Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services!

(1000 Posts)
RandomMess Sat 30-Nov-13 22:41:40

Perhaps she was a very high suicide risk at the time?

Rummikub Sat 30-Nov-13 22:43:37

That's the most frightening horrific thing I have read.

TooTiredToBeCreative Sat 30-Nov-13 22:44:46

Bloody hell, that is awful! I thought it was going to be a drug dependant mother who had refused to stop using & child was delivered as it's life was in danger.

BouncingJellyfish Sat 30-Nov-13 22:45:58

I wish this was a joke! How horrible!

scaevola Sat 30-Nov-13 22:47:18

She had been sectioned under the mental health act at the time of the operation. That won't have been an SS decision.

It's the subsequent actions, concerning the care of the infant, that would be their responsibility.

How utterly terrifying

johnhemming Sat 30-Nov-13 22:50:27

The decisions are the decisions of the state (specifically the judicial estate) of the UK - delegated to the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

So who would have made the decision to cut her open then? And on what grounds?

DeepThought Sat 30-Nov-13 22:53:53

A judge

Not SS

Holy fucking shit that's terrifying.
As a pregnant mother,with existing (but under control) mental health problems,that is the most frightening thing I've ever heard.

She called for help after suffering a panic attack,was sectioned,sedated,operated on and had her child taken away,all without her consent or even Knowledge.

Just awful.

VivaLeBeaver Sat 30-Nov-13 22:55:23

I'm amazed this could happen America maybe but not in the uk!

trikken Sat 30-Nov-13 22:56:16

Thats disgusting behaviour.

RedLondonBus Sat 30-Nov-13 22:57:36

was interested until i got to the 'john hemming' bit hmm

weepingvipers Sat 30-Nov-13 22:58:44

Sounds like there's an awful lot more to the case than we will probably ever know. It's telling though that the decision being challenged is not the delivery of the child but the placement of the child after delivery. Given that the woman's legal team don't see fit to question that and an expert only comment was it was unusual I don't think leaping to conclusions based on a single newspaper article is going to be sensible tbh.

Sirzy Sat 30-Nov-13 23:00:55

I agree weeping. As awful as it sounds I am guessing there is an awful lot more to the story than we are being told

So how would a Judge know about this then, and who would present the case to a judge for ruling?

There's always more to a story than a newspaper can report, but even the bare bones are imo unjustifiable.

If you come onto the SN boards however, you'll see that there is quite a substantial amount of abuse families can suffer at the hands of professionals paid to help them, and the whole 'there must be more to the story' attitude is what allows them to get away with it.

That article doesn't give you much background. It is very unusual and the decision wouldn't have been taken lightly.

Devora Sat 30-Nov-13 23:25:02

It's impossible to understand what went on here - it does seem very bizarre and there must be a lot to it that we don't know. For example, if the mother has HIV then an elective CS would reduce the risk to the baby.

I am not defending SS - I'm sure awful things happen sometimes. But Christopher Booker and John Hemming are on a massive crusade and are very far from being objective commentators.

morethanpotatoprints Sat 30-Nov-13 23:25:25

This is disgusting whether there is more to it or not.
I still feel very strongly that SS are given too much autonomy and children are taken from parents unnecessarily.
That child could be adopted without the consent of its mother and that is not right.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 00:30:42

WTAF? That is simply appalling.

Also why the hell was this ITALIAN child placed in care in the UK, with UK SW not talking to Italian equivalents? That is just utterly wrong. What about the rest of the child's family, presumably all in Italy? Did the UK SS decide unilaterally and before any proceedings that the child was never going to be returned to the mother or other relatives and that it would be adopted immediately else otherwise what justification do they have for keeping it in the UK?

Really disturbing story.

Blistory Sun 01-Dec-13 00:34:06

So she didn't have a CS without consent but without knowledge ? That sends shivers down my spine - I really hope that there was a damn good reason for cutting a woman's body without her even being aware of it, MH issues or not.

I bet they took a kidney at the same time too.....

fuckwittery Sun 01-Dec-13 00:43:03

The mother will have been deemed incapable of making the decision by the court of protection after a mental health assessment.
The local authority or the hospital will have made an application to the court.
The care proceedings should be temporary emergency protective proceedings due to the presence of the child in the jurisdiction; I would expect all avenues to be explored during the proceedings to return the child as appropriate to Italy and to be liaising with the Italian authorities.

Maryz Sun 01-Dec-13 00:45:24

Christopher Booker is a friend of Ian Jacobs, isn't he?

It makes me take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

fuckwittery Sun 01-Dec-13 00:47:35

Although having read the independent story now it looks like the English court has ruled out transferring the proceedings to Italy or placing the child abroad. I would query why proceedings were not transferred to Italy for the Italian courts to decide the child's future if the mother remained incapable of caring for the child

If someone is in the middle of a bipolar high and decides not take medication, that is their right. Thought the consequences of their choices might lead to sectioning for their own safety.

I would very much doubt that a section was order simply to remove the child to care.

There might well have been valid medical reasons for delivering the baby early (pre eclamsia being one) that the mother may well have been too unwell to have consented to with full knowledge.

No such procedure would have been undertaken without a court order. And it takes a lot for a judge to decide to perform a cs against the wishes of the mother, because the mother's rights are virtually enshrined in law.

Because SS are not actually in the business of stealing babies from mother's womb's.

Because that would be bonkers. And anyone who believes that is, in my opinion, bonkers.

SS deal with whatever is landed on their doorstep. End of.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 00:54:52

I don't think there is anywhere near enough detail in that article to form an opinion really. The judge, the mental health team, the SS all have more knowledge than we do and are therefore better placed to make a decision about what is/was right.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 00:55:46

Is there a link to the Independent piece?

Why on earth were Italian SS not involved? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay, so what circumstances do you think could ever make this right?

SS would not necessarily involve Italian SS.

any Italian national has the right to work and reside in the Uk.

UK SS responsibility is to the Mother and the child.

Not to chase around the continent for options.

Although I would be surprised if they had not tried to place the baby with family at home.

But as we have no information post birth, and the birth information seems to be rather, ahem, loaded. I guess we shall never know.

santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 01:01:40
NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:11:58

Why on earth not? The child was Italian. With family and siblings in Italy. And of course the mother, who was trying to get the child back.

Honestly the idea that an ITALIAN child with siblings family and a mother in that country should not be placed within that country / dealt with by that country because what Essex SS couldn't be bothered to talk to them? Didn't want to? I mean it beggars belief.#

And the idea that considerations like this are "chasing around the continent" and irrelevant - I don't get that attitude. The child was ITALIAN not british, with family and siblings and so on in Italy. The mother had been removed from teh UK and sent back to Italy and so that's just a nightmare in terms of legal stuff.

I am always surprised on threads like this where people say yeah well there's 2 sides to every story and don't even consider the possibility that SS have acted inappropriately for one second.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:13:43

'Okay, so what circumstances do you think could ever make this right?'

Pre-birth, if it was genuinely in the best interests of the mother.

Post-birth, if it's genuinely in the best interests of the child.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:16:38

There is no mention of the father in any of this. Any chance he is British?

Can she be removed from the UK? If she's Italian doesn't she have a right to stay here?

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:19:23

How is in the best interests of the child to be placed in care in a country that is not it's country of origin, to learn a different language and culture and so on, when there is no final decision as to it's permanent fate, and it's family are all in Italy and the states?

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:19:58

He's american and his sister offered to have the child, Essex SS refused that on the basis that she was not a blood relative.

So if she were sectioned for five weeks (remember that you can only be sectioned in the first instance for 28 days, and then it has to be renewed by pyschiatrists)

And then SS/Psychiatrist went to court to recommend c-section (I would hope not as an idle weirdly wish thing) to safeguard the baby.

When the baby is born. It has to be dealt with under UK law.

But unless you think that UK social services have some kind of vendetta against Italian SS, (which we have no knowledge of, let alone knowledge of their contact with the birth family) what is there to complain about?

Does anyone have any concrete knowledge about what the fate of this baby is?

So the birth father wants to farm the baby out to his sister in America?


It's not the birth father. It is the father of her eldest child who has tried to come to the rescue. They are separated.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:23:45

There are also 2 siblings in Italy and a clearly supportive extended family (her mum was looking after the 2 girls while she was doing the 2 week training course in the UK).

Can you imagine how it was.

You go for a 2 week work training course in a different country.
You have some kind of mental health episode.
You are taken to a psychiatric hospital, told you are not allowed to leave.
You are sedated and when you wake up you have had a CS and your baby has gone (you have never even seen it)
You are told you are not allowed to see your baby and it has been put into care
You are sent back home.

Just WTF it's like something out of george orwell.

I'm afraid I have seen some horrendous actions from people who are paid to help, that I can quite believe this story. I don't think it is usual, but Essex are notorious in the SN world for the way they abuse families of children with SN and often use Social Services as part of their strategy of abuse.

I think there are some not so nice individuals at senior levels there.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:24:03

That's not what it says in the Telegraph Nice.

'her American husband – from whom she is amicably separated, and who is the father of her eldest daughter'

Doesn't say he is the father of this baby. If he was, his sister would be a blood relation.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 01:25:02

I think no one on mn knows the backstory,but that won't prevent the hyperbole

'Pre-birth, if it was genuinely in the best interests of the mother.'

And what could possibly lead to a conclusion like that?

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:27:01

The child is Italian. It is growing up with English language and culture. Of course they should have been onto Italian SS and discussed with them, I would imagine hand the case over to them. If the child goes back to it's mother, it will have a different country and language to get used to on top of a change of carers. To fight the case in the UK for someone in Italy is going to be really expensive and difficult. And of course she already has mental health probs.

Sounds ridiculous to me, not sure why others can't see that.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 01:27:16

Op,do you have greviance with Essex local authority or sw in general,is that affecting your judgement

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:28:18

Oh right outraged fair enough.

I don't think there is any reason to think the father of the child is English though, which is what others were saying to justify Essex SS keeping the child here and not liaising with Italy SS.

Buttercup4 Sun 01-Dec-13 01:28:20

This story makes me feel sick to my stomach.

I can't see how this is acceptable in any circumstances. Utterly deplorable.

I haven't made any judgements, I am asking questions.

You tend to come onto my threads and hurl accusations though so I'd suggest it was you that has the grievance.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:28:56

'And what could possibly lead to a conclusion like that?'

If her life or long term health was in danger from continuing with the pregnancy and she was unable to consent to treatment?

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:29:25

SM by your reasoning the papers that have reported this also have a "problem" with Essex SS and SW in general.

As the reporting isn't entirely rosy.

And not telling her what was going to happen could be justified in even those circumstances?

Yes indeed SM, one does indeed wonder what the interest is here.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 01:31:24

Local authority in uk is guided by uk law,and the child and woman were in uk at time of pre-birth assessment

AcrylicPlexiglass Sun 01-Dec-13 01:31:29

It does sound like a very tragic situation but I think there could well be justifiable reasons for a forced caesarian in very rare circumstances, yes. I have no knowledge of this particular case but I have worked with people so acutely mentally unwell that they don't believe they are pregnant, believe that the baby inside them is a demon who must be killed/expunged and have tried to get the baby out themselves via methods that could have killed both themselves and their almost full term baby etc. It is very common for people who are psychotic to not believe that they need treatment for physical illnesses and I could imagine a scenario where someone acutely mentally unwell refused to accept that they had pre-ecampsia and needed to deliver their baby early, for example. Bipolar affective disorder is an illness that can cause acute manic psychosis at one pole and extreme depression at the other. Both mania and depression when they are severe can be life threatening and certainly can severely affect someone's ability to make decisions of all kinds. I think it can be difficult to imagine how ill someone with a very serious mental illness can be when they are acutely unwell unless you have experienced it via work or a very ill family member. Even though mental illness is very common, most mental illnesses are spectrum disorders, if you like, and there can be chronic or acute phases, as well as periods of remission and sometimes full recovery. The same person when well can seem utterly unrecognisable from when they were acutely unwell and severe bipolar disorder is perhaps one of the mental illnesses where this contrast is most stark.

This would have been authorised by a judge at the court of protection on the grounds that the mother lacked capacity to make a decision about whether or not to have a caesarian at the time and, if that lack of capacity was accepted, that it was in her best interests to have one. Evidence of the extent of her mental illness would have been presented by adult mental health services and the obstetric reasons for the necessity of the c-section by obstetric experts, I imagine. It is a decision that would not have been taken lightly, of that I am sure.

Hideous situation, difficult decision, no right answers maybe. But would it have been better to risk this woman's life rather than force a c-section? I suspect that we are talking about a life threatening situation here because Court of Protection cases of this nature generally are about making life and death decisions on behalf of someone lacking capacity.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:32:15

'It is growing up with English language and culture'

Do you know the nationality of the foster carers? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere. There are a lot of Italian people in the UK, maybe they've placed the baby with an Italian family?

If anyone of you had seen someone is crisis due a psychotic episode, you would not be so quick to judge.

I have, and it's not pleasant. And it can go on for weeks, months, whatever.

A panic attack would not attract the attention of SS in regard to a pregnant lady.

It would be treated appropriately. And then she would be free to go on her way.

Well I can tell you with utmost certainty that Local Authorities have no regard for the law, and that there are no effective policing of Local Authorities in this regard.

That's helpful Acrylic. Thx

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:35:21

'And not telling her what was going to happen could be justified in even those circumstances?'

How do we know they didn't? A third-hand report based on the account of someone sectioned because they were suffering from mental illness? We don't know, which is why we're not in a position to criticise the decisions that were made.

FairPhyllis Sun 01-Dec-13 01:36:02

Holy fucking hell.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:36:16

Acrylic I'm more bothered by what happened afterwards.

Outraged you think that placing a child with an Italian family in the UK is the same as placing it with an Italian family in Italy? And what of the fact that it's family are all out there? And the fact it is an ITALIAN child?

Funny innit, with grown-ups people in the UK at the moment seem very very keen to "send people home" yet an Italian child is placed in care in the UK away from family siblings grandparents etc and everyone says Oh well yes that's fine.

Why on EARTH was the child not transferred to the Italian SS? I simply don't understand.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 01:38:05

Op,You cannot definitively say the woman wasn't told was going on, don't know
I have no recollection of your past threads,so no dont infer gripe where none exist
Your did They take kidney too quip,that's indicative of subjective bias against sw

Acrylic, a very thoughtful and insightful post.

I have a very dear friend who is a forensic psychiatrist and you would weep for the people under his care.

Ladies who want to gouge their eyes out because they cannot bear what they 'see' And, if unsupervised, attempt that very thing.

Extreme mental illness is distressing to all involved.

I know of no professional health care practitioner who would merrily seek an enforced c section simply because the mother had a panic attack.

This is utter nonsense.

