ShadowPuppet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2024
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 1,176
I think it’s more complicated. Plenty of parents ‘successfully care for’ a baby prior to a baby dying if staying alive is the success factor. Baby P’s mother had previous children who survived. Obviously, there were different issues and red flags for that specific child, but usually there’s also an escalation of existing problems. We have clear video evidence that there were unusual factors in how Victoria was handled, how she was dressed comparatively to the temperature and how the items owned for her were inappropriate. It’s obviously more complex that the cause of death can’t be established and accidental suffocation is suggested, but it’s not co-sleeping to fall asleep sitting up. JMOO, but if she’d been a mother in a house without heating due to poverty, it would still be about the other factors - was it avoidable with simple means, were there other concerns including domestic violence, had agencies tried to help, did she realise the risks, did she feel she had other options, had she dressed the baby warmly to make up for the lack of heat etc. I think CM is well-aware that much of her case is complex and has meaning for many because of the right to make our own choices (and the fact humans will always make some mistakes) as a person and a mother, from the falling asleep element to the environmental lifestyle choice element to the not seeking medical care and free birthing element to the social services and fleeing the country element. It’s a trial full of issues around the rights of women, but also - and this is where CM doesn’t seem to understand - around the rights of a baby to have a safe environment to be nurtured, grow and develop and, ultimately, live.I
I haven't been following the trial closely, but my understanding is she had previously cared for children who all survived.
IMO, there's nothing very complicated or theoretical for a mother in looking after her 2-week old baby. Women living in indigenous tribes do it without any fancy gear or knowledge.
She needed to breastfeed every couple of hours, change her diapers, small stuff. The baby should have slept on her back, but it seems CM, while warned, didn't believe that was really necessary, and I don't think she's the only one.
I think it's a legal conundrum - if CM had stayed in a bedroom somewhere, with a drawer for the baby to sleep in, but had fallen asleep cradling the baby and woken up to her having died, would she still be criminally responsible?
If it was a different woman, without a trust fund and disputes with her relatives and SS, who had fallen asleep cradling her baby after her electricity had been cut off because hubby didn't pay the bill, and the baby had died, would that woman be criminally responsible for causing the baby's death, and gross negligent manslaughter?
I really can't say either way.
ETA: a news report about the number of co-sleeping deaths of babies in Scotland last year: 74.
Safety plea over co-sleeping baby deaths figures
A quarter of infant deaths in Scotland last year involved parents bedsharing with babies, the BBC learns.www.bbc.com
JMO