Birth-First Parent Blog

10/22/07

Let's Take Babies Away... Just In Case!

Posted by : Jenna Hatfield in Birth-First Parent Blog at 08:08 am , 497 words, 586 views  
Categories: Articles
My mind is spinning a bit. I'm kind of angry, annoyed and sad. And angry, in case I forgot to mention it. Why? In a news story out of the UK, an expectant mother might lose her baby. Just in case she hurts it. She hasn't done anything during the pregnancy to cause them to think that she would hurt her own child. But, still, they want to take her baby away within thirty minutes of the little girl's birth.

You heard me. Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes with a child that she hasn't harmed. And doesn't plan to harm. Thirty minutes. And gone. Poof. Done.

It seems that the mother, Fran, had some mental health issues as a teenager. (Can we pause for a minute while the readers in our audience who had mental health problems as a teenager raise their hands? I'll pause even longer because statistics say that vast majority of teens have or had some kind of issue during those tumultuous years!!) She engaged in self-harm coping techniques and was treated at a psychiatric hospital for borderline personality disorder. Somehow, those two things together make her "likely to suffer from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy." Okay. That seems to be a stretch. But okay.

SPONSOR
http://www.omnitrace.com/Birth-Family.html

Now, it's not as if Fran isn't cooperating. She has agreed to enter a mother and child unit so that she can be supervised while caring for her child. But no, they want to take the baby away.

I'm pretty darn livid about this as I sit here, an ocean away from the child-stealing drama. First of all, social services were involved in the case because of an unidentified domestic issue. Fran, having recovered from her mental health issues and now living a normal life, willingly gave the social workers information about her mental health history. Why wouldn't she? She has since recovered from various issues and has shown that she copes with stress like the "rest of us." Her psychiatrist agrees. Of course, that's all too bad, so sad for this mother-to-be who was honest with the social workers. They just want to take the baby.

They just want to take the baby... even though this mother is willing to comply with twenty-four hour surveillance.

I'm just so angry.

And of course, when you read the comments of the post, you see that another child who was under watch by these same social service workers died even though the agency claimed to have visited the child 47 times in 50 days. Yet they did nothing. Perhaps they're trying to make up for the cases that they've blown by harassing this young mother and her unborn child?

My thoughts and prayers go out to this mother. I hope and pray that she does not join the ranks of birth mothers around the world. Such a sad, angry story in general.

//
For more, read:

1. Avoid Murder! Place Your Baby For Adoption!

2. Now That's Some Reformed Thinking.

3. Article on Adoption Subtly Coerces Mother.

//
Photo Credit.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Kelly [Member] Email · http://fost-adopt.adoptionblogs.com
This wasn't the post I was expecting to read, and yes, it ticks me off too. If we remove a child from a mother simply on mental health issues, I won't have my kids (depression & anxiety), and the foster care system will be far more overcrowded than it already is. This is just plain nuts.

We had a little girl for 14 months that was removed "at birth" which meant she did not leave the hospital with her birth mother. However, this mother already had 4 children in foster care at the time (one of them in my house) because of severe neglect. In that case, it was justified. This most certainly, is not.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 08:51
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Kelly; Definitely understand and support cases where it is justified. But, like you said, if we're taking kids away from parents with ANY history, officially documented or not, of mental health issues, no one is ever going to parent. Ugh, ugh, ugh!
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 10:14
Comment from: Chromesthesia [Member] Email
Some am I.
If it was a case like this-"We had a little girl for 14 months that was removed "at birth" which meant she did not leave the hospital with her birth mother. However, this mother already had 4 children in foster care at the time (one of them in my house) because of severe neglect. In that case, it was justified."
Or if severe drug use were involved with no intention of quitting that would be one thing, but this is just evil and wrong.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 11:16
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
I'm in total agreement Chromesthesia. Evil and wrong seems to fit it well. Good call.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 11:32
Comment from: roni [Member] Email · http://rondidondi.wordpress.com
As I was reading all I could think of was OMG how HORRIBLE!
I agree with evil and wrong!!!
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 12:13
Comment from: Deb Donatti [Member] Email · http://open.adoptionblogs.com
If I am not mistaken, this woman was suffering from mental issues/ depression, as an after effect of being RAPED when she was a young girl.
She was violated, abused, RAPED for pete's sake! So now victims must be punished by having their children removed? The system believes that it should rape her again?

