UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #5

[Emma2007]

In my experience the threshold to remove children from parents are VERY high, so there must have been really serious ongoing concerns for removal of previous children. In addition, parents are offered MANY opportunities to work with agencies in order to be reunited with their children and children are only taken into long term care/ adopted if parents either fail to engage or are found to be unable to meet the childs needs following extensive assessment.
The report that she abandoned one child after birth at hospital suggest to me she possibly refused to enter a mother and baby placement.

It’s interesting that it seems right from the first baby, they were not being open and honest with authorities - with her presenting for antenatal care under a fake name and pretending to be a traveller.
Having a father on sex offender register would be a trigger for SS referral and assessment but would not necessarily mean removal of children, so I would imagine there were other signs of neglect or a failure to engage with children’s social services.

I have worked with families with concealed pregnancies and whilst it does happen that sometimes women are genuinely unaware they are pregnant, most have been families with previous social services involvement who are trying to avoid risking social services becoming involved again. Especially true if they don’t reveal the pregnancy until presenting at a hospital in labour.

This couple had been involved with social services previously, so they both would have known that by concealing the pregnancy and not engaging with SS it would be inevitable that the child would go into immediate foster care or a supervised mother and baby placement while SS could complete assessments for parenting capacity. Therefore I suppose they considered the only opportunity to keep the baby was to go on the run.
The whole situation is very sad

 

[ShadowPuppet]

It does show how what (some may consider) something relatively minor could quickly escalate with SS into repeated, major intervention.
*Edited to change "can" to "could"
JMO

I’m not sure about this. SS is hugely underfunded, it’s a nightmare to try and get huge intervention for a child who’s really in need of it.

This is from 2023, but the government hasn’t suddenly hugely increased funding or really worked on improving services:
“

• Reported cases of children in England being subjected to cruelty or neglect have risen year on year, doubling over 5 years.
• This rise comes as the child protection system faces significant pressures.
• We're calling on the government to invest in a well-resourced child protection system that can respond effectively to reports of cruelty and neglect.”

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/n...lect-offences-in-england-in-the-past-5-years/

The fact SS offered Mother and baby placements suggest they believed it might be possible to help resolve whatever was going on. It also suggests significant repeated issues that were more than just concealing a pregnancy alone. To remove a child from the home, the judge has to be absolutely sure that that child is in serious danger and can’t be supported in the home at that time. To permanently remove a child, they have to sure that every other avenue has been exhausted. Cases can be delayed due to a judge feeling a social worker has not explored every avenue to keep that family together. The major intervention tends to happen when multiple agencies raise concerns eg. Nursery, Midwives, Family - even then in todays underfunded world it sometimes isn’t followed up appropriately.

Equally, though the history of one child being removed would mean they’d be more likely to assess again, however, that new child is a new case and if there aren’t causes for concern, that assessment doesn’t have to result in major interventions at all.

I don’t think in this case it was just about concealed birth, but I do think agencies used it to flag the parents as needing extra support because of multiple concerns (JMO).

We’ve already heard a lot in court about parenting skills that would have been taught and talked about with previous children (CM was in a mother and baby placement, then refused a second iirc?). That includes suggestions of not following safer sleeping guidelines and placing Victoria in a plastic bag, inappropriate clothing plus no warm footmuff or anything in buggy, holding and moving the baby in less safe ways (both in the way she holds under coat on CCTV and moves into buggy), potential for lower breastfeeding than recommended, not seeking medical care after Victoria was exposed to smoke from the car fire etc. A single one of these with a good explanation is very different to all of these in a chaotic situation with parents having a known history of trauma and (JMO) most likely many other things in their parenting history alongside potentially not seeking appropriate medical care themselves (was the smell infection after birth or not - if yes, she needed to ensure she stayed healthy to care for Victoria). IMO, CM admitted she was exhausted and fell asleep. If she’d done everything else (or even the majority of other things) to ensure this didn’t happen, but it happened anyway, it would be a very different case. And imo that’s why the guidelines are supposed to be there, really, to escalate a situation where a child is at risk before this happens.

