UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #4

[Telltale]

I'm sure that relevant authorities back up their intentions lawfully signed court orders?

Otherwise the law would mean nothing to anyone and no baby would ever be taken to a place of safety at birth.

The person I know of did not volunteer anything, their baby was delivered under supervision and removed very much against their wishes. Which was absolutely the right thing to do in that instance IMO.

But my point being is if CM and MG did not believe their baby was to be 'snatched' then they would have had no reason to flee in the middle of winter, they could have stayed put or even just relocated and not particularly notified anyone.

JMO MOO

Easier to stay under the radar if nobody is looking for you. Social Services can't get an order to take the baby if they don't know it exists.

If they slipped off the radar before anyone else knew she was pregnant, then they were far less likely to be tracked down by safeguarding agencies. They could settle quietly in some unfamiliar area and so long as they didn't draw attention there's a good chance the various databases wouldn't be joined up enough for anyone to catch on that they super shouldn't have a kid.

There are indications they had a few kids taken off them already. I think they knew it was a given at this point, and that the legal and safeguarding restrictions would start immediately after services found out she was pregnant. So the plan was to make sure that they didn't find out. JMO

 

[Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc]

Easier to stay under the radar if nobody is looking for you. Social Services can't get an order to take the baby if they don't know it exists.

If they slipped off the radar before anyone else knew she was pregnant, then they were far less likely to be tracked down by safeguarding agencies. They could settle quietly in some unfamiliar area and so long as they didn't draw attention there's a good chance the various databases wouldn't be joined up enough for anyone to catch on that they super shouldn't have a kid.

There are indications they had a few kids taken off them already. I think they knew it was a given at this point, and that the legal and safeguarding restrictions would start immediately after services found out she was pregnant. So the plan was to make sure that they didn't find out. JMO

I believe that their plan revolved around their belief that the baby was going to be taken away. They were planning to go elsewhere, and their plans all came crashing down after the car broke down. Whether the car breaking down was the stressor or the car starting on fire was, she may have gone into labour a lot earlier than she should have, which led to giving birth in the car and leaving incriminating evidence like the placenta and passport. They likely thought it would burn away with the car. Obviously, if Victoria were premature, that would have added to her chances of not surviving well in the cold. Yet, I feel it wasn't their plan to start with, and when the car broke down, it started a domino effect, with them just running and hiding.
JMO

 

[wowiezowie]

Is there an online source available to follow this case in real time? I presume it's starting today?

 

[rightsaidfred]

Is there an online source available to follow this case in real time? I presume it's starting today?

Not officially, but the local newspaper will sometimes run a live feed in high profile cases like this.

 

[Alyce]

Is there an online source available to follow this case in real time? I presume it's starting today?

They are back in Court on Wednesday 24th - I think for sure there will be a live blog somewhere

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Is there an online source available to follow this case in real time? I presume it's starting today?

Oh the Daily Mail will be all over this one!

 

[CaptainNancy]

Hmmm, actually they are listed as having been in court at 10.30 this morning, marked as ‘DTA under Contempt of Court Act 1981’. And only for a short hearing. Not sure what that means.

 

[JennieM]

Hmmm, actually they are listed as having been in court at 10.30 this morning, marked as ‘DTA under Contempt of Court Act 1981’. And only for a short hearing. Not sure what that means.

@Nikynoo do you know what this means?

 

[bobbymkii]

Oh the Daily Mail will be all over this one!

If only! I thought this trial would be perfect for Liz & Caroline's 'The Trial' podcast, but there seems to be no word.

I hope there is a page posting live updates, otherwise we'll have to make do with articles at the end of the day.

 

[JennieM]

If only! I thought this trial would be perfect for Liz & Caroline's 'The Trial' podcast, but there seems to be no word.

I hope there is a page posting live updates, otherwise we'll have to make do with articles at the end of the day.

This is the DM dedicated page for CM, but they haven’t published anything since 7 days ago.

Constance Marten - Latest news, breaking stories and comment | Daily Mail Online

Get the latest news on Constance Marten from MailOnline.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[bobbymkii]

@Nikynoo do you know what this means?

on court listings I believe "DTA" means "Defendant to attend" in person (as opposed to video link, or not attend at all)

 

[Nikynoo]

@Nikynoo do you know what this means?

Sorry, no I don’t.

 

[nb93x]

This is untrue. An unborn child can be put on a 'Pre-Birth Child Protection Plan' in law, Under the Children Act 1989, here is the legislation:

Legal position relating to unborn children - childlawadvice.org.uk

This page explains the rights of father's before the child is born as well as any Children's Services involvement prior to the mother giving birth

childlawadvice.org.uk

Personally, I only know this for sure as I know someone who had this happen to them. Their unborn baby was put on then 'At Risk' register and the birth was supervised, baby removed 20 minutes after birth - she was allowed 20 mins, I don't know if that is a regular thing or not. There were compelling reasons for this terrible situation.

JMO but I speculate CM and MG were au fait with the situation and this caused them to wish to flee prior the birth. If the authorities weren't aware of the impending child birth, then they'd have had no reason to flee. Unless they were on the run for separate reasons, such as evading other criminal charges or hiding from hit men, which would be extremely coincidental and unlikely to me.

I do wonder if the baby came suddenly and early, possibly as a result of the stress of the car breaking down -or- they began to flee when CM's contractions started and it was a race against time as to where the baby would be born?