FairPhyllis Sun 01-Dec-13 01:43:28

The messages I am taking away from this loud and clear are:

If you are unfortunate enough to suffer from panic attacks, fgs don't seek help from the NHS or you may end up being sectioned.

If you are pregnant, it's basically legal to treat you like a walking incubator with no civil rights.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 01:46:12

Unfortunately you're taking an incorrect message and your summation is inaccurate

which is not to say starlight that you are not aware of issues regarding this particular authority regarding child welfare.

But unless we actually know what the real circumstances are, here on MN, we cannot possibly judge.

And that is the point. The law prohibits, as it should, any LA from publishing details of their decisions regarding child protection proceedings. Even if they would love to, if only to clear their names.

Therefore the only information we have in the public arena is information provided by a necessarily interested party or parties.

It makes it hard to form a rational decision. But that is where the law leaves us. And I have to think, on balance, that is in the majority of cases,that is indeed in the best interests of the child.

Behind the scenes much stuff is going on which we have no access to.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 01:47:08

'Outraged you think that placing a child with an Italian family in the UK is the same as placing it with an Italian family in Italy?'

No, but it's a very good compromise and would deal with the language/culture issue that you were so worried about up thread. I don't know the process of finding foster care in this situation, from your posts I don't think you do either. I would imagine the team involved in placing the baby do, maybe we should leave the decisions to them?

Fair, that is ridiculous.

And you must know that.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:48:47

FairPhyllis that is the sad thing is that she was the instigator. She sought help, and this is what the consequence has been.

I still don't understand why people think it was OK for UK SS to place this child in care in the UK and not involve Italian SS. That is potentially damaging for the child, and also seriously impedes the mother's recourse routes. It's really not fine. She came here for a 2 week course FGS and we have kept her child. If it were a UK woman whose child was being kept somewhere else the tabloids would be in a frenzy. And rightly. Say I go on a 2 week work trip to Latvia and while I'm out there I have a mental health episode and the authorities drug me, remove my child from my body, place it in care locally and then send me home. WTF? How can people look at this and say "Yes yes that's absolutely fine". Baffling.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 01:50:41

The local authority has statutory duty to act within uk legislation
This case was in uk and as such the LA has to be governed by uk law

Indeed SM. It's baffling that people think there is another European remit regarding the care of children born to EU nationals while in the UK.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 01:56:08

The child is Italian.

She was here on a 2 week course.

The child has siblings in Italy, and other family.

Italy is a country in Europe with child protection services, it's not like she was from some war-torn violent country.

UK dealt with the situation as it arose but they have no business keeping the child here. The child has family in Italy, and the end result is not known, the child will be better off in care in Italy for numerous reasons.

Why are people so desperate to say this is all A-OK when it looks dodgy as fuck? Public institutions get it wrong all the time. I have an open mind about the CS but the keeping the child here is just bizarre. Why are some people simply unable to say. Well, maybe they fucked up this time.

This sort of total faith in any kind of body bothers me. Stuff goes wrong all the time, in all sorts of organisations, none are immune.

ThePost Sun 01-Dec-13 01:56:21

FGS, SS do not just snatch babies from the wombs of unsuspecting women. That's just ridiculous.
There must have been a series of MH professionals, legal representatives (including one acting on behalf of the mother) and medical staff who all agreed that based on the particulars of the case at the time, the mother was incapable of acting in the best interests of both herself and her unborn child and unable to give her informed consent to medical procedures. There is no way an OB/GYN and theatre staff would carry out a section on a woman without her express consent unless she were unable or incapable of giving that consent. They would be hauled up before the GMC for misconduct and struck off! I can't imagine that hospital management would allow such a procedure to take place in their facility if they were not also completely sure of the legality and necessity - there's no way they would knowingly take the risk of being sued for squillions.
This is obviously a deeply tragic case where, quite rightly, the world and his wife is not party to all the facts of the case so that the woman, her child and the rest of her family still has some privacy.

Nobody gets sectioned in the Uk for a panic attack!

Really, get over this. She cannot have simply have had a panic attack.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 02:01:00

'I still don't understand why people think it was OK for UK SS to place this child in care in the UK and not involve Italian SS'

We don't know the facts of the case. How can we understand their decision without knowing the facts of the case? The baby had to be placed somewhere short term. Maybe they decided it was better for the baby to have consistency?

'and then send me home'

People from the EU have a right to live here don't they? I don't think she was deported.

It might quite simply come down to her mum saying she can't manage two kids and a newborn?

If the baby is born in the UK , it is the UK's responsibility to make the best decisions they can according to the information and resources available to them.

If Italian family cannot manage, and Italian SS wash their hands, what the fuck do you expect UK SS to do?

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:02:59


She has two children at home who were being looked after by her mum while she came here for 2 weeks to have some work training.

Should Uk SS not have been liaising with Italian SS re. their care and state of health and whether this woman was an adequate mother, and potentially strongly recommending that these children be removed?

Should they not have been looking at intially working with the 3 children together all removed from teh mother?

The whole thing makes no sense. It doesn't sound like Essex SS sought communication with Italian SS at all - shouldn't they have done that regarding the other children?

AcrylicPlexiglass Sun 01-Dec-13 02:03:34

I have worked in acute mental health settings for some years and I can honestly say that I have never known someone to be detained under the mental health act for having a panic attack. It really is an extremely unlikely scenario.

I am not saying this is the case, but it is a plausible scenario.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:04:43

Yeah bias is coming out here.

"Italian SS wash their hands"

The articles seem to indicate that Italian SS were not alerted or contacted. One of the points of the case.

Yet there is an assumption that they have "washed their hands"

That's just made-up, isn't it.Bias schmias.

GoshAnneGorilla Sun 01-Dec-13 02:04:56

Agreeing with those who say that there is almost certainly much, much more to this.

The OP's comment of "I bet they took a kidney at the same time" are especially facile and ignorant.

People seem to be unaware of the full spectrum of mental health issues. John Hemming and the usual crew are involvement is reason to be very wary.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 02:06:43

'Why are some people simply unable to say. Well, maybe they fucked up this time.'

Maybe they fucked up. I DON'T KNOW. Neither do you. That's the point. The outrage and upset over a case that you have no knowledge of (other than a ropey report in the telegraph) is foolish.

You have no knowledge of the mother, her health condition, the family, the father, the foster family, the legal proceedings, the SS arrangements and yet you consider yourself able to criticise decisions made by people who do know the specifics of this case.

Not addressed to acrylic, btw!

I have no idea what Italian SS they are set up, how they function. It would be a mistake I think to assume they function in the same way that UK SS do.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 02:08:04

The LA will act upon the presenting situation,and they'll liaise with authorities and nearest relative
There are some huge assumptions going on about alleged poor practice by LA
Such cases are usually used as vehicle to berate Local authority when they cannot respond

AcrylicPlexiglass Sun 01-Dec-13 02:09:16

I guessed as much, madamdefarge! I think we both like the word

wise words Scottish Mummy, wise words. People would do a deal better to sit back and think about what actual proof they are being offered for the assumptions and bias they are being presented with.

FairPhyllis Sun 01-Dec-13 02:10:34

Well I genuinely don't understand how you can go from presumably holding down a job and travelling to another country and attending a training course (all of which suggest that she was in a good mental state) to overnight being sectioned. Everything that happened afterwards is more or less intelligible to me although I do think it objectionable.

Was a language barrier at play in the original sectioning decision, I wonder? Woman is having panic attack, is foreign, possibly can't speak English well, police assume she is having some sort of serious MH episode and dump her at a mental hospital? Before she knows it she gets sucked into the MH system, has no decent representation, possibly can't speak English and doesn't understand what the hell is going on.

If any of you are HCPs you must surely see that the opacity of cases like this only increase people's worry and fear about MH care and make people less likely to seek help when they need it.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:12:22

But neither do any of the "SS can do no wrong" people know for sure they acted correctly.

If the woman is such a poor mother that her child was removed by SS and placed directly into care then surely SS have a duty to alert Italian authorities in re. the other children. Surely.

As for this random assumption that Italian SS are - what - an unknown quantity (read - they're shit) that's a huge assumption and somewhat of a xenophobic one. And even if they are shit, UK should still have alerted them about the other children. That's a basic responsibility, surely.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 02:13:30

'Well I genuinely don't understand'

That's your problem. If you did understand mental illness, your posts would probably be a lot more relevant.

I really don't think people get sectioned for speaking Italian.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 02:14:25

'But neither do any of the "SS can do no wrong" people know for sure they acted correctly'

No-one has said that.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 02:15:25

Let's face it op. Isn't impartial observer,clearly an agenda,an axe to grind
As demonstrated by I bet they took a kidney at the same time too
And a lot of assumptions by various absence of fact,they presume malpractice


Does that make it any clearer for you?

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:17:13

Well no SM she has linked an article in a mainstream newspaper and another article has been linked as well, both shocking.

Whether OP has an axe to grind or not is not the point when we're talking about stuff reported in the press.

AcrylicPlexiglass Sun 01-Dec-13 02:17:26

"Was a language barrier at play in the original sectioning decision, I wonder? Woman is having panic attack, is foreign, possibly can't speak English well, police assume she is having some sort of serious MH episode and dump her at a mental hospital? Before she knows it she gets sucked into the MH system, has no decent representation, possibly can't speak English and doesn't understand what the hell is going on."

The police cannot just "dump" people at mental hospitals. There are clear legal procedures to be followed under the mental health act. Assessors tend to be very careful when there is a language barrier and there is an obligation to use interpreters etc during mental health act assessments and to do everything possible to ensure effective communication.

Do you think it is usual to call the police when you are having a panic attack, btw?

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 02:17:45

Can I ask do those of you finding this objectionable understand MHA?
The process and staff involved

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:18:12

Outraged I do understand mental illness, to a certain extent, which is maybe why I have a certain amount of empathy for this woman.

If you had any idea of the stress the UK mental health services were, under, you would not for a minute believe that a random Italian national, suffering from a panic attack, would not have been monitored, calmed down, assessed, then sent swiftly on her way back to Italy.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 02:20:07

Well no what?op bias is clearly driving her posts and pov
Contrary to what's been posted one doesn't get sectioned and have kidney removed

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:21:07

Acrylic the woman called the police herself, I guess she dialled 999 as she was worried, and took an option.

And TBH when a woman who is visibly pregnant is involved, services (and people and society) do tend to swing into action in their fullest capacity in often an unprecidented way, yes.

Woman in the street having a panic attack - OK - have a chat - move on.
Woman in the street heavily pregnant having a panic attack - ring 999.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:25:03

Well no she didn't get sectioned and have a kidney removed, she got sectioned and had a baby removed.

Point is that articles are from Independent and telegraph, whether or not OP has bias (like many on this thread in both directions) people are reacting to articles. You can't negate thread by saying "oh op is talking bollocks" when she is reacting to what she has read in papers as are we all.

And the reaction is, bizarrely:

1/2 Well that sounds absolutely fine
1/2 Oh my god that's horrendous

I'd be interesting to know how people reading those pieces can come to such different / incompatible conclusions but that's probably another thread.

tbh honest. tabelard, no, I think you have a very poor understanding of what it takes to get someone sectioned in the UK.

Being heavily pregnant? How pregnant was she? we all know most international airlines will not let women who are pregnant fly over 30 weeks. Especially those who are employing them.

I was certainly not looking heavily pregnant at 30 weeks but by god I was at 35 weeks.

If I had had a panic attack, and needed medical assistance, I am sure they would have treated me appropriately and counselled me on taking it easy and not doing any more foreign training sessions.

I would have been surprised to have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

OK. say she gets sectioned upon seeking medical help while pregnant in another country.

She is then sectioned for the foreseening future (including the 28 day end of intitial section). She is then nearing birth.

Under what circumstances would you think it reasonable for a UK court to sanction a c section?

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 02:30:10

Actually no.what you're describing,isn't that clear cut
You. See MH is what is observable,what's risk to person,others,assessment if individual

Despite what you say There is no manual says,
Woman in the street having a panic attack - OK - have a chat - move on.
Woman in the street heavily pregnant having a panic attack - ring 999.

An MHA relates to the individual,the situation, and safest most appropriate way to access treatment. Treatment canbe delivered in community or in hospital. The aim is least restrictive safe environment

Yes SM.

I do think there is a certain amount of people who believe SS and MH services are at the command of the devil.

Its just silly really.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 02:34:00

It should be 100% 'we don't know enough to form an opinion about this specific case'.

I think we all feel empathy for her btw.

FairPhyllis Sun 01-Dec-13 02:40:44

Outraged, the reason I am so concerned about this is that I have depression and severe anxiety with panic attacks. What's to say this kind of (admittedly extreme) thing couldn't happen to anyone with any kind of MH problems in the wrong circumstances? The problem is we just don't know enough about what happened one way or the other.

If you are so all-understanding, please take that as a genuine question from me and educate me. It's pretty rude to presume that I don't have any experience of or know anything about mental illness.

It's very easy for anyone who works in this field to tell people to blindly trust the professionals. But having a caesarian by judicial decision is a pretty big fucking deal -we'd all agree on that, right? - and it's only right that there should be some oversight of that decision and the circumstances leading up to it. I am less concerned about the decisions made concerning the baby once it was born because I do understand why they were made.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:43:04

Why is everyone focussing on the CS?

I have said time and time again that I am concerned about what happened afterwards.

No-one has addressed why SS in UK did not engage with Italian SS.

No-one has addressed why if she is not an adequate parent why UK SS did not contact relevant authorities about her other children. That is BIZARRE. And if they are removed as well clearly the baby should be with siblings.

No-one has engaged with the fact that the child is Italian and should be placed in care in it's home country on the basis that at this stage adoption is not definite and presumably in fostering the siblings and grand-parents etc could potentially meet the child.

Have the Italian family been damned by Essex SS without ever meeting them? Did they even think about this stuff?

Yes it sounds and feels wrong. We don't have the whole story. Maybe the woman's whole family in Italy are awful and Italian SS off their own bats said hey they're a bunch of shits we're shipping these kids out and you keep that one. Nah don't bother trying to home them together.

That's not likely though, is it.

The more I think about it this sounds like a fail on the part of Essex to engage with their counterparts in Italy.

If her 2 kids in Italy had been removed, I think it would be in the articles.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:45:01

Hah excellent x-posts between me & fairphyllis

I think we both make great points grin

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 02:45:12

People have mentioned John Hemming and Christopher Brooker but no one mentioned her solicitor is Brendan Flemming. Poor woman has no hope.

You need to remember that as the family court is closed everything we read will be from one of them and you can't trust it. Someone needs to tell her to drop her team PDQ.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 02:46:20

I agree Phyllis The problem is we just don't know enough about what happened one way or the other
Yes,but despite that folk are supposing sinister or poorly executed practice by LA
Yes it's legit to query what going on,but that requires objectivity and suspension of prejudice

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:46:32

Who would you recommend?

AcrylicPlexiglass Sun 01-Dec-13 02:47:42

Sorry to hear that you have depression and anxiety, FairPhyllis. Have you ever been detained under the mental health act? Please don't answer that if you don't want to, obviously, as it's a very personal question. But I guess what I am driving at is that the vast majority of people with depression and anxiety never have a hospital admission of any kind, let alone one under section of the mental health act.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 02:49:22

If she was freaking out / unresponsive and not speaking english and got no-one to come and speak for her (partner, family member, family doctor etc) then I can see how it would go that way.

Honest, I can.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 02:53:01

Is that question to me NiceTabard? There are plenty of solicitors out there who aren't dodgy or on John Hemming's mission. I don't know solicitors in Essex, but I do know that Brendan isn't based there, he's in Birmingham. Like John Hemming. There's a shock.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 02:53:11

'No-one has addressed why SS in UK did not engage with Italian SS.'

'No-one has addressed why if she is not an adequate parent why UK SS did not contact relevant authorities about her other children'

'No-one has engaged with the fact that the child is Italian and should be placed in care in it's home country'

BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW <bangs head against wall>.

and clearly neither do you.

We don't even know that they haven't been in contact with the Italian authorities. Presumably when she didn't return after two weeks her family tried to find her? The company she was working for? There must have been contact between her family/people in Italy and the authorities here.

You don't understand why the SS have made the decisions they made because you don't know the facts of the case in sufficient detail. Neither do any of us so we can't tell you.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 02:54:49

Well said Outraged! We only know what JH, BF and CB are telling us and it's not going to be the SW have done as much as they can version!

GoshAnneGorilla Sun 01-Dec-13 02:57:18

To quote Fair Phyllis "Everything that happen afterwards is more or less intelligible to me"

- you don't know everything that happened afterwards. None of us here do. Likewise, we don't know what went on between Italian and UK SS. We don't know.

But people insisting she must have only had a mild panic attack and was then gobbled up by the system are dangerous scaremongers.

For this to happen would have involved a huge amount of legal work to get all the permissions in place because it is a hugely, hugely rare event. They almost certainly did not snatch her out of A&E and rip her baby out of her the next day, which is what some people seem to be implying.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 03:10:53

I find it peculiar how so many people are so invested in the idea that nothing has gone wrong with this case.

I find it interesting that people are focussing on the Mh / CS aspects rather than then nationality / other children aspects.

The woman is free to talk, and is doing so. If her other children had been subject to scrutiny I'm sure she would have spoken about it.

The articles are in the Indy and Torygraph, not anti-SW pamphlets distributed by oddballs.

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 01-Dec-13 03:11:12

Hmm as much as I despise ss
There is a right under the HRA not to undergo medical blah blah (couldn't be assed to google it) so something is definitely not right about this story..

-withholds judgement-

FairPhyllis Sun 01-Dec-13 03:11:59

Well when I say I am less concerned about the decisions about the baby that doesn't mean I don't think it would potentially be a better result to have the baby with its birth family. But I assume the issue is that the baby's habitual residence is the UK because it was born here (albeit very unplanned) and there is a certain procedure SS have to follow when that is the case.

I have not been detained under the MHA. But these kinds of cases are honestly - no scaremongering - very scary for people who may need to seek MH care, because it is not always transparent what may happen to you if you make yourself known to HCPs or your symptoms worsen. This is how I actually feel as someone who was scared stiff I was going to be locked up if I went to see a doctor and told them how I actually felt. As it happened, I wasn't. But with no previous experience of MH care and no MI in family that I knew of, how was I to know what would happen to me?

nooka Sun 01-Dec-13 03:16:21

I had a friend who had a psychotic episode and was sectioned and it was very scary, he completely lost touch with reality. When they released him it was with a diagnosis of bipolar and a lot of monitoring. During the episode he was very violent (ended up punching a policeman that he thought was threatening him) and when he was sectioned he was heavily medicated.

I would imagine that medication options are very limited in the last trimester due to the risk to the baby. I can't imagine that the decision to operate without consent was taken lightly and the court must have been satisfied that it was the best option. Not terribly surprising that she was sedated, as she cannot have been in her right mind, better surely to be sedated than to be strapped down somehow? I can't see that there was any choice about that.

Putting the baby into emergency foster care in the UK would then have been relatively routine. The question is really what happened afterward to make SS determine that it wasn't safe for the baby to return to her mother. There isn't very much information about what happened between the baby being born and her application to have the child returned so I can't see how it is possible to judge that.

The headlines in both papers are sensationalist nonsense. All babies born by c-section are in effect forcibly removed. The decision to perform the c-section would have been made by doctors not SS.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 03:16:27


Surely not.

If I go abroad when pregnant and unexpectedly give birth, my child is still English surely. Not eg Latvian and they can say no it can't leave the country as it's a Latvian citizen that's that.

If it's lucky it might get some dual thing going on I guess. But no, they can't say that children born eg on holiday are not citizens of the countries their parents live in

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 03:19:02

Also I totally understand your concerns re cases like this making people very very very wary about seeking help when they are pregnant.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 03:20:25

'I find it peculiar how so many people are so invested in the idea that nothing has gone wrong with this case.'

People are invested in highlighting that we don't know enough about this case to make an informed decision. It's not helpful to leap to conclusions.

'I find it interesting that people are focussing on the Mh / CS aspects rather than then nationality / other children aspects'

That's the relevant part. The fact that she's Italian is neither here nor there. The fact that there are other children is not really relevant. We have to follow our laws and procedures. Did they or did they not follow correct procedure? Did they or did they not act in the best interests of the mother and then the child? That is what is relevant.

'The woman is free to talk, and is doing so'

There is no interview with the mother. There are third hand quotes. Can you see why these may not be reliable?

'If her other children had been subject to scrutiny I'm sure she would have spoken about it'

Why are you sure about that? After all you don't know anything about her do you? If Italian SS had been involved with her children and found her to be an inadequate carer, I don't think she would broadcast this fact as it wouldn't really help her case would it?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 01-Dec-13 03:24:17

There won't be any statements from the mother.. If there are care proceedings going on she'll be gagged

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 03:30:46

'If I go abroad when pregnant and unexpectedly give birth, my child is still English surely.'

It's not always that straightforward. If your baby is born in America it is an American citizen. If you want to bring it back you need the consent of both parents. If the father wanted to stay in America, you could be prevented from bringing your baby home. You could then be deported.

There was a thread on here about someone who was planning to have their baby in America and a lot of advice to be VERY careful.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 03:34:56

"The fact that she's Italian is neither here nor there. The fact that there are other children is not really relevant."


You don't think children have the right to be handled in their own native country?

You don't think the fact she has other children is relevant?

Will you be lobbying for the rules to be changed in the UK, so that only the child who brought at risk investigations into force is looked at, outside the context of the family, and not bothering about any siblings or other people who are in the home?


Most "lessons learned" by SS and other agencies have talked about more joined-up thinking, not less. Maybe this is a new way forward.

Cerisier Sun 01-Dec-13 03:35:23

So a pregnant woman with any history of MH problems would be well advised to steer clear of visiting the UK is what I do gather from this distressing case.

The UK allows forced adoptions; she might never see her child.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 03:36:46

Good summary.

nooka Sun 01-Dec-13 03:39:50

America is very unusual though. In most countries at least one parent has to be a national or granted permanent residency for the child to be a citizen by birth.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 03:41:56

'You don't think children have the right to be handled in their own native country?'

Decisions should be made in the best interests of the child. I don't think that it is always best they be returned to their home country. The child was born in August, but the mother was not able to return to Italy until October, who knows what went on. Why are so sure the SS made the wrong decision?

'You don't think the fact she has other children is relevant?'

Not to the discussion here, no. If she was a first time mum would that change your view? I doubt it. The issue being discussed is the CS and the subsequent care of the baby, the other children are not really relevant to that.

'Will you be lobbying for the rules to be changed in the UK, so that only the child who brought at risk investigations into force is looked at, outside the context of the family, and not bothering about any siblings or other people who are in the home?


GoshAnneGorilla Sun 01-Dec-13 03:45:22

FFS people are just making up random facts now.

Tell me, Ceriser, after people who work in the system have given you countless examples of how sectioning works and who seriously ill you have to be to be sectioned, why on earth are you stating that any pregnant woman with MH issues needs to avoid visiting the UK.

Please consider who might be reading. If someone with MH issues is reading this thread and the scaremongering bollocks people are spouting puts them off seeking the help they need, that will be a dreadful, dreadful thing.

As for talk of "forced adoptions" what on earth do you think should happen to children who have to be permanently removed from their parents? They should just languish in the system and be denied any chance of a family life?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight Sun 01-Dec-13 03:48:06

Remember this is the torygraph so this could be part of the propaganda before putting the childcare services out to privatisation. You know how they hate anything nationalised..

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 03:59:10


You don't think the fact she has other children is relevant?

OUTRAGED: "Not to the discussion here, no."

Where there is a situation where concerns are so great that a child is removed at birth, clearly other children under the care of that parent / parents should be looked at.

GAG I suspect that Cerisier is being wholly honest about how this story makes her feel, and what concerns it gives her. How it makes her feel is how it makes her feel and that's an end of it. It's possible she might have a good insight into how women reading this story, who have mental health issues, will react. Please don't tell women who don't say what you want to hear to shut up for the sake of other women. That's just wrong.

Amd FYI this child has not been adopted, it is however in the care system in the UK, despite the fact that it is Italian, and has family over there.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 04:08:39

'Where there is a situation where concerns are so great that a child is removed at birth, clearly other children under the care of that parent / parents should be looked at'

Yes, but WE DON'T KNOW that they haven't do we? WE DON'T KNOW what went on, therefore it cannot reasonably be discussed here. Any comment we make about the other children is fiction, we might as well discuss Eastenders. WE DON'T KNOW. All we can discuss here are the facts that we have, the other children are not being discussed because we know nothing about their situation.

Do you have extra information about this case? You seem very reluctant to accept that 90% of what you're saying is guess work and the other 10% is based on 3rd hand newspaper reports.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Dec-13 04:16:28

I am fairly certain that the woman would have mentioned it if her other children had been removed? Or even if they had come under investigation. Given that she is allowed to talk about this one being removed in the UK.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 04:21:16

'I am fairly certain that the woman would have mentioned it if her other children had been removed? Or even if they had come under investigation. Given that she is allowed to talk about this one being removed in the UK.

There has been no comment from the woman that I've seen. All reports are 3rd hand.

Do you think telling everyone her older children have been removed would help her case? I doubt it.

Why are you 'certain' about the actions of a woman you know nothing about?

Do you accept that you know very, very little about this case and 90% of your comments are guess work?

Cerisier Sun 01-Dec-13 04:25:13

Gosh I don't live in the UK, and from the outside looking in, with two teenage DDs and with no direct experience of the MH system, this story terrifies me.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 01-Dec-13 04:31:48

Don't allow sensationalist news reporting to terrify you. Look a bit further into it.

Totally agree Gosh.

This case sounds horrendous but I don't think we have the full story. Nobody gets sectioned for a panic attack.

I live with a mental health condition, I've had questionable treatment in the past. But when pregnant and suffering a relapse and frightened of disclosure and possible SS involvement, every single HCP I encountered was amazing. From
GPS to Consultants, Midwives and HV.

If you are reading this and are pregnant with mental health issues and need help - please please do not let this put you off. Ask to see a different GP if necessary, every surgery should have one with a mental health remit. Also post on the mental health boards here - very supportive.

John Hemming has an axe to grind. I was on a thread a few years ago when he was explicitly suggesting women do not seek treatment for mental health conditions as their children would be forcibly removed by SS. hmm

creamteas Sun 01-Dec-13 07:32:00

Nobody gets sectioned for a panic attack

This is not actually true. My friends DS has a history of mental illness and had a panic attack. He was in public, agitated and looking threatening. The Police were called and because he refused to go with them and resist arrest he was detained. He was sectioned because his refusal to co-operate was a sign of mental illness.

After the 28 eight days he was told that he was no longer sectioned but if he tried to leave they would take that as a sign that he was not co-operating with treatment and the would use the Mental Capacity Act. They had no legal basis but he was too frightened to challenge them.

creamteas Sun 01-Dec-13 07:47:08

The law was also quite clear on forcible sections, they are illegal.

Eg George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S in 1998. The Court of Appeal found the forcible section on a women detained under the mental health Act was unlawful.

This found that women have a right to refuse treatment even if that would mean the death of the foetus and that detention under the mental health act did not allow forced medical treatment.

A good overview is here.

This case seems to be a major over turning of British Law

scaevola Sun 01-Dec-13 08:03:10

I'm not sure that appeal case is relevant here, for it appears to be circumscribing the extent to which the decisions of a woman close to or during labour can be held as indicative of her mental state (I can a physical issue be part or reasoning for sectioning). On the (incomplete) information here, this is unlikely to apply, as she had been sectioned 5 weeks before delivery.

The principle in English law, that consent must be obtained from everyone capable of giving it, remains; as does the counterpart that parents/guardians/doctors/courts make the decisions for those who cannot.

LtEveDallas Sun 01-Dec-13 08:18:46

I don't have an issue with John Hemming being involved here. He helped Fran Lyon and she was able to bring up her daughter in peace. Hopefully he can help this lady too.

I posted this on the other thread:

I can't imagine what it must be like to have a sedated c-section and then never see your baby

Indeed, and how exactly is doing that to someone actually going to help their Mental Health issues?

Whether there is 'more' to it or not, I cannot imagine any parent without Mental Health issues remaining that way if they had been forcibly sedated and their baby removed.

I was unable to see DD for almost 12 hours following her birth (both of us too ill), after an initial hour in ITU. I knew it was for her own good, but was still irrational and emotional leading up to finally being able to hold her again. Leaving her in SCBU for a month nearly killed me - and that was with being allowed to see her every 4 hours.

This lady must be going out of her mind and if she didn't have major problems before I'd suspect she will by now.

scaevola Sun 01-Dec-13 08:24:12

The (incomplete) article doesn't say that the mother never sees the child; rather that they do not live together.

Of course, if the child were removed to Italy, and the mother is resident here (and the article doesn't actually give her normal place of residence, only that she had been outside UK before a course) then that would remove even the possibility of most contact.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 08:44:40

Good posts by MadameDefarge and scottishmummy and others and also NiceTabard etc.

My first reaction was to think like NiceTabard and I still think this is wrong, but MadameDeFarge and scottishmummy have made me see the other side.

But, It seems that you can be sectioned if you have a panic attack and it is felt that you are a danger to yourself or to others, so it depends how she was behaving.

But, why can't a foreign national who is here on a visit not be transferred back to the MH services in their country?

If someone went to Russia on a business trip and was sectioned after a panic attack and then had a CS and the baby was given to a Russian national for adoption, there would be an outcry in the press and because it was Russia and Putin, the Prime Minister would possibly get involved. And if the Russian authorities then said we can't give more information and details because it is SS, the story would be all over our news for weeks.

