Courts bans woman, 29, from sex – Child snatching State owns your body and your baby
THE State owns the body of a 29-year-old women. Mr Justice Hedley says the woman’s autism and IQ of 64 make her too mentally negligible to understand the dangers of sex. As such, he has imposed a “very restrictive” order on her. This will protect her from “potentially exploitative and damaging” relations. The ban mens anyone having sex with the woman could be charged with sexual assault or rape.
One man has been convicted of attempting to rape her. Also, the woman known only as ‘H’, had engaged in “exploitative and unconventional” behaviour with a “group of much older men”.
Were these much older men victims of their mental capacities?
Says Mr Justice Hedley:
“It is strange, but nevertheless true, that even the freedom to make unwise decisions is one that the court is required to guard and only to restrict if and when the best interests of [the woman] so require…Under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards order to which she is subjected and the latest ruling, the restrictions “prevent H from engaging in sexual relations (which she would otherwise willingly do) because she does not have the capacity to consent and they will be potentially exploitative and damaging.”
So. Who owns your body? And if you think this is a rare event- think again. H can’t have sex. H is banned from being a mother. Social services have removed a child from its mother moments after the birth. H is powerless to defend herself in the face of the State.
And what of Fran Lyon, 22? She gave birth to Molly Linda Anna on the 13th January 2008. Northumberland County Council wanted to remove her child from her at birth due to “perceived” intentions of harm.
Fran for her part however, has no criminal conviction although she has had some psychological help for rape and other unrelated issues.
Said the pregnant Fran Lyons:
“It is incredibly upsetting not knowing if I will be allowed even to hold my baby. Until social services became involved in my life, I was having a normal pregnancy and was full of excitement. They have taken away what should be the most precious time in my life – and I will never get that back. I’m already in love with my baby. I can feel her moving, I talk to her. I’ve bought her baby books and clothes. You just can’t undo that attachment.”
The decision by Social Services was as a result of an assessment made by a paediatrician (who hasn’t met Fran) that she may suffer, from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
Pregnant Fran Lyons fled to Europe.
In 2010:
Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child. But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.
Within a fortnight, baby Ben was returned to his devastated parents. Kerry was bright enough to sell her story to the media. As Kerry said:
“I was so upset when I saw him the first time with the social workers because he had a dummy in his mouth. I told them I didn’t want him having a dummy. And he is being bottle fed, but I wanted to breastfeed him.”
This is happening in the UK now…
Posted: 6th, February 2012 | In: Key Posts, News Comments (33) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
February 10th, 2012 at 12:05 am
I’m sorry please come back.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Emma?
February 9th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Why could they section a woman? Do you mean for inadequate parenting?
February 8th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Lol me neither.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Not keen on all that schmaltzy stuff.
February 8th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Really?? Oh… thank God. *Dries eyes*
February 8th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Adele the singer? Not really.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Do you like Adele?
February 8th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
An adult can also be subject to a full care order also of course – this would be usually under the Mental Health Act (Section 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the MHA – usually referred to as ‘being sectionned’).
February 8th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Thankyou, I’ve just been reading what it means. The child’s wishes are taken into account amongst other things. Forgive my ignorance. I was thinking more of the mother than the actual child.
February 8th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
J – a full care order is a section 31 court protection order. It gives the local authority parental responsibility and removes it from the parents.
February 8th, 2012 at 11:30 am
What’s a full care order? I agree with you about the boys. I
wonder what the children felt living at home.
February 8th, 2012 at 11:20 am
The other boy, not the Edlington boy, he was vulnerable as well. It breaks my heart Emma.
February 8th, 2012 at 6:16 am
Oh the two boys in the Edlington case were vulnerable – no doubt about that. But they were also a risk and would have continued to be a risk had they not been securely detained. They should have been removed from their house and mother (who clearly did not have the capacity to cope) long before they were (they had only just been removed when they committed the offence actually – and were at the time subject to a full care order).
February 7th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
But I wouldn’t do that. Because the boy I read about, he was vulnerable.
February 7th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
The thing I find in these sorts of debates is that those who cry foul at social services taking away children from those with LDs are often precisely the ones who, 12-13 years later will be castigating the little psychos who are running riot, breaking into cars and commiting arson and demanding that they be chained to a wall and fed only gruel.
February 7th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
To be fair it does not sound like the woman herself was able to engage in an equal relationship. The problem here is that of men who are happy and willing to take advantage of her learning disability, and the court is unable to take action against them, and that is why it has taken this step – so that anyone abusing her in the future can be prosecuted. It does not actually say that SHE cannot have sex
“potentially exploitative and damaging relations”
are not the same as having sex. She is free to have consensual sex, though of course the issue there is her ability to make a decision for meaningful consent.
There is inevitably a strong concern about a woman with a LD having a baby. STATISTICALLY a child of parents with learning disabilities have more problems of every kind, from simple lack of stimulation to the most horrific abuse and neglect.
Until I did a social work degree I was supportive of parents with LD’s having their children with them with support, but having read SO many case studies of child abuse that have as a strong component the low intelligence of the parent/s I have changed my mind.