Sorry, that was a long post I need to learn to be way more concise!

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I should probably clarify that I don't disagree with SS involvement in this case and cases like it, and I agree that the most likely reason for a mother to conceal her pregnancy is because they are already known to have difficulties.

I just didn't like the wording of some of the document in reference to antenatal care.

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I wonder about the 'abandoning' her last baby at the hospital. It sounds like she told staff she was leaving and would be back, and they warned her that it would be classed as abandonment if she left and she left anyway.
Interestingly she came back the next day, and it was allegedly her refusal to submit to a covid test that lead to her leaving again.

I'm wondering if she left the hospital to meet with MG? Was this during the lockdown stages where visitors and birthing partners weren't allowed in the hospital?.

 

[Cardgame]

I’m not sure about this. SS is hugely underfunded, it’s a nightmare to try and get huge intervention for a child who’s really in need of it.

This is from 2023, but the government hasn’t suddenly hugely increased funding or really worked on improving services:
“

• Reported cases of children in England being subjected to cruelty or neglect have risen year on year, doubling over 5 years.
• This rise comes as the child protection system faces significant pressures.
• We're calling on the government to invest in a well-resourced child protection system that can respond effectively to reports of cruelty and neglect.”

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/n...lect-offences-in-england-in-the-past-5-years/

The fact SS offered Mother and baby placements suggest they believed it might be possible to help resolve whatever was going on. It also suggests significant repeated issues that were more than just concealing a pregnancy alone. To remove a child from the home, the judge has to be absolutely sure that that child is in serious danger and can’t be supported in the home at that time. To permanently remove a child, they have to sure that every other avenue has been exhausted. Cases can be delayed due to a judge feeling a social worker has not explored every avenue to keep that family together. The major intervention tends to happen when multiple agencies raise concerns eg. Nursery, Midwives, Family - even then in todays underfunded world it sometimes isn’t followed up appropriately.

Equally, though the history of one child being removed would mean they’d be more likely to assess again, however, that new child is a new case and if there aren’t causes for concern, that assessment doesn’t have to result in major interventions at all.

I don’t think in this case it was just about concealed birth, but I do think agencies used it to flag the parents as needing extra support because of multiple concerns (JMO).

We’ve already heard a lot in court about parenting skills that would have been taught and talked about with previous children (CM was in a mother and baby placement, then refused a second iirc?). That includes suggestions of not following safer sleeping guidelines and placing Victoria in a plastic bag, inappropriate clothing plus no warm footmuff or anything in buggy, holding and moving the baby in less safe ways (both in the way she holds under coat on CCTV and moves into buggy), potential for lower breastfeeding than recommended, not seeking medical care after Victoria was exposed to smoke from the car fire etc. A single one of these with a good explanation is very different to all of these in a chaotic situation with parents having a known history of trauma and (JMO) most likely many other things in their parenting history alongside potentially not seeking appropriate medical care themselves (was the smell infection after birth or not - if yes, she needed to ensure she stayed healthy to care for Victoria). IMO, CM admitted she was exhausted and fell asleep. If she’d done everything else (or even the majority of other things) to ensure this didn’t happen, but it happened anyway, it would be a very different case. And imo that’s why the guidelines are supposed to be there, really, to escalate a situation where a child is at risk before this happens.

Sorry, that was a long post I need to learn to be way more concise!

Not at all, it's a great post.

 

[Emma2007]

Agree that social services are severely underfunded.
In my opinion, for this case to be escalated the way it was when they were first missing, with police putting out alerts in the media, there must have been evidence to make the authorities believe that the baby was at risk of significant harm.
And ultimately this proved to be a legitimate concern.

 

[Schlitze]

Here's the exact spot where the Peugeot broke down and burst into flames.

