GUILTY UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged in death of baby Victoria, GUILTY on all counts incl retrial on manslaughter, 5 Jan 2023 #9

[Megnut]

I know it doesn't work like this but how about a sentence equal to the number of years Baby Victoria didn't get?

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Okay this is from the Daily Star, but they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and they have literally called CM a murderer:

Baby killer Constance Marten 'in for awakening’ after 'sneering' at inmates

Constance Marten behaves like she is 'above the jail and everyone in it' a prison source claimed. The murderer mum-of-four is locked up in HMP Bronzefield in Surrey as she awaits sentencing.

www.dailystar.co.uk

"Marten is currently under 24-hour surveillance over fears for her safety and is checked by guards every five minutes. The source said her behaviour continues to be "off" and said the murderer mum was "deluded about what's happened"."

 

[pokerowan]

Okay this is from the Daily Star, but they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and they have literally called CM a murderer:

Baby killer Constance Marten 'in for awakening’ after 'sneering' at inmates

Constance Marten behaves like she is 'above the jail and everyone in it' a prison source claimed. The murderer mum-of-four is locked up in HMP Bronzefield in Surrey as she awaits sentencing.

www.dailystar.co.uk

Is she not? Murder is defined as unlawful killing in UK law. This covers manslaughter too. I thought that was what the jury found she and MG were guilty of.

 

[CaptainNancy]

No murder is a different offence and different category of offence.

But disgraceful non credible rags like the Star will abandon truth and accuracy in favour of alliteration.

I’m surprised they haven’t revived ‘Monster Mansion ‘ as a name for Bronzefield.

The whole thing is gossip / hearsay from an unnamed ‘source’.

 

[pokerowan]

No murder is a different offence and different category of offence.

But disgraceful non credible rags like the Star will abandon truth and accuracy in favour of alliteration.

I’m surprised they haven’t revived ‘Monster Mansion ‘ as a name for Bronzefield.

The whole thing is gossip / hearsay from an unnamed ‘source’.

You're completely right - I didn't realise sources like The Daily Star were allowed on WS!

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Snipped for focus.

Short answer - No and Yes.

Detailed answer for those interested -

Pre-birth assessments are carried out whilst the mother is pregnant and recommendations made. They will either close the referral, refer to Early Help services, recommend a Child In Need plan (S17) or a care order with or without removal (S47). There are other options but these are the main ones.

Court orders can not be made until the baby is born. The hospital usually ring the social worker to advise baby has been born and a likely discharge date. Mother and baby usually stay together until ready for discharge. An emergency court hearing will be held should removal be necessary and an Interim Care Order (ICO) made. Parents will be aware this is happening and will have had the opportunity to seek legal advice in advance.

In really urgent cases an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) made be needed, this is more likely in cases where social services were not aware of the pregnancy or safeguarding issues have been raised for the first time by midwives. Sometimes EPOs are granted without the parents immediate knowledge due to safety concerns, police will usually attend with social services to remove the child safely. Parents will be advised to seek urgent legal advice.

Mothers who have engaged with a pre-birth assessment will be aware of the outcome before the birth, ie if the baby is to be removed from their care. They will also have a detailed care plan which will detail what work needs to be completed and how the Local Authority will support the parents and child throughout proceedings. The pre-birth assessment will also detail the concerns and recommendations. Once the baby is born a full Child & Family assessment can be completed.

Now sometimes parents make radical changes during this period and the recommendation changes and the child is returned to their care. This can happen during the pregnancy, during the ICO or during the Care Order. No permanent decision is made until the final court hearing

The parents are given every opportunity to work with social services to have the child returned to their care. Obviously if they chose not to engage, then it's likely a full care order will be made at the final hearing. Again reunification is possible later down the line, unless the recommendation is adoption of course. Unless adopted, parents will have regular Family Time sessions with the child.

Only judges can action removal of a child. Social services can recommend different outcome but only a judge can make that decision. The judge also will hear evidence from other services, advocate's and also an independent social work assessment. Decisions are not made solely on one social work assessment by the local authority.

Obviously if a parent chooses not to engage (or go on the run) then the court would view that rather dimly. As they would see it as not in the best interests of the child. Recommendations and court hearings can only take place if the Local Authority are aware of the pregnancy/baby in the first place. There is nothing in place regards to unborn babies. It is expected that a mother would do all they can to protect themselves and their baby including engaging with health services.

All MOO in relation to the Children Act 1989

Source :- Children Act 1989

Children Act 1989

An Act to reform the law relating to children; to provide for local authority services for children in need and others; to amend the law with respect to children’s homes, community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations; to make provision with respect to fostering, child minding and...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Many thanks for this. I am trying to assimilate it.

