Advanced search

Forced C section - the Final Chapter

(22 Posts)
Spero Wed 16-Apr-14 07:41:06

I thought this might be of interest to some of you, remembering our mammoth threads at the end of last year.

I think Allessandra Pacchieri was very badly served by those - who should have known better - who encouraged her to think she was the victim of a miscarriage of Justice and then (apparently) just left her high and dry.

Sad all round. I hope she can recover from this experience in time.

Nennypops Wed 16-Apr-14 11:31:06

I agree. There were far too many self-publicists jumping on the bandwaggon claiming to have cast-iron legal grounds for challenging this. They do seem to have gone awfully quiet. And the tragedy is that there are too many other cases where they leap up promising the earth in order to get publicity, and again leave people high and dry generally after messing up their cases.

YoniMatopoeia Wed 16-Apr-14 16:27:13

Oh dear god, some of the comments on that article.

Spero Wed 16-Apr-14 21:52:01

I have asked Ian Josephs to explain HOW a LA makes a 'profit' from issuing care proceedings. I wait in eager anticipation for the no doubt comprehensive and well evidenced reply.

Nennypops Thu 17-Apr-14 08:38:31

The comments are really quite depressing. Even after comprehensive information was published about the judgments and the background facts, there are people seriously claiming that social services ripped the child from the mother's womb purely to help meet adoption targets and get financial rewards for so doing. There is even one person attacking someone else for being "an idiot" whilst going on to claim that the mother lives in a happy family with a husband and older children back in Italy. Either these people are completely closing their eyes to the facts or they are IJ acolytes pursuing their own agenda.

jbean3 Sun 20-Apr-14 09:49:12

I agree. The people who think that a child should be raised by a criminally insane person with a known history of child abuse is just wrong. For the most part everything done was in the best interest of the deranged woman, the only place I feel they erred was in letting such a dangerous person leave. The reason they detained her was because she wanted to harm herself and the unborn baby. As for the people complaining about a lack of MBU, they need to understand that she was going to murder the infant if she was given half a chance.

My hope is that the Italian court will either lock her up so she is no longer a danger to herself or others, or at least install some form of subdermal birth control so that such incidents never happen again.

Spero Sun 20-Apr-14 17:06:02

I think that is unfair. She was ill, but I haven't read anything to suggest she was a criminal. We have got to act to protect children, but I don't think it is helpful to portray her like that - I don't think it's accurate.

MariaJenny Sun 20-Apr-14 17:22:40

She was asked for her views and said she wanted to see her child again one day. Could that be construed as she does not consent to the adoption but would agree to fostering (given how final adoption is)?

Spero Sun 20-Apr-14 19:03:20

I am sure she does not consent to the adoption but that isn't the point. Her consent can be dispensed with if the court thinks that would be in the child's best interests.

The general view is that it is better for children to grow up with a permanent family, which is what it is hoped adoption will provide.

Long term fostering is not the same and is very unlikely to be considered the best option for a baby. The law puts the focus on what is best for the baby, not what is best for her mother.

MariaJenny Sun 20-Apr-14 21:06:50

Well she's had her chance to make comments and chosen not to exercise her right to get her child back. The father does not seem to want it and nor do her family.

jbean3 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:22:21

If her insanity compelled her to commit criminal acts ie severly harming one of her daughters also known as child abuse. To me that is ciminal insanity. I realize see hasn't been formally charged with a crime, however that does not mean she has been exonerated for all of her earlier child abuse.

jbean3 Sun 20-Apr-14 23:27:37

If we start letting deranged people have and rear children where will it end? She may feel bad about her reprehensible actions, but she still is at risk of harm to herself and those around her. She may be okay on her meds yet she has a long history not taking them leading to her bouts of insanity. All signs point to her being sumpremely irresponsible in every aspect of her life.

Nennypops Mon 21-Apr-14 00:22:10

I haven't seen any report that she harmed her children, apart from one saying that they were traumatised by seeing her in the throes of a severe manic depressive episode. I suspect her conduct is triggered by her illness and I don't think it's fair to characterise her as either criminal or supremely irresponsible.

jbean3 Mon 21-Apr-14 02:19:26

Emotional harm doesn't count as child abuse? Child abuse is a crime by the way. What about all the times she failed to be a proper parent that led to Italian SWs taking her kids away, I don't believe they would have done so unless she had harmed them. Flying in the third trimester of pregnancy, failing to take her meds, and not having a healthy relationship with the BF (who is a chronic overstayer). I would say she has been more then alittle irresponsible in her actions. She has no one to blame for it but herslef for what has happened. A person who takes responsibility would not have done these things.

jbean3 Mon 21-Apr-14 02:26:56

I would also call scaremongering using the media as irresponsible behavior as well. Was all the media blitz just for attention? Think about how many people with managable problems have been put off from services by this woman.

jbean3 Mon 21-Apr-14 02:33:38

Think about the tauma she has inflicted upon the parents of the baby girl. Also the future trauma for the baby girl when she learns of the media circus surrounding her early years. When I say she was very irresponsible it is not without merit.

