderful people ever to have existed, and it’s true that they are now almost definitely in the best position to continue being the chief guardians of the child – but that doesn’t make it right for the natural Mother to be entirely ostracised.
To put it another way, I agree with the main thrust of the argument in your post about the child’s welfar, but when you say things like “The idea that you can dump a sick child on the state for a couple of years then come back when it’s well again” I think you’re way off the mark. That’s just unnecessary – and quite possibly not true at all.
Hey, maybe it’s just me – maybe I just watched Changeling a little bit too closely and Angelina Jolie’s performance is affecting my judgement. I’m far from willing to concede that based on what’s been said so far, though.
Tristan said...
2 Jun 09 at 1:04 pm
The child was kidnapped and should not have been.
I know, I know ‘What about the children?!’, but the fact that unaccountable state officials can kidnap a child and abuse the legal system to prevent recourse is wrong.
The next logical step is to say the mother should not have had the child in the first place. Given in non-fascist/totalitarian countries forced steralisation of people with mental illness, below average IQ and those considered ‘undesirable’ was a normal occurrence for a long time, its not that far fetched.
I don’t deny that abuse and neglect of children does take place (and is horrific), but the current system doesn’t prevent that and any system which allows the kidnapping of children and no recourse from their parents is a failure.
(I know for a fact that many of those who work in children’s services do so with the best intentions, and work very hard, but the best intentions can, and do, go awry)
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 1:21 pm
Um, sensationalist much Tristan?
No, the next logical step is not to dictate whether a woman can have children or not, nor is this anywhere near kidnap. This is a system where people are able to do what they wish, but the best interests of ALL parties are considered, not just those with some kind of biological and seniority advantage.
There is potentially an issue with how the legal system backs up women that are later able to care for their own children, and how that balances with the needs of the child, but as others have said we don’t know the ins and outs of this case enough to be able to judge that.
Ian B said...
2 Jun 09 at 1:54 pm
Shame on you Charlotte. I agree with much of what you write on this blog, but you’ve lost the plot entirely on this one. This is Eugenics Era policy, with a smiley face.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:08 pm
Ian,
The original decision to remove the baby was pretty suspect on – and I don’t think we’re every really going to find out what it was that made this happen. Someone, somewhere decided that being left with this woman would have been a death sentence for this particular baby, which is exactly the sort of thing that makes me extremely uncomfortable. The idea of giving her a full-time live in nurse paid for the state is the last thing I’d ever want to see for the precedent it would set.
None of this, though, changes the fact this is a real child’s life we’re talking about, and you need a better reason to rip a child out of a safe and loving home than biology. Children are not property. :S
simon said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:12 pm
actually this woman has been given numerous psychological evaluations by therapist and it has been shown she is not a danger to the child and her intellectual capabilities are well within the normal range to raise a child, Her IQ is 81 which isn’t even classified as mentally retarded (you need an IQ of below 80 to be classified as a retard) I think the way this case has been handled has been appalling, and as this woman has done nothing wrong and is still being penalised for not being intelligent is terrible. There are around 10% of the population with an IQ of around 80 are we saying that they should not be fit to raise children as well. I hope this woman gets all the care and support she needs in the fight to raise her child
ps on a side note i believe in the big state and intervention to protect individuals but this case there hasnt been a crime committed
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:23 pm
Hmm as I understand it she’s capable of looking after the child *now* but wasn’t at the time of the birth, or at least one hopes that was the case or this really is the most appalling travesty of justice.
If you’re talking about taking a perfectly normal child away from someone just because they’ve got an IQ of 81 then obviously I’d fight tooth and nail to prevent that happening. That really would be Eugenics.
There’s two distinct issues here. The original removal and what should happen *now*
Ian B said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:43 pm
The original decision to remove the baby was pretty suspect on – and I don’t think we’re every really going to find out what it was that made this happen. Someone, somewhere decided that being left with this woman would have been a death sentence for this particular baby, which is exactly the sort of thing that makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Let’s take a stab at why this happened. Let’s guess that this is an out of control child protection bureaucracy, operating in a climate of child-related hysteria, with arbitrary powers over citizens granted by an out of control state. How’s that for an hypothesis?
The idea that “what’s done is done” is fundamentally bad. The wrong committed here was the removal of the child, which is related to the greater general wrong of the idea that the state has first dibs on children. And that is a direct consequence of the Eugenics Era, when wise progressives decided that their uninhibited state must protect us all from the “feeble minded”. As is, indeed, the idea of an intelligence quotient itself.
