UK

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 6°C

Judge bans further reporting on story of 13-year-old father

By Terri Judd and Amol Rajan

A High Court judge yesterday banned any further reporting about a 13-year-old boy who allegedly fathered a baby with a 15-year-old.

Mrs Justice Baron said Alfie Patten must be allowed to return to a normal life after a week of media intrusion and speculation about the paternity of baby Maisie. She granted an application to restrict all further reporting in the case of Alfie, Maisie and his supposed girlfriend, Chantelle Steadman, 15.

The story broke on the front page of The Sun last Friday with a baby-faced Alfie pictured beside the newborn girl, under the headline “Dad at 13”. The boy is expected to take a DNA test next week to determine whether or not he is the baby’s father, but the result of this test cannot be reported.

Following a hearing in private, a statement was read out to reporters explaining the judge’s reasons for making the order. It said that one of the reasons was “because of the birth of Maisie to a mother of only 15 and a putative father who was 13 at the time of the child’s birth and 12 at the time of the alleged conception”. And “because of allegations by at least two others that they may be the putative father of Maisie.” The statement added: “As a result of press intrusion, of which the court has received information, the private and family life of the mother and her baby has been disrupted to such an extent that the judge was concerned about the mother and baby being unable to live a normal family life.”

The judge ruled that the rights of the children involved under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – to a private and family life – took precedence over the Article 10 rights of the press to freedom of expression. But Max Clifford, who is acting as Alfie’s agent, told The Independent yesterday: “The most important thing is obviously the welfare of the children involved. The problem is it’s too late … Controlling the media is one thing but these people are now household names. The boy involved is supposed to be anonymous as of today, but he must be the most famous anonymous 13-year-old in the world.”

Since the story emerged, a feeding frenzy has erupted around the Patten family home in Hailsham, East Sussex.

Charles Hendry, the local Tory MP, wrote to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) to voice his concern over media intrusion into the lives of the alleged teenage parents. On Monday night, Sir Christopher Meyer, the chairman of the PCC, announced an inquiry into whether payments by The Sun and The People broke the PCC code in relation to the treatment of minors.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Judge bans further reporting on story of 13-year-old father
[info]mrwelshman wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 02:35 am (UTC)
i think its absolutely disgusting in the first place that this has happened another mouth to feed from the taxpayer.
i think there should be a police investiagtion into neglect of the 15yr old as whats happened is wrong with different lads staying over.
secondly if the child isnt alfies and the 16yr olds. when was the child conceived, as if it is found out that the child was conceived after he was 16years old shouldnt he be faceing charges of having sex with a minor.
A bit too late...
[info]pokerknave wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 03:57 am (UTC)
How are they going to impose this order?
Re: A bit too late...
[info]juliap2009 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 04:53 pm (UTC)
It's a gagging order, it has already been imposed. it is a very serious offence to breach a court order.
Re: A bit too late... - [info]pokerknave - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 05:39 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: A bit too late... - [info]juliap2009 - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 08:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Annonymous Alfie
[info]bobbi_swinn wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 07:21 am (UTC)
Not only am I not interested in the personal lives of children having children, the high profile news coverage advertising the lucrutive benefits of irresponsible parenting (this includes the grandparents as well as parents by the way) will no doubt spur many other children in action in order to reap the high financial rewards. My priase goes out to the underclass and under educated who have, in the past few years, learned how to make quick cash wealth via equally irresponsible journalism of modern day Britain which is made possible by an under educated public who would prefer to nose into the lives of others rather than read a real newspaper. That our passions are only raised by watching a woman dying of cancer or making a child parent wealthy, rather than what is happening in Israel, for example, is simply tragic.
Re: Annonymous Alfie
[info]pavilionpat wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
well said
Re: Annonymous Alfie - [info]mikes7777 - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC) Expand
Incentivised breeding
[info]berserkerboy wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 07:47 am (UTC)
This country encourages people to breed by offering benefits paid for by others. (Council house and income support)

If you choose to have a child there should be some instrument by which you have to prove you will be able to provide for the child. Otherwise the term should not be allowed to proceed.

This country, along with the rest of the world as resources diminish, cannot afford to feed these extra mouths...and why should we?

Some time in the near future the world as a whole will have a bad harvest. There will be suffering on a massive scale. We need to address the problem of world population growth but nobody seems to be bothered!
Re: Incentivised breeding
[info]wonderfully_obl wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:49 am (UTC)
"Otherwise the term should not be allowed to proceed"!!

And how would this be enforced? Would we have the pregnant underclasses dragged in off their estates kicking and screaming, then drugged to allow a termination to take place. This could also be a form of job creation--all those bailiffs and extra hospital staff required to enforce your new policy!
I suppose we could do away with religion at the same time just in case any objections arise on religious grounds?