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why they didn't rent an Air BnB for six months or something. Also breaking and entering, there's gotta be more viable warm and dry abandoned spaces / empty houses / closed down shops / abandoned industrial unit or such than an allotment shed?

JMO MOO

At risk registers are not the same as care orders.
Until a baby is born, the Local Authority are unable to share any parental responsibility, therefore cannot remove that child unless a court order granted or parents sign a section 20. Police can remove without using PPO powers but this is only for 72 hours

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

At risk registers are not the same as care orders.
Until a baby is born, the Local Authority are unable to share any parental responsibility, therefore cannot remove that child unless a court order granted or parents sign a section 20. Police can remove without using PPO powers but this is only for 72 hours

Can you qualify this information? Under what legislation is this? I have linked the Pre-Birth Child Protection Plan that comes under the Children's Act.

As I said before, I'm sure when agencies take such dramatic action, of course they've got a court order already granted, otherwise it would be unlawful and they'd be in terrible trouble.

Also I'm sure even within the 72 hours of removal by a police there's judges on standby for signing urgent removal orders.

JMO MOO

 

[Lucy6226]

Can you qualify this information? Under what legislation is this? I have linked the Pre-Birth Child Protection Plan that comes under the Children's Act.

As I said before, I'm sure when agencies take such dramatic action, of course they've got a court order already granted, otherwise it would be unlawful and they'd be in terrible trouble.

Also I'm sure even within the 72 hours of removal by a police there's judges on standby for signing urgent removal orders.

JMO MOO

An Interim Care Order will be obtained once the baby is born. You can not have a court order on an unborn child. Once an ICO is granted (usually same day in an emergency hearing) the baby can be removed (upon discharge from the hospital) from the parents whilst further assessment and court proceedings are issued. Then either the child is returned to parents following a positive social work assessment or a full care order is applied for.

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

 

[CaptainNancy]

on court listings I believe "DTA" means "Defendant to attend" in person (as opposed to video link, or not attend at all)

Ah, thank you! That makes sense. Same thing is listed for today. I wonder what the Contempt of Court ref is? The refusal of MG to attend Bromley Magistrates court doesn't involve CM.

 

[pokerowan]

Ah, thank you! That makes sense. Same thing is listed for today. I wonder what the Contempt of Court ref is? The refusal of MG to attend Bromley Magistrates court doesn't involve CM.

I did notice upthread that the Daily Mail hasn't been updating recently. I wonder if the COC Act is being invoked because of something happening specifically with MG being in person, and the press is either avoiding or not allowed to report on it?

 

[Alyce]

Ah, thank you! That makes sense. Same thing is listed for today. I wonder what the Contempt of Court ref is? The refusal of MG to attend Bromley Magistrates court doesn't involve CM.

My take is - based on his previous behaviour and refusal to attend Bromley - the Central Criminal Court are making sure he does attend there today - if he doesn't he will be held in contempt of court.

 

[CaptainNancy]

I did notice upthread that the Daily Mail hasn't been updating recently. I wonder if the COC Act is being invoked because of something happening specifically with MG being in person, and the press is either avoiding or not allowed to report on it?

I am not sure about the protocol of this, but I think the public and press are not allowed in court while the jury are not sitting? But the barristers and judges sort out how to handle various complexities of the case? Though I have been in the public gallery when the judge had conversations with the barristers - I can't remember if the defendant was present or not.

 

[JTT]

This is untrue. An unborn child can be put on a 'Pre-Birth Child Protection Plan' in law, Under the Children Act 1989, here is the legislation:

Legal position relating to unborn children - childlawadvice.org.uk

This page explains the rights of father's before the child is born as well as any Children's Services involvement prior to the mother giving birth

childlawadvice.org.uk

Personally, I only know this for sure as I know someone who had this happen to them. Their unborn baby was put on then 'At Risk' register and the birth was supervised, baby removed 20 minutes after birth - she was allowed 20 mins, I don't know if that is a regular thing or not. There were compelling reasons for this terrible situation.

JMO but I speculate CM and MG were au fait with the situation and this caused them to wish to flee prior the birth. If the authorities weren't aware of the impending child birth, then they'd have had no reason to flee. Unless they were on the run for separate reasons, such as evading other criminal charges or hiding from hit men, which would be extremely coincidental and unlikely to me.

I do wonder if the baby came suddenly and early, possibly as a result of the stress of the car breaking down -or- they began to flee when CM's contractions started and it was a race against time as to where the baby would be born?

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend why they didn't rent an Air BnB for six months or something. Also breaking and entering, there's gotta be more viable warm and dry abandoned spaces / empty houses / closed down shops / abandoned industrial unit or such than an allotment shed?

JMO MOO

The police said during the hunt that neither of them was wanted for any criminal offence. The involvement of literally hundreds of police in the manhunt has yet to be explained. That number was reported long before there were reports of scouring the Sussex countryside and looking for where the baby might be while they were in custody.

FWIW they have not been charged with breaking and entering.

The SS have a procedure for putting out a port alert when a woman who is classed as unfit to raise children she hasn't borne yet goes off the radar, believed pregnant. I'm not aware of any other country in the world that puts any women in this category, or that allows a woman who has just given birth to spend 20 minutes with her baby before they take the baby away, or that has anywhere near the rate of forced adoptions there is in Britain.

This is total speculation, but I won't be surprised if there has been MAJOR friction between the police and the SS in this case, nor if this is still continuing, nor if it leads to a "this must never happen again" type of enquiry - more likely to be pushed for by the police than by the SS. (Whether anything good will come out of it is another matter.)