The bar for having children removed is pretty high, so whatever they’d done in the past, it had to be serious.
The weirdest thing is that Constance’s FB had a photo of her standing on a train platform holding a baby (presumably their first child) looking healthy, well groomed, nicely dressed and smiling. She looked completely normal and unremarkable. Something must have gone so badly wrong after this point, for the child to have been removed. I mean: neglect, drugs, mental health issues, chaotic and dangerous lifestyle/living conditions.
Agree, evidencing threshold to even get into the court arena is high. Immediate removal on an interim care order higher again.
All of those, can potentially be managed with robust safety plans even when level of risk meets the threshold to issue care proceedings. It might be the first was on an interim supervision order, or an interim care order in a mother and baby assessment placement or a mother and baby foster placement. She’d then have the 26 weeks or so of the proceedings before judgement made about full care order and removal.
Or like you say caring for baby and at some point later, a significant precipitating event happened that resulted in their removal.
Even with subsequent babies, all assessments would repeated so not to preempt any judgement of the court. But also, even the smallest chance of positive change is worth being curious and exploring further so when life story work is completed, they know that every chance of remaining with their birth family was assessed.
on her fb there’s bty / dav / cof - I wonder if a fourth was removed at birth and that’s why no photos
Even when removed at birth, which could be a few days, there would be the photos in the hospital. Then once removed, supervised contact is promoted, several times a week until the final hearing. After that, contact reduces to once a month until an adoption match has been found and then stops. So even if they didn’t turn up to any of supervised contact, they’d have the hospital ones.