Skip to main content

Breastfeeding for babies taken into care

The link is to BAILII and is to case reference 2003 EWHC 850 in which the following statement is made:
44. iv) If a baby is to be removed from his mother one would normally expect arrangements to be made by the local authority to facilitate contact on a regular and generous basis. It is a dreadful thing to take a baby away from his mother: dreadful for mother, dreadful for father and dreadful for the baby. If the state, in the guise of a local authority, seeks to intervene so drastically in a family's life – and at a time when, ex hypothesi, its case against the parents has not yet even been established – then the very least the state can do is to make generous arrangements for contact. And those arrangements must be driven by the needs of the family, not stunted by lack of resources. Typically, if this is what the parents want, one will be looking to contact most days of the week and for lengthy periods. And local authorities must be sensitive to the wishes of a mother who wants to breast-feed and must make suitable arrangements to enable her to do so – and when I say breast-feed I mean just that, I do not mean merely bottle-feeding expressed breast milk. Nothing less will meet the imperative demands of the Convention. Contact two or three times a week for a couple of hours a time is simply not enough if parents reasonably want more.


There are two key things that matter for the health of a baby. The first is to go as close to term as possible. Trafford Social Services acting in the usual manner that torments a pregnant woman that I have seen with other Social Services Departments have already threatened baby Jach's health by so upsetting the mother that she went into Labour early. What surprises me is that the authorities don't seem to worry about stressing pregnant women. They fail to recognise that there is a real baby inside the woman's womb. That is the child they claim to be protecting.

The second key thing is to properly breast feed. This is "on demand" in the early weeks. That means you should not separate the baby and the mother. Doctors know the babies that are breastfed by the fact that they tend not to be ill.

My understanding of today in Wythenshaw is that there remains a security guard stationed outside the ward. There has been a 24 hour police guard. Interestingly there is more security for this mother who has not broken the law than there is for a female prisoner in the same hospital. It took 45 minutes to persuade the authorities to allow the grandparents (father's parents) to see the baby.

The mother cannot go to court on Monday because that would mean leaving the baby. The authorites are not allowing her to take the baby out of the hospital.

Comments

There is only one word for this system that approaching a mother and baby at birth and that is "diabolical". The first thing this mother needs is rest, for goodness sake she just given birth, a natural truama to the body, with natural reactions afterwards, but both aspects can weaken her health if stress is embodied on her from factors such as social services putting duress on her after birth. It is a unhumane approach to try to take a baby from a mother, let alone any child, a mothers sense of welbeing is detrimentally effected by such degrading unthinkable actions.
Too long this country has been tearing children away from good parents, either placing them in care or awarding, drunks, druggies, sexual abusers custody of children because social workers are too afraid to tackle the abusers for fear of come back to their selves, this is TRUE, and it has to stop, INNOCENT people are getting hurt daily out here and it leaves pain and scars for a life time and is ripping Britains family life apart...

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…