Surely, more openness would be a better way of dealing with these incidents.

santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 08:46:16

What I do know from my limited dealings with SS is once they start on a course of action - it is very hard to get them to admit they are wrong or to get an apology from them.

I was treated dismally (and there was never any suggestion I had ever done anything wrong or mistreated my children.

For me it's all too easy to see how once they started on a path they kept going.

And regardless of all the things we don't know - this baby belongs in Italy with her extended family.

And again regardless of the ins and outs of the case. I find it horrendous that this woman - with no criminal convictions, has had her baby forcibly removed and placed in a different country.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 08:47:34

'and the article doesn't actually give her normal place of residence, only that she had been outside UK before a course'

I think the article said she was "habitually resident" in Italy. Not exactly sure what that means.

Buttercup4 Sun 01-Dec-13 08:53:32

That story is awful, Starlight really, really awful.

Sirzy Sun 01-Dec-13 08:57:17

But, why can't a foreign national who is here on a visit not be transferred back to the MH services in their country?

Surely that would come down to in part whether they were well enough/safe enough to actually travel?

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 09:00:48

But how do they travel from the hotel to MH services when they are sectioned?

creamteas Sun 01-Dec-13 09:01:02

You might also want to read this report by the CQC on Slade House. On page 9 it states that points out how at least one resident was unlawfully detained.

The care in this mental health unit was so bad, it was closed. But nobody did anything until an eighteen year old died.

Abuses by SS and MN are not common, but they do happen.

happybubblebrain Sun 01-Dec-13 09:03:20

Totally horrific.

The rest of the world should be boycotting the UK for human rights abuses based on this case.

Our whole system is corrupt and abusive. It's about time people properly woke up to this fact.

AndyWarholsBanana Sun 01-Dec-13 09:14:17

Just to add to Acrylic's very informative posts, this is how the Mental Health Act works: in order to be detained (sectioned) 3 professionals all have to agree- these are usually 2 senior psychiatrists who have to have specific approval to carry out these assessments. The third person, and the one who has the final say, is an Approved Mental Health Professional who is usually a social worker. Their role is very much to safeguard the person's rights and to make sure that every other option has been considered first. I've seen quite a few occasions when a social worker has gone against the doctors' wishes and refused to section someone. So. it isn't something that one or even 2 maverick doctors can do.
As soon as someone is sectioned they can appeal and this appeal is usually heard very quickly - within about 12 days. At the appeal, there is a panel comprising of a doctor, a lawyer and a lay person who have the power to release the patient from the section, even if their psychiatrist disagrees. The doctor has to attend the hearing and gets a very thorough grilling, it is treated exactly like a court and the patient has their own solicitor.
Police do have the right to use a particular section to take someone to a place of safety, usually a hospital, if they believe that a member of the public is suffering from a mental illness. This only lasts for 72 hours and the person then needs a full mental health act assesment to detain them in hospital.
Those of us who work in psychiatry are very aware that it has a very dodgy track record in terms of human rights which is why there are now so many safeguards in place. talking to people i iknow wh work in mental health in other countries, the bar is pretty high in this country - you don't get sectioned unless you are seriously ill.
Obviously, none of us know the details but it isn't a decision that would have been taken lightly - I once looked after a woman who had tried to perform a c-section on herself with a kitchen knife because she believed her baby was a demon. I can only imagine that it's a very extreme case for this to happen.
I would hate for people to be scared of getting help because of wrong information and scaremongering.

johnhemming Sun 01-Dec-13 09:34:58

As far as child protection is concerned there are two key phrases for jurisdiction: "Ordinary Residence" and "Habitual Residence".

Habitual Residence affects which country's courts have jurisdiction. If you look at the Re: B case on my blog you can see a case where a mother was on a visit to the UK and stopped in Heathrow and her child removed from her. The UK did not have jurisdiction, but took about 15 months to find that out.

The Italian lady on a course in the UK was clearly still habitually resident in Italy. In short they should have sent her back to Italy at an early stage.

What is unclear to me is whether the objective of putting her child up for adoption had any influence on the sectioning and C section or not. I will find this out over time, but at the moment this is not proven either way.

butnotthehippopotamus Sun 01-Dec-13 09:48:08

Whether valid or not, this case has reinforced my feeling that I would never admit to any health care professional any mental health issues I might have. When DC2 was 6-12 months the lack of sleep caught up to me (very poor sleeper) plus the decline in breastfeeding made me all over the place and at times I felt depressed, like I was a terrible mother and they would be better off without me etc. but I would never contact anyone to tell them in case it was held against me (especially as my own mother is bipolar). (I did tell DH who helped.) My aunt had a stroke and the medical staff at the care home were told it was just the one whereas really she had many mini strokes in hospital so they decided she wasn't improving and ruled her incompetent and gave medical proxy to a close relative despite them being estranged in real life. Luckily she moved care homes and the new place didn't know about my other aunt and consider my aunt OK.

I agree with what NiceTabard has written. i think especially that this baby should be with extended family preferably in Italy but even the stepaunt in America is acceptable. I really hope that the Italian ss get involved- surely this baby is an Italian citizen?- and if she is considered unfit to be a mother to this baby its the same for her other two?

candycoatedwaterdrops Sun 01-Dec-13 09:57:48

I hate these threads. sad I don't hate them because I think that social services are always right. I work and have worked for them; I know they aren't always right. I hate them because people, with very wrong limited knowledge about the way SS works, scaremonger and make sweeping statements based on media 'information'. I don't deny anyone the right to have their feelings or have their say, of course. But please think about what you are saying and the impact your words can have on scared parents or scared pregnant women. There are numerous campaigns to reduce stigma against mental illness and posting complete and utter shite on here, you are undoing all that good work.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 10:15:18

'There are numerous campaigns to reduce stigma against mental illness and posting complete and utter shite on here, you are undoing all that good work.'

Don't you understand that people are scared about the powers that the authorities have and their lack of transparency and openness and accountability to the public and that is why they voice their concerns? Why aren't there any "campaigns" for more openness and for more rights for those who are vulnerable and may end up having babies removed?

There was talk of wanting to test all schoolchildren at the age of 7 for things that include mental health. People are worried that this might mean that incorrect diagnoses are placed on file and then may be misused at a later date.

Saying shut up and be quiet because we are the experts and we know what we're doing and running "campaigns" is not the way to silence the fears of many of the public. Lambasting campaigners and MPs and solicitors who support people who believe there have been injustices is not the way to allay public fear. On the contrary, it increases public fear because the public think what have they got to hide.

Openness, transparency and accountability is the way to end public worry, not a blanket of secrecy and a call to shut up.

milk Sun 01-Dec-13 10:19:15

Very scary sad

FraidyCat Sun 01-Dec-13 10:21:00

The people who assume ss would fail to do what's best are probably the same idiots who believe that the police would lie to stitch someone up. Just as policemen never lie, I'm sure ss never send a bureaucratic train down the wrong track.

The fact that child protection takes place in secrecy and we are not allowed to know the facts is no reason to think they are getting anything wrong.

Since everyone else is speculating, I may as well join in. It may well be that there is no person or organisation in Italy they can entrust this child to, their objective assessment is that their own care is superior to that of any other option.

And don't tell me that UK law doesn't allow them to do what's best, our legal system has been evolving for centuries and is long past the point where it's capable of prescribing any injustices.

We live in the best country in the world, where no-one in power would ever, even accidentally, do anything objectionable to harm helpless individuals.

AndyWarholsBanana Sun 01-Dec-13 10:23:06

Couldn't agree more candy. So many people are already scared of getting help for mental health problems. Of course people can have opinions but, without any understanding of how the system works, those opinions count for very little but can still scare people. The Code of Practice for social workers who carry out mental health act assessments is nearly 700 pages long which makes it so frustrating when people post nonsense about someone being sectioned for a panic attack.

Mignonette Sun 01-Dec-13 10:24:53

We don't have enough beds to use them for people detained because of a 'panic attack'. I'm not going to speculate specifically on the condition of this woman because it would be unprofessional but Acrylic says it all really.

All I will say is that some medication for acute Mania/psychotic episodes is not advised for pregnant women. Without it, their lives may be in danger from suicide or misadventure including the very real risk of the dehydration that acute MI can cause because they are not capable of eating or drinking.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 10:29:03

And it's not just ordinary people and some MPs and some solictors who are shocked by this, it is the High Court in Rome who are shocked by it too

"The High Court in Rome expressed outrage at what had been done to an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. But the judge there concluded that, since she had not protested at the time, she had accepted that the British courts had jurisdiction – even though she had not known what was to be done to her, was deemed to have no “capacity” to instruct lawyers because she had been sectioned, and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority."

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 10:40:07

'and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority'

Is there no way that a foreign national, not one of our own subjects who has no options apart from our law, can have independent legal representation via advice from the Italian embassy or some Italian body, before being operated on?

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 10:49:23

Did they have access to her medical records, did they know her medical history, had they spoken with the authorities in Italy?

AndyWarholsBanana Sun 01-Dec-13 10:50:27

claig so where did you hear this "talk" of "testing" 7 year olds? You "don't test someone for MH problems, you assess them thoroughly over a period of time. It's not like giving someone a blood test.
I work with young people with severe mental illness and some of them have been ill for years by the time they get to us and never fully get their lives back on track. More often than not, the reason is that their family didn't get help because they were scared of the mental health system - often because of some crap they'd read or heard.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 10:59:00

'claig so where did you hear this "talk" of "testing" 7 year olds? You "don't test someone for MH problems, you assess them thoroughly over a period of time. It's not like giving someone a blood test.'

I read about it on MN in the "In the News" section.

"Every child should undergo mental health checks at school from the age of seven to identify anxiety disorders, anger problems and other mental health conditions, experts have said."

"A study published in the British Medical Journal recommends that pupils should be asked to complete regular tests throughout their schooling to assess their emotional and psychological health.

The checks, administered by school counsellors or specially trained staff, would identify children with depression, anxiety, anger and disruptive behaviour, at a cost of around £18 million a year, experts said.

Researchers said three-quarters of adult mental illness began in childhood, and that monitoring and cases at a younger age could mean earlier treatment, and intervention before problems worsened."

"You "don't test someone for MH problems, you assess them thoroughly over a period of time. It's not like giving someone a blood test.'"

Yes, that's what I would have thought, but we're just teh people "who talk shite", it seems that the "experts" now have "tests" that only cost £27, oh and the "experts" want it to be "universal", so that there is no "stigmatisation"

"A universal screening programme would mean children did not feel stigmatised by being asked to undergo tests, said Mr Williams, who is also a visiting school at Feinberg School of Medicine, in Chicago.

Researchers said such tests , which ask children to respond to a series of questions about their emotional state , could be administered at a cost of around £27 per child."

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 11:00:09

'Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.'

Exactly, that is why I believe in independent legal representation which is able to challenge the "facts" of the "experts".

Iwasinamandbunit Sun 01-Dec-13 11:08:08

No one one wants forced adoptions but it will have been MH professionals that have had this woman sectioned. I have spent some time as an in patient in psychiatric hospitals including a stay of a few months. They would have sectioned me if I hadn't agreed to go in as a voluntary patient.

I know there is a lot of prejudice regarding MH issues, I have suffered because of it, lost friends who were scared of it being one of the most hurtful things. However at the time my behaviour was difficult. Many people here will have had experience of depression, they may have been depressed themselves or had a loved one be very ill. You can have a normal life with other conditions like bi polar but during an episode you can really have behaviour that is incredibly dangerous to yourself. I'm not saying people with depression don't suffer and cause harm to themselves they sadly do but these kind of episodes like this poor woman had hit you like a freight train and are very acute.

I can see why she was sectioned but I cannot understand the aftermath of her losing her child forever and the child not being placed with relatives until she is well again.

creamteas Sun 01-Dec-13 11:19:23

More often than not, the reason is that their family didn't get help because they were scared of the mental health system - often because of some crap they'd read or heard

No system is perfect, no one expects it be. But the more that those in the MH profession pretend that they never get it wrong, the less they will be trusted.

There are cases of illegal detention. The problem is that the Court of Protection is secret. But here is one that is public.

AndyWarholsBanana Sun 01-Dec-13 11:56:40

creamteas Of course that case is awful but it's not the kind of case that comes under the Mental Health Act or would be dealt with by MH services.
Of course, mental health services get loads of things wrong - and I say that as someone who's used mental health services extensively as well as working in them.
I've seen all sorts of bad practice but I can honestly say that, in over 20 years experience, I have never seen anyone sectioned when I didn't believe it was necessary. And I say that as a bleeding heart liberal.
Honestly, there are so many safeguards - see my previous post about how the system works.
Honestly, there are many things that I hate about the whole system but I really believe that the whole section ing thing is really watertight and pretty transparent, which absolutely isn't the case with family courts.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:02:27

It's hard to discuss Mha and local authority objectively when so much is demonised
Some of you are really stuck on demonising staff and making sinister claims

IMO,the uk mental health system is one of the most liberal and has various checks and balances to protect the individual.Placing someone under a Section requires three professionals to take a joint decision, an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) and two registered doctors.Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) Mental Health Tribunals are part of the Judicial system. They are effectively a court of law. Their function is to hear appeals against detention under the MHA. They consist of a Judge, a Psychiatrist, and a specialist lay member, which is someone who has particular interest and experience in working in the mental health field. Their main purpose is:
to review the cases of detained, conditionally discharged, and supervised community treatment (SCT) patients under the Act
to direct the discharge of any patients where it thinks it appropriate
to consider applications for discharge from guardianship.

The professionals involved are
Social worker, undergrad degree or post-grad qualified.then attend post qualifying courses.supervised and professionally worker Is protected title. In England registered with Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC).Sw employed by local authority or health trust

Psychiatrist,medically qualified doctor who has specialised in mental health after qualifying,post graduate training and supervision.registered with GMC
Employed by health trust

In scotland, mental health officer.An MHO is a specially trained social worker who has the training, education, experience and skills to work with people with a mental disorder. MHOs work for the local authorities who have legal duties under the Act.During training has to lead assessments and is closely monitored and assesse

In England amhp,allied mental health professional. Sw,OT or nurse.additional post qualifying training. During training has to lead assessments and is closely monitored and assessed

If I was a tourist or traveller on a short trip in Europe, and I became ill - mentally or physically - I would hope that the people helping me would move heaven and earth to get me home as soon as I could possibly travel safely. And for my treatment then to continue at home.

It sounds like an horrific, ongoing nightmare for the woman concerned. I cannot begin to imagine the situation in which it would be necessary for HCPs to make these sort of choices and decisions, I hope that they are genuinely able to reflect on what happened and be sure it was the right course of action.