A psychologist who examined her has noted (in Stu’s link above) that this woman had normal, not remedial, education, nad no history of having been declared to have learning disabilities. Rather, she seems to have triggered the harpies of the child protection industry by not conforming to their social expectation when she visited her child. Her right to fair representation in court has been denied. Her family members who offered to help with childcare- itself suggesting a loving supportive family environment- were similarly smeared and dismissed.
Children are not property? Yes they are, to some degree. Maybe I would have had a better life (by some other’s arbitrary measure) if I’d been snatched from my mother’s bosom and handed to friends of the state to be raised. But my parents, thank gawd, had property rights over me, so I got them, warts and all. The state certainly thinks children are property; specifically, the property of the state.
We stride towards the abyss the instant we decide that the state can act as an objective arbiter in these matters. It can’t. The child protection industry is motivated by a powerful self interest. Many people within it are no doubt well meaning, but well meaning people are not necessarily right. Indeed, one can argue that anglosocialism is the tyranny of well meaning people. The entire eugenics craze was very well meaning. It was also an abomination. Its precedents remain in the way our social services operate, as in this case.
We need a return to a very clear acknowledgement that the state should only intervene- in a policing capacity- when a crime has been committed, and a dismissal of the idea that the state may intervene arbitrarily, confiscating persons and property on belief grounds. Nobody can defend themself against a charge of what they might do. If the state declares that you will be a bad mother Charlotte, how do you argue against that?
G K Chesterton’s essay “Eugenics And Other Evils” is a firm reminder of how we got here. I quote-
“Now, even if I could share the Eugenic contempt for human rights, even if I could start gaily on the Eugenic campaign, I should not begin by removing feeble-minded persons. I have known as many families in as many classes as most men; and I cannot remember meeting any very monstrous human suffering arising out of the presence of such insufficient and negative types. There seems to be comparatively few of them; and those few by no means the worst burdens upon domestic happiness. I do not hear of them often; I do not hear of them doing much more harm than good; and in the few cases I know well they are not only regarded with human affection, but can be put to certain limited forms of human use. Even if I were a Eugenist, then I should not personally elect to waste my time locking up the feeble-minded. The people I should lock up would be the strong-minded. I have known hardly any cases of mere mental weakness making a family a failure; I have known eight or nine cases of violent and exaggerated force of character making a family a hell. If the strong-minded could be segregated it would quite certainly be better for their friends and families. And if there is really anything in heredity, it would be better for posterity too[...]
I mention the case of the strong-minded variety of the monstrous merely to give one out of the hundred cases of the instant divergence of individual opinions the moment we begin to discuss who is fit or unfit to propagate. If Dr. Saleeby and I were setting out on a segregating trip together, we should separate at the very door; and if he had a thousand doctors with him, they would all go different ways. Everyone who has known as many kind and capable doctors as I have, knows that the ablest and sanest of them have a tendency to possess some little hobby or half-discovery of their own, as that oranges are bad for children, or that trees are dangerous in gardens, or that many more people ought to wear spectacles. It is asking too much of human nature to expect them not to cherish such scraps of originality in a hard, dull, and often heroic trade. But the inevitable result of it, as exercised by the individual Saleebys, would be that each man would have his favourite kind of idiot. Each doctor would be mad on his own madman. One would have his eyes on devotional Curates; another would wander about collecting obstreperous majors; a third would be the terror of animal-loving spinsters, who would flee with all their cats and dogs before him. Short of sheer literal anarchy, therefore, it seems plain that the Eugenist must find some authority other than his own implied personality. He must, once and for all, learn the lesson which is hardest for him and me and for all our fallen race — the fact that he is only himself.
Stu said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:44 pm
She wasn’t given an opportunity to prove herself capable or otherwise of looking after a sick child. The child was taken immediately into care from the Hospital due to social workers’ concerns.
You’re right, though – there’s two different issues, which means we’re arguing cross-purposes. There’s also the subtlety over whether the mother is asking to have her baby back full time, or just trying to prevent being disallowed access – a very important distinction.
That said, I still find it tough not to argue from the Mother’s point of view. I wonder if, as a Mother, Jennie Rigg would agree with you so strongly if she was having to stand by whilst her own daughter was brought up by somebody else, and she’s not even allowed to visit. And in that situation, would it really be good enough for the council to just say ‘oh, bugger, yes – you’re right, we got it wrong. Sorry! Oh well, chin up, nothing we can do about it now, really, is there. Don’t worry, eh – I’m sure you’ve got plenty of time left to have some more kids.’
