Wow, I guess this is why they call it a "nanny state".

I've fled the country to stop social workers taking my baby | the Daily Mail

Keep in mind, only single women who are celebrities are capable of making to decision to raise children on their own without government involvement.

Wow ... look at those scars on her arms. If you know anything about social work, you'll know she has a borderline personality disorder, before the article points this out.

It's really not "curable" and people who have BPD usually end up raising another person with BPD, by repeatedly giving and taking affection away. That's the sad fact of it. Not that I like the decision, but that's the other side of the the story that was brushed over.

Also, people with BDP are often quite successful, intelligent and well organized... the author of the article sounds a bit ignorant about the disorder.

Her personality shouldn't come into it. It is not the proper role of government protect people from their personal deficiencies. There is no credible, present threat to the well-being of her child, period.

If you could prove otherwise, you might have a point, but to infer that because she had emotional problems during a defined period of her life that she is an unfit parent permanently isn't reasonable or rational.

Characterizing this as "emotional problems" is not accurate. She has a serious mental illness. I'm not sure the author of the article really conveyed this.

Doesn't it seem a bit impulsive to flee a country? Why isn't she working with the social workers? Or are they some kind of green horned demons?

And, who defines mental illness? The government? The intellectual elite? You?

This is the path to tyranny. Whether it be tyranny of good intention or bad, it reaches the same end. Slavery.

Without an immediate threat to the child, there is no justification for the government to intervene, period.

What you are advocating is state seizure of children for no other reason than the parent doesn't meet the state's criteria for being a good parent! Government has no right to define a "good parent". That is the purvue of the individual. It is subjective.

The idea of 'mental illness' is not an all or nothing thing... Generally it's defined by where a person falls on a continuum, and whether that affects their abililty to function in life.

To be clear though I'm not passing a moral judgement on her ... she's not well in the same way that someone with diabetes is not well. The problem is, the social workers that have looked at this case in detail obviously have found things that are deeply disturbing to them, and could be perceived as immediate threat to the child.

For example, why do you think they are worried she is thinking about poisoning the child? Do you think maybe she told them this? It's really hard to say, given that the article was written from an entirely one-sided perspective.

The thing is though, what's your "error theory" on why these social workers are totally off base? Are the social workers stupid, or insane, or incompetent in your mind? Are you also implicitly passing judgment on a professional that's seen the outcomes on many similar circumstances? Maybe they acted differently in another (similar) case, and the baby ended up injured?

My question is: where's the other side of the story? Aren't there usually two?

Incompetent and government are synonymous, in my mind. I'm sure there is another side to this story, and I'm sure the government authorities involved believe they are doing what's best. However, what is true and what is believed are not necessarily the same.

My arguement is that their thinking is flawed from the outset. Their intentions are irrelevant. Their actions are what concern me. They are arbitrarily determining her suitability as a parent based on something besides her actions; on her potential actions. That is not just, regardless of her mental history.

They are attempting to regulate the acceptability of her mind. The very thought of a government bureaucracy determining who can and cannot be a parent is objectionable, on it's face.

Yaaarrrgg, serious question for you. But first I'll say I think you've made a compelling argument, but I'm more in agreement with Fu. Anyway, my question:

Do you think this woman, and other women with mental conditions of similar or worse severity, should be sterilized so they can't have children? In other words, if someone is so incurably mentally ill, and should never be allowed to raise children, shouldn't they just be tube tied so it can never be a problem?

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of permanent sterilization. It seems too much like eugenics to me.

That question goes straight to the heart of the issue.

If they are to take her children away, no matter what, for the rest of her life, it could be argued that forced sterilization would be less cruel. I'm not going to argue that, myself, because the notion of doing either is repulsive to me.

I should probably also disclose, for the sake of having an honest discussion, that this issue is very, very close to home for me. I was confiscated by the government as a child, and I spent the majority of my childhood in the care of the state. My mother spent the majority of her adult life institutionalized, and she died in an institution, at the hands of those who were responsible for her welfare.

It would have been less cruel to execute her than to do the things they did to her in the name of "medicine".