But it does make me worried about asking for help in Essex - it seems that things can spiral out of hand very quickly.

saragossa2010 Sun 01-Dec-13 12:10:57

We need a massive sea change.

We need fewer not more children removed from parents. We want relatives to be the default always if the parents cannot cope.

If she has family in Italy or a UK based father of the child the child should always go to them, never removed from close relatives.

If the person is foreign their embassy should be totally involved.

We should always try support to the mother before removal.

We should have the family courts much more open.

We should ensure every parent including the fathers has their own
independent medical/mental report

We should remember that a child in care is more likely to end up prison than university and that even a slightly inadequate parent is usually best.

Mignonette Sun 01-Dec-13 12:11:16

RMN's can detain voluntary patients in absence of Psych without post reg training under Section 5 (4)

Section 5(4)

• Compulsory detention in hospital for up to 6 hours for a Mental Health Act assessment
• Requires one nurse recommendation (RMN, RMNH, or SEN working in the speciality).
• The detention has an immediate effect from the nurse stating to the patient that they are on a section 5(4)
• Patient must already be an in-patient

Mignonette Sun 01-Dec-13 12:13:19

The RMN qualification bestows this legal power regardless of how experienced/post reg you are.

My trust frowns upon us using it as basically it is an admission that the Docs haven't been answering their bleeps wink.

duchesse Sun 01-Dec-13 12:14:16

As I said on the other thread (and always with the proviso that sometimes things do go wrong and there are abuses of power), the foetus as it was had no legal status until it was born, so the only legal reason for doing a CS in these circumstances would be to save the life of the mother. It could be that while under sedation she began bleeding heavily (possibly placental abruption?) meaning that they had no time to wait for the drugs to wear off in order to seek consent.

I can totally understand why the mother feels that she was knocked out and the baby ripped from her (and there are plenty of mothers whose children were born in "twilight births" in the 1950s who feel the same I daresay), but I do feel that involving that odious man is only going to confuse her further. Her MH must be very fragile at the moment.

Poor woman and poor baby.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:16:33

You see cakes,there a lot of ifs in your post
If fit to travel?the assessment would be of mental state and how to safely treat
There's a whole lot of demonising in absence of fact.Essex LA like all LA has to act under statutory legislation.they can't,despite what some here assert,act out with legislative framework

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 12:17:30

scottishmummy, there are a lot of qualified people, but a lot of qualified people used to give lobotomoes before they were outlawed. We have to have the right to ask questions about what is happening when we read shocking stories in our newspapers.

How did our system allow a situation where Jimmy Savile was given a senior position in one of the top mental hospitals in the country?

Is the regulation up to scratch? Should there be a bit more scrutiny and questioning of some of the decisions made?

"Disgraced entertainer Jimmy Savile was given a key position running Broadmoor and personally selected managers , it was claimed last night.

A former manager claimed that politicians and civil servants thought he was the ‘bee’s knees’ and appointed him to a task force to run the hospital in 1988.

The Top Of The Pops presenter has since been unmasked as one of Britain’s most prolific sex offenders, but was ‘given the keys’ to Broadmoor."

This woman had a panic attack and that may have involved her being a harm to herself and her baby and so sectioning may have been the correct action as AndyWarhiol has said. But it is what happened afterwards that is shocking and which shocked the High Court in Rome.

duchesse Sun 01-Dec-13 12:18:18

saragossa- you say that but as soon as Peter Connolly, Hamzah Khan or Victoria Climbié happens everyone clamours for more children to be removed, for more adoptions, for more state intervention.

SS are working to sort out shit parenting, on a legal knife edge at all times of civil liberties and child protection. By definition they are dealing with some of the most difficult and unpredictable people in society. Is it any wonder that sometimes they get it wrong?

I admire SW to the ends of the earth for managing to stay in their jobs. Only people with utter tenacity and sheer determination to be the one potential person in a child's life who doesn't just walk on by could hack it in that job. I think they do an amazing job in horrendous circumstance, day in, day out.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:21:03

Any system with humans in it is flawed,as humans are themselves flawed
Saville investigation has exposed dreadful systemic and individual failings Obviously systems,processes try to work for best practice. Least restrictive option

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 12:23:37

'Any system with humans in it is flawed,as humans are themselves flawed'

Yes, that is why we must have more openness and transparency so that we can identify areas where the systems and procedures and checks may be going wrong.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:28:04

Completely agree,transparency and discussion of process is necessary and should be encouraged
The real difficulty is getting past the hysteria and demonising of professionals
the masked amhp us a good blog there's plenty good stuff online,not just the hysterical conspiracy theorists

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 12:32:31

Yes, but it is chicken and egg.
The worries and demonising occur because of the secrecy.
If more information was out in the open, if senior officials were questioned in parliamentary committees and if people who believe injustices have been committed were asked to give their experiences, then the worries would decrease because understanding would increase.

mrsjay Sun 01-Dec-13 12:35:12

this is horrific it really is however we have not the facts a judge would have needed to give a court order the mother may have been trying to harm her unborn child or herself I do not think SS snatch children from the womb often, poor woman though it is so very sad

AndyWarholsBanana Sun 01-Dec-13 12:36:18

I couldn't agree more with scottishmummy about how liberal our mental health system is compared to most others - which isn't to say that it's perfect. Over the years, I've dealt with many concerned relatives whose loved ones are are ill but refusing treatment who want them to be sectioned so that they can get treatment and get really angry about how ill you need to be to get sectioned. They are genuinely astonished at how high the bar is set.
I've had patients who have gone abroad and relapsed and ended up in a psychiatric hospital and some of the stories are horrific - and I'm talking European countries here, not developing ones.
The UK is the only country that doesn't use mechanical restraints such as straitjackets and that includes progressive countries such as the Scandinavian ones.
There is so much scrutiny surrounding the Mental Health Act, there really is although some people seem determined not to hear that.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:37:22

I've seen some right old rot trotted out as if fact.for some they're so rooted to conspiracy and dark plots that they have inability to discuss this subject objectively

mrsjay Sun 01-Dec-13 12:38:31

I agree with your Scottishmummy conspiracy and what not do not make a discussion

mrsjay Sun 01-Dec-13 12:39:43

oh meant to add we do not need to know the ins and outs of this poor womans illness her privacy and dignity is important

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:40:08

Mha in uk is one of most liberal in world and has protection not afforded elsewhere
Use of physical restraints eg straps is illegal.this isn't case elsewhere
Mh tribunal and access to advocates,there are numerous attempt to introduce check and balance

saragossa2010 Sun 01-Dec-13 12:47:06

"saragossa- you say that but as soon as Peter Connolly, Hamzah Khan or Victoria Climbié happens everyone clamours for more children to be removed, for more adoptions, for more state intervention. "

Well I don't. I don't like the move to more adoption either.

The UK does have a better system than many countries and good social workers - no one disputes that but my points listed above would improve things further. I also don't like removal of children because of non physical abuse either. it is so easy to be abused as a ground.

The bottom line is involve social workers and the police in your family life at your peril. Steer well clear.

If we had had more open court and published judgments those involved in the system on a day to day basis and the judges could help to convince the public that both sides have a fair hearing, all relatives including extended family have lots of notice and lots of time to produce their own reports and be represented in the court (if indeed that does happen) and so we can check that the decisions which say babies born abroad where the courts have said they cannot be removed back to the UK are not illegally returned to the UK by social services.

mrsjay Sun 01-Dec-13 12:49:39

i have seen a few children removed into temp foster care for their own safety and their parents never put a finger on them

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:50:55

And you know this by accessing case records or the parents told you?

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 12:51:57

'we do not need to know the ins and outs of this poor womans illness her privacy and dignity is important'

Privacy is the least of her concerns, she has gone to the High Court in Rome. The more publicity and help she gets the more chance there is that she may get her child back.

Has anyone ever heard Frank Bruno talk about how he was sectioned and about the drugs that were used on him? There is an interview with him on Irish TV on youtube somewhere, but I can't find it.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:53:51

Mr Bruno,has also spoken warmly and in praise of the staff who treated him
He campaigns fir anti-stigma and better understanding of mental health
Mr Bruno was appallingly treated by print media,did you omit to mention that

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 12:54:47

"saragossa- you say that but as soon as Peter Connolly, Hamzah Khan or Victoria Climbié happens everyone clamours for more children to be removed, for more adoptions, for more state intervention. "

Well I don't. I don't like the move to more adoption either.

Exactly, saragossa, no one says we need more adoption, they say why didn't social services visit poor Hamzah more. Why was it so long before a PCSO, I think it was, entered the house? People ask what were the social services doing, they don't demand more adoptions.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 12:56:51

Frank Bruno,On North East Lincolnshire's mental health facilities which he later said were "the best I have ever seen"


claig Sun 01-Dec-13 12:56:57

scottishmummy, I don't know if he has been appalling treated by print media, but I have seen him interviewed on TV and heard him speak on radio about it, and I don't remember him thinking it was carried out correctly

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 12:57:13

The key word there mrsJ is temporary.

It happens a lot whilst things are being investigated.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 13:00:18

I won't repeat what sun printed,about mr Bruno it was v offensive
He's a campaigner fir better mental health,he doesn't wholly malign the services
Far from it,he works collaboratively with services,and meets staff and those using services

CaroBeaner Sun 01-Dec-13 13:02:13

Why on earth have the Telegraph chosen to illustrate this sensational and badly written feature ("A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers." if so SS are acting way beyond their skill set and job description....) with a misty-eyed idyllic picture of a lovely peaceful pg woman strolling on a seashore?

The reality, presumably, was a woman in imminent danger of taking self harming action that would be catastrophic and fatal to her and her unborn child, or that she was experiencing some illness or condition that threatened hers and the baby's life but she was not in a fit state to give consent, or she desperately needed powerful drugs to save her life that would have been catastrophic for her baby.

And who knows how they could have contacted her family in time?

It is really ignorant to view this from the pov of a happy, healthy idyllic expectant mothers pov and get all uppity about the state's intervention in the goddess like condition of pregnancy, over which only a a pg woman, a NCT volunteer and a doula should ever have any say.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 13:04:34

Why?because they can and it taps into conspiracy theories and distrust of services

GoshAnneGorilla Sun 01-Dec-13 13:38:19

Saragossa - From your comments, I hugely doubt you have any real life experience of child protection procedures. Kinship adoption (where a member of family looks after the child) is nearly always sought as a first and preferred option.

But guess what, sometimes no member of the family wants to take the child, or as I've also seen, a grandparent, for example, has already adopted several of her daughter's children and doesn't want anymore. So what then, when the child's own parent doesn't want the child either?

Poor outcomes in Looked After children, mean that the system needs to be improved, not that more children should languish in abusive circumstances.

There is a difference between families who can be supported to care for their children and families where the child is being actively abused. To fail to see that, is to fail the child badly, as happened in those cases listed above, where the parents were listened to, but no one focused directly (enough) on the child.

mrsjay Sun 01-Dec-13 15:22:57

nd you know this by accessing case records or the parents told you?

of course parents didnt tell me I was answering another poster about non physical abuse not that children were taken away for nothing children can be abused and neglected in many ways and parents do not hit them

Good God, this case is horrific. Forcibly sedated, a forced caesarian, her baby taken from her and held forcibly in the UK...

Whatever the initial crisis - and only the most extreme immediately life-threatening (to the mother) situation could possibly justify any of this - the determination of the UK authorities to hold on to an Italian child is frightening. This is a child who has a mother, siblings and grandmother, as well as presumably other family, in Italy. Who is only in this country because her mother was on brief work trip here. This woman is clearly not incapable of making decisions all the time - she may have had a crisis but she was holding down a job, a job complicated enough to involve international travel.

Sadly it is not always the case that MH and SS professionals are at the top of their game. Or act only entirely within their legal powers. There are plenty of court judgements that show extremely worrying abuse of power, where judges have felt moved to condemn SS and doctors.

There does seem to be a common theme in miscarriages of justice that come before the family courts and then later courts that once SS and MH professionals start going down a certain route, they will not backtrack. Even if they were mistaken, there is a marked reluctance to admit it.

It is vital that cases like this, that go to the heart of human rights, are reported and discussed. We do not live in a police state, where the authorities are free to do with us what they will. Including snatching babies from the womb.

ShinyBauble Sun 01-Dec-13 16:56:31

Sadly, edam we do.

I have a lot of experience with mental health services on behalf of a very close family member, and social services through another, and I find both 'services' very frightening.

Frank Bruno is a not a good example, because he is a celebrity, and people would be queuing up to help him. Ask the schizophrenic on the park bench what his local mental health services do for him.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 16:56:52

Don't let emotive language stop you from handwringing
The baby wasn't snatched from womb by bloodied hand medic.
It was a cs,sanctioned by judge,and as you say we don't live in a police state

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 16:59:29

Yes,do ask an individual what their mh trust do for them,answers won't all be disparaging
You'll get a range of responses,that mirror subjective pov and lived experience
And as much as some of you cannot acknowledge,not all people are unhappy with services or staff

no-one said all people are unhappy, that's a straw man.

But the police, SS, MH and child protection professionals wield huge power and that is sometimes misused.

To take a comparable example, look at all the hideous scandals in NHS hospitals - mid-Staffordshire, for instance. Or care homes like Winterbourne View. I doubt anyone working in those places applied for the job gleefully thinking 'great, an opportunity to abuse the vulnerable'. Yet it happened. Even good people - and some of the doctors and nurses in mid-Staff were good people, who struggled to raise the alarm - sometimes do bad things. And not always deliberately - they can believe they are doing the right thing, and get it wrong.

Most of us, if we make a wrong call at work, nobody dies. Go into social work or medicine or nursing and if you screw up, it can be devastating for your clients and patients and their families.

Wannabestepfordwife Sun 01-Dec-13 17:05:57

It's a harrowing story for all involved. Those poor children in Italy they must be so confused their mum goes away for 2 weeks pregnant and then comes back considerabley later with no baby. I hope they have help coming to terms with what's happend.

I really feel for the medical staff involved they did what was believed to be best for mother and child but the circumstances must play on their minds.

Sorry to be ignorant but I am slightly confused to the john hemming campaign and why it receives such animosity on here

ShinyBauble Sun 01-Dec-13 17:40:15

scottishmummy I think I have some excuse for 'handwringing'. My mother was suffering from mild mental illness, she could have made a complete recovery. Mental health services were only interested in helping her when she was totally beyond help.

And in the decade since, while witnessing my mother stuck in a living hell, with the local authorities doing stupid shit like giving her a flat and leaving her to it, leading to my family having to search the grimmest parts of town for the best part of a week trying to find her, I have spent a lot of time in mental illness units and seen how the patients are treated. More importantly, I've seen how they are treated when they don't know outsiders are there. I know exactly how shit mental health services are in this country, appallingly so.

Would you not restrain someone to stop them harming themselves? Presumably they did that anyway so why would the CS be so urgent? and why would they want to keep the child here?

