Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
justtoomessy · 01/12/2013 08:37

Sounds horrific and I also think there must be more to it. I've looked after people with severe mental health problems and they haven't lost their kids even though it is quite clear they can not cope.

She clearly was a fully functioning woman to be on a training course.

Bizarre.

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 01/12/2013 08:43

Op, the court are not baby stealers. There is clearly a vast amount more behind this than is being reported. Do you actually believe that a judge would rule this necessary because of a couple of panic attacks ??

If sectioned the woman was not fit to give capacity. As we all know on this site, C sections are necessary for all manner of medical reasons.

Social services are unable to comment and therefore this story is prime media fodder. Lets not forget that most papers have a very negative agenda when it comes to children's services and family courts, its a shame that the apparently intelligent and sophisticated users of this site are unable to cut through meedja spin

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 01/12/2013 08:45

Sparkly, what if the woman was refusing a section, due to her diminished capacity (for which she was, after all, sectioned) which would have resulted in certain death for the baby ?

Seems more than feasible to me.

CharlotteBronteSaurus · 01/12/2013 08:48

you can't do a c-section under the mental health act

she would have needed to lack capacity
the surgery would have also have had to be essential in terms of the health and safety of the mother - previous case law advises the wellbeing of the unborn baby cannot be a consideration in such cases.

contrary to what a previous poster noted, a 5 week admission under the Mental Health Act is not at all rare. Plenty of those admitted will be parents, and parental mental illness is not a reason for child protection concerns per se.

VisualiseAHorse · 01/12/2013 08:59

I don't think the unborn baby's health has got anything to do with it, correct me if I'm wrong - I wonder if the c-section was neccasary for the mother's health (I'm thinking physical health rather than mental here).

CharlotteBronteSaurus · 01/12/2013 09:04

yes visual, you are correct
case law was in St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S; and R v Collins

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 09:10

we only know a tiny tiny (sensationalised) part of this story - I seriously doubt the high court would have taken such a request lightly - I came close to be sectioned in my third pregnancy (AND) and had nothing but care and support from health professionals

We will never know the truth about this case but I think it's dangerous to play guess which agency is the most evil

loveolives · 01/12/2013 09:13

There must be more to this story. However I find it very scary and the ordeal this woman has been trough is terrifying

Thymeout · 01/12/2013 09:14

Pointless really to speculate, but since others are doing so, suppose the poor woman was suicidal, trying to kill herself - and the baby. She had been sectioned for 5 weeks. Could you really imagine attending her while she went through a natural birth? It would have been incredibly dangerous. That would have been a medical decision - nothing to do with SS.

And after the birth, when she was still in this mental state, would you let her take the baby home with her?

She was mentally very ill. Pp need to remember that when they are imagining how they would feel. They are in their right minds. She wasn't.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 09:17

I read this in the Telegraph yesterday. Imvho the Telegraph is not a paper I would associate with 'sensationalising' a story. If anything it tends to report in a rather matter of fact way. Yes there is no doubt more to this story than is being reported it does highlight the incredible secrecy of the family court system and how decisions are made and not reported at all.

valiumredhead · 01/12/2013 09:17

You aren't usually sectioned for a panic attack, especially not for 5 weeks.

TiredDog · 01/12/2013 09:19

Social services would be dammed if this baby had been killed and dammed for taking action. It's really easy to read a sensationalised newspaper and gasp in horror. Less easy to witness a child being hurt.

As a GP up thread has said you can have serious major concerns about a child's welfare and not have powers to act. To have authorised a CS etc would have required several professionals all in agreement

valiumredhead · 01/12/2013 09:19

And yes,I imagine it had everything to do with the woman's physical health rather than the baby's.

VisualiseAHorse · 01/12/2013 09:24

She was already sectioned, so if she were suicidal, she would have been under constant watch.

Once she had gone into labour, I imagine the situation would have been assessed and had she then gone bonkers (not best wording, can't think how to phrase it), THEN they would have sedated her and performed an EMCS. This doesn't sound like an EMCS, this sounds like it was planned in advance.

And no, they wouldn't have let her take the baby home - seeing as she was already sectioned, she probably would have been moved to a mother and baby secure unit and both of them looked after there. Many women are put on wards with their babies - I was threatening to give my child away, and I was told that had I admitted this at the height of my ill mental health, we would both have been admitted to a mother and baby ward. There was NO MENTION EVER of my child being taken off me, even at my craziest.

SkullyAndBones · 01/12/2013 09:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

valiumredhead · 01/12/2013 09:27

I'm pretty sure, but happy to be corrected, that a baby isn't consider as a 'person' until it's born. The mother may have been seen as a danger to herself IF she refused a section on medical grounds and was experiencing a bi polar manic episode rather than just a panic attack.

Whatever the case, you can be sure it is far more involved than anything that has been reported so far.

valiumredhead · 01/12/2013 09:29

Visualise-in sine cases though it is safer all round for mother and baby to have a planned section,I was BEGGING to to be knocked out for mine but told it was the safest option to be awake.

valiumredhead · 01/12/2013 09:30

Some not sine

Thymeout · 01/12/2013 09:31

Visualise - and if you were threatening to harm your child, would they still have left you together on a ward?

There are degrees of 'craziness' and it might have been difficult to medicate her effectively pre-birth without harming the un-born baby. I am probably imagining a more extreme case than yours.

Shallistopnow · 01/12/2013 09:33

Sounds barbaric.

valiumredhead · 01/12/2013 09:34

She might not have been well enough to be in a mother and baby unit. When I was in one there were a few cases of women who weren't well enough and had to go onto a psychiatric ward rather than into the mabu.

diaimchlo · 01/12/2013 09:35

I agree there is most probably more to this than we have been told. But I do think that the Judge ruling that the child should be placed for adoption is wrong.

Mental Health conditions can be managed with support if necessary and the Mother is saying that she is taking her medication again and has improved. I cannot comprehend how she will be feeling going to sleep pregnant and waking up having my baby taken away without my knowledge it must be horrific. I can only assume that this situation would have caused more MH issues ie: depression.

MrsDeVere · 01/12/2013 09:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 09:37

He was on the radio this morning talking about this case.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 09:37

I don't understand why the baby has been put up for adoption when there are other family members willing to step in and care for it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread