Whose baby is it anyway?

Whose baby is it anyway?
By HELEN WEATHERS - More by this author » Last updated at 22:09pm on 5th
September 2007

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1879

Fran Lyon is due to give birth to her first child - a daughter she has
already named Molly - on January 3. But the prospect, far from being one
of joyous anticipation, fills her with a dread that keeps her awake at
night.

It's not because Fran doesn't want the child. She does. Desperately. And
not because she is frightened of the pain of labour. She is prepared for
that.

It is what happens afterwards that fuels Fran's anxiety. And there can
be no preparation for that pain.

For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications, Molly
will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have instructions to
take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster care.

The 22-year-old will then be transferred from the maternity wing to a
gynaecological ward, because Northumberland Council has decided that
Fran - who has never harmed anyone in her life - is potentially a risk
to other mothers and their babies.

Fran has no idea if she will be able to touch her baby, even for a
minute, before leaving hospital alone, or if she will ever get her
daughter back. Her biggest fear is that she won't, and that Molly will
be put up for adoption.

'It is incredibly upsetting not knowing if I will be allowed even to
hold my baby,' says Fran, a charity worker. 'Until social services
became involved in my life, I was having a normal pregnancy and was full
of excitement.

'They have taken away what should be the most precious time in my life -
and I will never get that back. I'm already in love with my baby. I can
feel her moving, I talk to her. I've bought her baby books and clothes.
You just can't undo that attachment.'

Fran is an intelligent and articulate woman. She has nine A- starred
GCSEs, five grade A A-levels and is in the third year of a neuroscience
degree at Edinburgh University - which she is completing at home in
Hexham, Northumberland.

However, what concerns Hexham Children's Services, which is part of
Northumberland Council, is Fran's medical history.

Having had a difficult relationship with her parents, who are teachers
in good state schools, from the age of 15, she started selfharming. Fran
spent three years - on and off - in psychiatric hospitals.

Her problems appear to have begun when she was raped by an acquaintance
at the age of 14. Diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, she
was discharged from a therapeutic facility in 2002, where she had spent
13 months, and spent nine months as an outpatient.

Today, she needs no medication and, according to her former
psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, 'has made a significant recovery to the
point where her difficulties are indistinguishable from those of much of
the general population'.

In a letter to Northumberland Council, Dr Newrith, who treated Fran for
a year when she was 16 and has known her for many years, stated: 'There
has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put
herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest
she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm.'

Furthermore, she said: 'I would view the removal of Fran's baby as an
extraordinarily heavy-handed gesture. It is also my professional opinion
that doing so would be an infringement of Fran's human rights, as it
would be much the same as removing a child from someone from the general
population.'

Yet on August 16, a child protection case conference recommended that
Fran's baby should be taken away at birth - a decision based in part on
the contents of a letter from consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Ward
Platt, who has never met Fran and could not be present at the meeting.

In his letter, Dr Ward Platt states that 'even in the absence of
psychological assessment, if the professionals were concerned on the
evidence available that [this woman] probably does fabricate or induce
illness, there would be no option but to put the baby into foster care
at birth pending a post-natal forensic psychological assessment'.

However, he warned that it was necessary first to establish as far as
possible whether or not Fran does suffer from this illness - something
Fran claims they have failed to do.

Fran has never been diagnosed with this condition, yet she has
nevertheless been deemed by Northumberland Council as someone likely to
suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a controversial and unproven
condition in which a parent - usually the mother - makes up or induces
an illness in her child to draw attention to herself.

And so, unless a judicial review next week rules in Fran's favour, her
baby Molly will almost certainly be taken away at birth.

'I can understand why they might have concerns about my past, but the
speed with which they have come to this conclusion, despite the evidence
of my own psychiatrist, is terrifying,' she says.

'I was at the case conference and it lasted just ten minutes.

'This letter from Dr Ward Platt was given to me just five minutes before
the meeting started, and when it was produced, the chairman said there
was no point - in the light of what this letter stated - even
considering the other evidence which I wanted to present, which was
letters of support from psychiatrists.