They were actually quite fortunate it was at an area they could get over the barrier and reach the fence, the undergrowth along most of the other parts look inaccessible. How they climbed the tall fence to get into the football fields I'd like to know, hours after giving birth and carrying a baby and a cat. Dumped most of their stuff in the field, then loitered around Chedworth Crescent where they approached the guy leaving his house who gave them a lift to Morrisons inBolton.

 

[Lolabear]

If cm was offered mother and baby placements with previous children would that be to get her away from mg? If he wasn't an issue I assume they would want to work with the family as a unit rather than split them up.

 

[Emma2007]

If cm was offered mother and baby placements with previous children would that be to get her away from mg? If he wasn't an issue I assume they would want to work with the family as a unit rather than split them up.

I wouldn’t have thought it would be to seperate her from MG, as the SS could just put a safety plan in place to say no contact with him if that was the issue. And offer him supervised contact.
In my experience mother and baby placements are used to keep the baby with the mother whilst she is assessed by SS or while she completes the required work to enable change (eg parenting support or drug/alcohol work)
Sometimes the placements can be with both parents and they are supported to parent their own baby, but under constant supervision to ensure the baby is protected.
The ideal plan would be to move out of a placement once the parents have completed all the work required and can demonstrate that they are able to parent effectively and keep their child safe.

 

[Cardgame]

Here's the exact spot where the Peugeot broke down and burst into flames.
View attachment 480756
They were actually quite fortunate it was at an area they could get over the barrier and reach the fence, the undergrowth along most of the other parts look inaccessible. How they climbed the tall fence to get into the football fields I'd like to know, hours after giving birth and carrying a baby and a cat. Dumped most of their stuff in the field, then loitered around Chedworth Crescent where they approached the guy leaving his house who gave them a lift to Morrisons inBolton.

V interesting.

Has anyone seen anything reported about specifically what caused the fire, other than the car 'breaking down'?

 

[ShadowPuppet]

If cm was offered mother and baby placements with previous children would that be to get her away from mg? If he wasn't an issue I assume they would want to work with the family as a unit rather than split them up.

As pp explained, it could be for many reasons and it’s not possible to jump to conclusions. Mother and baby placements in foster care tend to be just for a single parent, usually the mother who is the primary carer. This can be because it’s not practical to take on multiple adults with complex histories, trauma bonds and (in some cases) potential addictions and a vulnerable baby who may have extra needs as well all at once. It’s also because as far as possible mum and baby are kept together after birth (I think for first year), so, for example, if mum is hospitalised then if it’s possible often baby will come too.

Usually, the placement part of an assessment, so the Mum does the parenting and the foster carers observes and notes down impartially what they see (eg. You wouldn’t write a parent ‘came in drunk’, you’d write something like ‘(name) arrived 2 hours after the agreed time, they appeared unsteady on their feet and smelt of alcohol’). They’d be trained to observe parent-child relationships and pick up on how the baby responds. Usually, they can give guidance on how to do things eg. Making a bottle safely, safer sleep guidance, how to appropriately interact, but they can’t do take on the parenting role. There’s usually a contract where if certain issues occur during the time, it may result in the instant removal of a child. For example, if a parent is found to be drinking or takes the baby to meet an unsafe person. In that situation, it’s really traumatic for everyone because the foster parent often has to take the parent role for the short time the baby is still there (they become the safe adult) and both mum and baby have to leave the placement very quickly.

In residential units, it’s slightly different as there’s a larger number of staff. It’s still an assessment, but some placements do allow for two parents to stay and some allow more than one child too. Some are specialist placements. For example, Phoenix Futures has parent and child rehab centres where parents rehabilitate from addiction, but their children stay with them (they’re not a one strike and you’re out, but parent has to very much prove it won’t happen again and demonstrate understanding of why it happened). In that placement, the children also get specialist care and have their needs assessed. However, parents are still being assessed on their own parenting skills throughout, are actively taught parental skills and how to look after a home/flat.

