• news
  • THURSDAY APRIL 12 2007 5:00 PM

A Little Too Comfortably Numb



Two British parents who used their prescribed methadone to keep their infant from crying were told yesterday that only one of them will face prosecution.

Mitchell Bate, aged 22 months, was found dead at home in Rodney Street, Hartlepool, in September 2005.

Gemma Fennelly, 24, of Edinburgh Grove, had originally been accused of giving her son the drug to keep him quiet.
[...]
Fennelly admitted "allowing and/or failing to prevent" her son from swallowing a lethal dose of methadone.


Given her plea the court decided no action would be taken against the father, despite blood samples proving Mitchell's sedation was not a unique event and had been happening "regularly over a protracted period."

The case rather raises the question as to why two recovering heroin addicts, both on a prescribed heroin substitute, were allowed to remain caring for a young child.

Gemma Fennelly will be sentenced on May 3rd.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
edith

edith

France
April 2006

APR 13, 2007 01:39 AM

geez not this again..

those parents sucked, but there is no reason to take the child away from people who are in recovery. there is no making it "through" recovery...you are in recovery forever.

and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methadone_maintenance is something many people, including parents, need to do for their entire lives. some people have pain issues and some people have addiction issues. but lots of people on methadone maintenance also have children, and do a perfectly fine job raising their children.

you guys can be so bossy. once again you can't take people's kids away because of their past, nor can you decide who should or shouldn't have kids. lots of stupid idiots have kids every second of every day. 14 year olds have kids. crack addicts have kids. psycho child molesters have kids. nazi skinheads have kids. etc.

maliceide

maliceide

Oklahoma City, OK
December 2006

APR 13, 2007 04:07 AM

We should stop putting assholes like this in jail. It doesnt work. Five lashes with a whip would work wonders however. Anyone who would commit a crime like this against a child does not deserve our sypathy. These people are no better than rapeists or child molesters. Any crime against children should carry severe conseqenses.

stigmatamartyr13

stigmatamartyr13

Indianapolis, IN
February 2007

APR 13, 2007 04:40 AM

if everyone would just stop fucking we wouldn't have these problems.

edith

edith

France
April 2006

APR 13, 2007 04:42 AM

i think rapists and child molesters are worser.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

APR 13, 2007 04:56 AM

edith said:
i think rapists and child molesters are worser.



And angels are totally betterer.

DhD_No_Pants

DhD_No_Pants

Katy, TX
May 2006

APR 13, 2007 06:31 AM

Bitch_PhD said:

Kinto said:

Bitch_PhD said:Um, because they were in recovery? And were taking legal medication?

It worked really well.



Obviously not, and that's a tragedy. But as far as I know, we haven't yet arrived at the point where we arrest people or take their children away before they commit a crime.


edited because i don't even feel like gettting into it today. it's a tragedy.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

APR 13, 2007 06:49 AM

almostfamous said:
I'd hope whomever was prescribing them methadone had a responsibility to alert social services that there was a potential risk to their child, and i'd say that 2 drug addicts looking after a baby is at the very least a massive red flag that should put them at the top of the monitoring list.


We agree on that.

almostfamous said:
more than a third of neglect cases involve drug addicted parents, how many does it take before it's considered a big enough risk that the child should be taken into care until the parents have made it through recovery?


That's a good question, and it involves much thornier issues. Nor am I an expert on those issues. In a very real sense, anyway, every case is unique. I'm just pretty leery of any kind of preemptive invasion by state authority in general, so I'd want to be careful about setting the bar for state action high enough while remaining consistent with protecting the welfare of the child.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
That was mealymouthed politicianspeak for "I don't know," in case you didn't catch that.

Kes

Kes

USA
August 2006

APR 14, 2007 12:25 AM

edith said:
you guys can be so bossy. once again you can't take people's kids away because of their past, nor can you decide who should or shouldn't have kids. lots of stupid idiots have kids every second of every day. 14 year olds have kids. crack addicts have kids. psycho child molesters have kids. nazi skinheads have kids. etc.



- you most certainly can take away people's kids if (like this couple in question) they have heroin and cocaine in their possession (not to mention are feeding a heroin substitue to their toddler)


And, uh, just because you've taken a trip to the methadone clinic and have some in your house does not automatically mean that you're in "recovery".
Doesn't work like that. Sorry




SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

APR 14, 2007 06:28 PM

DownNeck said:

Bitch_PhD said:

Kinto said:

Bitch_PhD said:Um, because they were in recovery? And were taking legal medication?