I have to say, as a Father, I don’t think I’d be content to let it lie there.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:48 pm
Ian’s making a very compelling case if I’m honest. Letters from a Tory will have a field day with this one – another Libertarian/Child Protection moral dilemma :S
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:52 pm
Ian, if the kid was taken away from her despite her being capable to raise the child then you’re right. If it was the other circumstance, you’re not.
Objective or not, we should not be standing in the way of the state being an agent on behalf of the child to pursue the preservation of their rights and liberties, if a minimum standard cannot be determined to exist.
Ian B said...
2 Jun 09 at 2:55 pm
Ian, if the kid was taken away from her despite her being capable to raise the child then you’re right. If it was the other circumstance, you’re not.
The problem is, we have no way of knowing, because she was never given a chane to prove her capability or otherwise. As such, it is no better than preemptively arresting you because I think you’re the kind of person who’s likely to rob a bank.
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 3:01 pm
So what you’re saying, Ian, is that the child should be put in to a situation that is potentially harmful to them so that another person can prove their own rights? The system could no doubt be better, as this case highlights potentially, but I don’t think we should be agreeing to a disregarding of a child’s needs and rights in some kind of test drive period.
measured said...
2 Jun 09 at 3:04 pm
Stu, you cannot jump to conclusions. Maybe they thought the baby had been abandoned. What were the social workers’ concerns? Maybe the mother has had extremely low self-esteem to demonstrate her wishes until now. Who knows? Why has three years old elapsed before this case is resolved? And, more pertinently, precisely why is returning her to her mother being opposed?
Sometimes parents with medical condition like severe MS are incapable of looking after their children, although the parents think otherwise, and the Court decides the children must be taken into care. Maybe the mother has been abusive and obstructive. Perhaps she cannot appreciate K’s needs, not because she is unintelligent but has a mental health issues. Does she pose a threat to the child? Has she made loads of promises and not kept them? I am sure there is far more to this story than the mother’s low intelligence. At least the law itself is correct in that decisions will be taken based solely on the best interests of the child.
Joe Otten said...
2 Jun 09 at 3:13 pm
All this talk of eugenics is wide of the mark. Eugenicists would object to this person being a biological parent, and would care little who raised the child. (Indeed they may support bad parenting of “inferior stock” to reduce that child’s subsequent life chances.)
Ian B said...
2 Jun 09 at 3:14 pm
Lee, being alive puts people in a situation that is “potentially” harmful. Every child is born into a situation that is “potentially” harmful.
Under the normal common law, we allow people to live their lives until they actually cause some harm, and then we punish them. This gives us all the benefit of the doubt. It may allow some harm to be caused that would be prevented by attempting to root out every potentially harmful situation. But it also prevents another type of harm- the persecution of the innocent.
If we take the interventionist view- that we must always intervene to prevent potential harms- then we must accept that we will cause the other harm of intervening when it is unnecessary. If we attempt to apply Hume’s felicitous calculus to measure the harms on each side, and even if we can find some actual mathematics which can objectively measure them, we are faced with an impossible task, because we cannot measure the harms that may have been committed. We thus end up with a situation which is unsupportable, in which we claim success for imaginary harms uncaused. If we intervene, we prevent some incalculable quantity of harm, whilst causing some other incalculable quantity of harm (caused when we intervene wrongly against something which would not have occurred, which we cannot measure).
The current system puts parents who are at the mercy of the system in an impossible situation of having to defend themselves against a counterfactual. What would have happened if this mother had retained her child? We cannot know. We can speculate, but nothing more. The progressive pretense is that we can know these things, and act accordingly, but this is a mirage. We cannot. Besides all else, each individual’s opinions of what is a good upbringing are widely divergent. I know atheists who would snatch the children of devout parents, and religious types who would snatch the children of atheists, each to prevent harm. My Chesterton quote above illustrates this, and he so succinctly notes that feeble-mindedness is not a good abuse indicator, and the strong minded are often the terrors of our society.
Nobody is fit to make this judgement. It is delusion to think otherwise.
Stu said...
2 Jun 09 at 3:25 pm
measured, you cannot jump to conclusions. I’m going by what’s been said in these two Times articles, for better or worse. From them, the story is that the social workers grew concerned because they didn’t feel the Mother visited the hospital for long enough. They then had the child placed in care directly from the hospital, never having lived at home with her biological parent. She does not have mental health issues, never had a history of mental illness or even remedial education, and the Appeal court said they have no doubt of her love for her daughter. This doesn’t paint a picture of a woman who poses a grave danger to a child.
