Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Horrific - forced C/Section by SS to take baby into care.

252 replies

BohemianGirl · 01/12/2013 05:32

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Woman-has-child-taken-from-her-womb-by-social-services.html

Words fail me.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is an Italian national who come to Britain in July last year to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport in Essex.

She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.

She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.

She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.

The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.

In February, the mother, who had gone back to Italy, returned to Britain to request the return of her daughter at a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court.
Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse.

The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.

OP posts:
Puremince · 04/12/2013 15:50

Judge Newton's report says that she had had three spells in psychiatric hospitals in Italy, one as a voluntary patient, but two as a result of being sectioned. She clearly had a history of mental health issues; the diagnosis and sectioning in England were part of an ongoing pattern of her life, not a one-off as the result of a "panic attack."

EvilRingahBitch · 04/12/2013 15:51

I've seen a lot of people elsewhere suggesting that the GPs (who were approached and ruled out as carers) should have been supported to take this child on as well, but no acknowledgement that the other children were a full 10 years older than this baby. GPs in their late 40s/50s may be capable of taking on a young child, but giving a newborn to a couple in their late 50s/60s is not going to give it a reliable longterm home.

lilyaldrin · 04/12/2013 15:59

The grandparents may also not wish to commit to taking every new baby the mother cannot care for, especially as they have previously restricted contact with their daughter and had a difficult relationship with her.

tinmug · 04/12/2013 16:25

I get the feeling that some posters on this thread don't really understand how mad bipolar disorder can make you. I have bipolar disorder and when I've been unwell I've believed some some absolutely bonkers things - it's not all just about being suicidal for a bit or spending loads of money and sleeping with inappropriate people. Psychosis isn't uncommon in bipolar episodes. We're not all lovable loons.

Thymeout · 04/12/2013 17:19

Good article Hopalong. I must say my opinion of Shami Chakrabarti has gone down after she was so quick to condemn on the basis of one-sided newspaper reports using sensational, emotive language.

mumfromessex · 04/12/2013 17:26

This case touched a nerve as I was diagnosed as bipolar in June. Came across this article, which raises some interesting points

www.facebook.com/notes/the-discourse-institute/web-transcript-archive-access-date-4-december-2013/593971727336665

Living with mental health issues isn't easy and it really saddens to me think that my own might affect how others judge me as a mum. The media's scare-mongering doesn't help either.

edamsavestheday · 04/12/2013 17:29

My sister's a nurse in a MH trust and was shocked by this case. She's concerned that the woman was detained under Section 3 of the MH Act, which is detention for up to six months. VERY strange for an unknown patient - they had no idea of her history, why would they jump for Section 3, not Section 2, which would be far more common/obvious? Key dates here Essex statement.

Sectioning under the MH Act is only lawful to treat mental illness - not for physical health care needs, such as obstetric care. If they went for Section 3 because she was pregnant, that is quite improper.

A lawyer on Radio 4 News said 'a C-section will always be in the best interests of a woman who is deemed unable to consent as otherwise she will die'. Which seems a questionable approach - it is a blanket assumption that removes any consideration of individual circumstances. Quite improper if that is the starting point in any lawyer's mind.

It would be nice to think SS (and the NHS, for that matter) always recognise the rights and dignity of sectioned patients. Sadly that is not universal. I know of SS opposing deprivation of liberty orders (safeguards for people who are detained) on the grounds that 'the patient is not actively trying to leave, so isn't being deprived of liberty'. Nonsense. And worrying that they think they can get round the law in such a way.

I do realise how severe bipolar can be, btw, having seen it in a close friend, who was severely affected (much better now, years later, thankfully). But there are safeguards in place to protect patients - and professionals - and they should be applied properly.

tinmug · 04/12/2013 17:46

She's concerned that the woman was detained under Section 3 of the MH Act, which is detention for up to six months. VERY strange for an unknown patient - they had no idea of her history, why would they jump for Section 3, not Section 2, which would be far more common/obvious?

Was that date - the date of the section 3 - her first contact with MH services in the UK?

tinmug · 04/12/2013 17:48

She WAS detained under section 2 initially and then section 3, according to the judge's report.

lilyaldrin · 04/12/2013 18:24

I see the judgement from the Court of Protection has been released - seems the obstetrician wanted to perform a caesarian due to the risk of uterine rupture as her older children had both been caesarian births.

