Constance Marten case - missing mum

[rosieflowers]

They were living in a tent BECAUSE of social services wanting to take the baby. People so desperate to keep their child shouldn't have been hunted like dogs.

Social services wanted to take the baby because they suspected and have probably been proven correct on numerous occasions that Constance and Mark are unable to properly look after a child. The amount of second chances and opportunities you would be given in the process of losing three babies would be mindblowing.

So I would reverse your statement and say that social services wanted to take the baby because they knew the couple's parenting capacity was so poor that they would do something as stupid as live in a tent with a days old newborn who is now very likely dead as a result of the parents choices.

As others have said they will have been given so many chances to 'prove themselves' and have such a history of risk and child endangerment to have got to this point. And now sadly they have proved SS to be right in pretty much every way.

I don't think that Constance is 'evil' or bad in any way. I think she probably has severe mental health issues which have led to her making these horrific choices. But sadly when you are endangering children to this extent, someone has to intervene. I don't know how you can't see that?

 

[maytoseptember]

Can I ask. What makes someone tapped in the head for NOT wanting to hand their baby over to a government agency and go about their day? Confused by that statement a little bit.

Tapped in the head, like I even have to explain this, would be giving birth in a car at the side of the motorway, and running off to live rough in freezing temperatures with a vulnerable (and possibly drug addicted) newborn.

 

[Polythene Pam]

I feel sick. What absolute pieces of shit they both are. How is a dead baby better than a baby in care? Selfish bastards

 

[Polythene Pam]

Abit pedantic but I'll bite. What's so tapped in the head about not sitting around waiting to give birth so your baby can be forcibly ripped from you? Madness how some people think.

As if the only two options are have the baby removed or flee and take a newborn to live in a tent.
She could easily have engaged with social services and made the effort to keep her child. She has access to money. She could attend all the rehab, therapy, parenting classes she wanted to. She clearly doesn't want to.
Whether that's to do with coercive control or pure selfishness we don't know yet.
Children are not property and we aren't all blindly entitled to keep our children. The care system exists for a reason.

 

[Polythene Pam]

What proof is there though? Children can be removed from parents for POTENTIAL EMOTIONAL HARM IN THE FUTURE. Children can be removed at birth for the parents HAVING AN IQ OF UNDER 90. Someone whos gone to the lengths and extremes Constance has to try keep the baby shows that she probably isn't going to hurt them - WHICH IS WHAT FAMILY LAW IS BASED ON (PROBABILITIES).

Someone that goes to the lengths of sleeping in a tent in sub zero conditions with a newborn who cannot regulate their own temperature isn't likely to harm a baby? Are you serious?

 

[Polythene Pam]

The pair of them are clearly not capable of rational thought, but what did they expect would happen?

They apparently were so desperate to protect their baby that they went on the run to evade SS, only to dump its dead body in the bushes and then trot off to go and buy fish and chips. The depravity is just shocking.

I hope all the Facebook huns that have been defending them and criticising SS take a good hard look at themselves. These people clearly should not be parents.

Edited to correct grammar. I'm too upset and angry to type.

 

[yellowmellow]

They were living in a tent BECAUSE of social services wanting to take the baby. People so desperate to keep their child shouldn't have been hunted like dogs.

You're coming across as a very odd person, I'll be honest. As a parent, I couldn't imagine being away from my kids, but I'd rather social services take my baby and engage with them in order to move forward in a way I can still have contact with my child than go on the run and have no medical checks for either of us, live in woods and tents in the middle of winter with said newborn and risk us both getting very sick. Why do you think social services wanted to take the baby in the first place?! She's an irresponsible mother, who didn't meet the needs of her previous children, either of her own accord or through the coercive control of the father. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to comprehend why these people were being "hunted like dogs". The baby was/is in danger thanks to it's own parents and quite clearly would have been better off away from them!

 

[Holmessk]

This is why protection and removal orders are put on unborn children. This is utterly tragic for everyone involved.

 

[Haveyouanywool]

I live a few miles from where they were last seen. No one will bat an eyelid to be honest I don’t even know my neighbours. It’s different in London.

I think the tent was to throw off the police. How can no other purchases be picked up on CCTV. There’s plenty of cash in hand sublet rentals on gumtree.

The man’s conviction was in 1989 when he was 14. He’s near 50s and she’s mid 30s. Both two consenting adults. There’s no bail or arrest warrant. - someone previously says on this thread why has the police not warned they are dangerous - probably because they are not.. however They must be of some kind of sound mind and not out of it that much on substances which have been suggested to have the ability to run this long from the police. So I am literally one of the people on FB saying let them live as long as the baby is well because there are missing vulnerable children who are not given the same media attention or monetary rewards and it’s heart breaking.

we are the only country to have secret courts, so say they were found and baby was removed etc. they the parents could never have their side of the story reported in the press. They can never discuss their case only with their solicitor.

secondly we are the only country in Western Europe to have an “at risk emotional abuse” clause. This was introduced by the tories Michael gove years ago. This gives social services the power to remove a baby at birth, without the parents ever given a chance. Without there being any evidence of harm.
given the dad had a serious criminal past this wouldn’t of done him any favours like with to ex drug addicts, ex MH ex care leavers etc and anyone with a past.
It’s cheaper and easier to remove a child at birth in this situations based on “at risk of emotional harm”. We don’t hear about cases because of secret courts.