As Ian B says, there’s no conceptual difference between assuming that a parent with a low IQ will be harmful and assuming that a parent of a given religion will be harmful. Coupled with the fact that the Mother never had the chance to prove herself able to look after her child, I can’t see what possible justification they had. If the Mother had taken her baby home and a situation had arisen whereby she had put the child’s life in danger, then it would be reasonable to take action. As it is she was not ever allowed the chance to look after her child on her own.
If more information comes out which changes that significantly, I’ll revise my opinion, of course – but so far it seems fairly unequivocal, especially the quotes from psychiatrists and the court of Appeals.
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 3:58 pm
I’m only saying potentially because of the lack of clarity regarding what we know. If what is being suggested is true, then there is no “potential” about it, the experts and decision makers knew there was a danger. Where such a danger is known it would be immoral of the state not to step in.
All of this talk of subjectivity is very much wide of the mark though, and to try and bring in “difference of opinions” is not helpful. People that make these decisions do so on the basis of peoples actions and on their abilities, very measurable factors. Now a mistake could have been made here, we don’t really know, but that doesn’t mean the idea and the practice are inherently unworkable or wrong.
Bunny Smedley said...
2 Jun 09 at 4:00 pm
For various reasons, premature babies are more at risk of abuse and neglect than the mainstream population, c.f. here, although other studies have shown this as well. Part of the problem may be a failure to bond while the baby is in an ICBU or SCBU; part may be the heavy demands that caring for these children (who are sometimes very ill indeed) places on the parents or carers.
Under these circumstances, health care professionals – especially those who deal with neo-natal health issues – are right to take notice of instances where a mother appears not to be bonding with her premature infant. Over several months, the staff dealing with this baby would have had abundant opportunities to observe the interactions between the mother and her baby.
There’s a lot we don’t know here. Did the woman in question express milk for her baby (which means pumping every four hours, day and night)? Did she show an interest in the baby’s progress (weight gain, ability to breathe unaided, possible homecoming date, etc)? What seems clear, though, was that the medical staff who were with this infant 24 hours a day, for months, were not comfortable regarding her willingness or ability to care for her child.
Charlotte has, I think, shown bravery in being so honest about her own experiences here.
I agree with what you have written, Charlotte. My own son was born at 27 weeks (3 months premature), and spent two months in hospital before he was ready to come home. Was I being ‘judged’ during that time on the strength of my commitment to him? You bet I was!
So were all the other parents. Some of those babies were in the neo-natal unit to wean them off maternal addictions to heroin. Some of the parents were, frankly, too messed up to spend much time with their children. Some were just very young, without much sense of responsibility. A few only came into the unit to nick syringes. At least one was eventually barred, less because of his habit of stealing medical supplies and intimidating the staff than because of his violent behaviour towards his partner.
Seeing all of this was a bit of an education for me. The sad truth is, not all parental bonds ‘work’. Not everyone is capable of taking care of her own needs, let alone those of a tiny, possibly very sick baby. Once upon a time, extended families might have been able to step in to help – an alternative that may not have been explored sufficiently in this case – but as the Baby P case etc have shown us, these days it remains possible for an awful lot of terrible abuse and neglect to take place before anyone notices – and then for a lot of recrimination to take place once it’s far too late to do any good. The right not to be killed by the people who are supposed to be caring for you is, ultimately, the most basic of human rights. As Charlotte rightly says, children aren’t property.
Ian B said...
2 Jun 09 at 4:20 pm
Bunny, I wonder if you would be so sanguine if your baby had been confiscated due to the opinion of others that you’d failed to meet their criteria, and you’d been thrust into the kafkaesque hell of bureaucracy unbound.
Stu said...
2 Jun 09 at 4:22 pm
It’s hard to disagree with any of that, Bunny. In fact, I don’t – I agree absolutely.
However, this woman wasn’t kept from her child because she was a heroine addict, nor because she was stealing medical supplies, nor because wasn’t expressing milk. If they’d said those things I’d definitely have less of an issue with this case. The court heard that she was kept from her child because they felt she ‘lacked the intelligence’ to care for her properly. And then she was disallowed the chance to defend herself in court because she ‘lacked the intelligence’ to instruct counsel.
As far as I can tell, that argument boils down to ‘the nurses didn’t like the cut of her jib’.
Lee Griffin said...
2 Jun 09 at 4:26 pm
Ian, on the one hand you lambaste the supposedly subjective criteria of “baby stealers” yet on the other you try and appeal to those of us trying to remain in objectivity by resorting to the lowest of emotional subjectivity? Can you not see the irony?
Ian B said...