There's no difference from the mother's point of view. Is one really more reprehensible than the other? I don't believe so.

I'm not sure I see how she is supposed to 'work with them' - she has been told they plan to take her baby as soon as the umbilical cord is severed. Significant evidence has been supplied by other doctors etc and has not impacted on the Social Services plan. It does not seem to me that leaving the country was taken as a first resort, but rather as a last, faced with the imminent 'crunch-day' in just a few weeks time. And the fact that she did this rather than relapse into selfharming etc faced with such terrible stresses is a testament to the fact that she has indeed moved on from that stage in her life.

It is disturbing to see someone say that any kind of mental/emotional problem is not "curable". Let me guess, you also think that addiction is not "curable" too? Even if you do go with the 'non-curable' view (which I personally dispute), there is another option which is 'manageability' rather than 'curability'.

I re-read the article, and you are right ... it does seem like she made an attempt to work with the social workers.

As far as BPD goes though, as far as I understand it, it's not curable, but it can be managed. Really addiction really can't be "cured" either ... it's a lifelong struggle to stay clean. BDP is one of the more difficult problems to manage, though. Mainly because people with BPD think everything is everyone else's fault, and they are the victim.

At least that's what I gathered, overall, from several people I know in the social work field. Hopefully, I'm not oversimplifying too much... I'm not an expert.

But it's certainly a case to weigh carefully. Possibly the social workers have made the wrong decision. I can't tell, but feel sympathy for her.

Thanks for being honest, even tho you knew what you were walking into. Please explain why you're in favor of the government allowing this woman to get pregnant and carry a baby only to snatch the child away as soon as its born?

I thought you had indicated that this woman would never be healthy enough to raise a child right?

Honestly, I don't like any of the options...

Giving the government the ability to chop on people it deems "unfit" gives me the willies. IMO a person should have a say on what happens to their own body. Also, it's not entirely the woman's fault that she's in the position she's in ... some guy was exploiting her illness. Why isn't he given the snip instead? He's more to blame than her, if she's not of sound mind. People with BPD are careless with regards to sex.

However, after the baby is born, isn't the baby a person, in her own right? If the mother is not mentally competent to care for it, someone else will need to raise her. The problem is determining this ... since if the mother is mentally incapable of caring for the child, she will likely not be able to assess this on her own.

Generally though I'm sympathetic for the mother in this case, and would very much like for her to keep the baby. Although I'm more inclined to lean on the expert advice of the social workers. They've seen these cases play out countless times, and have more direct experiences in these cases than I do.

The thing that bothers me, though, is why they are completely taking the baby away, rather than adopting some more moderate approach of assigning a case worker to help supervise the mother. Maybe they do things differently in the U.K.

But then again, I am not privy to whatever the ex-boyfriend reported. Much of the article seems to be written, taking the mother at her word ... which means there's no telling what's real or what is not, depending on her illness.

Hmmm, I knew something wasn't adding up. It's not the mother that's bending the truth, as much as the author of the article. I thought the author sounded clueless with regards to BPD, but in reality the author was actually not interested in it as much as doing a propaganda peice:

Fran Lyon Case: The hidden agendas (The Child Minder)

Chopping on people gives me the willies too. But so does snatching people's kids away.

I didn't even notice the scars until I read the second post .

Isn't it amazing how you only see what you want. All I saw was a happy and healthy pregnant woman

I didnt notice the scars at first too. (Although she did look a little sick.)
This thread does show the use of a little digging. Good job, yaaarrrgg .Perhaps we need to value our good-media/bad-media lists better.
Dayly Mail -- (Elizabeth Sanderson)
Telegraph newspaper online (David Harrison, Sunday Telegraph)
communitycare.co.uk ++ (Jonathan Gornall)
BTW i dont know how it is determined who puts their names under stories. Of course perhaps they are pressured to do so.
Might the guy not have problems of his own, he also could have been unaware of the situation. It seems rather light evidence to lay the blame on him.

What is the role of privacy here? And if someone goes to the press with their story, should they still have the right to privacy regarding what they said? My initial guess is to rather be safe, and say they will keep it, but i dont think i weighed factors well.