I thought we as a country paid out taxes in order to help those less fortunate than us. I agree some people abuse the system which is unfortunate but your obvious contempt for those that need assistance is laughble and tragic at the same time.

Very uneduacated post.Must try harder.
Re: Incentivised breeding - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Incentivised breeding - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Disgrace!!
[info]diggatrigga wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
The parents of these two kids should be put in the stocks. Their behaviour is symptomatic of the malaise in society and breakdown of the moral fibre. Is it any wonder we have so many out of control and ultimately directionless kids on the streets? How can a sane mother let in boys to come and sleep with her underage daughter. Which parent would seek to commercialise the scandal of their 13 year old boy fathering a child? What is happening to today's society. My heart bleeds!!
Family Court
[info]mrmaguiz wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 08:25 am (UTC)
Could it be the start of something more sinister for these two, to be dealt out by Social Services that will never make the papers?
Re: Family Court
[info]granny_frogs wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:23 am (UTC)
Unfortunately, you may be right.

You can bet that scores of would-be adoptive parents, who don't know the difference between a right and an entitlement (i.e. that of having other people's children handed to them) are putting pressure on the SS to snatch little Maisie.

Poor kid. The judge should have ruled that all the money should be put on an account, which no-one can access until Maisie is 18.

Re: Family Court - [info]granny_frogs - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC) Expand
privacy of Alfie and Maisie
[info]mermayd_london wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:25 am (UTC)
I don't understand how the judge can say "alleged conception" since it is impossible to deny that Maisie exists. It's the paternity that is in question.

And Max Clifford should be ashamed of himself. Although we all know that will never happen.
Hold the fathers responsible
[info]martinhanson wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
What nobody in public life seems to be able to face up to is the consequences of two facts.

First, dysfunctional families tend to beget dysfunctional families, and second, dysfunctional families tend to be of larger than average size.

As a result, dysfunctional families will increase relative to the rest of the population, putting an ever-greater burden on taxpayer. Eventually, the burgeoning under-class will be impossible to support. What then? I challenge any politician to answer this one.
Re: Hold the fathers responsible
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:25 pm (UTC)
It is not solely the "fathers" who are responsible, but the women who breed like rabbits without concern, and then once pregnant do not get an abortion when they know they cannot feed, clothe, or take care of what is born. The fathers should be sterilized as it is too late to educate those who have a breeding instinct--as Alfie's father told the media that it is time for him to talk with his son about "the birds and bees"--it is too late. The damage is done. Now the world is wondering what is wrong with the education in the UK--is there no sex education, or has Tony Blair's "faith-based" campaign put the churches in control of that too so that only false information is given and future babies born to small children?
This smacks of a coverup.
[info]anthony_mark wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:33 am (UTC)
My guess is they found out the kid in question wasn't even 13 years old but genuinely 8 or 9 years old and the whole thing was a scam from the off. Never mind - this order isn't enforceable outside of the UK, so we'll find out eventually through the Good Ol' Internet.
Interesting that Patten has the same publicist as Jade Goody though. Max Clifford is having a really good month!
Max Clifford
[info]rs13026 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:41 am (UTC)
It's so laughable that someone like Max Clifford (who makes the paparaazi look like nuns) is taking the moral highground about controlling the media and the 'welfare' of the children. He who only has one thought in his tiny brain - his bank balance.
Re: Max Clifford
[info]juliap2009 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC)
rs13026 I totally agree. Max Clifford isn't interested in anything unless he is making money from it so my guess would be that he has something else up his sleeve to exploit this young kid.
Re: Max Clifford - [info]rs13026 - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Baby Maisie
[info]castleton wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
Baby Maisie is innocent in all of this. Thousands of babies born each year in the UK are born in similar circumstances.
All be it the girls and boys having sex and making babies may be a little older or closer in ages. The fact remains in all these cases that young people will have sex.
Education from a young age delivered appropriately by specialists is surely a necessary element of modern schooling ? When will we all take responsibility for what our children are taught?
Not only estate kids get caught out like this. More affluent children are just as active and it is not just about money. It is about having sex. All creatures are hard wired to procreate. Educate early and keep talking.
The sensationalists in the Press Pack will have made a self fullfilling prophecy if they continue to publish and pay for such stories but that is missing the real point here. Very sad that so many children are let down so early in their lives by and education system which could do so much better.
Re: Baby Maisie
[info]melsykes wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)
They're not let down by the education system.
Many of these children are 3rd generation underclass.
Their grandmother got pregnant and got a flat.
Their mother got pregnant and got a flat.
So why should they aspire to anything when their family didn't? All they had to do was get pregnant and the government would give them everything they need.