Would the following summary be fair?

Concentrating only on removal:

1. Removal orders are made by courts on SS application only after birth.

2. During pregnancy, SS can decide to apply for removal.

3a. If the SS feel a pregnant woman has "engaged", they will tell her they have decided to apply for removal. They will also tell her the instructions she must follow to avoid it. If SS decide she has followed them well enough, they can change their recommendation, either before birth or after. After birth, SS may allow the woman regular sessions with her child and sometimes they will return the child.

3b. If the SS feel a pregnant woman has not "engaged", they will not tell her they have decided to apply for removal.

4. During labour, hospital will ring SS to let them know and the expected date of discharge, e.g. "the baby will be in this building until next Tuesday".

5. Things that can happen include:

5a. SS can apply for removal under an Interim Care Order (ICO). A court hearing will be held while mother and baby are still in hospital, and parents will be allowed to attend, e.g. laptop on bed. Parents can watch judge make the order.

5b. SS can apply for removal under an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). SS can do this e.g. if they did not know about pregnancy or if midwives refer. No-one tells the mother about the court hearing or the result of it. Once the order is made, police and SS appear without prior notice and remove the baby.

6. The statutory authority is the Children Act 1989.

If I understand correctly, then before a birth, i.e. during pregnancy, a decision to apply for removal will be told to the woman if she "engages" and it won't be if she doesn't.

Two questions.

A. After birth, does the choice between telling the mother about a court hearing and not telling her (i.e. application for ICO or application for EPO) usually depend on the same factor, i.e. engagement or non-engagement? If not, what else can it often depend on?

B. What's the definition of "engagement"? I noticed in the CM and MG case in one of the judgments it was said that MG had met with SS but did not "engage" during his meetings with them, but it was not clear to me what this meant, nor whether he had testified to the contrary. On a very basic level, I don't know whether "engage" means to give information when asked (e.g. what?), to do other stuff when asked (e.g. what?), or both. Might staying with a partner for example be considered non-engagement?

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Is she not? Murder is defined as unlawful killing in UK law. This covers manslaughter too. I thought that was what the jury found she and MG were guilty of.

Manslaughter and murder are both unlawful killing but they are different offences. Murder is a much more serious offence, carrying a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment but with a minimum recommended term.

Hence a person accused of murder can plead "not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility" - a famous example being the serial killer Peter Sutcliffe.

For the record, this is English law. There is no UK criminal law. In Scotland there is no offence called manslaughter. The nearest equivalent is "culpable homicide", which can be either voluntary or involuntary. There is also murder which is more serious than either.

 

[iamshadow21]

Many thanks for this. I am trying to assimilate it.

Would the following summary be fair?

Concentrating only on removal:



If I understand correctly, then before a birth, i.e. during pregnancy, a decision to apply for removal will be told to the woman if she "engages" and it won't be if she doesn't.

Two questions.

A. After birth, does the choice between telling the mother about a court hearing and not telling her (i.e. application for ICO or application for EPO) usually depend on the same factor, i.e. engagement or non-engagement? If not, what else can it often depend on?

B. What's the definition of "engagement"? I noticed in the CM and MG case in one of the judgments it was said that MG had met with SS but did not "engage" during his meetings with them, but it was not clear to me what this meant, nor whether he had testified to the contrary. On a very basic level, I don't know whether "engage" means to give information when asked (e.g. what?), to do other stuff when asked (e.g. what?), or both.

From context, engagement seems to imply being receptive, taking on board what they need to do, what changes need to happen, and reflecting understanding of why.

We know from what has been said that CM was completely resistant to whatever the social workers were trying to get her to modify to make her environment and parenting safe for her children, even from baby number one. She wouldn't accept that a tent wasn't a suitable environment for a newborn, she refused to listen to their safety warnings about cosleeping, she was erratic and traumatising with MG around scheduled visits with her kids in care. She chose MG and their lifestyle again and again over their children's welfare, despite his violence, despite his criminal and sex offender status, and they together blithely kept on keeping on thumbing their noses at any kind of attempt by social services to change until their last baby died.

MOO

 

[pokerowan]

For the record, this is English law. There is no UK criminal law. In Scotland there is no offence called manslaughter. The nearest equivalent is "culpable homicide", which can be either voluntary or involuntary. There is also murder which is more serious than either.

Sorry for the confusion, I was using 'UK law' as shorthand for E+W+S+I. I should have been more specific about that, as well as the fact that I'm aware murder is more serious than manslaughter.

I suppose CM could sue The Daily Star for libel, but I think she'd find it difficult to source legal assistance.

