After a prolonged retrial, the conviction of Constance Marten marks a gross miscarriage of justice. The verdict ignored a problematic social services system quick to condemn, vilify, and discriminate against marginalised mothers, amid a lucrative adoption industry that preys on them for profit.

Constance Marten: a gross miscarriage of justice

Constance Marten and her husband Mark Gordon went on the run with new-born Victoria in early 2023. Social services had previously forcibly taken their four children in January 2022.

This was on the basis of Gordon perpetrating what the judge determined was a domestic violence incident against Marten in 2019, in which Marten fell from a first floor window while she was pregnant and shattered her spleen. The child survived. According to the BBC:

Marten told a court she would separate from Gordon in a desperate bid to keep them – but the judge did not believe her

So instead of offering Marten support in a prospective domestic abuse situation, the family court judge had put her children up for adoption.

Baby Victoria tragically died in January 2023 while the pair tried to hide from social services, sleeping in tents across the country.

Her parents have now been charged with causing or allowing the death of a child and manslaughter by gross negligence.

State prejudice against marginalised mothers

The judge and prosecution did not meet Constance Marten with empathy, support, and compassion as a bereaved mother, grieving the traumatic death of her child and state enforced separation from her four other children. Instead, mainstream media reports have centred round the prosecution describing the pair as having shown “little remorse” and having tried to “frustrate and delay” the court proceedings, alongside purportedly disrespecting the judge, and being rude to dock officers.

However, powerful authorities and actors will regularly weaponise accusations of rudeness, defensiveness, and hostility to persecute women. This is particularly the case for women from demographics the state marginalises, namely working class, racially minoritised, chronically ill and disabled women.

What should be acknowledged as logical displays of resistance by necessity due to the persistent state violence towards many mothers from these backgrounds, is dismissed as confrontational, dangerous, and a sign of a mother unfit for a parental role. For too many women, to fight back is to risk this demonisation.

While Marten herself had a privileged aristocratic upbringing – including access to a trust fund – the trauma of separation from her children was disregarded. There are likely elements of racism and classism involved, too due to the fact Gordon is Black and working class, and Marten – the daughter of aristocracy – married him. She said her family ‘disapproved’ of him – which maybe tells you all you need to know.

Overall, Marten’s treatment is a reminder of these deep prejudices that run to the very heart of social services, the family and criminal court systems, and the mainstream press at large.

Support not prosecution for Constance Marten

This has been a shockingly long second trial. The first one lasted nearly five months, and this one nearly four. It was subject to numerous breaks and delays, including during the jury’s deliberations.

Campaign group Support Not Separation expressed its devastation at the ruling:

the jury did not recognise the enormous trauma Ms Marten has been through, of having four children forcibly taken by the state. They have found her guilty of causing the death of her much-loved baby, Victoria.

As a grieving and already traumatised mother, Ms Marten needed support NOT prosecution.

Moreover, the group explained that the court had repeatedly told Constance Marten that she could not re-visit the family court decisions to remove her four older children. Yet, Support Not Separation argued that this was central to her decision to go on the run. In other words, she did so to protect Victoria from social services taking her from her parents at birth.

The group said:

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, Ms Marten’s third and fourth children were taken at birth. In this context, who wouldn’t go on the run to protect their baby with whom they have already bonded after 9 months in the womb?

Thousands of mothers face forcible removal of their children

Like Constance Marten, thousands of mothers have their children unjustly removed every year. Over 83,000 children are currently in “care” and many are forcibly adopted each year. Around 90% of adoptions are without the consent of the natural parents.

The group stated that:

The public doesn’t know about the lifelong trauma inflicted by wrenching children from their family, first of all on the children, but also on their mothers. Mothers are the first protectors, and children without a mother are vulnerable to every abuse, especially those in state “care”.

What’s more, family courts judge “on the balance of probability”. It is a much lower threshold than the evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal courts. This, and the secrecy surrounding family courts allows them to remove children without any public accountability. Professionals who think they know best subject mothers to sexism, racism, class and disability discrimination.

Support Not Separation also highlighted that while local authorities deny mothers the support they are entitled to, they feed a profiteering privatised child removal industry. This charges as much as £50,000 a week (£2.6m a year) for one child in “care”. No wonder councils are going bankrupt while many mothers whose children are removed are driven to suicide.

Stop criminalising mothers

In considering her sentence, Support Not Separation urges the judge to reflect on the trauma that Constance Marten has already been through. It asks that the judge take into account the two and a half years she has already spent in prison and the two very long and strenuous trials.

It said:

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. Stop stealing our children. Stop criminalising us for fighting to protect them.

Featured image supplied

By The Canary

This post was originally published on Canary.