It worked really well.



Obviously not, and that's a tragedy. But as far as I know, we haven't yet arrived at the point where we arrest people or take their children away before they commit a crime.



heroin's still illegal in the uk, right?



Not necessarily. It's possible to get it on prescription, in certain cases. But this is about methadone.

Calypso

Calypso

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

APR 14, 2007 08:02 PM

StarBelliedBoy said:

Bitch_PhD said:
The case rather raises the question as to why two recovering heroin addicts, both on a prescribed heroin substitute, were allowed to remain caring for a young child.

Um, because they were in recovery? And were taking legal medication?



So this is pretty much the logical conclusion of your pet meth mommies. How bout that.



Exactly what I was thinking.

edith

edith

France
April 2006

APR 14, 2007 11:13 PM

Kes said:

edith said:
you guys can be so bossy. once again you can't take people's kids away because of their past, nor can you decide who should or shouldn't have kids. lots of stupid idiots have kids every second of every day. 14 year olds have kids. crack addicts have kids. psycho child molesters have kids. nazi skinheads have kids. etc.



- you most certainly can take away people's kids if (like this couple in question) they have heroin and cocaine in their possession (not to mention are feeding a heroin substitue to their toddler)


And, uh, just because you've taken a trip to the methadone clinic and have some in your house does not automatically mean that you're in "recovery".
Doesn't work like that. Sorry






huh? no one knew they were feeding methadone to their baby until the baby died.

it's a pathetic, sick thing to do, but as i said you can't take away people's kids because of their past. if someone was a junkie for 3 years but then settled down and had a child after being sober for 3 years no one can rush in and take their baby away.

almostfamous

almostfamous

NEWSWIRE

United Kingdom

APR 15, 2007 03:01 AM

edith said:

Kes said:

edith said:
you guys can be so bossy. once again you can't take people's kids away because of their past, nor can you decide who should or shouldn't have kids. lots of stupid idiots have kids every second of every day. 14 year olds have kids. crack addicts have kids. psycho child molesters have kids. nazi skinheads have kids. etc.



- you most certainly can take away people's kids if (like this couple in question) they have heroin and cocaine in their possession (not to mention are feeding a heroin substitue to their toddler)


And, uh, just because you've taken a trip to the methadone clinic and have some in your house does not automatically mean that you're in "recovery".
Doesn't work like that. Sorry






huh? no one knew they were feeding methadone to their baby until the baby died.

it's a pathetic, sick thing to do, but as i said you can't take away people's kids because of their past. if someone was a junkie for 3 years but then settled down and had a child after being sober for 3 years no one can rush in and take their baby away.



they weren't sober, they were on methadone (and apparently had they been tested someone would have spotted they were occasionally using heroin and cocaine too) methadone is still a class A drug in the UK, making it illegal if you're not being prescribed it, and a serious opiate. whilst methadone treatment is a step in the right direction if you're a heroin addict, it's a long way from sober.

edith

edith

France
April 2006

APR 15, 2007 03:20 AM

well, like i said earlier people are prescribed methadone for various reasons, like pain. some people have to take it their entire lives are able to raise their kids.

these parents were pathetic in all ways possible. they basically made their own infant into an addict which is unbelievable. yes, the baby needed social services checking in on him/her oand making sure all was ok.

but to say that everyone who had a shady past or on prescription drugs should not have kids or have them taken away is something else completely. if there was a permit needed to have children only 20% of people would probably qualify anyway.

almostfamous

almostfamous

NEWSWIRE

United Kingdom

APR 15, 2007 03:24 AM

edith said:
but to say that everyone who had a shady past or on prescription drugs should not have kids or have them taken away is something else completely.



who said that?

Harleen

Harleen

United Kingdom
June 2005

APR 15, 2007 07:56 AM

Bitch_PhD said:
The case rather raises the question as to why two recovering heroin addicts, both on a prescribed heroin substitute, were allowed to remain caring for a young child.

Um, because they were in recovery? And were taking legal medication?



Two heroin addict parents have killed thier child by giving him Class A drugs. Again.

I think this is a fair and natural question to be asked. It would be a pretty uncaring of society to not ask it.

I think this case shows that the agencies surrounding these people should be interacting more, observing more and paying a little bit more attention to high-risk parents. Government needs to be putting more money into supporting these people.

I think it's appalling that the father will not be prosecuted. It also makes me question where the parents families were and how did they not see that their grandchild was at risk?



Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next