Sadly, it's not uncommon for some parents to be in a cycle of repeated child removal and pregnancy.
"More than 7,000 mothers had 22,000 children removed in last 7 years"
UK - Constance Marten & Mark Gordon charged, Newborn (found deceased), Bolton Greater Manchester, 5 Jan 2023 #6
- Thread starter StillDiggin
- Start date
-
NE NE - Chance Englebert, 25, Gering, 6 July 2019 (new father) #2- Latest: Songbird1973
-
OK Michael James MacDougal, now 19, missing from Stilwell since 10 December 2020- Latest: feels_close_to_home
- Status
"More than 7,000 mothers had 22,000 children removed in last 7 years"
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2023
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 1,675
Is there a live link for today?
I can’t find one. It was assumed there would be a 2pm start (based on yesterday's Argus) but the adjournment info says until 00:00. Does that mean adjourned until tomorrow, perhaps?
Attachments
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 11,200
Can’t help but conclude that those who take risks & harm children, Also take risks and harm babies during pregnancy, increasing likelihood that their children are born with completely unavoidable complications.
Moms/partners who don’t protect their babies from harmful situations and substances should be prosecuted and definitely have children removed.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
- Reaction score
- 61,268
www.courtserve.net
The Crown Court at Central Criminal Court - Court 5
The Crown Court at Central Criminal Court - Court 5
Daily Courtroom List for Thursday 22 February 2024 | ||||||||||||
|
I wish there was more acknowledgement of the fact that as well as being inadequately mothered, to get to the point of removal into care, every single one of those 22,000 children must also have been inadequately fathered.
Does anyone know what the last line refers to, please:
"DTA, Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981"
I can only find reference to DTA meaning the Drug Trafficking Act, but I would assume that's not correct in this case?
I wonder if we'll be seeing another change in legal representation after this latest adjournment?
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA)?
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,103
- Reaction score
- 13,317
I wondered if maybe they just don't do contraception? I read back in the previous thread that CM refused a covid test because she said it didn't fit with their natural lifestyle or something like that, so I wouldn't be surprised if she wouldn't take any form of hormonal contraceptive, and if he also won't use condoms, well there it is really, so maybe they didn't plan to have the babies but they didn't plan not to either?.
Maybe Duty to appear? I'm guessing, I have no idea if thats a real thing!
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 58,230
- Reaction score
- 175,154
rbsbm.
Granted he was a teenager, but 4 1/2 hours of S.A. with children sleeping nearby?
The ''woman he loves'', doesn't stand a chance of not getting preggers! imo, speculation.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,031
- Reaction score
- 61,268
Defendant To Attend
I presume, in this instance, defendants are obliged to attend court, otherwise they will be held in contempt
I think its quite appropriate for these two accused, given their tendency to not appear. MOO of course
Defendant to Attend I think.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2022
- Messages
- 4,249
- Reaction score
- 31,509
Please remember that many women are vulnerable or abused or profoundly unwell. For those who are deemed too incapacitated to look after their children but not criminals there is rightly (IMO) no criminal culpability. Children are taken into care for all sorts of reasons and sometimes it's temporary.
It seems that in this instance, the accused are both being deemed answerable to charges of crimes relating to the death of their baby and that is not the case for the vast majority of people who have social services involved with their children, albeit sadly we hear most about the most extreme instances.
JMO MOO
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2019
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 3,982
It is Defendants to Attend - the contempt clause usually refers to reporting restrictions and might refer to any details about the 4 older children taken into care, but could probably refer to their attendance. But they are on remand so can't abscond, and I'm not sure why their right to not attend would be curtailed more than the many villains who pass through the Old Bailey.
Just a guess but might it have something to do with necessary administrative purposes? JMO
ShadowPuppet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2024
- Messages
- 92
- Reaction score
- 1,183
I think the prosecution side depends on the situation, plenty of families need short term SS support (or even long term) but can pull through. Equally, most are dealing with lots of issues themselves and prosecution doesn’t solve their issues or help their children. But absolutely re avoidable complications. So many children in the UK Care system and adoptees have FASD or were exposed to substances during utero. Very sad and very hard to diagnose as facial features only occur in a small number of cases and there’s a huge spectrum of effects. There’s only one UK clinic able to diagnose in older children as far as I’m aware. Equally, due to birth mothers not always seeking antenatal care and not disclosing alcohol use, it adds to complications knowing the risks for a child you are matching with in the adoption process and much harder for a doctor to diagnose as they can’t generally without knowing the child was exposed to alcohol in utero.