Caitlin17 · 04/12/2013 18:26

edamsavestheday your sister knows none of the full facts. Your post is generalised speculation. It's clear the initial reporting was, if any one was ever in doubt, very one sided.

lilyaldrin · 04/12/2013 18:28

And both the judge and the mother's own QC agreed the caesarian was in her best interests.

curlew · 04/12/2013 18:42

My Mil is bi polar. She is very scarily "mad" when she relapses- she is psychotic and a danger to herself and others. There is absolutely no way she could give informed consent to emergency medical treatment.

edamsavestheday · 04/12/2013 23:03

No, Catlin, the initial reporting was what the reporters knew at the time. More information has since emerged. The Telegraph's journalists are not psychic.

edamsavestheday · 04/12/2013 23:04

tinmug, the judge's report is helpful, Essex CC's statement said she was detained under Section 3. That is, assuming Essex are wrong and the judge is right.

lurkerspeaks · 05/12/2013 00:06

No the telegraphs journalists are not psychic BUT the woman's solicitor who was involved in the article as far as I understand knew the whole bloody story.

Funny that a serious and significant mental illness which has caused 3 previous in patient admissions and the removal of her previous children got diluted to a "panic attack".

This story should be a lesson to all about the risks of believing all you read in the papers and the telegraphs editor needs to have a word with his minions about believing one sided stories!

tinmug · 05/12/2013 00:10

the telegraphs editor needs to have a word with his minions about believing one sided stories!

Not gonna happen. The Telegraph is a rag. It's a tabloid in broadsheet form.

MinesAPintOfTea · 05/12/2013 09:59

I had a friend who was sectioned. As she was NC with all her family* I did a lot of practical support for her and she was utterly utterly convinced it was a miscarriage of justice when I felt that she was in the right place. She was free to get her own solicitor (which I helped her do as she didn't trust the allocated one and I thought this wasn't going to help her) to appeal against her section. She then went NC with me because I hadn't got her away from the MH unit.

So I can well believe an individual believing they have wrongly been sectioned even when this was the right thing to do.

As for the stage of pregnancy mix-up: is this a communication barrier? There's sometimes discussion about how weeks are counted in other countries, what's considered to be "term" etc on the pregnancy board. How does Italy judge these things: do they count from LMP or conception and what is considered to be term?

It does seem to be a very sad case, but that doesn't mean that SS/the courts have done anything wrong, they have just dealt with the case as it developed.

fuckwittery · 05/12/2013 10:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fuckwittery · 05/12/2013 10:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fecklessdizzy · 05/12/2013 10:31

It said on R4 this morning that her two previous children ( both of whom are in care in Italy - the Italian SS don't think she's fit either ) were both born by elective cesarean section and the doctors operated the day before her due date as there were concerns that her womb was going to rupture ...

It all sounds very sad but not unreasonable.

LondonOx · 05/12/2013 12:02

An article on the times (unfortunately can't link because it's behind a paywall) has backed up what Fecklessdizzy has said that "the procedure was deemed necessary to avert a potentially fatal ruptured womb" and that "she had previously had two Caesareans and, in those circumstances, natural birth is rarely attempted. Medical staff at the Mid-Essex NHS Trust did consider a natural birth but they concluded that it was too risky."

It also states that her two previous children "were removed from her because of neglect", this does not seem a case as others have suggested of a forced caesarean to take a baby in to care purely on the basis of her mental health.

sashh · 05/12/2013 16:02

I suppose the law requires ss to only consider what they think is best for the baby.

And they are also bound be legalities. They are legally responsible for the baby.

If you had a baby would you get on a plane with it and hand it over to a stranger? Knowing that once that happened you had no say in the child's life, how they are cared for and by whom? Handing over all responsibility.

That is the position SS would be in if they hand the baby over to Italian authorities.

They would have to account for their actions.

Caitlin17 · 05/12/2013 17:01

Thanks Fuckwittery, the Flat Earth piece also seems to show up the claim the solution could have been the ex-husband's sister in America as being a complete red herring.

Caitlin17 · 05/12/2013 17:18

Actually, sorry, I'm getting the fathers muddled up. It was the father of this child who took no part.

Swipe left for the next trending thread