'I think they simply panicked, and when people panic they make, in my
opinion, bad judgments. I left that meeting numb with shock. I'd had
absolutely no time to digest the letter or argue my case, and I was so
horrified at what they'd said that I just couldn't even begin to respond
to it.

'I have never harmed anyone in my life. I have no criminal convictions.
I believe I can be a good mother to Molly - but they are not even
prepared to give me a chance to prove that.

'I have offered to stay in a mother and baby unit after Molly's birth
for as long as they want, and to be monitored. I would be prepared to
stay there for 18 years if it meant I could be with my baby. But that,
it seems, is not even an option.'

Fran's case is far from unusual. Two thousands babies under one year old
were taken from their parents last year by social services - three times
the number ten years ago. Critics believe councils are doing this to
help meet government adoption 'targets'.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families
campaign group, certainly thinks so.

'How can it be in the child's best interests to take a baby away from
its mother at birth? The reason why they do it is because it's much
harder to take away a baby the longer it spends with its mother, and a
healthy newborn baby is so much easier to find adoptive parents for.

'It is estimated that 97 per cent of babies taken away from their
mothers at birth, on the basis that the mothers are "capable of
emotional abuse", are never returned to them - and that is simply
scandalous.

'Of course, there are cases where it is right to do so, but the whole
public family law system is corrupt because of the secrecy which
surrounds it. Decisions are based on opinion and conjecture, rather than
fact and evidence.

'What does Fran's case tell us? That no woman who has been raped or had
mental health problems can be allowed to have a baby, even years later?

'What could be more traumatic than for a mother to have her baby taken
away at birth? It's monstrous. That, in itself, can cause mental health
problems, which is then used by social services against the mother as a
reason not to return the baby. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

'There has been a massive increase in younger babies being taken into
care, before there is even any evidence of harm - and you have to ask
why that is.'

Despite her own troubled past, Fran Lyon is convinced she can be a good
parent, and is desperate to prove that. From the start, she has been
open and honest with social workers about her medical history, but she
feels this has been used against her.

Although she describes her childhood as 'difficult', she refuses to
elaborate, other than to say that she is close to her mother and younger
brother, but has no contact with her father.

The catalyst for her severe mental health problems was, she says, the
rape she suffered when she was 14.

She told police that she was attacked while working as a Saturday
volunteer in a charity shop in Northampton, when the shop's founder - a
middle-aged man - drove her to an empty warehouse supposedly to pick up
supplies for the shop.

When Fran reported the rape, he was interviewed by police. Three more
women claiming they, too, had been attacked came forward and agreed to
testify against him. However, in 2001 the man killed himself before the
Crown Prosecution Service could decide whether to proceed.

'After the rape, I became clinically depressed,' says Fran. 'I lost a
huge amount of weight and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after
trying to kill myself with an overdose of tablets. It wasn't a cry for
help; I wanted to die because of what he had done to me.'

She spent the next three years, on and off, in residential psychiatric
hospitals in Oxford, Nottingham and London after being diagnosed with a
borderline personality disorder, in her case characterised by
self-harming, instability and suicidal tendencies.

For the final 13 months, Fran went to a therapeutic residential clinic,
where she attended individual psychotherapy sessions and group analysis
before being discharged as an outpatient.

By the time she was 18, she appeared to have put her problems behind her.

She started to flourish, taking five A-levels at Orpington College in
Kent and applying to study neuroscience at Edinburgh University.

At the same time, she worked for two mental health charities, Borderline
and Personality Plus. It was through that job, two years ago, that she
met the man who is the father of Molly.

'Of course, I was worried when I fell pregnant. I wondered how we would
cope as a couple, because we weren't living together,' says Fran.

'But once that wore off, I was excited. I would go shopping with my mum
to baby departments, buying books and looking at prams.'

But a few weeks ago, all normality ended. Social services suddenly
became involved when Fran phoned the police after what she describes as
a 'disturbing incident' with her partner. Fran's relationship with him
ended immediately.