So young girls get pregnant with the reward of accomodation and benefits for the rest of their lives.

You get the behaviour you reward.
Re: Baby Maisie - [info]alanoxford - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC) Expand
Normal, Pigs & Flying...
[info]johnjohnson1st wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
As Normal as a 13yo Father can have it Normal. Maybe the Judge should pass a judgement on finding if the LAW has been broken somewhere as opposed to telling us not to look at the freak show now its been pointed out to us. For once a Judge has properly made the right decision, what a pity it was about nothing important. I also think the Media should concentrate a little harder on what else is happening in this country, being more concerned with our Freedom and a Government who want to know all about ME.
Gagging Order
[info]juliap2009 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
The decision of the Judge is entirely right and a gagging order should have been made in the first place stopping the two sets of parents and their children jumping on the bandwagon to make as much money as possible from the media.

The irresponsible actions of the two families and the media will, in all probability, lead to even younger children having babies in an attempt to beat the record and make even more money.

We are not talking about lottery tickets or a new toy but a human life, the tiny body of a helpless baby!

Re: Gagging Order
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:20 pm (UTC)
All the money that Chantelle Steadman and Alfie made off of this sordid monstrosity of a story should be turned over to the UK government to help responsible people in economic need. Chantelle Steadman and boyfriend Alfie should not receive one pence.
What media intrusion?
[info]alanoxford wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
The phrase "media intrusion" is a joke. As soon as the baby was born all Alfie's family wanted was to get Max Clifford to sell their story so that they can all make a fortune from something so horrible they should be deeply ashamed of themselves. You can't print a photo of a child (Alfie or Maisie) in a newspaper without the written consent of their parents - who rammed the story down the throats of the media in order to get money off them. In fact the court order is to protect Alfie, Chantelle and Maisie against their exploitative parents, who see their degradation as a get rich quick scheme. As does Max Clifford. Every adult in this story - Alfie's parents, Clifford, The Sun - is crazed with greed. THIS is how money lust destroys human beings. It's Karen Matthews all over again - your child's misery is your route to riches. Except no one is going to prison for it. They should. Well done Charles Hendry and Mrs Justice Baron anyway. I hope Christopher Meyer crucifies The Sun and The People.
Re: What media intrusion?
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:22 pm (UTC)
Fly to Peru. The Peruvian papers have printed all their full names, their photos, their address(es), and the names and addresses and identities of the parents. Only the good people of the UK are kept in suspense and in the dark. Chantelle Steadman and Alfie should be sent to foster homes, and their parents imprisoned for false impersonation and scams.
Re: What media intrusion? - [info]juliap2009 - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:33 pm (UTC) Expand
I don't believe he's the father -- I smell a scam
[info]boudica_brown wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC)
Sorry. I think we may find ourselves with another Shannon Matthews-esque espose on this in the near future. That the adults involved may have thought getting publicity and possible money out of it all was more important than the truth.

At 12 or 13, little Alfie probably thinks if he pokes his finger in a girl's tummy button, he will have gotten her pregnant. I would be less shocked to find out that Chantelle was knocked up by another 16 year old than that Alfie's testes decended in time to do the deed.

I think the word "scam" will be used for this case before long... and the children involved, all of them, will be harmed no matter what.

Shame.
3rd generation
[info]northwest0161 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC)
> Many of these children are 3rd generation underclass.

What complete nonsense. The underclass didn't start with the welfare state. In Victorian times familes would be living in a cellar with several others and a couple of pigs and before that in an isolated village somewhere.

Corporate greed and weak government are to blame. Over the past 25 years we have dismantled many of the things that gave people like this a bit more of a chance. They get poor education, no decent public service TV and are encouraged to buy food that is total crap.
hmmmm
[info]l3enz0 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC)
does this article not count as 'further reporting ' then ?
13 year old day
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:14 pm (UTC)
It seems more like child abuse by both Chantelle Steadman (who, according to reports, has had numerous sexual relations with other males) and Alfie--and the incident should be treated as a crime, the baby removed from the custody of Chantelle Steadman and put into a foster home, and Alfie sent to a reformatory. Babies having babies is absurd, and both "parents" should be sterilized. The UK taxpayers should NOT be required to support these out-of-control hedonists, and if there is any support to be made it must be the responsibility of the parents of Chantelle Steadman and Alfie--and the parents should be made liable for all debts incurred including hospitalization and DNA testing.

