The child was never in danger.  The Social Services department broke the 
law, their own guidelines, the European Court of Human Rights rulings 
and will be required to be answerable for their actions.  The only 
reason for asking not to breastfeed the baby, was bottle confusion - to 
the benefit of the bottle.  This is the stated reason by Social Services 
in the paperwork.  Stating that they had to have good reason, and 
suggesting drug use, in this manner, does this young family a terrible 
injustice.

On the more than meets the eye, I have read every single court document, 
and all the Social Services' ones.  There was no paperwork, no court 
order, no case notes filled in, no conference amongst workers and no 
representations to the family.   In short, they removed the child 
without any process, proceedure or evidence, and did so in a time frame 
of approx 2 hours - there 'stated in the paperwork' reason being that 
the mother had left her grandmother's house, when she had signed a 
written agreement to spend the night there.  Of course, they removed the 
child in the middle of the afternoon, when the mother had been out of 
the house for those two hours.  They also told her that breastfeeding 
her baby in the street (when they baby began to cry) was distasteful and 
not appropriate behaviour.  What's being hidden here, is ignorance, 
incompetence and tyranny on behalf of the Family Courts System in the 
UK, and specifically, Essex Social Services

But as you state, as you don't actually know anything about it, you 
wouldn't know that.  Perhaps you didn't read to the end of the post, 
where you would have seen that if you had anything to say, you could 
have asked on the blog, rather than taking up space in here?  You might 
also have picked up that the letters aren't about the family, but about 
the statement made by Social Services that a breastfeeding mother is 
acting against the best interests of her infant by confusing the infant 
for the bottle. 

Thank you for taking the time to read the link.

Morgan Gallagher


Marna Moore-Barr wrote:
> Well, I hate to be a peg in the wheel, and truly I do not know how UK social 
> services works, but I do know how the U.S. system does.  I have worked as a 
> CPS worker here in the U.S. and have "taken nursing babies from arms" and 
> have had court orders put in place to cease mothers from nursing their 
> babies.  There is ALWAYS more than meets the eye in these cases.  It takes 
> in the U.S. anyway, hours of hard follow up and work to take a child out of 
> the parent custody, because in general, most parents with help (typically drug 
> rehab) and education they can do a much better job of raising their children 
> than the government.  In my experience, taking a child away from their family 
> is never an easy or hasty choice made by social workers.  I had parents of a 
> child I took out a custody years ago also do a letter campaign, it did not 
> change a thing.  The parents instead need to focus their energies on what is 
> needed to get their child back in their care in a safe environment.  
>   

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome