Recovered/Located UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon & Newborn, left a broken down car on motorway, Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you have a link to the exact law you are citing, please?
S47 of the Children Act 1989 seems very relevant

47Local authority’s duty to investigate.​

(1)Where a local authority—
...
(b)have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,

the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
 
View attachment 397674
View attachment 397675

Jan 24 2023 rbbm.
''It's more than two weeks since a couple went missing with their newborn child and police say they are "extremely concerned" the family has been camping in sub-zero temperatures.''

''Police appealed directly to Ms Marten, saying their "number one priority" is to keep her "beautiful newborn safe".
GMP also insisted officers "do not wish to interrupt their family life".
a softening in the tone.
This may help.
Here's hoping.
 
Thank you.
Do you have the exact link, please?
That's exactly what I'm looking for.
a section 47 triggers enquiries into child protection, e.g. a social services conference, deciding whether the child is at risk or in need. the children act also includes the paramountcy principle from the UN convention of the rights of the child (UNCRC) which is that every decision taken has to be in the best interests of the child - hence the importance of finding CM and MG in this case.
 
Just a thought, but it would be helpful to know just a teensy bit more about the habits/hobbies of both CM and MG- things like favorite foods or music, on the off chance that maybe they (well MG) might be inclined to slip off to see a band, grab a beer & food in the pub?
Was there anything special happening in London that might be of particular interest to the couple in the first week or so of January? imo, speculation.
 
a section 47 triggers enquiries into child protection, e.g. a social services conference, deciding whether the child is at risk or in need. the children act also includes the paramountcy principle from the UN convention of the rights of the child (UNCRC) which is that every decision taken has to be in the best interests of the child - hence the importance of finding CM and MG in this case.
thank you. I spent hours chasing it down but was unable to pin it.
 
Just a thought, but it would be helpful to know just a teensy bit more about the habits/hobbies of both CM and MG- things like favorite foods or music, on the off chance that maybe they (well MG) might be inclined to slip off to see a band, grab a beer & food in the pub?
Was there anything special happening in London that might be of particular interest to the couple in the first week or so of January? imo, speculation.
Good thinking..
Foods particularly...
I wonder?
 
Thank you.
Do you have the exact link, please?
That's exactly what I'm looking for.
There is also a UK report I found, has a short summary under 'legal framework' of the case law (common law decisions by judges in past trials), the legislation and the UN human rights code in regard to infants.

In general, this comes under the concept of "duty of care". Infants are utterly helpless humans, they are not just personal property of their parents.

Warning: opening this link automatically downloads a 1 MB file!

 
Last edited:
There is also a UK report I found, has a short summary under 'legal framework' of the case law (common law decisions by judges in past trials), the legislation and the UN human rights code in regard to infants.

In general, this comes under the concept of "duty of care". Infants are utterly helpless humans, they are not personal property of their parents.

Warning: opening this link automatically downloads a 1 MB file!

But we don't have information that either this nor section 47 have been invoked in this case, do we?
 
But we don't have information that either this nor section 47 have been invoked in this case, do we?
No, I think authorities would rather use persuasion and cooperation, rather than go the legal route.

The report indicates no action can occur before birth. Seems to me, there was probably concern/calling authorities before the baby was born, that's why the parents are -seemingly-paranoid and on the run.
JMO
 
No, I think authorities would rather use persuasion and cooperation, rather than go the legal route.

The report indicates no action can occur before birth. Seems to me, there was probably concern/calling authorities before the baby was born, that's why the parents are -seemingly-paranoid and on the run.
JMO
I'm just wary, very wary without facts.
Because none of this makes any sense to me.
None of it.
Funds =access to good lawyers.
Funds=housing warmth, shelter, ability to meet educational and medical needs of children in one's care.
Funds=even an opportunity to hide what one does not want known
Funds=ability to live without recourse to the welfare system.
Funds=ability to live in privacy.
 
I'm just wary, very wary without facts.
Because none of this makes any sense to me.
None of it.
Funds =access to good lawyers.
Funds=housing warmth, shelter, ability to meet educational and medical needs of children in one's care.
Funds=even an opportunity to hide what one does not want known
Funds=ability to live without recourse to the welfare system.
Funds=ability to live in privacy.
I agree. I used the word 'paranoid' deliberately. I assume there is some kind of mental health issues here, it is not rational behaviour.
 
I wonder if there is a safe way for them to even just get in touch and say that the baby is okay without the fear of being tracked down via GPS or phone signals etc?
I think they could using a burner phone or contacting a friend and asking them to make contact on her behalf?
Emailing a photograph from a burner email account containing the latest edition of some newspaper would at least be proof of life.
LE have expressed concern about the baby.
What about the mother, presumably having given birth in a vehicle and then having to walk for such a long long time?
I know that was on 7th but they're using cash..no tracking available..
 
I agree. I used the word 'paranoid' deliberately. I assume there is some kind of mental health issues here, it is not rational behaviour.
Indeed. I think these two are past the point, mentally, of having hobbies and friends. Not one friend has been interviewed who has spoken to either of them in the past few years. You don't go for a pint and a curry and then return to your tent where your newborn infant is living without heat or running water. MG is wearing plastic bags on his feet at this point, both likely smell rather potent from wearing the same clothes for weeks on end. I think these people are living completely outside of society.

I also think the access to funds is a moot point, because they aren't using their funds rationally. CM had at some point enough cash to buy and maintain a comfortable home, yet they've been evicted multiple times. They seem to have funds to spend on long, meandering taxi rides. They seem to be past the point of using any funds the way you or I would--to secure shelter and get out of the cold. Note that they had access to funds and bought a tent but apparently no property footwear for MG. I don't think rational thought can be applied to these two's actions at this point.
 
Just a thought, but it would be helpful to know just a teensy bit more about the habits/hobbies of both CM and MG- things like favorite foods or music, on the off chance that maybe they (well MG) might be inclined to slip off to see a band, grab a beer & food in the pub?
Was there anything special happening in London that might be of particular interest to the couple in the first week or so of January? imo, speculation.
I doubt very much they will be socialising with a 3 week old baby, while police are trying to locate them and with no where to live, not easy to get a baby sitter in those circumstances so think interests/socialising is probably the furthest from their minds right now-theyre just trying to survive & hide. Seems since 2016 they have lived a reclusive life & MG dosnt drink. It dosnt sound like they had any social life.
 
Indeed. I think these two are past the point, mentally, of having hobbies and friends. Not one friend has been interviewed who has spoken to either of them in the past few years. You don't go for a pint and a curry and then return to your tent where your newborn infant is living without heat or running water. MG is wearing plastic bags on his feet at this point, both likely smell rather potent from wearing the same clothes for weeks on end. I think these people are living completely outside of society.

I also think the access to funds is a moot point, because they aren't using their funds rationally. CM had at some point enough cash to buy and maintain a comfortable home, yet they've been evicted multiple times. They seem to have funds to spend on long, meandering taxi rides. They seem to be past the point of using any funds the way you or I would--to secure shelter and get out of the cold. Note that they had access to funds and bought a tent but apparently no property footwear for MG. I don't think rational thought can be applied to these two's actions at this point.
totally agree. I didnt see your comment before i wrote mine on the socialising aspect. It sounds like a very insular, unhealthy toxic relationship. Is so sad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
1,675
Total visitors
1,786

Forum statistics

Threads
600,068
Messages
18,103,293
Members
230,982
Latest member
mconnectseo
Back
Top