 

[Lucy6226]

Many thanks for this. I am trying to assimilate it.

Would the following summary be fair?

Concentrating only on removal:



If I understand correctly, then before a birth, i.e. during pregnancy, a decision to apply for removal will be told to the woman if she "engages" and it won't be if she doesn't.

Two questions.

A. After birth, does the choice between telling the mother about a court hearing and not telling her (i.e. application for ICO or application for EPO) usually depend on the same factor, i.e. engagement or non-engagement? If not, what else can it often depend on?

B. What's the definition of "engagement"? I noticed in the CM and MG case in one of the judgments it was said that MG had met with SS but did not "engage" during his meetings with them, but it was not clear to me what this meant, nor whether he had testified to the contrary. On a very basic level, I don't know whether "engage" means to give information when asked (e.g. what?), to do other stuff when asked (e.g. what?), or both. Might staying with a partner for example be considered non-engagement?

Answer to your questions -

A - it is not based on engagement at all. It is about the immediate risk to the child, or that child needs to removed that moment and waiting for an ICO hearing is not an option. This is usually in cases of initial referrals, assessment team goes out and discovers a child in immediate risk and needs to find an emergency placement for the child. A child can not be removed until either a court order is granted or the parents sign a section 20 voluntary agreement to place the child in care.
In cases of domestic violence, the parents may only be informed as the children are being removed due to the safety of everyone. Everything would be fully explained to them though once the child is removed from the property. As I say police often attend in these situations. If a baby in born, mother unknown to social services and concerns are raised by the hospital and baby is ready for discharge, an EPO may be needed especially around severe mental health or drug misuse. The mother would be fully Informed. It is rare that parents wouldn't know in advance.

B - You're right the term engagement can be vague. But the judge will be looking for specifics in the court evidence. It's not a case of when a parent doesn't get along with a social worker. It's sustained non engagement, usually across the services that are there to support parents. For example not turning up for contact sessions, not attending meetings, not attending court hearings, not partaking in parenting courses, anger management courses, refusing to be admitted to a mother and baby unit in order to be fully assessed (most mothers want to do this to prove they are capable) and yes not leaving an abusive partner. There will also be evidence from advocates, health services, police. It's a combination of evidence that shows non engagement, not just one aspect or for a short period of time, sat whilst moving engagement dropped for example. Court will also be privy to confidential information that can't be shared with all parties or made public, usually from police intel.


Also to add. Removal and foster care are always the last resort. Social Workers will look for family or friends to be assessed to care for children, the judge expects viability assessments to be completed on anyone wishing to be assessed. You need to show you've approached anyone who may be suitable. It's not as simple as saying these children need to be removed and the judge says okay.

The same works with children returning to the care of their parents. You need to prove why it's now safe for them to do so, why it's no longer in their best interests to stay in foster care. What changes the parents have made since the removal.

No social worker wants to remove children. They want to work with and support parents. Things happen in people's lives beyond their control sometimes. Most parents will do whatever they can to get their children back, unless they prioritise other things.

 

[Lucy6226]

Manslaughter and murder both mean you caused the death of that person. It's the intent behind it.

Did CM & MG deliberately kill Victoria, no I don't think so.

Did their actions directly lead to the death of Victoria? Absolutely.

The jury found them guilty. There is no debate.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

Okay this is from the Daily Star, but they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and they have literally called CM a murderer:

Baby killer Constance Marten 'in for awakening’ after 'sneering' at inmates

Constance Marten behaves like she is 'above the jail and everyone in it' a prison source claimed. The murderer mum-of-four is locked up in HMP Bronzefield in Surrey as she awaits sentencing.

www.dailystar.co.uk

Libel? Slander?
Is her reputation damaged by Daily Star?
IMO
Baby killer - baby murderer - baby manslaughterer …. In regards to CM reputation, there isn’t much of a case, if there is any case at all.

Don’t worry about the Daily Star - they know what they can publish.

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Is it true that the SS assumption is that if a woman's most recent child has been removed, the currently unborn one will be too? If so, how does this work, in the two cases 1) there is engagement, 2) there isn't?

 

[Deleted member 367833]

Libel? Slander?
Is her reputation damaged by Daily Star?
IMO
Baby killer - baby murderer - baby manslaughterer …. In regards to CM reputation, there isn’t much of a case, if there is any case at all.

Don’t worry about the Daily Star - they know what they can publish.

Slander is spoken. True that right now the payout might not be much, but murder is a much more serious offence and it is not one of negligence. Murder requires intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. So yes, a convicted manslaughterer's rep is damaged by being called a murderer. I doubt the Daily Star would get far with saying manslaughter is a type of killing and so is murder, therefore manslaughter is murder. JMO.