February 7th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
It is very difficult to accept sometimes but a child’s best chance is not always with its own parents. A sobering statistic for you. The group most likely to be murdered in this country is children under the age of one . The usual culprits? The child’s own parents.
In England and Wales a baby is killed every 20 days.
February 7th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
body and emotions fit around the baby, a woman through no fault of her own can have her baby taken. Would it really have a better life?
February 7th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I understand you Emma, believe me I do. But I read an interview of Kerry’s and it seemed extreme. I’m not the best person to ask about pregnancy, but a woman’s baby is hers, this is what I’m trying to say, she made love to someone, her other half is in the baby, inside her belly, her other half has been inside her, and her
February 7th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Good point about judgment. I just meant that he was affected by his upbringing if that makes sense. I read about another child who went to a pub to find his mum and she wasn’t there so he swore at the barmaid. He was out in the dark, his dad beat him, he beat his OWN baby. Amongst other things no child should suffer, I don’t know everything he went through. He had that ‘front’ and people thought he was hard. But he was badly in need. I’ve heard of her.
February 7th, 2012 at 9:42 am
C&C I agree there should be engaged contact. However, while the effects of a messed up childhood have long been known (Dickens anyone?), we are only beginning to realise how poor parenting has a catastrophic effect on the eventual parenting skills of the child. Proper parenting involves an ability to be completely unselfish and while that may seem obvious; it is very difficult for someone who has had to learn to be selfish just to survive. And I’m not suggesting for a second that people with serious learning difficulties don’t love their children as much as anyone else but that their ability to care for that child appropriately is often severely limited. And I’m afraid the needs of the child must come first. Always.
February 7th, 2012 at 7:23 am
Emma, I agree about the babies, unless the LD is not too severe and there is family support. However LD is not their fault so IMO adoption should be with contact…. I know it works and the child then grows up aware of the limitations of his/her birth mother and the reasons for the adoption. On the whole its a good thing…..
Emotion…. everyone’s different and I don’t see that reaction is a good benchmark for character analysis. I hated it when Shannon Matthews mother’s hysteria was designated (on here!) ‘this is how a real mother reacts…’. Anyone can fake it.
February 7th, 2012 at 6:11 am
I think we have to be careful when making judgments on whether or not people (particularly damaged kids) show emotion in stressful situations such as a courtroom. For kids who have been neglected/abused a non-emotional front is often a means of self-preservation rather than psychopathy. It’s basically a form of post-traumatic stress disorder where emotional detachment almost is a psychological means of protecting yourself.
The psychiatrist who assessed the younger one (Eileen Vizard) is not one of my favourite people to be honest. She’s quite old and still talking about child psychopaths when new scientific research tells us that we can’t really talk about kids like that because empathy isn’t something which really start to develop until the teens. And we know that neglect/abuse affects the frontal lobes associated with empathy. I wish the state would stop using her in criminal trials of juveniles.
February 6th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Mmm. I read how one of the boys in court only showed emotion, I think he cried, when it was said what their dad did to their mum.
February 6th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
I think they should hold their parents at least partially responsible to be honest. I know their father was violent (to his wife and children) and then absent. Their mother couldn’t cope with their behaviour so she allowed them to smoke cannabis from age 9 to calm them down. She also allowed them to drink alcohol. Given they were only 10 and 11 when they committed the offence, god knows what this must have done to their brain development.
February 6th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Do you think the Edlington boys will hold their parents responsible to some extent? I wonder what would their relationship be like if they were allowed to stay in contact.
February 6th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
I fail to see how denying an adult sexual relations can be remotely lawful.
However, I’d like to defend the taking of the child. I realise this sounds harsh but there are those with learning difficulties who, with the best will in the world, are unable to care properly for their children. An incessant crying baby tries the best of us – for those with limited awareness/levels of resiliance, the task of remaining calm can be a physical impossibility. There are also frequently issues of serious neglect. I would point to the case of Baby P where every single one of the abusers had learning difficulties (and no, I am not suggesting all people with learning difficulties are like Tracey Connolly). There is a very small window of opportunity before neglect actually seriously affects a child’s development (socially, intellectually). These children often end up becoming those boys who almost killed two kids in Doncaster a few years ago (their mother had learning difficulties).
So not only are their parents a risk to them; these children often become a risk to their communities.
February 6th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I can’t imagine what it feels like. For the baby that grew inside you, to be taken away, despite the physical and emotional connection, it being part of you. Banning sex? It starts here, where does it end? As for ‘the State owning my body’, it will never own my body. Other people don’t own my body. If I feel deeply about a person, believe they feel the same, and emotionally desire to be physically affectionate towards that person, I will share my body with that person and no-one else. It is none of the State’s business.
February 6th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
It is wrong, but so are the bastards who would take advantage of her with or without her informed consent…and the question is can she make an informed consent?
Imagine if she fell into the hands of a sadist, she just couldn’t understand.
I agree she needs protecting from herself and from predatory sexual partners especially…I agree also her body is her own, but there may not be too much left of it after an encounter
February 6th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
This is in no way fair. Were suppose to live in an equal society yet this can happen. Something must be done.