She is now six years old and living with foster parents.
Her mother has never been convicted of any offence, but during an earlier tribunal hearing she was alleged to have 'maliciously administered poison so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm' - a crime under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
However the charities The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) and Birthrights say finding in favour of the council would seriously undermine women's autonomy while pregnant and their freedom to make decisions for themselves.
“Viewing these cases as potential criminal offences will do nothing for the health of women and their babies,” said Ann Furedi, chief executive of bpas.
“There is a strong public interest in promoting the good health of pregnant women and babies, but, as long-standing government policy recognises, this interest is best served by treating addiction and substance abuse in pregnancy as a public health, not criminal, issue.
“Both the immediate and broader implications of this case are troubling. Making one particular form of behaviour during pregnancy into a criminal offence would lay the ground for criminalising a wide range of other behaviours because they may too pose a risk to the health of the baby.
“When we consider that the taking of necessary medication, such as treatment for epilepsy or depression, or the refusal of a caesarean section could be seen to fall into the category of maternal behaviours that may damage the foetus, the trajectory of such an approach is deeply worrying.”
The case has been going on for four years and it the council are successful it could set a precedent. The solicitor for the council are also representing 80 other children nationally who have suffered physical and mental damage because of their mother’s drinking.
In 2011, a hearing ruled that the mother's drinking was 'directly attributable to a crime of violence' and so the child was eligible for a payout.
However, this decision was overturned in December by the upper tribunal of the Administration Appeals Chamber, after the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority challenged the judgement. On Wednesday the council will appeal that decision.
Department of Health guidance says that 'women who are pregnant or trying to conceive should avoid alcohol altogether'.
But then it goes on to say that 'if they do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, we recommend they should not drink more than 1-2 units once or twice a week, and pregnant women should not get drunk'.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also concedes there is 'uncertainty about how much alcohol is safe to drink in pregnancy'.
In the case of the six-year-old, the mother is said to have 'consumed grossly excessive quantities of alcohol' and had been 'using drugs'.
Alcohol is dangerous during pregnancy because levels of alcohol in the baby’s blood stream rise as high as the mother’s, yet its liver is not developed enough to break down the toxins.' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11208353/Mothers-who-drink-while-pregnant-could-face-legal-proceedings-following-test-case.html
Should govenment warnings to abstain from alcohol be legislated? Is the evidence of the effects of alcohol clear? Should this be the mother's choice? Is an unborn child a person?
This issues raises a number of interesting and complex issues to consider.
What do you think?
PregAlcohol1.jpg