The Daily Star publish all sorts of stories. Some of them have been about Elvis Presley, but he won't come alive again to sue them.

 

[Lucy6226]

Is it true that the SS assumption is that if a woman's most recent child has been removed, the currently unborn one will be too? If so, how does this work, in the two cases 1) there is engagement, 2) there isn't?

A pre-birth assessment is completed for every pregnancy.

If there has been significant improvements since the last child removed then there's no reason the new baby would be removed. The baby may be placed on a Child in Need plan once born to ensure mother and baby have access to any support needed. This is especially important with mothers who've had multiple babies removed and have never raised a child fully before. It's not to say they wouldn't be able to care for the baby, just there's trauma linked to having multiple children removed. The impact on the children in care or adopted is also huge, imagine hearing your parents got to 'keep' the latest sibling.

If concerns remain then a full assessment will be completed and if the threshold is met then the baby may be placed on a Child in Need plan, Child Protection plan or an application to court recommending removal. Depending on the concerns and current circumstances of the parents.

I think years ago it may have been the case that it was an automatic process of removal. But the threshold for removal is so high now and it takes a lots of evidence for the judge to make that decision. Years ago a child living in poverty might have been removed, now the cost of living crisis means thousands of children are living in extreme poverty. If a social worker sees no food in the cupboards, it's not removal, it's arranging food parcels, gas and electric top ups. Times have changed.

All moo

 

[Deleted member 367833]

From context, engagement seems to imply being receptive, taking on board what they need to do, what changes need to happen, and reflecting understanding of why.

We know from what has been said that CM was completely resistant to whatever the social workers were trying to get her to modify to make her environment and parenting safe for her children, even from baby number one. She wouldn't accept that a tent wasn't a suitable environment for a newborn, she refused to listen to their safety warnings about cosleeping, she was erratic and traumatising with MG around scheduled visits with her kids in care. She chose MG and their lifestyle again and again over their children's welfare, despite his violence, despite his criminal and sex offender status, and they together blithely kept on keeping on thumbing their noses at any kind of attempt by social services to change until their last baby died.

MOO

In practice does engagement boil down to a person agreeing that

* they have been wrong (meaning they have been a bad mother),
* they accept the principle that they will make a promise that's acceptable to the SS (including e.g. ending a relationship with a man), and
* they will act on their promise (including by letting SS verify they're not just pretending)?

I tend to think things would be much better if the state's approach were to follow criminal-law thinking and procedures, and if

* removal of a child were viewed as a sentence for a crime
* with a criminal standard of proof required, in a criminal court, and
* with suspicion that a crime has been committed being investigated by the police.

Also if drugs are involved, crack down harder - again, using the criminal law. E.g. I'd have no problem with being off your head on drugs when you're supposed to be caring for a child becoming a specific offence and a serious one, with the criminal law being properly enforced.

In this case, it bugs me that MG was treated as having pushed CM out of a window when she was pregnant, causing serious injuries in which she sounds very lucky not to have lost the baby, and she says no he didn't and that he has never laid a finger on her - and yet she is not being believed, and he was never arrested, let alone convicted.

I can't see that intellectual recourse to "balance of probabilities" thinking should count for much either, because it's not as if there has even been the kind of hearing that's required before a court determines a disputed claim for a civil wrong.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 367833]

A pre-birth assessment is completed for every pregnancy.

If there has been significant improvements since the last child removed then there's no reason the new baby would be removed. The baby may be placed on a Child in Need plan once born to ensure mother and baby have access to any support needed. This is especially important with mothers who've had multiple babies removed and have never raised a child fully before. It's not to say they wouldn't be able to care for the baby, just there's trauma linked to having multiple children removed. The impact on the children in care or adopted is also huge, imagine hearing your parents got to 'keep' the latest sibling.

If concerns remain then a full assessment will be completed and if the threshold is met then the baby may be placed on a Child in Need plan, Child Protection plan or an application to court recommending removal. Depending on the concerns and current circumstances of the parents.

I think years ago it may have been the case that it was an automatic process of removal. But the threshold for removal is so high now and it takes a lots of evidence for the judge to make that decision. Years ago a child living in poverty might have been removed, now the cost of living crisis means thousands of children are living in extreme poverty. If a social worker sees no food in the cupboards, it's not removal, it's arranging food parcels, gas and electric top ups. Times have changed.

All moo

Thanks for this.

Is the pre-birth assessment for every pregnancy an SS procedure for all women on their list who they know to be pregnant, or does this cover just normal midwify stuff in preparation for all births?

