Constance Marten and Mark Gordon #6

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Order Thread by Most Liked Posts
A

aggytha

At your pregnancy booking in appointment they do ask questions such as if you have ever had involvement with social services. I can’t remember how they word it but they also ask if you have any family members that are on the sex offenders register and/or is a convicted sex offender. I remember being really surprised at that question!

Obviously I’m sure people could easily lie about these things, but I expect that anyone who answered yes to the second question would have extra information taken to potentially prevent the offender visiting the hospital?! Or maybe it would open up further safeguarding questions?!

It’s something that’s never crossed my mind before now… but it makes me wonder if MG previous conviction could’ve prevented him from being with CM whilst she was in labour/hospital? Do we have any idea how many of her children were actually born in a healthcare setting?
 
Reactions: 8
M

MrsJones83

Exactly, I don’t know how they could monitor it, but especially now that dad’s are often allowed to stay overnight, it’s got to have been considered. Interesting.
 
Reactions: 5
S

sebanna

They will let the vast majority of dad's in. I think it's mainly in cases of domestic violence to the mothers (where the mothers don't want them in) or a known p*edo. I think MG would have been allowed to visit.
 
Reactions: 8

InTheDollsHouse

I’ve got copies of my notes so just checked. They ask if you or partner have or had a previous social worker or probation officer.

They can’t check everyone who says ‘no’ so no idea how they actually monitor, as some will absolutely lie - whether on panic impulse or deliberately!

I definitely wasn’t asked about SO though, and it’s not in the notes as a question (2018)

 
Reactions: 8
S

sebanna

They ask these questions to identify mothers and babies who need extra support or safeguarding. There must be another way to check families with known social issues as otherwise everyone would just say no.
 
Reactions: 6

Emsie

MrsJones83 said:
Exactly, I don’t know how they could monitor it, but especially now that dad’s are often allowed to stay overnight, it’s got to have been considered. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Apologies for being that person but women can be sex offenders too.
---
sebanna said:
They ask these questions to identify mothers and babies who need extra support or safeguarding. There must be another way to check families with known social issues as otherwise everyone would just say no.
Click to expand...
There is. Its must be flagged somewhere else as my sons birth mother concealed her pregnancy for 6 months and it was eventually flagged when she was arrested. It can't be all on the basis of the mothers response and if it is that is not a good system.
 
Reactions: 15
G

granny grumpsticks

I’m glad to hear your little Grandson was well after treatment x
 
Reactions: 10

InTheDollsHouse

For CM though with the first pregnancy she wasn’t known to social workers. There would have been no flag unless she was honest about MG past.

The first concern came about because she presented at a London hospital pregnant, but with no antenatal care. That was June 2017.

In the September the hospital put out a vulnerable person alert for her.

She reappeared heavily pregnant that winter in a hospital in Wales.

I wonder if she’d booked with a midwife as ‘normal’ in early pregnancy, and attended regular / scheduled antenatal appointments, if there would have been a flag or if she’d have appeared as a ‘normal’ pregnant mum.
 
Reactions: 12
H

Here2BNosey

Yeah I thought the same, was asked about previous SW involvement, DV, drug and alcohol issues and also MH of myself and partner but never about SOs. I was regularly asked if I was safe and if anyone had threatened or harmed me (pretty much every appointment) despite having previous children, married to same partner, no previous social issues or risk factors.

Also it was me who wondered if GG and HH were twins and I really think it's likely. From delivering in winter (likely Nov/Dec) of 17, the timescales would have to be incredibly tight to have birthed 2 further separate children before January 20. It fits with no details to further protect their identity and 2 babies with same initials in her album despite 1 being a boy and one being a girl, was it DAV? I'm thinking boy/girl twins.
 
Reactions: 12

InTheDollsHouse

Yes that’s the questions I had.

Oh sorry! I couldn’t remember, should have looked back. I think you’re absolutely right. I think from the photos, cof and dav could be twins. There’s also bty. It’s hard to tell because no idea when the photos were taken, they were all uploaded on the same day.

bty was in the train platform photo, and the ones on grass, so maybe that’s the first child before removal?

There’s only one photo of dav though, but multiple of the other two.
 
Reactions: 6

Emsie

It's cof that seems to be a boy and a girl.
I think dav is the eldest as there is a pic of him on the swings and he looks like a toddler rather than a baby. There is a pic of the boy cof on the swings as well and those pics may have been taken on the same day.
So dav, cof girl, cof boy, bty ?! It's so confusing. And totally unimportant but it's really bugging me.

