Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Pregnant Woman Has Unborn Baby Girl Forcibly Removed By Caesarean After Social Workers Obtain Court Order Because She Had Suffered A Mental Breakdown

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Pregnant-woman-unborn-baby-girl-forcibly-removed-caesarean-social-workers-obtain-court-order-suffered-mental-breakdown.html

Pregnant woman has unborn baby girl forcibly removed by caesarean after social workers obtain court order because she had suffered a mental breakdown

Italian woman claims she was not warned she would be given a ceasarean

Essex council obtained order allowing them to sedate her against her will

The case has now escalated into an international legal row

Social services forcibly removed a pregnant woman's unborn baby by caesarean section and put it up for adoption after obtaining a high court order on the grounds the mother had suffered a mental breakdown.

Essex council obtained an order allowing them to sedate the woman against her will before taking her daughter and placing it into care.

The Italian woman, who was in Britain on a work training course, claims she had not even been warned that she would be given a caesarean. It is not believed a natural birth would have posed a risk to her or the child's health.

Social workers argue they were acting in the best interests of the baby, who is now 15 months old, and are refusing to hand her back to the mother despite claims that she has made a complete recovery, The Sunday Telegraph reports.

Social Services do appear to be omniscient. I wonder what the background story is to all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then we complain when they fail to intervene and Daniel Pelka or Baby P dies.

Would like to understand the full case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this is a very sad story behind this, but you do have to take everything in the daily mail with a large grain of salt.

Getting yourself sectioned is not as easy as you might think, there are plenty of stories of families complaining its too difficult.

The courts do not issue care orders for no reason, people in extreme mental distress have been known to kill their own babies.

In short, there is a lot we don't know about this case and I would want to hear something from a more reliable source than the daily mail before casting stones at either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this is a very sad story behind this, but you do have to take everything in the daily mail with a large grain of salt.

Getting yourself sectioned is not as easy as you might think, there are plenty of stories of families complaining its too difficult.

The courts do not issue care orders for no reason, people in extreme mental distress have been known to kill their own babies.

In short, there is a lot we don't know about this case and I would want to hear something from a more reliable source than the daily mail before casting stones at either side.

Eg if she was a suicide risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this is a very sad story behind this, but you do have to take everything in the daily mail with a large grain of salt.

Getting yourself sectioned is not as easy as you might think, there are plenty of stories of families complaining its too difficult.

The courts do not issue care orders for no reason, people in extreme mental distress have been known to kill their own babies.

In short, there is a lot we don't know about this case and I would want to hear something from a more reliable source than the daily mail before casting stones at either side.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html

Why not read the Telegraph version which the DM copied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eg if she was a suicide risk?

Good point; any threat of harm to the baby, including self-harm to the mother, arguably puts the baby at risk.

A forced cesaerian does seem extreme though; if she was near full-term I would have thought detention and supervised medication would have been a better optiion.

We just don't know the details. And we wont get reliable facts from the Wail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the background story is to all this.

The background story is that the SS has targets for adoption, they are very eager to get involved in cases involving new-born babies 'cos their easy to find adoptive parents, they don't want to know about older children 'cos they're much harder to place.

Read through some more of Christoper Booker's articles for more info (warning: some are very disturbing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most disturbing stories I've read of late. This is abuse and violation of one human being by others, sanctioned by the state.

There is a write-up here by blogger Autonimous Mind.

How can this - cutting someone up to steal a baby - be acceptable or have any place in a civilised society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most disturbing stories I've read of late. This is abuse and violation of one human being by others, sanctioned by the state.

There is a write-up here by blogger Autonimous Mind.

How can this - cutting some one up to steal a baby - be acceptable or have any place in a civilised society?

This story is horrific. Are we now to disallow parents, mothers in particular who have any mental health conditions from having families?

http://sectioneduk.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/bipolar-disorder-and-pregnancy-unfit-to-be-a-mother/

A judge ordered that – without even telling her – a mother could be forcibly sedated & her baby delivered by caesarian section then taken. And, even worse, a new judge has ruled that a bipolar diagnosis – just the diagnosis – makes a mother unfit to keep her child.

Can you imagine a mother with Crohn's disease who relapsed being forcibly sedated and having her baby removed by secret caesarian? Just like bipolar disorder, doctors diagnose Crohn's disease as a lifelong relapsing and remitting condition. Would anyone say that a mother with Crohn's disease was, by virtue of that diagnosis alone, unfit to keep her child in case she relapsed?

http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm

Seems that this method of removing children has been used before in the UK - at least 12 times. This article states that usually the permission is given by a family judge often late at night. Even if the mother was temporarily deemed 'unfit' or suicidal, surely there must have been a better way to secure the safety (mental and emotional) of both the mother and the child. Social work is supposed to help build on attachments not destroy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story is horrific. Are we now to disallow parents, mothers in particular who have any mental health conditions from having families?

http://sectioneduk.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/bipolar-disorder-and-pregnancy-unfit-to-be-a-mother/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2516044/Am-I-crazy-want-baby-Im-schizophrenic-After-decade-long-struggle-woman-tells-fears-contemplates-starting-family.html

'Am I crazy to want a baby when I'm schizophrenic?' After a decade-long struggle, one woman tells of her fears as she contemplates starting a family

Erica Camus, 33, has lived with paranoid schizophrenia for ten years

She manages her mental illness with daily medication and therapy

When she was first diagnosed she was convinced she was a fugitive

She is now pondering how her schizophrenia would affect a child

The Wail then has this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect bi-polar women who get pregnant to disappear out of the system in future. Doubt so many will seek treatment from now on either. Far better to keep it to yourself and keep out of the way of social services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...ing-family.html

The Wail then has this story.