Also the number of babies removed within days of birth has risen in England in recent years.

The source for this is the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, as reported in the Guardian in January this year:

‘I can’t sleep, I’m terrified’: the rise in mothers having their babies taken away within days of giving birth in England

Charity finds ‘inhumane’ system is forcing women to defend themselves in court, sometimes from their hospital beds, while in fear of having their newborn child taken from them

www.theguardian.com

 

[iamshadow21]

In practice does engagement boil down to a person agreeing that

* they have been wrong (meaning they have been a bad mother),
* they accept the principle that they will make a promise that's acceptable to the SS (including e.g. ending a relationship with a man), and
* they will act on their promise (including by letting SS verify they're not just pretending)?

I tend to think things would be much better if the state's approach were to follow criminal-law thinking and procedures, and if

* removal of a child were viewed as a sentence for a crime
* with a criminal standard of proof required, in a criminal court, and
* with suspicion that a crime has been committed being investigated by the police.

Also if drugs are involved, crack down harder - again, using the criminal law. E.g. I'd have no problem with being off your head on drugs when you're supposed to be caring for a child becoming a specific offence and a serious one, with the criminal law being properly enforced.

In this case, it bugs me that MG was treated as having pushed CM out of a window when she was pregnant, causing serious injuries in which she sounds very lucky not to have lost the baby, and she says no he didn't and that he has never laid a finger on her - and yet she is not being believed, and he was never arrested, let alone convicted.

I can't see that intellectual recourse to "balance of probabilities" thinking should count for much either, because it's not as if there has even been the kind of hearing that's required before a court determines a disputed claim for a civil wrong.

JMO

We can't go back to the days of believing women without question when they say they walked into a door, though. Especially when there is the safety of infants in question.

MGs behaviour after the incident in question does not suggest he had her best interests first. He wasn't letting her be treated, and she had damage to multiple organs. He didn't even call emergency, someone else did when they heard her cries for help. That is not the behaviour of a caring spouse.

MOO

 

[Cardgame]

Slander is spoken. True that right now the payout might not be much, but murder is a much more serious offence and it is not one of negligence. Murder requires intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. So yes, a convicted manslaughterer's rep is damaged by being called a murderer. I doubt the Daily Star would get far with saying manslaughter is a type of killing and so is murder, therefore manslaughter is murder. JMO.

The Daily Star publish all sorts of stories. Some of them have been about Elvis Presley, but he won't come alive again to sue them.

I think she might have a job to prove in court that it had "damaged her reputation".

 

[Lucy6226]

Thanks for this.

Is the pre-birth assessment for every pregnancy an SS procedure for all women on their list who they know to be pregnant, or does this cover just normal midwify stuff in preparation for all births?

Also the number of babies removed within days of birth has risen in England in recent years.

The source for this is the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, as reported in the Guardian in January this year:

‘I can’t sleep, I’m terrified’: the rise in mothers having their babies taken away within days of giving birth in England

Charity finds ‘inhumane’ system is forcing women to defend themselves in court, sometimes from their hospital beds, while in fear of having their newborn child taken from them

www.theguardian.com

All women with an open SS case. Midwives can refer mothers in for assessment though if they have concerns.

Regarding the Guardian story you linked:-

'In 2022-23 nearly 3,000 newborn babies were subject to care proceedings in England...This is an increase of nearly 20% since 2012-13, and experts and lawyers argue that earlier intervention and better support from a range of overstretched and underfunded services would have made it possible for many of these babies to remain with their mothers.

The NFJO and others are worried about the sheer number of these cases, although they do acknowledge that some babies will need to be taken into care to keep them safe, as a result of issues including addiction and domestic violence. Sometimes this will be triggered by a genuinely unexpected emergency, such as a mother having a psychotic episode'

I wanted to highlight the bolded points.

The increase is since 2012/3, over a decade.

They quite rightly point out the lack of services available due to lack of funding or simply being overstretched. There are services that simply don't exist now. We are aware of the ever increasing strain on the NHS and mental health services and I feel that feeds into these rises too. It's about seeing the bigger picture. Poverty has increased as has the cost of living since 2012.

Also a separate note about placements - Placements are becoming harder to find, with children being placed miles away from their hometown. Private companies are setting up children's homes and charging thousands per week per child. Fostering placement are facing instability (again the link to mental health and CAMHS). So again removing a child is always the last resort.

Do I think hospital removals could be handled better, absolutely. Some of the stories are horrific and inhumane, but you don't hear of the cases that were done with empathy and compassion.

There are reforms coming that will address some of these issues.