Just checked again and it's actually dav who is wearing boys clothes and girls clothes. I give up. Maybe she forgot who is who also.
Lovely kids though. Hope they are all okay
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 10

CabalofBolorneaise

Yeah, I remember this but I equally don’t remember them asking for any specifics about my OH other than his name - so if theoretically I should have said yes but I’d lied and said no, I’m not sure how they could have checked?

To use MG as a name example according to 192 there are 100 entries with his name, ok they could narrow some down due to age but even so it would be fairly tricky I’d imagine to look into all the no answers based on just partners name and there didn’t seem to be any real verification that my OHs name was what he claimed because him using a short form (not this but the equivalent of Chris for Christopher) wasn’t ever mentioned or questioned.

Once they were already separately known to SS, very different.
 
Reactions: 3

KatieMorag

I think people have this idea that the police and social services are all over people with a criminal history, especially that of sexual assault (including CSA). They aren't. People with CSA convictions have kids every day and have no SS involvement. People with CSA convictions have totally unmonitored contact with children. These people could even be in your family or your next door neighbour. They could have recent convictions and you have no idea because it's so common it doesn't even make the papers and they almost certainly do not get jail time for anything that's image related. Your uncle, friend, brother in law, whoever could go to court and get their suspended sentence, sent on a course or community service on Friday after being found with multiple images and be round your house for a BBQ with you and your kids on Sunday and you will never, ever know. I'm not trying to sound dramatic - this is how it is.

Whatever the reasons for the previous kids being taken into care, they aren't solely because of his record. It will be his record as a red flag - plus neglect, violence etc probably. And probably quite extremes of neglect and violence tbh because the threshold for removal is sky high.
 
Reactions: 39
H

Here2BNosey

It honestly baffles me. Looking back through her pictures with the children, she looks well put together, as do the children. She looks like a happy doting mother. I fully understand that FB isnt a true reflection of real life and there was plenty going on under the surface but the love in her face for those children im sure was true, yet we sèen how she literally dragged the baby around in and out of her jacket the pram etc with seemingly no care, love or joy. I know there were issues with her parenting and SS involvement from the get go but no care proceedings were started till the beginning of 2020, so that's 2 whole years of her/them somewhat parenting and at least managing to keep their children alive, yes I know that's the bare minimum but given for poor baby Victoria they couldn't even manage that. I just don't get how the he'll it all came to this, what went so catastrophically wrong? I hate how much we are missing that would maybe paint a fuller picture.
Again I'm not trying to make excuses, it just doesn't make any sense to me and simply my own observations that those pictures are at odds with whatever the true story is.
 
Reactions: 16

Emsie

No you're right. The children look chubby, happy and cared for. They are dressed appropriately and the pics with her in the children are turned into her and look perfectly fine. You'd never think anything was amiss.
There was some talk that these photos were taken after they were removed from her care but knows.
You know what, it's a sad story. There are no winners. 1
 
Reactions: 15
N

neroli

I suppose the "lucky" one are the children who were thankfully removed from their clutches but their genetic legacy will be significant.
 
Reactions: 7
S

sebanna

I think the photographs of the children on Facebook, were taken when they were in care on a contact visit.
 
Reactions: 14
W

willowxxxx

InTheDollsHouse said:
I must have totally missed this! Do you know where roughly in the thread?
Click to expand...
It's mentioned in the podcast. Episode 2 I believe.


With how anti SS/authority she now is and how obsessed she is with MG i was actually quite shocked. It's hard to imagine her agreeing to go into foster care with her baby. I think this was with the first baby. So at some point she was engaging with social services. So we have gone from engaging with SS to then abandoning the 4th baby in the hospital to going on the run with Victoria.

Through my work I've known a few mothers who have been placed into foster care with their babies/Children. These mothers had really neglectful abusive childhoods themselves and just didn't have the skills/knowledge needed to take good care of their baby even though they wanted to. And the placement gave them the chance to learn in a safe environment and as far as I know they all went on to keep their children afterwards.

But obviously it's going to come down to how much the mum wants to learn/engage ect I bet CM was hard work for the foster parents she doesn't seem to be someone who would take being told she is doing something wrong/unsafe well.
 
Reactions: 18
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Menu
Log in
Register