A MOTHER wanting to put a memorial plaque on her baby's grave at Worcester's Astwood Cemetery was shocked to learn she must first buy the plot, although someone else's baby is also buried there.
"What about the rights of the other family, should they come and want to do the same for their little one?" asked Joan Haward, who had travelled from Banstead, Surrey, to find the grave.
She believes others may face a similar distressing situation, because of antiquated regulations.
Baby Michael Haward, was born at Worcester Royal Infirmary, Ronkswood, and died 22 hours later on July 28, 1960, his parents' wedding anniversary.
"I was not allowed to see the baby. I was desperately ill myself and didn't know much about it," said Mrs Haward.
Forty years later, she was prompted by the child organs scandal, which uncovered the practice of removing organs for research purposes, to ask what had happened to Michael.
But her enquiries came to a halt when she became seriously ill with cancer.
Now in remission, she took up the quest again a few weeks ago and learned from hospital records that a post mortem was carried out on her baby and he was subsequently buried at Astwood Cemetery.
Worcestershire Royal Hospital supplied her with the number of the plot and also told her that another baby had been buried there in the 19th Century.
"I rang the cemetery and was told that I could put a small marker on the grave. They gave me a list of stone masons to choose from," said Mrs Haward.
But having visited the cemetery and eventually found the plot, she was told she could not put a plaque on it because she did not own the grave.
However, she could buy it at a cost of £130 and could then be buried there herself, if she wished.
Mrs Haward said the price was not an issue, but she felt the concept was wrong, especially as so many people were now researching family history.
"Does it mean I can waive the rights of the other baby's family?" she asked.
"There should be a proper code of conduct to make sure these matters are dealt with more sensitively in future.
THE OUTCOME:
It has now been agreed that Mrs Haward can put a tablet on Michael's grave, which will then be on public record, but will not detract from the rights of the other baby's family.
"I am pleased we have been able to resolve the situation, which came about because of the complexity of the law, which is currently under review by the Home Office," said Worcester City Council's parks and cemetery officer, Ian Yates.
"We have been invited to contribute to the process of simplifying the law and, in the meantime, we will continue to consider individual problems on a case-by-case basis."
Janet Marie Clark, spokesman for Worcestershire Acute NHS Trust, said the loss of a baby is treated with great sensitivity nowadays.
The mother and family receive support from the midwives and parents can choose to make their own funeral arrangements if they wish to do so.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article