• Full Story

Newborn baby removed from mother's care

Print

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 8:25a.m.

The baby is now living with an approved caregiver

The baby is now living with an approved caregiver

A Waikato mother has lost custody of her newborn baby, as police continue to investigate the unexplained death of another of the woman's children.

Chelsea Scott was the mother of six-month-old Serenity Jay Scott-Dinnington, who died last April from traumatic brain injuries.

Miss Scott gave birth to her new daughter on January 6 and spent 48 hours with her before the baby was taken into Child, Youth and Family care, the Waikato Times reports.

CYF general manager operations Marama Edwards says the baby is now living with an approved caregiver.

"Both Child, Youth and Family and the court take these cases very seriously and decisions around removing a child from his or her parents are never taken lightly," she said.

"We are continuing to work with the baby's wider family and her parents are allowed supervised visits."

Miss Scott told the Waikato Times in October she had kept her pregnancy quiet because she did not want to lose custody of her baby.

She had also lost custody of her son Travis, who was aged about six.

Waikato Detective Sergeant Mark Greene says the inquiry into Serenity's death is ongoing and police are awaiting forensic pathology results from overseas.

Last April, Serenity was found unresponsive at the Ngaruawahia house where she lived with Miss Scott, then aged 21, Miss Scott's boyfriend Matthew Ellery, and her brother, Drew Scott.

Serenity was taken to Auckland's Starship Hospital, where she died two days later.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

18 Jan 2012 10:57a.m.

floral paisly wrote:

Oh Great @ AJ and Steve: have they now invented 1 woman baby machines!!! Oh joy we do not need men any more and can have babies on our own with out Dangerous Dads like the one in this story. It must be a good machine because According to you she has made herself 3 more than mentioned in this article by an earlier age than she is now.

18 Jan 2012 10:43a.m.

wondering wrote:

I am wondering @ AJ and Steve :How can you get unmarried 21 yr mother of 5 on a bene form that article:? Yes it is misleading and confusing but have a re read. She was 21yr a few years ago when a male in the household, dad or relative may have harmed her child and caused ts death. She has an older child of indeterminate age and a recent new born who have been removed from her because of what a man did. She is probably now unmarried and may be on a bene because of what he did. But we do not know that. Neither it seems does the writer of the article.

18 Jan 2012 10:32a.m.

tin man wrote:

@ AJ: You are reading wrong. No she has had 3 children in the approx last few years. She was 21 a while ago. The middle child was presumed to be murdered by some one in the home, possibly the dad. It is more media beat up and mis information to feed the moral panic about single mums. Even though this was a 2 parent household where the kid was harmed

18 Jan 2012 10:29a.m.

Steve wrote:

AJ, yes.

18 Jan 2012 09:14a.m.

pondering wrote:

While there is very sound reason with this case to remove the children. It must not be used as propaganda to tout the govt Green Paper. Contrary to what Ms Edwards claims, CYF and the courts do take these cases lightly and remove children at whim for spurious and dubious reason using a "just in case " "precautionary measure" clause scattered throughout the Green Paper. it gives the government power to remove any child deemed "vulnerable". That is children from non affluent families, beneficiary families, younger parent, single parents, parents with disabilities or long term illness such as cancer, children with disabilities or long term illness. Really just about any family can have a child removed for these reasons. These policies should be only in use for the most vulnerable high risk kids Do not allow these crimes committed in 2 adult households be used to purge on low socio, single mothers' and disabled kids as the current policies pressure the courts to do.

18 Jan 2012 09:11a.m.

AJ wrote:

Am I reading this correctly.....an unmarried 21 year old with 5 children? Is the taxpayer supporting this one-woman breeding machine?