There are also specific mother and baby units for women with psychosis and other MH issues occurring after birth.

Usually parents are only offered these placements if those supporting them think they can make those changes. For example, if they were in an abusive relationship and it looked as if there was no chance of that changing, they’d be unlikely to be offered a place. If they left that relationship, even if it was their fifth child, they may still be offered that place in the hope they could make the changes this time. Similarly, if they perhaps refused psychiatric medication before and then went on to stabilise and commit to taking it, they might be offered a placement.

Imo, whatever reasons for removal SS had, they still had hopes that, with support and guidance, CM would be able to raise her child and that’s why they offered the placement/s. It’s really sad that she didn’t feel able to take it up in one of the baby’s cases.

Edited to add: If a single parent placement with no risk from partner, often there’d be lots of contact with the partner still, they wouldn’t usually be unable to see them. Sometimes, though location and cost of travel can make things trickier due to lack of placements being available.

 

[Pidgy]

I don't see any reason why MG would have to have become a Christian in prison. He may have already been a Christian as a teenager having been born into a Christian family?
I'm not sure what the qualifications are for belonging to a particular religion, but it seems to me that all crimes are committed by all sides with forgiveness and second chances being the order of the day.

That's the approach in most secular cultures too. E.g. Britain doesn't hang everyone who's committed a crime, or take away their voting rights forever. It tends to be ultra-religious cultures that take a three-chops attitude towards, say, shoplifting: first the left hand, then for the next offence the right, and then finally the head. Then of course there is Singapore.

 

[Pidgy]

The photos arnt being leaked-theyve been shown to the jury and released to the media/public domain..im not getting all this leaked business…?

May I ask a question. Or two. Who do you think released them? And do you think all the photos shown to the jury have been released? Agreed the word "leaked" probably doesn't apply, because there's been no indication that the release has been unlawful.

 

[Pidgy]

This document about concealed pregnancy is from Sussex Child Protection, but the general contents will probably be relevant throughout England. It's interesting as to what could be classed as a criminal offence and which situations would trigger SS intervention.

8.9 Concealed Pregnancy | Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures Manual

sussexchildprotection.procedures.org.uk

Thanks for posting this link.
<modsnip: off topic>

 

[Pidgy]

I wonder about the 'abandoning' her last baby at the hospital. It sounds like she told staff she was leaving and would be back, and they warned her that it would be classed as abandonment if she left and she left anyway.
Interestingly she came back the next day, and it was allegedly her refusal to submit to a covid test that lead to her leaving again.

I'm wondering if she left the hospital to meet with MG? Was this during the lockdown stages where visitors and birthing partners weren't allowed in the hospital?.

Where does the info about the covid test refusal come from? Was it in the prosecution opening speech? If there is testimony to that effect, I suspect that what happened may have been that having left, probably because she knew the baby would be taken or perhaps it (he? she?) had already been taken (abandonment doesn't have to occur when mother and baby are physically together), she comes back - and the reason she comes back can be assumed to be because she wants to see her baby. Her emotions will be all over the place, and there could be arguments sparking off in all directions - placenta this, mask that, which room is my baby in, can I see the ward manager, who on earth are you, by what right, etc. What does it matter that I gave a false name, when you know I'm the baby's mother? There might also be an issue of I'm dripping blood for God's sake, show some compassion. Quite possibly lots of distrust, or raised voices, or fear, quite possibly some wool-pulling by one or more parties. And then someone on the staff thinks well I know I shouldn't let her stay in this waiting area, or this other room, but actually I don't know what official reason I am supposed to give her, so have you had a covid test - please come with me and I will show you where to wait, because the idea is to get her to an appropriate area. And she thinks you're lying to me, I've had enough of this, you're obviously not going to give me my baby. Perhaps she even shouts it. And they say if you don't leave this area we'll call the police. And then someone else comes along, and says I don't know what your real name is, but please come with me, I've got the test here, and it won't take long. And meanwhile she hears someone calling the police. And she says fine, you can shove your !@*! covid test, goodbye. And she leaves the hospital, probably in tears, in a terrible state, and possibly dripping blood. Which from at least one witness's point of view may be recorded or viewed as being to do with a covid test refusal, but it wasn't really to do with one. I hope this makes sense. She just doesn't seem crazy enough to me to have given up a chance to see her baby, perhaps her last chance, purely because she has an objection to having a covid test, which in fact she may not. Who does have an objection anyway? I don't think many who have declined to be vaccinated object on principle to a quick swab test. I know someone who hasn't been vaccinated or tested, but the only reason he hasn't been tested is because nobody ever asked him.