I can't imagine any scenario that justifies what was done and how it was done.

I didn't think that her bi-polar condition was that unusual. Are there not people on here living normal lives with it? Presumably not allowed to get pregnant though is that how it works?

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 17:55:47

A mental illness will impact differently upon each individual.
there will be commonality of symptoms but the severity and impact will vary
So yes whilst someone may lead active life with their diagnosis for someone else it will impede and limit their daily activities

The nature and degree of the illness will vary from person to person

GoshAnneGorilla Sun 01-Dec-13 18:02:58

Back - how on earth can you make a statement about her condition not being that unusual, no one here knows exactly what state she was in. A diagnosis does not mean everyone with that condition is affected in exactly the same way.

People are scaremongering on this thread and the seem to be doing so on the basis of extremely limited facts. Scottish mummy is spot on.

scottishmummy That sounds reasonable. However I understand that this woman was functioning well enough to travel abroad to work until recently. One might think she would get better again on regular medication. But the judge has ruled she can never be trusted with the child?

We normally go to some lengths to support parents with mental or physical problems. If the chances of a relapse are that dangerous in their opinion why would you allow anyone suffering from that condition to keep their children?

SPSJSAT Sun 01-Dec-13 18:13:14

Well I genuinely don't understand how you can go from presumably holding down a job and travelling to another country and attending a training course (all of which suggest that she was in a good mental state) to overnight being sectioned

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

My mother has done exactly this, repeatedly. If you met her when she was well, never in a million years would you think she had a MH issue. 24 hrs later, she can be on a psych ward, sectioned.

You DO NOT get sectioned for 5 weeks as the result of a panic attack

The section, by law, will have had to have been in the best interests of the mother. The child isn't a legal entity until it's born,I don't believe.

People saying that children should remain with parents if they haven't come to any physical harm should take a look at the various forms of abuse, and how damaging they are. Emotional abuse can be one of the hardest for children to get over.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 18:16:25

A acute psychiatric crisis can affect person in matter hours/days.affecting judgement,behaviour,mood
Again this varies individually,some will know their triggers and manage the impact
For others it can be a debilitating impact upon mood,behaviour,judgement

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 18:32:07

Whats to say the trained professionals were given factually correct information, the basis for the section may be wrong, human error, egos and all that.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 18:35:26

The trained professionals,2doctors, one amhp/sw they undertake the assessment
Assessment On the basis of what's observable, the person presentation,their risk
Are you suggesting a false mh presentation is manufactured?thats v conspiratorial

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 18:47:49

The people making decisions often don't even meet the family they are making decisions on, all words on bits of paper, often omitting relevant info, human error, whatever. How many people sat in a consultant app were told verbally info that wasn't written in gp letter?

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 18:51:45


I agree with most of what your saying but are you also saying that it never happens that groups of professionals never totally fuck up then not want to back down?

santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 18:53:01

I've had dealings with 2 separate SSH Departments as the victim of crime - I wouldn't trust them with my dog never mind my family and children.

They were utterly incompetent, failed to fulfill their minimum statutory requirements and in the case of one
SW passed information from my house to the mother of the abuser which was subsequently used by the defence in court because she was incapable of maintaining professional boundaries. It took 2 years to get an apology for this

Both councils SSH departments in their own way were equally incompetent I have no doubt at all once they set on a path they won't budge.

They are a symptom of an under funded service.

This child belongs in her home country - here we have open adoption - this path should at least be open - which it isn't if she is in a different country to her siblings.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 18:55:55

fridge,one must consult the nearest relative within reasonable time about an admission
attempts to do so must be documented

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 19:13:01

Just because someone said the dialed a number and claim there was no answer, then documents it, doesn't mean that actually happened. Going by plebgate these professionals seem to have very poor ability to recollect information, and struggle with factually correct information.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 19:20:37

as I said way back of course it's flawed system,as it's staffed by humans and we are flawed at times
There is poor practice,there is good practice,that's the reality.true in all organisations
Some on this thread are preoccupied by poor practice or alleged conspiracies as if it's the norm

saragossa2010 Sun 01-Dec-13 19:24:33

In all professions you need to try harder always and if there are a few errors that is something those in the profession regret (and I hope all social worker do too). My solutions including more openness and exhausting every avenue before removing a child and involving the foreign embarssy where it is not a UK national could improve things.

My suggestion avoiding involving social services and the police at all costs is probably sensible advice for many. Keep off their radar. Any of us they could make a case to remove our children -- any of us at all. It is a huge amount of power.

working9while5 Sun 01-Dec-13 19:26:07

I think it's incredibly difficult.

I see a lot of very poor but well-intentioned decisions being made in the public sector. The situation with Hamzah Khan where children beg for removal and are taken back home is one I've sadly seen a lot of with older children, for example. I've been involved in a number of Safeguarding cases where this has happened.

For the first time in my life, this last year I was a service user in secondary care with a perinatal mh issue. I found it very sobering. There was a significant team miscommunication at one point. Ds2 wasn't thriving and the mh services told community health services my mh was bigger issue. Fine, but they did this without communicating there was actual physical risk to ds2 to me or Dh based on pretty flimsy assessment. When shit hit fan and ds2 was at point of hospitalization having dropped from 91st centile at birth to 0.4 they continued to maintain my anxiety was always a bigger concern and that the failure to thrive was never a risk to my son though community health, GP etc felt it was serious. I watched in meetings as my concerns were ignored, minimised, written off etc and how no one listened to my concerns... until a qualified professional would chime in to give back up and suddenly the same concerns were valid.

I have done a lot of reflection and supervision related to my experience and I say this with no paranoia or harshness and a lot of clarity at this stage. It went to significant review, mistakes were made.

I have seen this on both sides of the table. I've seen mh professionals discount normal anxieties about children with emerging disabilities as 'attachment issues' etc.

No one ever means it. Things can and do snowball within mdts and many of the recent inquiries have indeed found professionals can get caught up in an ''agreed story'' about a family or client based on very flimsy assessment and evidence. It's the nature of an overstretched system. Everyone can be working their arses off and just fail to see the trees for the wood sometimes. It is very far from perfect. Can't comment on this case but I do see very stressed professionals make clumsy mistakes a lot. I daresay I have often been one of them.

Professionals need appropriate caseload sizes, adequate training and supervision and time to breathe within a day. They often don't have this and mistakes will be made.

LEMisafucker Sun 01-Dec-13 19:26:56

That is terrifying. So many mums with mh issues post on here and are advised that there will only be help and support from gp etc. This sort of thing is going to scare people off of getting help.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 19:27:25

You know dark warnings about avoiding police and social services are alarmist
It falsely creates impression these are organisations to fear and loathe
Most adults will not routinely encounter police and social services in a statutory capacity

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 19:30:51

Ah, if you have twenty people involved with the Italian Woman, it could go like this.

Panic attack, police are wankers and misinformed MH services, police lies passed on continually through case. Someone in mh team is dodgy uses police lies to make Italian Woman look worse. HV never meets Italian Woman, hears bullshit from other professionals votes to have baby removed. SW meets Italian Woman, thinks she is ok, goes to manager who reads bs tells sw to take baby. Legal at la fed vs, they feed bs to judge...

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 19:33:00

Vast majority of mental health is managed in community by gp, and cmht
A minority will have an admission,and smaller minority will be detained under MHA
We have a liberal mental health service in uk,and most folk with diagnosis are in community.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 19:35:27

Well fridge,I fear given your language and police are wankers,you're not impartial
So there is an inevitability in the what ifs you're proposing given you think it's all bs
I hope people who need support,don't feel frightened or put off accessing service

santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 19:35:35

I managed to get my complaint about SS in our local council before the Chief Exec - I had a meeting with Head of SS, CEO, Head of LEA.

When the Head of SS and I disagreed - she started referring to a Core Assessment (they had never done one, they didn't even complete the initial assessment correctly), when I challenged her - she said she had never seen our file, yet she was quoting it - that is how things escalate - a Head of SS in a meeting with a CEO to deal with a complaint - quoting as fact things that had never happened and which she hadn't even bothered to check.

It's not scaremongering it's the truth. They are incompetent - due to poor staffing levels, high case loads etc.

It's my view they took the easiest (and cheapest) path for them - no doubt liaising with Italy would have been time consuming and costly - probably for a long time.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 19:38:51

It's a real shame that there is an inability to discuss mh constructively
You see it's not as easy as staff are wankers,it's all lies and bs
The reality is complex,fast paced and often poorly reported by media

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 19:42:05

I got an apology in the end from camhs for passing on factually incorrect information to other agencies, fuckers refused to tell other agencies they did it, only me. Same with hospital admitted they did wrong, refused to tell others they passed on bullshit.

If you have perfect health then life is dandy if not, your vulnerable to a fucked up system and human error/dickheads. Yes I have been speaking to government depts about my experiences.

santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 19:47:24

deep glad you have people listening - all I get is "not my department - from cabinet ministers down to local councillors.

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 19:50:31

When I say talking to gov depts, I should make clear, I got go through complaints process, ombudsmen, then come back to us, we are doing xyz about this issues and xyz about this issue you raised.

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 19:56:05

I only managed to get apologies by showing them up, I went private and showed them their medical negligence. They had too much of a god complex they refused to accept they were wrong until someone who the government employs to write reports said different, they couldn't argue then, they still wouldn't admit to other agencies they misinformed, they cocked up.

johnhemming Sun 01-Dec-13 20:04:20

It is important to remember that at least one social worker has been fired because of recommending that a family be reunited. The system is under a lot of pressure to deliver more adoptions. That is mainly achieved by babies not returning to their parents. I have the stats.

working9while5 Sun 01-Dec-13 20:05:12

It does get out of hand.

Most working in the system know this. It's not all conspiratorial scary claptrap. In the system you just see it's nearly never someone dodgy or about lies... it's generally miscommunication followed by an inability to back down based essentially on abject terror of being deemed incompetent/struck off/losing esteem of colleagues or more often the reality of facing yourself in
the mirror knowing you fucked up someone's life when you were genuinely trying to help.

The system may be ideologically liberal but there's a lot
of fear of fucking up and dire consequences that contribute to obstructive communication on ground.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 20:15:35

Scaremongering it may well be but she's got a point about one thing

Give them higher staffing budgets and lower case loads.

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 20:18:13

I made sure they all looked themselves in the mirror and made sure I told each of them, their and other agencies mess ups. The school were the worst, tried after to ruin my childs life after they were showed up, won't go into details, they never cared about children, the schools behavior was evidence all they cared about was themselves, not the children at all.

The abused me as a vulnerable adult and my children the lot of them in different ways. They ruin lives.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 20:18:54

Ok MrHemming

Are you seriously saying that you can produce valid stats regarding children who didn't need to be taken being adopted?

johnhemming Sun 01-Dec-13 20:20:22

I have stats which demonstrate that as the number of children being adopted goes up the number of children returning to their parents goes down.

This was actually predicted by BASW.

johnhemming Sun 01-Dec-13 20:21:43

I have also stats to demonstrate the number of children placed for adoption and still languishing in care without being adopted. AKa statutory orphans.

See A&S v Lancashire County Council

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 20:26:09

FFS I got all excited then,thought you had actual evidence or stats relating to the question I asked.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 20:30:04

Its not unheard of for some parents to be abusive those parents need to have their children protected often by being removed. Hell I've met many who shoud be in prison (but to be fair to the cps mostly they do end up there).

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 20:39:07

It is NEVER ok to abuse another, it is not ok to abuse a vulnerable family to protect your own career then hide behind that kind of comment. You do realise it makes you as bad as Tracey Connelly or Daniel P's Mum oto abuse your position to abuse innocent vulnerabile families all so you keep your job.

SPSJSAT Sun 01-Dec-13 20:44:09

It is important to remember that at least one social worker has been fired because of recommending that a family be reunited. The system is under a lot of pressure to deliver more adoptions. That is mainly achieved by babies not returning to their parents. I have the stats.

Prove it.

SPSJSAT Sun 01-Dec-13 20:46:05

And by prove it, I mean... Prove that the system is under pressure to take more children into care.

Not get children WHO ALREADY HAVE A PLACEMENT ORDER adopted, I.e. out of the care system and into permanent homes.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 20:47:30

Gosh if you had the stats to substantiate that claim you need to go to press
Not mn.proper disclosure of these stats
Go on then

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 21:12:02

I would be really interested in seeing statistics to support the various claims made by Hemming, Booker et al.

I am sure we would all agree that it is important for such a serious topic to make sure we are discussing real issues, supported by evidence.

Otherwise there is a risk of descending into scare mongering and agenda pushing. Which I am sure we all agree helps nobody.

Unless some people are more interested in publicity and a high profile. I do hope that isn't the case here.

Injustice needs to be investigated, and needs a worthy champion.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 21:19:04

Good thing I decided not to hold my breath over the statistics.

santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 21:43:07

But as I understand it fast tracking of baby adoption does occur because they are easier to place (and so cost less money).

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 21:59:14

I'm glad others understand exactly why I got so excited by these stats then felt let down.

they sounded really exciting.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 22:25:05

NiceTabard, it could have been done perfectly by the book and JH will be telling his spin on it. Even if things haven't gone well, we will still be getting his spin on it. That's why people are posting like they are because all we have is JH's spin on things.

LtEveDallas, if you don't have a problem with JH you don't know enough about him. Why don't you ask someone who does know him IRL? I think there's enough of them here to ask.

As for the targets/ bonuses, I asked a senior social worker about it today and she said there aren't targets or bonuses. I said I'd seen a list of what each LA got and she said she had never heard of it but individual SWs aren't given bonuses. She said (same as I did when I read it) that it's probably to do with timescales and not keeping children in care for years on end which had got ridiculous and is damaging for children.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 22:25:29

'Fast tracking' of babies occurs because the emotional harm done to a child of forming numerous attachments to different carers in first few years is immense. If you can get a child placed before he is a year old, he has much better chance of bonding with new primary carers.

But that does not mean babies are targeted. I have represented a number of drug addicted mothers - one had a twenty year addiction to heroin, crack and was taking methadone right up to birth. She was quite rightly, given every chance to show she could care. By time her child was 7 months old she agreed she could not.

I have just heard Mr Hemming on Radio 4 wondering why this mother wasn't sent back to Italy immediately, thus saving us all a lot of money.

So I appreciate he must be very busy, far too busy to bother himself about providing evidence for his many exciting claims.

He has clearly been too busy for about three years now to ever answer my request for proof that the government pays a 'bounty' for every baby snatched.

He has also been too busy to provide any journalist with this evidence, which is such a shame for his campaign. I hope his busy whirl of media interviews lets up soon so he can concentrate on the vital work he is doing for all the vulnerable parents and children.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 22:29:48

If you think his behaviour online is bad enough, you should have the honour of meeting him face to face.

deepfriedsage Sun 01-Dec-13 22:32:12

I contacted JH and was offered a meeting, it never was organised in the end, I had my email address given away to other people who contacted him, they were informed i was compiling a list, first i knew about it, they gave me their story, heartbreaking what could I do for them? I justgot on with things myself, there was not going to be any help given.

