I know somebody here, but I cannot remember who, has a relative who's adopted child suffers from FAS.
There was a long segment on the BBC Radio 4 evening news magazine, PM, tonight on the subject.
Started with a report on a Court of Appeal case where Criminal Injuries Compensation is sought on behalf of a child suffering from FAS. It then went on to interviews with firstly an adoptive parent and then a mother who had abused alcohol in pregnancy and delivered a FAS affected daughter.
I thought it was an excellent expose of the subject and was particularly touched by the Mother's account. Programme is on listen again and item starts around 40 mins in:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qskw
Might also be an intro to Radio 4 and PM for those here who've never heard of programme or it's presenter Eddie Mair who interviewed for the segment.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 Oct 14 at 19:00
|
"I know somebody here, but I cannot remember who……."
Thank you for drawing my attention to this, Brompt, my wife and I listened to it with interest this morning. It is my wife's friend who has adopted the boy and my wife intends to draw her attention to the piece. His 'birth-mother' is, I understand, an alcoholic of low intelligence who has had 5 children 'taken away' from her and I doubt that she would have the ability to express the regret felt by the mother in the second part of the radio interview.
The boy in question is now 20 yrs old and since I last mentioned him on here, he has become a father. His 'partner' is some 10 years his senior and is of low intelligence; she has already had one baby (with a different chap) taken away from her. The new baby has now been taken away but, I am informed, they are 'trying for another'.
As a practical sort of bloke, I can only come up with one solution - though sterilisation is an emotive topic. A small bribe, say the latest Playstation, would do the trick.
|
Perhaps a couple of bags of Jelly Tots would be cheaper.
My son's former partner has three by three different fathers. We found out after the split over ten years ago that she was a druggie and a complete slut as a mother. My lad has his son every weekend without fail. He has slipped nicely into his new weekend lifestyle and is growing up into a lovely lad...he's 12 now.
My boy has a three year old with his new partner and is well settled with a job and house. The 12 yr old loves his new 'brother ' very much and they all do things like eating out or camping trips together as a family. He goes to a family flat in Alicante with them, which he would never have done with his birth mother.
The slut is still a slut.....on benefits !
|
"Perhaps a couple of bags of Jelly Tots would be cheaper."
Believe me, Ted, a gleaming new Ferrari would be cheaper than what he's cost the country so far.
|
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the FAS was not a Criminal Injury:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/cp-cica.pdf
Given that it's in the nature of a 'test case' and that FAS was compensable under previous iterations of the Injury Scheme I'd expect it to go to the Supreme Court.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 4 Dec 14 at 12:05
|
Is "of low intelligence" a permissible description of someone's ability as a mother?
Alcoholic, slut, irresponsible, etc. might seem reasonable and relevant factors, but intelligence is not normally stated to be an appropriate measure, surely?
Is it mentioned because of doubts about the mother's child-rearing abilities, or from fears relating to inheritance? Dangerous and controversial ground, surely?
|
"Is "of low intelligence" a permissible description of someone's ability as a mother?"
On its own, of course not, but it is part of the mix. Anyone knows that intelligence alone cannot make you a good parent - my wife teaches in a private school and she will tell you that.
"Is it mentioned because of doubts about the mother's child-rearing abilities, or from fears relating to inheritance? Dangerous and controversial ground, surely?"
Principally the first, and of course it's controversial ground. I personally know of two women who were sterilised for (probably) both of those reasons - but that was in the days when families took responsibility for themselves rather than let the state make their decisions, bail them out and pay their bills.
|
Thanks you for the link, Brompt. I didn't try to untangle all of the legal jargon, but I got the gist of it. The story had me shouting at the t.v. again this morning.
IMHO, the whole notion of compensation for FAS is a hideous financial minefield where the only winners would be the lawyers. FAS itself is not clearly defined and different children are affected in different ways…
How badly are they affected?
What should the compensation be?
I see hordes of lawyers
Rubbing their hands with glee.
The lad I know - and I'm not sure that FAS has been officially mentioned in his case - already costs the country a fortune (benefits, police costs etc) and any compensation paid to him would quickly go on Playstations, motorbikes etc. Whilst he isn't too bright in many ways, I daresay that he will have picked up that this case has been going on and he will be preparing to take advantage.
Oh yes, his second baby is now on the way.
|
|
The court has just ruled that harming a foetus by excessive drinking is not a crime.
|
|
Which is not to say that it shouldn't be.
|
>> Which is not to say that it shouldn't be.
It is of course. But not everyone can think far enough ahead and exercise the necessary restraint.
I blame society and its numerous toerags. There's no quick way of stopping this stuff except with fascist draconian methods. Education from the ground up for all, the only good way, is a longer-term dream.
|
"The court has just ruled that harming a foetus by excessive drinking is not a crime."
In the 'legal' sense of the word.
|
>> The court has just ruled that harming a foetus by excessive drinking is not a
>> crime.
Not a crime of violence within the terms of the statutory scheme for compensating victims of criminal injury. Which is not to say other crimes relating to childcare and motherhood were not committed.
|
The report I read said the important point was that the injuries were not deliberate with intent to harm - unlike for example administering poison in order to procure an abortion.
I can't quite square that with the liability the drug company was held to have over Thalidomide: presumably that was not intended to harm either.
|
>> I can't quite square that with the liability the drug company was held to have
>> over Thalidomide: presumably that was not intended to harm either.
IIRC the main issue with Thalidomide was the civil liability to compensate those affected, a different question.
|
>>
>> IIRC the main issue with Thalidomide was the civil liability to compensate those affected, a
>> different question.
>>
So there could still be a civil liability over alcohol abuse during pregnancy?
|
>> So there could still be a civil liability over alcohol abuse during pregnancy?
Yes, though in reality we're comparing bananas with elephants.
The companies developing and selling Thalidomide were commercial concerns in a regulated market. I cannot remember the full details but IIRC they were less than thorough in testing, even when evidence of possible birth defects emerged. The US refused to licence the product at all. Liability established, the question is compensation. Whether the German developers or Distillers who sold it in UK they were profitable companies with assets.
It might theoretically be possible to show the FAS victims Mother was aware enough that, on the balance of probability, she is liable. The only point though would, as in the CICA claim, would be for the Council to recover the cost incurred in fostering, special ed etc. Since Mother's presumably still alcohol dependent and living in penury there's no money to satisfy a judgement.
|
Foetal Alcohol Syndrome - Haywain