Nennypops Mon 21-Apr-14 10:46:20

Of course emotional harm is child abuse. But the point is that emotional harm caused by being witnessed in the grip of a major manic episode isn't necessarily within the control of the person concerned.

I fully accept that this woman is not able to look after her children, and I strongly suspect that within her heart of hearts she knows that too. But bipolar disorder is a very complex illness, and one of its features is that sufferers tend to start thinking they don't need their meds any more and stop taking them, and the whole horrible cycle begins again. It's not "irresponsible" because it's a product of the illness - you wouldn't say that, say, a paraplegic is being irresponsible if she won't get up and run to save her child from harm.

I think there was an awful lot about this episode which reflects incredibly badly on her supporters, and the way it was regularly misrepresented in the British press was an utter disgrace. But I think the reality is that Ms Pacchieri was in fact one of the victims in this: her cause was taken up by some very cynical people with their own agenda who weren't worried about the truth, and who certainly weren't worried about her welfare or the welfare of her child. She was allowed to think that there was something they could do to help her, which is why she went along with the publicity for a while. However, it rather looks as if they have dropped her now and/or she has begun to realise just how much harm they have done.

Spero Mon 21-Apr-14 13:01:47

Her child is not an 'it'. She is a little girl.

Jbean3 - Demonising the mentally ill contributes nothing of any value to this debate and I wish you would stop.

jbean3 Mon 21-Apr-14 21:33:29

Nenny Would you absolve paedophile's of their crimes because they can't help themselves? Even if you have no intention of hurting others you should still be responsible for your actions. If she can not overcome the limitations of her illness than she has no right to take care of children or the elderly for that matter. I heard she works as a care worker at an old folks hoome now, what if she has another violent psychotic break while at work?

Spero When did I call the baby girl 'it'? Is the Italian woman's illness to blame for the lies she told in interviews? She claimed SWs told her the baby was going to be adopted before the birth. She claimed she was treated unfairly. She claimed that they cut her open just to steal the baby instead of the real reason, to save her life. Is her illness to blame for not bothering to get any help which led to her being detained and sectioned?

Spero Mon 21-Apr-14 23:18:34

You didn't call the child 'it', MariaJ did.

But you do continue to misunderstand. No one is talking of 'absolving' anyone for crimes - but you need to remember that the vast majority of criminal offences do require an element of intent which explains why we don't routinely criminalise and lock up the seriously mentally ill, as they may have had no understanding, knowledge or even memory of their acts.

I don't know what Allesandra. Pacchieri said about being 'cut open' - but I do know all those vile men who preyed off her and her tragedy, such as hemming and Booker et al used those words, then left her high and dry once the media interest died away.

I have nothing but sorrow and compassion for her. I think she was used and exploited. I think her child is better off adopted as she does seem to have serious problems - but I wonder how much worse things were made for her by the interference and scaremongering of these men - who should know better.

jbean3 Mon 21-Apr-14 23:51:09

Spero Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also I am sorry for using negative terms in describing the Italian woman. It is just that I can not understand how any rational person would think it a good idea to allow her to be around children when she suffers from such serious issues. I should not have used deranged or criminally insane. However I still stand by the notion that using mental illness to avoid charges only works up to a point with or without intent.

Spero Tue 22-Apr-14 06:59:56

I don't think many rational people DID think it was a good idea to let someone who was seriously ill (and apparently lacking insight into her illness, not taking medication etc) care for a baby - that's why her elder children weren't in her care and why care proceedings started for the baby.

But what a lot of these men did was report the story as if she was NOT ill - for eg, she had just had a 'panic attack'. Really irresponsible and reprehensible. If AP was already struggling to accept what was going on, for the people around her to encourage her in further delusional thinking is wicked.

But thanks for reflecting on the terms you used - I know these are very emotive issues for a lot of people. I just feel uneasy heaping a lot of blame on someone who may be genuinely ill and needs help and support, rather than a criminal trial. But of course, we have to keep children safe, I am not suggesting anything else.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now