Maryz Sun 01-Dec-13 22:34:15

Spero, I've been waiting for statistics for about five years.

Not got any yet.

wetaugust Sun 01-Dec-13 22:40:54

I find this forced CS to be one of the most disturbing things I have read about.

Anyone who has had experience in dealing with LAs will be rightly suspicious.

I think the woman found herself subjected to this barbaric action merely because she was visiting the country and don't think the same action would have been taken had the woman been a UK national.

I can imagine that, once the call for help was made, the authorities had absolutely no idea what to do with her. She had no UK 'fixed abode', so no address at which SS could oversee her. IShe was alone with no one to advocate for her. would expect the hotel would probably have wanted her removed. You can't put her back on a plane to Italy as she's pregnant. The only option available to them would be to remove her from the hotel to a place of safety and if she was resistant to this, you'd need to sction her.

LA should already have been in contact with Italian SS, however those of us who've had dealings with LA know they can't be arsed to contact parents who live half a mile down the road, so expecting them to try to liaise with SS thousands of miles away is probably well beyond their comprehension and ability.

So they have a preganant foreign lady sectioned. Now they're probably scared stiff to medicate her for fear of the effect on her unborn child. So they apply to the Court to forcibly remove the child.

You'd think they would have involved Italian SS regarding possible options for caring for the child?

Child is born, mother can be medicated and is kicked back to Italy.

Once I saw which LA was involved I wasn't surprised.

wet august, until birth has taken place, the baby has no rights. Any Csection would have been undertaken for the benefit of the mother.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 22:45:08

Now the press are involved and the tireless, fearless campaigners we know and love, if a hideous miscarriage of Justice has occurred, the spotlight will be well and truly shone on it, as it should be.

But unless and until we all know a lot more about what happened and why, it is foolish and hysterical to launch into the usual, all social workers are baby snatching villains etc.

But hey, this is the internet so me complaining about hysterical fools is a bit like complaining about bear shit in the woods.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 22:50:39

Now the press are involved and the tireless, fearless campaigners we know and love, if a hideous miscarriage of Justice has occurred, the spotlight will be well and truly shone on it, as it should be



santandhishappybandofelves Sun 01-Dec-13 23:02:15

I know the reasons given for fast tracking of babies, however the scales of belief fell from my eyes when I had the misfortune, as a victim of crime, to have SS in my life.

I used to be the most square, most trusting that support is there for those who need it.

I no longer have that belief

wetaugust Sun 01-Dec-13 23:02:47

wet august, until birth has taken place, the baby has no rights. Any Csection would have been undertaken for the benefit of the mother.

Yes, I know the mother's interest is paramount at this stage, however I bet they still had a big worry with the idea of medicating a heavily pregnant woman. Enforced CS solves that problem.

I really don't undertsand what the big anti is on here against Christopher Booker and John Hemmimg.

It's so convenient for the Family Courts to act in absolute secrecy, unaccountable and unchallangeable. I'm happy to see any journalist investigate.

I've seen too many LA 'wrongdoings' to be naive enough to think they always get it right.

wonderstuff Sun 01-Dec-13 23:13:56

I find this chilling. I can understand why, if the mothers health is at risk, a woman would be sectioned and am emcs performed, but the story implies that it was SS who sought the cs, in order to take the baby, and I believed in the UK the women's right to refuse treatment out trumped the welfare of the unborn. I also find it disturbing that SS seem to want to adopt the baby 'in case she has a relapse' to take a child from its family for 15 months is awful enough, but to adopt 'just in case' doesn't seem right. Family courts seem to be a law unto themselves and I would be terrified if I had to have dealings with them.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:14:24

If it helps, from my perspective I am 'anti' JH, CB , Ian Josephs et al because they say things which are dangerously wrong, they stir up fear, they claim to help the vulnerable but they are more interested in raising their own profiles.

For eg - Ian Joseph advices women who believe their children are being sexually abused by partners NOT to report it.

John Hemming has been repeating for years that LA are paid a bounty by government to 'take' babies for adoption. He has been repeatedly asked by me and many others on this forum to provide the evidence for this. He repeatedly fails to do so but continues to make this untrue and frightening claim all over the internet.

Ask some of the mothers on the threads about adoption what they think of JH and his interventions.

I could give you many, many, many more examples but if we are having the usual polarised debate then you probably won't want to read it. But I am quite happy to pontificate on and on. I could type out the letter of complaint I made about him to Parliament last summer if you like. God knows it would be nice if someone read it. Nick Clegg couldn't be bothered.

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 23:17:00

Prebirth assessment will be of maternal mental health,the unborn baby had no rights til birth

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:17:49

See post by wonderstuff just now to support my repeated warnings about just how dangerous it is for people ostensibly in positions of power to spout all this dangerous nonsense about the family justice system.

It is not 'a law unto itself'. It is governed by the law of this country and international law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights.

I do not argue that it is perfect and that there are never any mistakes, because I am not mad. Of course it isn't perfect.

But it isn't some lawless, baby stealing anarchy. It really isn't.

The fact that so many people come on threads like these and say they have had awful experiences with social workers is really sad and means there clearly is a problem that needs addressing.

But I suspect the problem lies much more with a system which is overloaded to breaking point, rather than one that was deliberately designed to steal people's babies.

Of course, if Mr Hemming would care to finally provide the statistics he keeps citing, I will be the first to humbly apologise for having been so wrong and unfair to him.

I am sorry for anybody who has had bad experiences at the hands of SW or HCP.

Yes, the baby had no legal rights until born.
I gather the CS was done under the Mental Health Act and it would have been done in the interest of the woman.
That does not mean that I don't think this is horrific, but from a mere newspaper article there is no way of knowing what led to this decision and whether mistakes/errors of judgement were made.

What I don't understand is why there seems to have been little contact with woman's family if she had any in Italy? Why would that baby not have gone to them?

I do think there is some important information not in the public domain just yet.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 23:25:26

JH has been physically thrown out of courts because he goes in and starts shouting his mouth off when he has no right to speak and doesn't know what he's shouting his mouth off about anyway.

They all give dangerous advice, they're on a crusade against SS and adoption, they lie about the processes, they lie in the press about cases.

I seem to be the only one mentioning Brendan Flemming, he's the dodgiest solicitor you could wish to meet but I'm a little concious of posting too much about it. As someone said to me today, "his brother left to go and work for a rival firm. Says it all."

You want to know about JH/ BF go to the Minories in Birmingham and catch someone who is dressed like they might be a professional.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 23:27:41

Spero - I knew someone had complained to Clegg about him but I couldn't remember who it was, I was telling OH earlier.

Pacific - we don't know that they haven't been in touch. We'll only ever have JH's side of this.

IneedAsockamnesty Sun 01-Dec-13 23:31:53

Of course, if Mr Hemming would care to finally provide the statistics he keeps citing, I will be the first to humbly apologise for having been so wrong and unfair to him

If he does that,I will suck his cock without gagging in public and never deny I did it.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:33:56

Confuddled - I am not the only one to complain. We have all been ignored.

I raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that it was concerning to me that Mr Hemming was a serving MP, paid by the taxpayer, yet appears to be on various internet fora all hours of day and night, saying things that were untrue and liable to cause fear and distress to members of public involved with child protection issues.

They weren't interested.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:34:30

Thanks sock. Now I have to go bleach my brain.

wetaugust Sun 01-Dec-13 23:34:43

Thank you Spero for setting out your views. I didn't realise there was 'history' to all this.

I personally can see no situation whatsoever that warrants an LA applying to force a CS.

To me it's telling that it was the LA and not an NHS trust that made the application. You would think that, having sectioned a heavily pregnant woman, she would be receiving ante-natal care and as part of that care an assessment would be completed by the clinician with responsibility for her care. I would therefore expect the hospital trust rather than the LA to have made the application, and then only for permission to operate should the situation arise.

Scottishmummy - it's all very well stating repeatedly what the LA should do and their stuatory duties but, when you've had close dealings with them, as I have, you realise that they are literally a law unto themselves. I sued my LA and won the case. I have no expectations whatsoever that LAs always 'do the right thing', indeed we saw from the case a month or so ago when the judge ordered the LA to return the child to the parents and chastised them for taking the child in the first place, that they got it very wrong.

Anyone who is working to expose what goes on in Family Courts has my backing and unfortunately, given my own exposure to SS I can quite understand Ian Jospeh's advice.

JamJarOfDaffs Sun 01-Dec-13 23:35:07

It would be very interesting to know how many "forced c-sections" are carried out on women in the UK who are sectioned under the MHA.

Is this a one-off or does it happen to others?

Where this happens, who is involved in making the decision and what are the reasons? Are the reasons mental health (e.g. won't cope mentally with a natural birth) or physical (e.g. pre-eclampsia)?

Why was a decision taken not to inform this woman that she was going to have a forced c-section? In how many cases is this also the case, that the mother is just asked "not to have breakfast"?

Someone like the National Childbirth Trust should be doing some Freedom of Information requests if you ask me - or maybe Mumsnet could!

Then, more questions:

If indeed this baby was taken into care because the mother had had a psychotic episode, how often does this happen?

The thing that strikes me in this case, if it is as reported, are that there would be lots of ways of the mother managing/ being helped to manage her condition once baby born and adoption should be the absolute last resort.

I'm amongst those horrified by this story and likely to think it's the (patriarchal) justice system at fault - but we need more info.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 23:36:43

Just watching Sky Press Preview and this story is frontpage news in tomorrow's Daily Mail

scottishmummy Sun 01-Dec-13 23:39:34

No surprise in that

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:39:50

Wetaugust - you have already been given various examples on this thread how someone in middle of psychotic episode could be a real risk to her own health and the health of her unborn child.

If anyone thinks their child is being sexually abused, please, please report it. If you don't feel confident speaking to a social worker, please tell the police.

For anyone to suggest that not reporting is sensible advice shows just how far this pernicious evil of JH et al has spread and it makes me both angry and afraid.

That abused and vulnerable children end up with these men as their champions is truly awful.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:44:50

Jamjar - there was a recent case about sterilising a man who could not consent by way of his mental health difficulties. He had a girlfriend and a happy sex life but couldn't reliably use contraception. His girlfriend had already been pregnant which was a very distressing experience for them both. He and his girlfriend were being kept apart to prevent another pregnancy.

It was argued that it was in his best interests to have a vasectomy so that he could resume his relationship without any fear of consequences. That case was subject to full argument and a very considered judgment.

That is how I understand these cases are dealt with. Any interference with anyone's goodly integrity is taken very, very seriously, as it must be. I wouldn't want to be part of a society that didn't take these issues with utmost seriousness.

Which is why I think a lot more is going on here than we yet know and I would be very wary of taking at face value the views of some commentators - I am afraid they are just not trustworthy.

wetaugust Sun 01-Dec-13 23:44:51

There was a Radio 4 programme last year about a pregnant woman who was in a coma and the dilemas the doctors faced in treating her. I seem to remember that her situation was hopeless but the baby had a chance of survival if they could keep the mother alive for a few months more.

I can't remember whether it was an actual case or a hypothetical one, but the one thing they wrestled with was the question of assault. Obviously this case ended in a CS too.

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:45:29

Sorry 'bodily' not goodly.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 23:46:55

Spero - save some for me!

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 23:46:59

'No surprise in that'

scottishmummy, when the Mail gets involved there will be questions in the House. Its the paper of Middle England and when they read it, they may go bat crazy, and Cameron may be asked about what is gioing on.

confuddledDOTcom Sun 01-Dec-13 23:48:21

wetaugust - we don't know that the LA did apply for it and not the NHS.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 23:50:06

Haven't read it yet, but it is already online and the Mail is not mincing its word

"Case of Italian woman condemned as extraordinary and totalitarian"

Spero Sun 01-Dec-13 23:50:44

Good. Let there be questions in Parliament, shine a light on the truth.

If JH is right, let's hang our collective heads in shame that we allowed this kind of thing to happen. Let's make sure it never happens again.

If JH is wrong - as he was about the involvement of the Official Solicitor, which he took all the way to Europe - will he apologise?

Again, I suspect holding my breath would be unwise course.

wetaugust Sun 01-Dec-13 23:55:35

Wetaugust - you have already been given various examples on this thread how someone in middle of psychotic episode could be a real risk to her own health and the health of her unborn child.

Unborn child's health is, as others have already pointed out - immaterial. But as you know that, but have mentioned it, I expect that the unborn child's health was actually a real consideration to those involved in this case too. You never know, the psychiatrist involved may have misdiagnosed her, just as my son was misdiagnosed by an NHS consultant psychiatrist - it happens.

If anyone thinks their child is being sexually abused, please, please report it. If you don't feel confident speaking to a social worker, please tell the police.

Reporting it to the Police does not protect you from SS - as the first thing the Police will do is notify SS.

For anyone to suggest that not reporting is sensible advice shows just how far this pernicious evil of JH et al has spread and it makes me both angry and afraid.

It's nothing to do with your perceived 'pernicious evil of JH et al'. Anyone who has had dealings with SS can make up their own minds about whether they would want to be involved with them again. For me they were as useful as a chocolate teapot but I know people who've been dragged through child protection issues because they have an autistic child for which the LA is failing to make suitable provision (i.e. totally ignorong their statutory duty) and, as a result, the child has posed a danger to other children in that family - hence the CP action. A totally unnecessary situation if the LA had acted in unison to fulfill it's duties to that child.

That abused and vulnerable children end up with these men as their champions is truly awful.

I agree, but don't see anyone else stepping up to do the job.

claig Sun 01-Dec-13 23:56:28

'Tory MP Douglas Carswell called Essex children's services 'unaccountable and out of control'

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:00:07

"It may also be raised in the Commons by Lib Dem MP John Hemming, a long-standing campaigner against court secrecy, who said: ‘It is hard to avoid the suspicion that adoption targets set for Essex may have come into play.

‘We do not know whether she was held in the UK as a favour for Essex social workers. We cannot know because of the disgraceful secrecy of the courts.’

Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP for Clacton, said: ‘As an Essex MP, I have serious concerns about Essex children’s services. They are unaccountable and out of control.

'These people are dictators who abuse their powers. They are arrogant bullies and people are frightened of them.

‘They operate in secret, they have great powers, and they are unaccountable.’

The SOS – NHS Patients in Danger pressure group said: ‘This is extremely troubling. We would ask why the caesarean order was not challenged by NHS doctors.’