I am appauled that people think this circus of errors has any newsworthiness or value, for it is pathetic that such action took place. Alfie is, obviously, out of control and only interested in reproduction reituals, while Chantelle Steadman is more common on the streets with other hustlers. This was not a love action, but one of base exploration. If I were the judge, I would sentence her to reformatory.
Re: 13 year old day
[info]juliap2009 wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:37 pm (UTC)
I agree that the baby should be placed in foster care and think that the police and social services should take the situation seriously and consider charging both the kids parents with child neglect and/or child abuse.

It was a breach of the press code to pay any of them so all the money should now be repaid.

Thank god the Judge has had the common sense to put a gagging order on the results of the DNA test.
Re: 13 year old day - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]boudica_brown - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 02:05 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 02:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]juliap2009 - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 03:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 04:54 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]juliap2009 - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 05:18 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: 13 year old day - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 05:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Having babies
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)
This scam of Chantelle Steadman and Alfie is much the same as the rabbit in California: Suleman who pushed out 14 babies in two birthings, got herself an agent and a website to beg for money. Neither female should receive a single pound note nor a single can of beans. They chose this monstrosity of a pathetic action and they should have to go out an work and struggle to feed their families. The taxpayers are wrong if they sit idly and silently by and let social services support this abuse of human sexuality and the commonweal.
Have I been a bad father?
[info]d_subversiv wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 03:07 pm (UTC)
My two sons are now at university. There is no work available for them.

Instead of encouraging them to get and give the best, instead I should have got them to breed.

Yeah, breed. Why study, why work? Just breed.

Oh well, bibi England, all the best...
Disgrace!!
[info]diggatrigga wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 05:01 pm (UTC)
The parents of these two kids should be put in the stocks. Their behaviour is symptomatic of the malaise in society and breakdown of the moral fibre. Is it any wonder we have so many out of control and ultimately directionless kids on the streets? How can a sane mother let in boys to come and sleep with her underage daughter. Which parent would seek to commercialise the scandal of their 13 year old boy fathering a child? What is happening to today's society. My heart bleeds!!
Re: Disgrace!!
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
The mother sounds more like a mistress of a brothel. No sane mother would allow a child to have sex with another child. The mother of Chantelle should be imprisoned for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The mother of Alfie Patten should also be imprisoned for allowing her prepuberty son to sleep over at a girl's home.
Re: Disgrace!! - [info]diggatrigga - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 05:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Disgrace!! - [info]arthur_ide - Thursday, 19 February 2009 at 07:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Incentivised breeding
[info]lindygirl55 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 01:17 am (UTC)
Beserkerboy
"The term should not be allowed to proceed"
what an awful thing to say! How quickly you suggest such a terrible thing....
have you thought about the other people that cost the country money too?
People who smoke
overweight people that cost the NHS?
Hospitalisations from drug side effects that cost the NHS?
Anorexia nervosa patients that cost the NHS?
etc etc etc etc
I wonder what you would suggest for them? do you fit one of them?
Don't target any one area. it's not fair..
Incidentally. I do not condone it but I would imagine there a lot of people that tried sex at 13yrs old, and maybe they were lucky that the girl didnt get pregnant. I, myself, am not one of them, but I understand that people make mistakes, all of us, and that includes you, otherwise you are not human.
So get off your high horse and look in the mirror.

Wonderfully, Yes thankfully this country does look after the less fortunate and beserkerboy you never know when you might need it...

Re: Incentivised breeding
[info]escape2000 wrote:
Friday, 20 February 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
Finaly a post I feel I can respond to. Unless these children themselves are helped now to be good parents, there is nothing stopping them from continuing to repeat the situation. The Sun have arranged some proffessional help for them. I have joined the campaign to get Sex education into primary schools. My own children knew by the age of 3 about safe touch, so when she was assaulted in school at the age of 5 by several 6 year olds she was able to fight them off and tell me about it. (the school were not that bothered by the way) There are 80,000 children in care at any one time, this surely is enough to show that some form of sex education/parenting lessons are needed at a young age. So instead of sitting there and just complaining which many of you are very good at, do something constructive if you dont want your tax paying for the pure ignorance of some people.
udge bans further reporting on story of 13-year-old father
[info]gailpeab wrote:
Thursday, 26 February 2009 at 12:48 am (UTC)
i think that dumb judge banning things like that. where was he when people won't leave the royals alone. look what happen with diana, she would still be here.
He is not the father
[info]diconalpopper wrote:
Monday, 6 April 2009 at 09:25 pm (UTC)
He isnt the fucking father, and Judges can suck my fucking cock if they think they can tell me what to do. I have freedom of speech as proved in the Baby Peter Connelly case and my disclosure of information about family court cases.

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date