The following is guest article from campaign group Support Not Separation.

On 15 September, Constance Marten was sentenced to 14 years in prison by judge Lucraft at the Old Bailey. Her husband Mark Gordon was sentenced to 18 years (14+4 because of his previous record). Both were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after their baby daughter died when they went on the run to try to stop her being taken by the state.

Previously, their four older children had been taken by the family court and later adopted. They had to go through two lengthy trials as the jury in the first trial could not agree on the most serious charge.

Constance Marten: vindictive sentences

We are outraged by the harsh vindictive sentences the judge chose and by how much he based his sentencing on what had happened in family court which he repeatedly prevented Constance Marten from speaking about.

Yet the family court decisions were central to Marten’s decision to go on the run to protect her baby from being taken from her parents at birth. Our experience, backed by research, shows that once social services have removed one child, they expect to remove every subsequent child. Predictably, after her first two children were taken, Marten’s third and fourth children were taken at birth. None of the children had been harmed before they were taken. In this context, who wouldn’t go on the run to protect their baby with whom they have already bonded after nine months in the womb?

Neither the jury nor the judge recognised the enormous trauma Constance Marten has been through. The judge ignored evidence in mitigation from a distinguished consultant psychiatrist that Marten is suffering from complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

His report to the court explained that it was very likely triggered by the death of her baby, but that the grief was complicated by her trauma. He explained that the family proceedings and removal of her four children had been highly traumatic, and that it is increasingly recognised that child removal is a highly traumatic experience, and distressing psycho-social event. As a grieving and already traumatised mother, Marten needed support NOT prosecution. She should not have been sentenced to so many years in prison when she is already suffering a life sentence of grief and loss of her five children.

Mainstream media: demonising a mother subjected to traumatic state-sanctioned separation

We have supported Constance Marten since her first trial, once we found out that she, like many thousands of mothers, had her children unjustly removed. We had a presence outside court as well as attending some of the trial. She and the public had to know that she is not alone and that many mothers support her. People who read our press release had a less biased and more compassionate view and were inclined to agree with us that she should not be in prison. See some previous releases here and here.

Predictably, most of the media coverage has demonised and sensationalised Constance Marten and Mark Gordon, showing no insight into the trauma that mothers and birth families are subjected to by family courts. For more background about both trials see The Price of Safety: Constance Marten’s Defiance by Clair Wills, first published in the London Review of Books. It is the most considered and thoughtful account of the trials and what led up to them that we have seen in the media.

The trials of Constance Marten have highlighted the desperation she and many mothers feel and our determination to protect our children. Separating children from loving mothers is child abuse. As mothers, our hearts go out to her.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

This post was originally published on Canary.