2 Jun 09 at 4:38 pm
I’m doing nothing of the sort. I just pointed out that Bunny wasn’t harmed by the system. People tend to support systems that have personally served them, while people who have been harmed are more likely to see the negative side- just as you’re more likely to be strongly opposed to racial segregation if you’re black, whereas a white person, even if not themself a racist, may not be so upset by a system that gets them a seat on the bus while others stand.
My point regarding subjectivity is an objective one, haha. Preemptive systems like this fall on the same hurdle that much of progressivism/anglosocialism does. It is the presumption that information can be objectively gained which cannot be objectively gained, and the presumption that particular parameters being measured have an objective platonic reality. The whole of the social sciences and consequent social hegemony has a facade of objectivity by using scientific-style methodology- statistical studies, bona fide mathematics and so on, but fails because the edifice is built upon moral judgements which reduce to arbitrariness- personal opinions of what is right and proper, and many of which are, from other perspectives romantic, puritanical or downright cranky. Picking one at random, there is a hegemonic presumption that a progressive factory-school education is so superior as to be the “right” of every child, and the child abuse industry have been working hard to label home-schoolers as dangerous closet child abusers. We live in a society that yells the slogan “diversity” from every rooftop, but counterhegemonic diversity of opinion is not tolerated. What counts as a “good parent” is increasingly defined by the state, and woe betide those who fail to pass the exam.
It is not contradictory to suggest that those crucified on the altar of this particular ideology may be emotionally distressed by it.
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 4:53 pm
Thanks for all that Bunny. Very interesting.
I suppose the problem is that if Ms Mullen had behaved like you this never would have happened. Thing is we can’t honestly know whether that decision was correct – it’s still ‘pre-crime’ and all that.
Hmm the more we’re talking about this the less I like the whole thing.
Bunny Smedley said...
2 Jun 09 at 6:33 pm
Of course ‘we can’t honestly know whether that decision was correct’ – quite a lot of life works that way!
And heaven knows whether the decision made in this case was a good one, or even the least bad one, if you see what I mean.
All I was trying to do was to show why a mother who apparently only spent a couple of hours a day with her premature infant might have raised concerns amongst the healthcare professionals involved in the infant’s case – if only because that baby was going to need a lot more than two hours’ attention per day after coming home.
Joe Otten said...
2 Jun 09 at 7:33 pm
Failing to express milk is hardly evidence of neglect, any more than giving a child of any age a fractionally worse than optimal diet.
I would be astonished if intelligence were that big a factor in parental competence. Is there any scientific evidence for this, or is it just the professional prejudice of experts?
justice prevails said...
2 Jun 09 at 7:55 pm
how dare you god i was going to vote lib dems in because of john hemming hard work are you completely out of touch, on drugs, come see me i have newspapers articles dating back till 2004 i will educate you on forced adoption abuse carried out on children in care please do not promote yourself as being lib dem i am a campaigner and the likes of you will ruin any chance of lib dems gettin through .You should be with labour the ones who thought up the baby trafficking in first place your with the wrong party
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Jun 09 at 11:57 pm
That’s a bit awkward. :S
I’m just a member of the Lib Dems. I’m not a politician. I’m actually very glad John Hemming is doing what he’s doing, it’s obvious someone needs to stick up for her.
My concern is for the child now, not the mother. Please don’t hold my own personal opinion against the party though.
Alison Stevens said...
3 Jun 09 at 1:49 pm
Nobody, ever cares about Natural Parents, that have their beloved Children, taken wrongly into Care,and suffer the indignity,and trauma,of Forced Adoption,at the hands of the secret Family Courts.
Care Proceedings, have risen alarmingly since the Baby Peter tragedy and,other Local Authority failings, resulting in the death, of vulnerable Children.
In several parts of the Country, Babies are being taken from Hospital, on Emergency Orders,from Mothers, within hours of Birth, in many cases, Social Services, have very little evidence, to support, such drastic action.
The Kin care clause, outlined in the Public Law Guidelines,should be considered, before a Child is ever placed into Foster Care, but this clause is being disregarded, on a daily basis, with reference to my caseload.and it looks like in this Case, the former has not been considered.
I thank John Hemming, most sincerely, for his campaign,of highlighting,the injustice of a system, that has changed, very little, since the horrors of Cleveland,and will continue tenfold, with reference to the new Legal Aid payment cuts, to Barristers, which will force them out of Public Law Cases,forcing many Parents, to represent themselves, result, a Baby boom,for Local Authority’s,and many miscarriages of Justice,with Families being torn apart.
aron said...
4 Jun 09 at 10:08 am
It may be best for the child to stay with the current foster parents, but then it is not the role of social services to decide who will be the best parents, but who is an actual danger to their child.