 

[Amaz0nia]

May I ask a question. Or two. Who do you think released them? And do you think all the photos shown to the jury have been released? Agreed the word "leaked" probably doesn't apply, because there's been no indication that the release has been unlawful.

The police released them id assume, they were shown to the jury, then released into the public domain

 

[Nikynoo]

Where does the info about the covid test refusal come from? Was it in the prosecution opening speech? If there is testimony to that effect, I suspect that what happened may have been that having left, probably because she knew the baby would be taken or perhaps it (he? she?) had already been taken (abandonment doesn't have to occur when mother and baby are physically together), she comes back - and the reason she comes back can be assumed to be because she wants to see her baby. Her emotions will be all over the place, and there could be arguments sparking off in all directions - placenta this, mask that, which room is my baby in, can I see the ward manager, who on earth are you, by what right, etc. What does it matter that I gave a false name, when you know I'm the baby's mother? There might also be an issue of I'm dripping blood for God's sake, show some compassion. Quite possibly lots of distrust, or raised voices, or fear, quite possibly some wool-pulling by one or more parties. And then someone on the staff thinks well I know I shouldn't let her stay in this waiting area, or this other room, but actually I don't know what official reason I am supposed to give her, so have you had a covid test - please come with me and I will show you where to wait, because the idea is to get her to an appropriate area. And she thinks you're lying to me, I've had enough of this, you're obviously not going to give me my baby. Perhaps she even shouts it. And they say if you don't leave this area we'll call the police. And then someone else comes along, and says I don't know what your real name is, but please come with me, I've got the test here, and it won't take long. And meanwhile she hears someone calling the police. And she says fine, you can shove your !@*! covid test, goodbye. And she leaves the hospital, probably in tears, in a terrible state, and possibly dripping blood. Which from at least one witness's point of view may be recorded or viewed as being to do with a covid test refusal, but it wasn't really to do with one. I hope this makes sense. She just doesn't seem crazy enough to me to have given up a chance to see her baby, perhaps her last chance, purely because she has an objection to having a covid test, which in fact she may not. Who does have an objection anyway? I don't think many who have declined to be vaccinated object on principle to a quick swab test. I know someone who hasn't been vaccinated or tested, but the only reason he hasn't been tested is because nobody ever asked him.

I think it was part of the prosecutions opening. Last paragraph of this article refers to the Covid test. I’m uncertain why she left the baby and returned the next day, perhaps the baby was poorly? If it was her fourth child, usually if the birth has no complications you’re discharged the same day. Baby girl died due to negligent conduct of parents who went on run, court told | UK news | The Guardian

 

[CaptainNancy]

V interesting.

Has anyone seen anything reported about specifically what caused the fire, other than the car 'breaking down'?

I think it was found to be an electrical fault

 

[Rolypolyoly]

As pp explained, it could be for many reasons and it’s not possible to jump to conclusions. Mother and baby placements in foster care tend to be just for a single parent, usually the mother who is the primary carer. This can be because it’s not practical to take on multiple adults with complex histories, trauma bonds and (in some cases) potential addictions and a vulnerable baby who may have extra needs as well all at once. It’s also because as far as possible mum and baby are kept together after birth (I think for first year), so, for example, if mum is hospitalised then if it’s possible often baby will come too.