A diagnosis it's self can't possibly dictate whether someone is fit to be a parent. It needs to be considered on an individual basis - that this girl is examining the future implications of her illness and it's effect on any child she has, speaks volumes. Seems to me she is taking parenthood more seriously than a lot of society do.

Expect bi-polar women who get pregnant to disappear out of the system in future. Doubt so many will seek treatment from now on either. Far better to keep it to yourself and keep out of the way of social services.

This would be my worry also. This will deter treatment of many who need it and like you say blobloblob, they will disappear when pregnant or if diagnosed when they already have an existing family. Treated and/or managed, bipolar is a condition that many lead productive, successful and interesting life's with, however, some don't. But a blanket ruling is not the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Social services forcibly removed a pregnant woman's unborn baby by caesarean section

Erm, right. I don't think social workers go around performing caesareans on people, so it would actually have been a hospital doctor who did the procedure. I work with many medical doctors and the idea of one of them taking orders from a social worker is absolutely hilarious. They only really listen to other doctors and would laugh a non-doctor who proposed a medical procedure out of the room.

I can believe that doctors might decide that it was in the best medical interests of a sectioned psychiatric patient who was heavily pregnant that her baby be delivered by caesarean.

As for whether or not she was actually told about the caesarean before it happened, whether she was even conscious and lucid enough for doctors to have given her this information, whether they thought it would be a bad idea to tell her given her mental state, who knows what the truth is? Certainly not the Daily Mail.

I don't understand what the scandal is supposed to be. The hospital doctors delivered a baby safely, social services took the child into care because the mother was not able to care for him/her, a judge decided it would be better for the child to be adopted given the mother's mental health. This all sounds like the system working properly to me. It's not pleasant, but then very little to do with people who have serious psychiatric problems is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, right. I don't think social workers go around performing caesareans on people, so it would actually have been a hospital doctor who did the procedure. I work with many medical doctors and the idea of one of them taking orders from a social worker is absolutely hilarious. They only really listen to other doctors and would laugh a non-doctor who proposed a medical procedure out of the room.

I can believe that doctors might decide that it was in the best medical interests of a sectioned psychiatric patient who was heavily pregnant that her baby be delivered by caesarean.

As for whether or not she was actually told about the caesarean before it happened, whether she was even conscious and lucid enough for doctors to have given her this information, whether they thought it would be a bad idea to tell her given her mental state, who knows what the truth is? Certainly not the Daily Mail.

I don't understand what the scandal is supposed to be. The hospital doctors delivered a baby safely, social services took the child into care because the mother was not able to care for him/her, a judge decided it would be better for the child to be adopted given the mother's mental health. This all sounds like the system working properly to me. It's not pleasant, but then very little to do with people who have serious psychiatric problems is.

The scandal is that the social workers obtained a court order for an instrusive piece of surgery and that doctors were found who went along with it. The woman's family say that basically she suffered a panic attack through not taking her medication and that she is now recovered. However, 15 months later the baby still remains in stolen.

I am glad that John Hemming MP is going to raise this in Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scandal is that the social workers obtained a court order for an instrusive piece of surgery and that doctors were found who went along with it.

The idea that social workers came up with the idea of giving this woman a caesarean and that the doctors just "went along with it" is pretty implausible. Doctors are extremely protective of their professional patch and social workers have zero authority over them. If she had a caesarean without prior information it was because a doctor decided to do it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what the scandal is supposed to be. The hospital doctors delivered a baby safely, social services took the child into care because the mother was not able to care for him/her, a judge decided it would be better for the child to be adopted given the mother's mental health. This all sounds like the system working properly to me. It's not pleasant, but then very little to do with people who have serious psychiatric problems is.

That is seriously scary talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that social workers came up with the idea of giving this woman a caesarean and that the doctors just "went along with it" is pretty implausible. Doctors are extremely protective of their professional patch and social workers have zero authority over them. If she had a caesarean without prior information it was because a doctor decided to do it that way.

Many doctors have a serious 'god' complex where they think they know better than the 'average' person. When in fact many of them are thick as two short planks.

Just my opinion. But one many agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe there is anyone defending this. It is tantamount to 'baby theft.'

This from The Boiling Frog

He [brooker] writes of a pregnant Italian mother who is bi-polar. Having flown to England to attend a two-week training course she has a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters. This ends up with her being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Five weeks later she is forcibly sedated and has her baby removed by caesarean which is taken into care by social workers.