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:01:38

DM are quoting a patient group, who are asking why no NHS Dr challenged the csection. I guess SS got a private psychiatrist or psychology report, asked questions in a specific way, didnt tell the italian Woman or explain and set her up. No wonder the Essex MP is fumingng.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:02:04

Surely the health of the baby can't have been irrelevant to the doctors? I know you can't issue care proceedings until baby is born but I didn't realise doctors also ignored unborn child. Maybe it's a case that if a heavily pregnant woman is going to do something to hurt the baby it is very likely to hurt her too.

Sorry, I don't understand this argument you seem to be making, because you don't perceive anyone 'stepping up' for vulnerable families, it's ok for narcissistic idiots to do it?

I know 100s of dedicated professions who step up every single day for vulnerable children. But as they aren't in the Daily Mail, I guess they don't count.

Please stop saying people shouldn't report abuse. I don't know what you went through and I am sorry it is so clearly leaving its mark but please stop being so irresponsible.

wetaugust Mon 02-Dec-13 00:02:24

There are a lot of people on out Special Needs boards who would very much agree with Douglas Carswell.

Unfortunately, it's not confined to Essex.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:02:36

Can anyone explain why the child cannot be placed in the care of the woman's mother or other relatives in Italy?

I think there will have to be questions about this. This is too big an issue.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:05:37

There may be assessments on going of Italian family or they may already have been assessed and deemed not suitable. Or they may just not want to get involved.

We just don't know.

All I can tell you is that the LA has a statutory duty to consider placement first with family members if parents can't care. They must assess. If relatives are not assessed or unhappy with assessment, they can challenge this in court.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:05:47

This is what ory MP Douglas Carswell sais

"These people are dictators who abuse their powers. They are arrogant bullies and people are frightened of them."

After saying that, if nothing happens about this, then MPs are practically powerless.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:07:29

The alternative is that nothing happens because that statement is utter crap. Not that MPs are powerless. Just not adherents of lunatic conspiracy theories.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:09:09

'There may be assessments on going of Italian family or they may already have been assessed and deemed not suitable.'

Thanks Spero, if all else failed can't the child be placed in the care of Italian SS and be adopted in Italy at least?

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:10:50

But he is an elected MP, a representative of our democracy. If he says such things about our SS, surely this needs an enquiry or something?

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:12:18

When a child is physically present in the jurisdiction, the LA have a statutory obligation to act to protect child. They can't just ship a child out of jurisdiction because mother is Italian. I doubt very much the Italian authorities will be keen on volunteering to take on expense and difficulty of fostering and or adoption proceedings.

Also, I don't know where the father is, where his family is or where the other children are. Do we even know if the mother wants to go back to Italy? She may be staying in UK and asking for her baby to be returned to her care here.

wetaugust Mon 02-Dec-13 00:13:34

All I can tell you is that the LA has a statutory duty to consider placement first with family members if parents can't care. They must assess. If relatives are not assessed or unhappy with assessment, they can challenge this in court.

Spero - we all know what they should do. They know whst they should do too - but they don't do it. You can have all the laws in the world but if LAs chose to ignore them then how do you hold them to account?

The SN boards on here are full of parents who've been forced, at great cost to themselves, emotionally and financially, to take LAs to Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals in order to force their LAs to carry out their statutory duties. It would be nice to think that LAs always did the right thing / acted appropraitely but unfortunately they don't.

You only need to look at the long catalogue of Ombudsman reports of maladministration committed by LAs to realise that LAs are not infallible.

This horrific case may finally be the beginning of getting some light shone into some very dark places. It's certainly going to pose some questions for a particular LA.

So another MP takes up the case. Excellent.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:14:27

By all means, let there be an inquiry. Something other than trial by Daily Mail.

But do you want to know what I think is the real reason MPs won't want an inquiry? Because they don't want to shine a light on what happens when you strip a system down to its bones - £40 billion on high speed rail link, £113 million on child protection. To me, that says it all.

I think we get the system we deserve and we are prepared to pay for.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:15:31

You hold them to account by going to court.

LA do not make final decisions. Judges do.

Or are they all corrupt and intent on stealing babies too?

wetaugust Mon 02-Dec-13 00:16:55

I very much doubt that Carswell would say what he has said without some first hsnd experience of dealing with this LA which covers his consituency, possibly from other cases that have been brought to his attention.

They are not remarks that would be made lighly and he's done so without Parliamentary privilege.

confuddledDOTcom Mon 02-Dec-13 00:18:52

An unborn doesn't have rights over the mother, so a mother can't be forced normally into something that would save her baby. For example, if a VB would harm a baby they can't force the mother to have a CS.

However, I could see that if she was not capable of making a decision to have a CS due to her mental state (for example they couldn't make her understand she had pre-eclampsia and they were both at risk) and she was sectioned that they would apply to the court for a judge to agree for her to have the CS.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:20:54

A judge can only rule on the evidence given to them, if given a dodgy psychology report, and the Italian Woman had no representation or rubbish representation then you can't blame the judge. There will have been errors made at every stage by them all is my guess if there is an enquiry, from that first 999 call onwards.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:21:13

I have no doubt that many MPs have experience of many constituents coming to them with 'horror stories'. I have had many clients who have tried to get their MPs involved.

Unsurprisingly they often do not give their MP the full story. Most MPs are responsible enough to know this and their involvement is restrained and responsible.

There is very rarely just one perspective that is wholly correct.

I reserve the right to be very suspicious of anyone who thinks that it is helpful to make these kinds of sweeping grandiose statements when they cannot possibly be in possession of all the info they will need.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:21:58

'But do you want to know what I think is the real reason MPs won't want an inquiry? Because they don't want to shine a light on what happens when you strip a system down to its bones - £40 billion on high speed rail link, £113 million on child protection. To me, that says it all.'

I don't now nearly as much about it as you, but I think some of these MPs are frightened, they would rather stick to safe, non-controversial issues.

Very good point about the money. £113 million sounds ridiculously low.

deepfried, it would have been her doctors who sought permission to do the c section. no reason for them to challenge their own clinical advice.

wetaugust Mon 02-Dec-13 00:23:05

You hold them to account by going to court.

It's ridiculous to expect people to have to take an LA to Court to enforce their statutory rights. For a start a lot of the parents don't even know they have such rights, let alone the means to launch legal action against a LA that is well upholstered with tax-payer funded legal support.

LA do not make final decisions. Judges do.

LAs like to tell you their decisons are final, that you won't get anything else by complaining, that their actions were appropraite. I was told that at all three stages of my complaint against my LA. The Local Governement Ombudsman thought differently and pointed out the error of their ways to them. Again, a process that relies on a judge to overturn LA decisions is not fit for purpose.

Or are they all corrupt and intent on stealing babies too?

No, they are not intent on stealing babies - don't be silly. Adoption costs money, they don't like spending money.

But if you're asking whether they are all corrupt - yes, definitely and morally bankrupt.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:23:32

O of course. All lawyers in this field are crap and dodgy. The child's guardian is inevitably corrupt.

O I am so tired of all this.

Maybe I just won't bother to prepare for this week. I am just a pathetic cog in the great baby snatching machine.

and 'set her up' so they could perform a c section and then steal her baby?


You cannot really believe anything so ridiculous.

If you seriously do, then your judgement I feel is very very much at fault.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:24:49

Dm article reads NHS drs didn't challenge SS application, which would mean SS compiled a private medical report for court.

I'll tell my lovely aunt then that she is morally bankrupt for having worked for 40 years doing her best by the babies and children she had to find homes for, shall I?

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:27:18

Wetaugust - I am talking about care proceedings. Where parents get non means and non merits tested money from gov to go to court and fight their case.

But clearly they shouldn't bother. Well, good to know the entire system is morally bankrupt, that means I won't have to bother reading these six lever arch files on my desk, I will just go shopping instead.

I am cross and tired, never a good combination, so I wish you good night.

As ever, this is not a debate but people digging themselves in to further entrenched positions. A shame.

confuddledDOTcom Mon 02-Dec-13 00:27:19

They might not all be corrupt, but this lady found one who is sad

deepfried, again, NHS doctors would not be challenging their own clinical judgement, do you not understand that? SS would have no input or power to ask for a csection. It would have been at the behest of the clinical team looking after this ladies medical needs.

Do you not understand that?

confuddled, if you base your judgement on a very narrow set of facts available to the public, then heaven help us.

The disrespect shown to informed Mnetters, who take time to explain the real process, by ignoring their input entirely to peddle deluded personal suppositions as 'fact' makes me worry for the mental capacity of some people to follow a logical discussion.

santandhishappybandofelves Mon 02-Dec-13 00:30:53

Spero, I am not saying people shouldn't report abuse, but can categorically tell you - after our experiences, I would never report again, we were failed from the moment I made the first phone call, by all but one of the multiple agencies we were involved with.

The core failure was the LA and SS, who decided that despite there being a trial involving child witnesses, we did not class as having children in need as we had banned abuser from their lives, we were therefore denied multi agency working, leaving me at one point, dealing with 13 separate agencies/departments.

I now know I could have called a multi agency meeting myself, but in the eye of the storm I had no idea, I also now know

Also - I was left suicidal - not by what had happened but by a SW who is supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable.

And I have heard tales like mine, over and over and over again, I am not a lone voice. I don't think it is a conspiracy - I agree with this I think we get the system we deserve and we are prepared to pay for

wetaugust Mon 02-Dec-13 00:35:10

MadameDefarge - the doctors could not rely on their clinical judgement in a case like this of 'consent'. They would have to have court approval for their proposed actions. To have blundered on without it would have been prima facie assault.

It'll be interesting to see if Essex did get a set of private reports to justify its action.

These things always boil down to money and going for the cheapest (easiet) option. We see this time and time again.

Private reports justifying the action that then allows them to ship the mother back to Italy is very low cost compared to ongoing support for the mother and baby in the UK.

Shame we found out angry

well indeed, wet, that would be my point. Was that not obvious?

I mean, regarding her medical team. It would have been their application to court, or an application based on their assessment of this woman's medical needs.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:38:35

If they were psychology reports rather than psychiatrist reports will make a difference too, psychologists are not medically trained solicitors, SS and a judge may not be aware of that.

confuddledDOTcom Mon 02-Dec-13 00:38:40

Excuse me??? What've I said???

wetaugust Mon 02-Dec-13 00:38:54

Well, we'll have to see what transpires in the House tomorrow.


deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:41:55

I. Believe it wasn't the NHS that made the application to court it was SS.

deep, if she was sectioned at the time, then any reports would have been made by the psychiatrists involved in her care.

You can be pretty sure that lawyers and judges and social services know perfectly well the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist.

Most people do.

it was the comment regarding corruption, confuddled.

Spero Mon 02-Dec-13 00:45:07

O god, I really am going to bed but before I do please let me reassure you there is NO WAY a judge would be unaware of the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist! Please be reassured on that point.

Confuddled, I think there may be some confusion about your post with the sad face emoticon.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:46:07

No they don't, someone I know had to inform quite a few professionals of this fact one being SS who wasted a fortune on one Such report, when she had a medical condition, which they were unqualified to comment on, didn't stop them.

I understand the Italian lady was on a maternity ward for weeks, I doubt they got her italian medical records.

from what I have read she was sectioned for five weeks, therefore in a secure psychiatric unit, not a maternity unit.

Having been the victim yourself of chinese whispers you should be a deal more careful about reading the very few 'facts' in the public domain.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 02-Dec-13 00:53:04

In all fairness it does read as if CS made the court application not the doctors

And why would you doubt they had her medical records from Italy? Unless they were unable to trace her medical practitioner there...its perfectly normal for medical records to be transfered between countries.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 00:56:16

MadameDeFarge I think you have misunderstood confuddled, I think she was being ironic.

She supports SS and is anti John Hemming and the solicitor mentioned in the Telegraph article.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 00:57:16

thsts what i read too sock, and the patient group questioning why the NHS didnt challenge the court order, sounds like a private psychology, psychiatrists report was used to obtain the court order.

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 02-Dec-13 00:59:38

Now obviously I'm not saying that's what actually happened just that its how it reads so obviously that's what the rag is reporting so I can understand why a reader would think that's the case.

apologies to confuddled if so...sometimes hard to spot the irony...though I did think it a bit at odds with your previous very sensible post!

can someone provide a link to this patient group's concerns about this?

IneedAsockamnesty Mon 02-Dec-13 01:00:37

Fwiw if the daily mail told me that my mother was my mother I would call her and check just incase.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 01:03:34

Go back a few posts its already on the thread, I think clag posted it.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 01:10:44

Mail reader comments are going wild. The highest rated comment already has over 6000 green arrows saying how can this be legal, and the article has only been up a few hours.

Someone has said is this Essex, China or Essex, England.

If this doesn't go all the way to the top now that Mail readers are onto it, I'll eat my hat.

Yes, the wording is ambiguous.

And whatever the Mail says, a c section is a medical procedure which would only be performed for medical reasons., the safety of the mother, and hopefully the baby.

Therefore the request for a court order allowing it would come in the first instance from the medical practitioners.

The ambiguity will be around who considered the woman to be incapable of providing informed consent. Perhaps everyone involved agreed. SS would have to be informed as they would then have responsibility for the baby from birth.

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 01:20:37

I hope they do debate it in parliament. I have an idea co is on the agenda. A few points.

A only celebs got caught up in yewtree. That porno raidin cancanada no arrests here.

There have been large mystery donations to charities like the condition we have who get false accusations against parents.


<<backs away from thread>>

deepfriedsage Mon 02-Dec-13 01:22:42

Someone I know predicted this would happen a focus on parents like this.

confuddledDOTcom Mon 02-Dec-13 01:23:23

Madame, I am still unsure what I said other than ONE SOLICITOR is corrupt.

santandhishappybandofelves Mon 02-Dec-13 01:25:18

can someone relink to the patients groups concerns I cant find the link

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 01:27:40

'The SOS – NHS Patients in Danger pressure group said: ‘This is extremely troubling. We would ask why the caesarean order was not challenged by NHS doctors.’'

That is all the Mail says about it

confuddledDOTcom Mon 02-Dec-13 01:27:46

Just read the thread since then. Let me explain:

There was discussion on whether or not they were all corrupt.

I said they may not all be corrupt but this lady found one (Brendan Flemming) and I made a sad face because I am worried for her on that basis.

Put it this way, having a discussion with a couple of people from SS today, I'd already told one and we were explaining to the other. The first said "You won't believe who's representing her" the second one sighed, dropped her head and said "Please don't say Brendan Flemming".

mucho big apologies confuddled!

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 01:32:28

what is the problem wth Flemming, does he lose a lot of cases or what?

confuddledDOTcom Mon 02-Dec-13 01:35:37

Thank you Madam smile

claig, it's difficult to explain here without saying things that could get me in trouble. He is in with JH and the like for a start, so you can imagine the damage a solicitor in their camp does. He also employs not so above board methods to get the job done.

claig Mon 02-Dec-13 01:41:15

Yes, don't say anthing

WhatAgain Mon 02-Dec-13 04:11:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.