'The case was referred to social services and I was interviewed by two
social workers, who said from the beginning that they would have to look
at the whole family, not just one person in isolation,' says Fran.

'At that first meeting, they asked about my concerns regarding the
baby's father, but then it became clear through their questions that
their investigation was centred on me. I have never made a secret of my
mental health problems. I felt I had nothing to hide.'

Fran was co- operative, she says, because she naively thought children's
services would offer her help and support. She was stunned when she
received a letter informing her that a child protection case conference
would be held on August 16.

'That's when I became frightened and thought for the first time: "Are
they going to take my baby away from me?"

'I couldn't believe how everything had happened so quickly. When you are
up against a big system such as social services, it is very easy to feel
overrun and overwhelmed.'

Realising the seriousness of the situation, Fran instructed a solicitor
and contacted her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, who offered
her full support.

A second psychiatrist, who Fran knew through her charity work, offered a
character reference stating: 'I have no doubt that her diligence and
capacity, particularly in dealing with complex emotional situations,
will stand her in good stead for the rigours of parenthood.'

Yet these testimonials, Fran says, were never even read out at the
conference after Dr Ward Platt's letter was produced.

Northumberland Council insists that two highly experienced doctors -
another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the
case conference.

Neither they, nor anyone else present - including Fran solicitor - made
any objection. Feeling stunned and intimidated by what she had heard,
she felt unable to speak out.

Everything she wanted to say will now be heard - with the help of a new
solicitor who specialises in such cases - at appeal.

According to MP John Hemming, Fran should win her case; but there is no
guarantee that she will. Both he and Fran are particularly concerned
that last week social workers contacted the psychiatrist who provided a
character reference for Fran. They believe this was done with the
intention of 'pressurising' the witness into withdrawing his support,
and undermining Fran's appeal.

It was seemingly suggested by a social worker to the doctor in question
that Fran had given incorrect details about her health to hospital
staff: in short, doubt was cast on the reality of an ectopic pregnancy
Fran suffered on Christmas Eve two years ago.

'Is it ethical for social workers to go behind my back and speak to my
witnesses, discussing my private confidential medical history and
suggesting to them that I might have made things up?' says Fran.

'I did have an ectopic pregnancy, and I have the scars to prove that I
had abdominal surgery.' Mr Hemming goes further, describing such
behaviour as akin to witness nobbling. He also claims it is not uncommon
for social workers to pressurise witnesses - a punishable practice in
the criminal courts.

'There is a culture in which the end is seen to justify the means, and
sometimes the means employed would not be tolerated in any other court
of law,' he says. 'Yet if anyone tries to speak out, they are guilty of
contempt of court. The whole family court system, because of the secrecy
which surrounds it, is vulnerable to bad practice. Social workers are
under pressure not to lose cases.' Northumberland Council, while legally
prevented from speaking about individual cases, insists there is nothing
sinister in their actions.

A spokeswoman said it was the court whichwould make the ultimate
decision, after hearing legal representation from both sides.
'Safeguarding children is our top priority,' said a spokeswoman. 'We
speak to all sides without bias or pressure. 'We would welcome a review
of the family court arrangements, and support transparency, as long as
this is in the best interests of the children.

'Safeguarding arrangements have been praised as good following a
rigorous inspection by a number of Government departments. It was
specifically noted that "good action was taken to enable parents to keep
their children safe in the home and the communityî. Our duty to
safeguard children is our only motivation, and we strive to keep
children with their families wherever possible, or extended families if
that is not possible.

'We do not have numerical targets for adoption; nor have we received any
financial rewards in relation to adoption figures.'

As for Fran, the final four months of her pregnancy are filled with
stress and uncertainty, and the nagging terror that her worst nightmare
will become a reality and her baby daughter will be snatched away from
her. 'Some days I feel positive,' she says quietly.

'But others I feel totally overwhelmed. All I am asking for is a chance
to prove that I will be a good mother.'

Sadly, that wish may not be granted her.







CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NSA / CIA
WIRETAPPING PROGRAM....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.


CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...