I have friends with children who said when they announced they were pregnant they weren’t putting them on social media at all and asked everyone, friends and family to respect that. As far as I’ve seen no-one has ever put any comments or photos of them on any social media so unless you speak to them directly you’d never know.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
For me it was the timeframe too - seemed like up to mid 2016 she was still in contact with people then nothing apparently on social media for nearly 4 years (I appreciate that there may have been some 'non public' FB stuff shared in the meantime) before the pictures uploaded all at once of 3 different children of varying ages from baby to toddler. Mathematically it's possible (if you're pretty fertile I guess) but as has been said, not mentioning 3 separate pregnancies/ births/ sharing any photos online with anyone seems odd - and the comments were all very much from friends/ relatives clearly hearing about it for the first time in 2020.Agree and this is always a possibility. And hearing about the areas she was living in (Eltham, Ilford, then choosing to stay around East Ham when on the run) it’s not as if they’d have bumped into anyone fromhigh society
The only thing I could think of was that if indeed they are all their children, that maybe it was in Feb 2020 when they'd reached the end of the road with Social Services in trying to get all or any of them back, or even just maintaining contact - and maybe she'd been told not to mention it or put their photos on social media whilst they were still working with SS or something? But by that point they weren't with her any more and weren't going to be, so nothing to lose.
The other thing I wondered about was although I know people have said one (or more) of the baby photos looked to have been taken in a contact centre, it also did seem like the babies were with her for a time, not that they had been taken into care from birth? But also that there were no photos of any of the babies together. I don't know enough about how Social Services work, but would they really allow a mother to keep a baby for a few months, then take it into care (or whatever the correct terminology is, apologies for that) and repeat that process 3 times in basically 3 years?
One of her friends commented on one of the photos of the children saying he's adorable and C responds saying "thanks....how are your boys doing?". I know that's still not 100% confirmation but I think its highly likely those children are hers. Plus, another friend comments that one of them looks like C and has her eyes.
Yes depending on the circumstances of the mother. If you’ve had a child taken off you before you’re far more likely to have any additional children taken away, but it’s perfectly possible for SS to let you keep to child if you’ve shown signs of improvement. It really is done circumstance by circumstance.I don't know enough about how Social Services work, but would they really allow a mother to keep a baby for a few months, then take it into care (or whatever the correct terminology is, apologies for that) and repeat that process 3 times in basically 3 years?
The first rule SS stick to is trying to keep mother and baby together. It’s only when that option poses a real risk to the child that the child is removed from the mothers care.
More than that, the children may not have all been taken at birth. It’s likely that they were flagged to SS when attending nursery or school etc. at which point all three may have been taken into the care system at the same time.
We really don’t know and it’s impossible to speculate on what the situation was.
(Also I’ve been specific here with the term “mother” because that’s the view they take - keeping baby and mother together takes precedence over keeping the baby and father together).
This is just my opinion but if she's had previous children removed,could it be that the crime he was locked up for was that abhorrent he is not allowed to be near any youngsters? Especially girls let's say, and if she knew this baby was a girl and knew it'd be taken off her straight away once born if she continued to associate with him, that's why they both ran off? I don't know, it's just a thought.
I find it odd that they moved place to place and seemed to trash their accommodation (allegedly, I’m sure I read they left the last rental with a smashed ceiling or something). Now someone bought up with C’s wealth would be used to lavish living, clean home etc so it seems strange as an adult she would be happy to live in filth especially when she still had access to money. It just all doesn’t add up.
This is where the speculation about mental health and/or drugs is fuelled I think.
The MH side can mean inability to cope and sometimes you don’t even realise the state you / your environment is getting into before it’s overwhelming and you then can’t manage to deal with it and it just keeps getting worse.
The drugs side could be either the person themselves, or others using the property too, leaving general rubbish but also drug paraphernalia lying around. Once you’ve started down that road I don’t imagine it’s easy to come back.
I wonder how on earth they met, its unlikely MG would be moving in the same social circles as C. I wonder if they met on a dating site/app.
I read somewhere it was at an art class……
Yes that could be the reason. A relative was in prison for a crime of a sexual nature then slung back in for living with a woman with a child (girl). The terms were he wasn't allowed to. Maybe she was so besotted she gave them up for him.
I'm just wondering if something similar was in play here, pure speculation of course xx
Saw this on Twitter probably rubbish but a bit of info on the thread . Sorry if this has already been added
Attachments
Yes just speculation but it could be. Also may be the reason they fled knowing it would be taken off them maybe. Maybe the poor soul did die from the cold we don't know. The disposal was awful though.
Where did you read this? I can't seem to find anything on itI read somewhere it was at an art class……
It was one of the news paper articles when the first started looking for them
I only mentioned it because someone I know had their kids removed as she wouldn't comply with SS instructions to stay away from her delinquent druggie bf who was a danger to kids.
She then conceived with him, however wouldn't give him up and thought she'd be allowed to keep the new baby.
Not the case she's got to prove she's a fit mother, disassociate from the BF, if she doesn't follow SS instructions to the letter she stands no chance of ever seeing her kids again.
Also, those children are mixed race so the balance of probably (plus the name of the photo album - “my love sprogs” or whatever it was called) suggests that they are her biological children and Gordon is the father. Either that or another man of similar ethnicity, which seems unlikely given the timeframe.
"My love sprogs" is an odd title for an album about her children.
Almost as if the kids come secondary to her relationship with the father, as they are defined as being products of her "love" for him. A title which would be expected or more usual would be something like "My beautiful kids" etc.
It’s an interesting choice of phrase for sure. Like the old tabloid phrase “love child” meaning a child born as a result of an affair.
It kind of suggests that she saw her and Gordon as this amazing pairing that transcended regular folk.
- Status