A few years ago an Italian woman who came here for a course had a manic episode whilst pregnant. She had a C section against her will and baby removed from birth. Reasons were “at risk of emotional harm” The only reason why this was media reported was because she was Italian and the Italian government and press reported it which removed UK press restrictions.

the baby hasn’t been registered for a reason so that it’s harder for SS to make court proceedings for custody of the baby. If they’d had court proceedings it would’ve been much easier for them.

there is a solicitor called Ian Joseph’s that helps fund parents who are at risk of loosing their babies at birth. He encourages them to go to Ireland or France where “at risk of emotional abuse” doesn’t exist and most families who would’ve lost their baby to adoption here are allowed to keep them abroad.

You’re giving them a lot of credit when you literally don’t know any of their recent history.
Drugs? You don’t know. Mental Health? You don’t know. Self harm? You don’t know. Sectioned? You don’t know. Violence? You don’t know. Coercive control? You don’t know.
Are there any circumstances where, in your opinion, children should be taken away? Or do we just leave them all until they are murdered, raped, harmed in another way so you can say ‘see SW should have taken them away, it’s their fault’.

 

[BigBrenda]

My best friend was in an abusive relationship and even when he used to barricade the bedroom door in at night time, to stop her going to the toilet incase she was cheating???!! In there . And make her piss in cups or bags or whatever. She still couldn’t understand why she should leave him. She thought he was “protecting” her because he loved her.
It wasn’t until her son was literally hours away from death a few years down the line and he wouldn’t ring for an ambulance, incase she fancied the paramedic that she finally woke up. 10 years he controlled her for. Now she’s fine I’ve got my friend back and she’s found some common sense and made so much progress. But back then when she met this arsehole. She turned overnight into his shadow. It was like she had, had a whole personality transplant. It was awful.
Really hope they find this lady and her baby and they are okay, I don’t think people realise sometimes how gripping it is being in a DV relationship. You lose so much of yourself, you think all you have left is the partner because every one else is gone, but you can’t see why they’ve gone

 

[maytoseptember]

Abit pedantic but I'll bite. What's so tapped in the head about not sitting around waiting to give birth so your baby can be forcibly ripped from you? Madness how some people think.

Forcibly ripped?

This woman has already proved herself incapable of keeping her children safe. Multiple times. Why does your sympathy lie with her and not with her latest child, born into the most awful and dangerous circumstances?

Of course I understand that Constance didn’t want to have her child taken away. What I don’t understand is why she thought living rough in sub-zero temps was better than engaging with authorities. The fact is she isn’t any more capable of keeping this baby safe than her other children.

 

[My2pWorth]

After giving birth you bleed heavily, her hygiene must be horrific if she hasn't been able to wash for 2 months. The baby would of also needed cleaning and nappies. If she hasn't been eating enough her milk may of dried up and no resources to safely bottle feed either. The pressure of been on the run, walking the streets late at night, the weather, dealing with hormones and possibly the death of a baby won't of helped her mental state. It's just absolutely tragic that they hadn't thought this through and it has ended worse than what needed to be.

 

[Hyacinthsquash]

They’re selfish. They’ve let their baby come to harm rather than handing it over safely to authorities. There’s no way this has been done out of love and wanting to keep the baby. What parent can sit by and let their newborn freeze rather than get them help. There are plenty of safe places they could’ve left the baby.. I know it hasn’t confirmed that the baby has died but at this point I can’t see any other outcome.

 

[rosieflowers]

Let's not argue with stupid guys. At the end of the day, someone who can try to defend what Constance and Mark did is not someone who is able to think logically themselves.

I really do think the baby has passed. Constance was constantly wearing the baby in past sightings and I think we can all empathise with her not wanting to be separated at all from the baby. I know with my own daughter I constantly babywore and breastfed and I completely understand the feeling of always wanting to be attached to your child, it's natural. That primal bond of mother and baby I do really empathise with Constance and it's why I think I've found this case so gripping. So I think the fact that they were out alone, not babywearing, no sign of the baby, is a very bad sign.

Not to mention all of the hypotheses put forward thus far about leaving the baby with some mysterious do-gooder or fellow SS avoider are all so far fetched as to be completely fantastic IMO

 

[Unicorn_Poop]

So glad to see a thread on here about this case as I’ve only read Facebook/twitter and boy it’s WILD out there! Tattle gets a bad rep but I always find in real life cases to be the most factual/ balanced comments

 

[Polythene Pam]

The Facebook huns still can't accept that anything bad might have happened to this kid what is wrong with them omg

Child protection is one huge conspiracy to some people. Until something tragic happens and then it's all 'where were the social workers?' it's maddening.

 

[MrsPiggleWiggle]

Just waiting for all the noise saying its not her fault, its coercive control, he made her do it, it was her mental health etc etc.

If they've allowed the baby to come to harm, they're both evil.

 

[Lackofimagination]

Constance should be forcibly sterilised at this point.

 

[Bima6694]

Abit pedantic but I'll bite. What's so tapped in the head about not sitting around waiting to give birth so your baby can be forcibly ripped from you? Madness how some people think.

How can you not now see why the baby was about to be removed? They reckoned the child was at risk, guess what they've been living in a tent for 54 days with the poor thing and it's likely now not alive. Is that not exactly why a child should be removed? Predictable neglect and death?

 

[ohdoris]

There has been rightly in my opinion a lot of criticism of the police in recent times. My heart goes out to the officers involved in this case.

The poor person that made the discovery, that’s something that will live with you forever.