A High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers permission to arrange for a caesarean. She is not allowed to see her baby daughter; her family weren't consulted nor were Italian social workers. In October, another judge, told her that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.

This is a foreign woman visiting England. Can you imagine if an English girl abroad for a couple of weeks had had this done?

The problem is of course 'experts' of all shapes and sizes seem to be deferred to with so little scrutiny these days. It is a culture of 'the right thing to do,' 'the state knows best,' 'you will fall in line.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having flown to England to attend a two-week training course she has a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters. This ends up with her being sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

So this blogger is implying that she got into a bit of a tizz about some travel documents, one thing led to another and suddenly she'd been sectioned by the bureaucrats like a character in the movie Brazil. I don't think so. The number of people sectioned each year in the UK is in the low tens of thousands out of a population of 60 million. This is a very rare course of action. If she was sectioned and remained hospitalised for months it is reasonable to assume that she was having an extreme psychiatric episode at the time.

I can't believe there is anyone defending this. It is tantamount to 'baby theft.'

The alternative to 'baby theft' is leaving infants in the hands of people who are unable to look after them properly. Nobody wants to do things like this when they get up in the morning and go to work. This seems to have been a very unpleasant (but hopefully least-worst) course of action brought about by very unpleasant circumstances, namely the psychiatric condition of the mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative to 'baby theft' is leaving infants in the hands of people who are unable to look after them properly. Nobody wants to do things like this when they get up in the morning and go to work. This seems to have been a very unpleasant (but hopefully least-worst) course of action brought about by very unpleasant circumstances, namely the psychiatric condition of the mother.

You've got to be trolling this.

What do you make of the refusal to consult the next of kin prior to the procedure, or the refusal to place the child with someone close to the family in the US?

How are you sweeping that under the carpet? That woman has been violated, the child has been violated and the family has been violated. And with what we know about social services' and the authorities' complete inability to cater to the so-called 'best interests' of children, who knows what will happen to the child now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative to 'baby theft' is leaving infants in the hands of people who are unable to look after them properly. Nobody wants to do things like this when they get up in the morning and go to work. This seems to have been a very unpleasant (but hopefully least-worst) course of action brought about by very unpleasant circumstances, namely the psychiatric condition of the mother.

I suggest you read the Brooker piece. There is something very odd going on here - the woman was merely a visitor to this country.

By now Essex social services were involved, and five weeks later she was told she could not have breakfast that day. When no explanation was forthcoming, she volubly protested. She was strapped down and forcibly sedated, and when she woke up hours later, found she was in a different hospital and that her baby had been removed by caesarean section while she was unconscious and taken into care by social workers. She was not allowed to see her baby daughter, and later learnt that a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. In October, at a hearing before another judge, she was represented by lawyers assigned to her by the local authority and told she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.

Heaven knows what was being done to her in those 5 weeks of detention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read the Brooker piece.

On first look this seems a very strange story, but that Tgraph article actually reveals what looks like a sequence of conflating events:

- heavily pregnant women has mental breakdown and is sectioned (slight suspicion foreigners get sectioned much more easily due to a lack of acessable support network)

- pregnant women remains distressed for a number of weeks such that medical staff feel the baby is at risk (presumably)

- baby is delivered and taken into temporary care as mother is sectioned and incapable

- no viable family member presents as guardian (this seems to be a vital point the Tgraph writer glosses over somewhat - biologocal father, aunt, uncle, grandparent even - where were they? Clearly an unconnected American women doesn't really cut it for our care/custody rules)

- judge rules that mother cannot be sole guardian due to mental health issues (presumably if the father had presented as well that would be ok)

- as no viable alternative guardian is available child is put up for adoption

- the end.

Pretty crazy outcome but I can see how it happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On first look this seems a very strange story, but that Tgraph article actually reveals what looks like a sequence of conflating events:

- heavily pregnant women has mental breakdown and is sectioned (slight suspicion foreigners get sectioned much more easily due to a lack of acessable support network)

- pregnant women remains distressed for a number of weeks such that medical staff feel the baby is at risk (presumably)

- baby is delivered and taken into temporary care as mother is sectioned and incapable

- no viable family member presents as guardian (this seems to be a vital point the Tgraph writer glosses over somewhat - biologocal father, aunt, uncle, grandparent even - where were they? Clearly an unconnected American women doesn't really cut it for our care/custody rules)

- judge rules that mother cannot be sole guardian due to mental health issues (presumably if the father had presented as well that would be ok)

- as no viable alternative guardian is available child is put up for adoption

- the end.

Pretty crazy outcome but I can see how it happened...

Due to the secrecy surrounding such cases how many people's words do we have to take for this chain of events? I can't believe this can happen in the 21st century.

What hapened to the other two kids whose passports she supposedly freaked about in the first place? She was here for training, did her employer not raise an enquiry as to her whereabouts? As you say the story makes no mention of family making enquiries, but how do we know they didn't?

It's utterly, utterly bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.