Evil and wrong does not even begin to scratch the surface on this one IMO.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 13:02
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Oh, gosh, that puts an even worse spin on it, Deb. :( How awful.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 13:03
Comment from: Deb Donatti [Member] Email · http://open.adoptionblogs.com
Yup, here is one of the other articles...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/26/nbaby126.xml
and in that they state...
Miss Lyon came under scrutiny because she had a mental health problem when she was 16 after being physically and emotionally abused by her father and raped by a stranger.


Wonder what happened to her abusers?

PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 13:34
Comment from: JudyK [Member] Email · http://justenjoyhim.wordpress.com/
Oh, for the love of!! That is one of the most ludicrous -- not to mention cruelest -- things I've ever heard.

Their reasoning is incredibly faulty. Plenty of mothers have had or have mental health issues, have dealt with and/or are dealing with the mental health issues just fine and make very good mothers. Are we back in the dark ages here? This is not only a horrendous blow to mothers but also sets the understanding of mental illness back several decades.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 14:35
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
My brain simply cannot wrap around what the heck social services thinks they are doing with this case, especially learning about the prior abuse and rape. I simply cannot understand it. I'm actually really, really angry now.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 16:07
Comment from: Nicole [Member] Email
Okay, several comments, bear with me... this case makes me so angry--triggers my adoption issues AND my mental illness discrimination issues all at once. Just pushes all the wrong buttons. Anyway.

"But, like you said, if we're taking kids away from parents with ANY history, officially documented or not, of mental health issues, no one is ever going to parent."

Well, right... and not to mention, no one would ever seek treatment for a mental illness. Who would voluntarily walk into a psychiatrist's or counselor's office knowing they might be diagnosed with an illness that might cause them to lose their child (or a future child)? This is a SERIOUSLY bad idea, for multiple reasons.

"My brain simply cannot wrap around what the heck social services thinks they are doing with this case, especially learning about the prior abuse and rape. I simply cannot understand it."

This is a result of Tony Blair's brilliant (cough) idea for moving children out of foster care. The UK is now awarding monetary incentives to social services departments and social workers who increase their rates of adoption. Sounds okay on the surface, right? Only problem is, the social workers, realizing that no one wants to adopt the children ALREADY in care (because they're not cuddly infants and toddlers), decide that in order to boost their adoption rates, they'll just take MORE children into care--adoptable children, children they KNOW families will want to adopt (read: age four or under).

So now the child protective system in the UK is going haywire. Infants and toddlers are being removed for all kinds of bogus reasons (though, oddly--ahem--enough, a lot of them seem to involve mental illness...cough, cough). Fran's story is not the first of its kind, nor is it likely to be the last.

Sickening. Trampling on expectant mother rights, discriminating against the mentally ill.... they ought to be glad they're an ocean away from me, because I might have to actually unleash some anger on them if they weren't.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 19:15
Comment from: Jenna Hatfield [Member] Email · http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/
Nicole; I knew this would push some of your buttons and was hoping you would chime in. Thank you for the further explanation as to what the HECK is going on over there. Obviously, this isn't my field of expertise and, quite frankly, if it was, I might go a bit (more) nutty.
PermalinkPermalink 10/22/07 @ 20:27
Comment from: Sandra Hanks Benoiton [Member] Email · http://international.adoptionblogs.com/
I've been following this story for a couple of months now, and have found that one of the biggest issues ... and Nicole is absolutely right about the incentives-gone-wrong, which is a huge part of the problem ... has to do with the British system of 'official secrets'.

Family court hearings are so private that families are legally bound not to say a word to ANYONE about the happenings inside. Fran is pushing this to the limit by taking her case public. They'be been getting away with this for a very long time there simply because talking about it could put a mother in jail.

Apparently, Gordon Brown is doing a rethink, but it wouldn't hurt for folks to give him a bit more to think about.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA

Fax:+442079250918

email through this site:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page821.asp


PermalinkPermalink 10/23/07 @ 04:02
Comment from: Nicole [Member] Email
Thank you for the contact info for Gordon Brown, Sandra. I'll be writing to him this evening.
PermalinkPermalink 10/23/07 @ 09:51
Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register

Login To AdoptionBlogs.com

Search

Sponsors

http://www.omnitrace.com

Misc

Subscribe to Birth-First Parent Blog

 Enter your email address:
 

 

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 213