Usually, the placement part of an assessment, so the Mum does the parenting and the foster carers observes and notes down impartially what they see (eg. You wouldn’t write a parent ‘came in drunk’, you’d write something like ‘(name) arrived 2 hours after the agreed time, they appeared unsteady on their feet and smelt of alcohol’). They’d be trained to observe parent-child relationships and pick up on how the baby responds. Usually, they can give guidance on how to do things eg. Making a bottle safely, safer sleep guidance, how to appropriately interact, but they can’t do take on the parenting role. There’s usually a contract where if certain issues occur during the time, it may result in the instant removal of a child. For example, if a parent is found to be drinking or takes the baby to meet an unsafe person. In that situation, it’s really traumatic for everyone because the foster parent often has to take the parent role for the short time the baby is still there (they become the safe adult) and both mum and baby have to leave the placement very quickly.

In residential units, it’s slightly different as there’s a larger number of staff. It’s still an assessment, but some placements do allow for two parents to stay and some allow more than one child too. Some are specialist placements. For example, Phoenix Futures has parent and child rehab centres where parents rehabilitate from addiction, but their children stay with them (they’re not a one strike and you’re out, but parent has to very much prove it won’t happen again and demonstrate understanding of why it happened). In that placement, the children also get specialist care and have their needs assessed. However, parents are still being assessed on their own parenting skills throughout, are actively taught parental skills and how to look after a home/flat.

There are also specific mother and baby units for women with psychosis and other MH issues occurring after birth.

Usually parents are only offered these placements if those supporting them think they can make those changes. For example, if they were in an abusive relationship and it looked as if there was no chance of that changing, they’d be unlikely to be offered a place. If they left that relationship, even if it was their fifth child, they may still be offered that place in the hope they could make the changes this time. Similarly, if they perhaps refused psychiatric medication before and then went on to stabilise and commit to taking it, they might be offered a placement.

Imo, whatever reasons for removal SS had, they still had hopes that, with support and guidance, CM would be able to raise her child and that’s why they offered the placement/s. It’s really sad that she didn’t feel able to take it up in one of the baby’s cases.

Edited to add: If a single parent placement with no risk from partner, often there’d be lots of contact with the partner still, they wouldn’t usually be unable to see them. Sometimes, though location and cost of travel can make things trickier due to lack of placements being available.

Another thing to note about mother and baby units is that MG probably wouldn't be allowed to stay due to his conviction and presence on the sex offenders register, but I'm only guessing.

I can see that being a big factor in CM refusing a place in one though, amongst other things of course.

 

[Emma2007]

I think it was part of the prosecutions opening. Last paragraph of this article refers to the Covid test. I’m uncertain why she left the baby and returned the next day, perhaps the baby was poorly? If it was her fourth child, usually if the birth has no complications you’re discharged the same day. Baby girl died due to negligent conduct of parents who went on run, court told | UK news | The Guardian

Worth mentioning that If an unborn baby is on a child protection plan, then there needs to be discharge planning meeting before discharge from hospital. This meeting usually cannot be planned in advance as it is often impossible to be certain what date a baby will be born. If the meeting cannot be convened immediately due to social worker/ other professionals availability, the easiest way around this is to keep the baby in hospital until the meeting can be arranged, even if the baby is otherwise healthy and fit for discharge, often to the frustration of the parent who usually wants to leave.
I have had mothers that leave the baby behind in hospital prior to this meeting and then come back (although this is most often to go and take drugs, which does not appear to be an issue in this case)
Possibly MG was not permitted to visit the maternity ward due to his conviction or Covid restrictions so she left to see him? Just a guess, could be any number of reasons really.