In this case, it’s more to do with repeated behaviours that both parents had been repeatedly warned were unsafe and had turned down support for. It’s not super easy to get a residential placement, so to turn it down and subsequently lose the children because of that is really sad. It doesn’t paint a picture of the poor hunted victims with no support that CM and MG suggest - but, of course, all that is JMOO, and CM had certainly been traumatised in the past, aristocrat or not (often the case in child protection cases tbh). I can’t comment on MG because we haven’t found much out about his life bar criminal convictions, but I’d assume he has trauma in history too.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,103
- Reaction score
- 13,317
Observant-ADHD-ENFP-BSc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2022
- Messages
- 928
- Reaction score
- 6,887
Thank you for enlightening me. I was indeed under the misconception that there was a law of common law relationships. It's been several years since I lived there.
It wasn't what I was trying to get at, as I was pointing towards CM and MG considering themselves as 'married', yet CM acknowledged it wasn't recognised as a legal marriage in the UK.
ETA: grammar
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 850
- Reaction score
- 6,552
"Gordon was also informed that Marten had explained the child died after she fell asleep holding her but that he had advised her to say it was a 'cot death', jurors heard."
Extremely amateur language analysis attempt coming up, I found some of MG's statements in interview interesting.
There's definitely some centring of her role and power in what he says here, if reporting is accurate:
'i would do anything for her and she loves children' ...he told officers Marten was suffering from PTSD ...
[suggestion she is unstable? Suggestion he is going along with her desires?]
'She is a very special person. She's an awesome woman and she would never do anything to harm a child under any circumstances,' he said.
[Seeding idea of her harming a child, even by stating it in the negative]
He added that Marten was a 'beautiful, intelligent woman' and he was a 'man who loves his wife'.
[Subtext: she has the power, and power over me, I'm just a simple man in love]
'I love her, I would do anything for her ... it's her child,' Gordon told police.
[Again, suggesting she has power over him, and distancing himself from the child]
'She has actually experienced the post-traumatic distress and she was in a situation where she was quite vulnerable and that led to things that were never predictable on either of our parts.
[Distancing himself from the emotions and the situation, making it *her* situation not his]
'...I have done nothing really wrong. I have supported my wife. Tried my best to be a husband. And I don't think she has done anything wrong, actually, in trying to take care of her child.'
[I have done nothing wrong, I don't *think* she has done anything wrong: additional qualifier undermining her innocence, followed by more distancing]
... you have to understand four children have gone to social services, she's a good mother ...
[An odd statement!]
... I do love her very much and I don't find her to be at blame at all because she was in post-traumatic stress.'
[Is she not to blame because she didn't do anything, or because her mental state means she can't be held responsible? He is suggesting the latter]
Extremely amateur language analysis attempt coming up, I found some of MG's statements in interview interesting.
There's definitely some centring of her role and power in what he says here, if reporting is accurate:
'i would do anything for her and she loves children' ...he told officers Marten was suffering from PTSD ...
[suggestion she is unstable? Suggestion he is going along with her desires?]
'She is a very special person. She's an awesome woman and she would never do anything to harm a child under any circumstances,' he said.
[Seeding idea of her harming a child, even by stating it in the negative]
He added that Marten was a 'beautiful, intelligent woman' and he was a 'man who loves his wife'.
[Subtext: she has the power, and power over me, I'm just a simple man in love]
'I love her, I would do anything for her ... it's her child,' Gordon told police.
[Again, suggesting she has power over him, and distancing himself from the child]
'She has actually experienced the post-traumatic distress and she was in a situation where she was quite vulnerable and that led to things that were never predictable on either of our parts.
[Distancing himself from the emotions and the situation, making it *her* situation not his]
'...I have done nothing really wrong. I have supported my wife. Tried my best to be a husband. And I don't think she has done anything wrong, actually, in trying to take care of her child.'
[I have done nothing wrong, I don't *think* she has done anything wrong: additional qualifier undermining her innocence, followed by more distancing]
... you have to understand four children have gone to social services, she's a good mother ...
[An odd statement!]
... I do love her very much and I don't find her to be at blame at all because she was in post-traumatic stress.'
[Is she not to blame because she didn't do anything, or because her mental state means she can't be held responsible? He is suggesting the latter]
I think he's very aware that she is the white, upper-class woman with a tragic backstory. While he is the black working class Brummie with ten years on her who spend 20 years inside for violence sexually motivated attacks on women.
He's not so stupid that he doesn't understand how very easily she could be painted as his victim. It's pretty surprising she's not. It's the most obvious way to reduce her culpability.
So he's trying to make her sound like she's a poor little victim of this cruel world, but that he was the big softy that just wanted to make his wife happy. He is trying to avoid any impression he was controlling/coercing her.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
