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:
MrsDeVere · 01/12/2013 09:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Revengeofkarma · 01/12/2013 09:39

At this point, the only side of the story being told is that of a woman with bipolar disorder which appears not to be treated at this time. One sided, for sure, and potentially highly unreliable.

If there were court proceedings, then there's court records. Of which none seem to have been entered into the story. Why? That's going to swing a lot in therms of facts.

The fact she was in the country temporarily shouldn't really affect it. If she was (ok, big if,but follow along) such a big risk to the child, you're not going to throw her and a newborn on a plane back to Italy unsupervised, are you? Imagine the outcry over that, especially if something happens!

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 09:41

I get horrendous panic attacks, I had a break down a couple of years ago and at times felt so awful I wanted to just go into hospital and let them take it out of my hands. I've rung ambulances because I thought I was dying.

Can you imagine having a panic attack and calling for help, there's a language barrier and you've been driven directly to a mental health institution and refused the right to leave and return to your hotel when you started feeling better, you become more distressed and are then sectioned. Can you begin to imagine the horror of that? I can and I am not sure that I wouldn't be tipped over the edge by it. All it takes is one poor decision to set off a horrendous chain of events culminating in this horrendous outcome.

LtEveDallas · 01/12/2013 09:42

I don't understand why this Italian citizen has had her Italian child placed in the care of British Social services. What the fuck has it got to do with us? Who do we think we are that we know better - especially with our own history of SS fuck-ups?

Boggling, and fucking arrogant of us.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 09:44

The article itself says social services got a high court order and would have had to prove she was incapable of making a decision herself and that there was an acute risk to the mother if natural birth was attempted. The doctors in the case aren't going to lie for social services. I think they must of done what they genuinely thought was best at the time.

However, why her family weren't contacted and the Italian social services involved I don't know.... Does the child now being a British national override the fact it was meant to be Italian like all it's family?

VisualiseAHorse · 01/12/2013 09:44

She may have been a danger to the child after it was born - so the child should have been placed into a foster care situation while she remained in the hospital. The child should not have automatically been adopted.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 09:46

Revenge it seems that it is possible to go to family court in this country and for there to be no published report of those proceedings.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 09:48

Her family have said that they would be willing to care for the baby but for some unknown reason (and unreported reason) this was rejected by the court. Since the judgment has not and will not be published I have no idea how you can challenge it. As a lawyer (no experience in these type of cases) I find the secrecy part of this extremely odd.

candycoatedwaterdrops · 01/12/2013 09:48

sparkly You don't get sectioned just for being incredibly distressed, otherwise half my team would be in the ward downstairs from the office. Wink There are policies, procedures and laws. It's not easy to section a person under the MH act; you have to prove you have exhausted other options.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 09:50

I think the MH sectioning is a completely different issue from the forced adoption.

Revengeofkarma · 01/12/2013 09:51

It is possible for it not to be reported (not all cases are, family or otherwise) but there are still records. Her lawyer will have records. There will be references on the docket. There will be other people involved. There's far better and more reliable reporting sources to back up or conflict with what she says.

LtEveDallas · 01/12/2013 09:59

15 months the a British Social Services have held into this child. Why? The child should have been placed in the care of the Italian Social Services as soon as possible - and they shouldn't be fighting about it now, 15 months on.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 10:02

Revenge so if a judgment is reserved would the lawyer receive a written copy of the judgment reasons when the ruling is issued? I got the impression that the reasons were not disclosed to the lawyer. That bit I really don't understand.

I also don't understand how or why the Essex social services have chosen to hang on to this child rather than arranging for it to be placed into care of their Italian counterparts. I wonder what we would be saying if the reverse happened and a UK national's baby was being held in Italy?

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 10:03

I agree LtEve putting aside everything else that child should be in Italy with Italian SS dealing with the situation, or are they not considered capable enough by our 'exemplary' social services? Hmm

Has the nationality of the father been mentioned at all does anyone know?

candycoatedwaterdrops · 01/12/2013 10:04

I agree that British SS should have contacted Italian SS. It is expected that the SW should look for suitable close family members or extended family members and even suitable friends before placing the child with foster carers. I would have thought that given the cost of placing a child into foster care, they would have been positively gleeful at the prospect of the child being fostered/cared for in Italy.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 10:05

Not sure about nationality of this baby's father but father of this woman's other three children is American and he offered to care for this baby. His offer was rejected as it would mean unrelated people caring for the baby (which is exactly what a forced adoption would result in).

bakingaddict · 01/12/2013 10:06

Sparkly I had pre-natal depression and on numerous occasions presented at the maternity unit having suffered severe panic and anxiety attacks. Nobody carted me off to the mental unit and took away my baby. I was referred to the peri-natal mental health team and dealt with compassionately even though I had told them I regretted ever getting pregnant with DD and thought I would have trouble bonding with her.

So I too believe there must be more to this story based on my direct experiences and treatment of mental health issues in pregnancy. If she was unable to give an account of her MH issues because of a language difficulty the hospital would have accessed an Italian interpreter.

Revengeofkarma · 01/12/2013 10:08

MH law isn't my field, but the general principle is that either or both:

  1. reasons for judgement read out in court so that people can take notes, and
  2. written judgement submitted. Because things get appealed. All the time. So you need a copy of the reasons and rationale to appeal. There being none would be a perfect reason to appeal!

And indeed this can be appealed.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 10:08

Sorry, American is father of oldest child (from yesterday's Telegraph):

By now a new twist had entered the story. Supported by the mother, her American husband – from whom she is amicably separated, and who is the father of her eldest daughter – asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister, herself a very capable mother, described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. British law is clear that wherever possible children should be adopted by members of their wider family. But in March, Essex social services ruled that this was unacceptable because, even though she was the aunt of the baby’s stepsister, the American woman had no “blood” tie to the baby. So, rather than allow the child to be looked after by her “kin”, she must be sent to live with complete strangers.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 10:10

Hardly unrelated if he is the father of the child's three siblings, certainly close than random British strangers at any rate.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 10:10

Revenge from what I read the reasons were not read out in court or handed down which makes appealing in some family court proceedings nigh on impossible. We need someone with family law experience to comment here to explain how in certain cases the rules that we are familiar with don't seem to apply.

EvilRingahBitch · 01/12/2013 10:13

Out of interest, since I haven't read the cases referred to upthread, is it then the case that you need capacity to agree to a CS, but you do not need capacity to refuse one? In theory that seems right, because a CS is a violation in one sense, and the welfare of a foetus has no standing in English law. However in practice, that could lead to an appalling consequence where a pg woman with temporary psychosis refuses CS necessary to save the life of a foetus, cannot be compelled, and then has to live with the consequences of giving birth to a dead foetus and later understanding the consequences of her actions.

Is that really how it works?

bababababoom · 01/12/2013 10:21

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.

OH. MY. GOD.

FudgefaceMcZ · 01/12/2013 10:22

There cannot be 'more to it' which justifies surgery without consent either by the woman or if she genuinely couldn't consent (which seems pretty unlikely as bipolar can be stabilised and doesn't usually mean inability to think or communicate, unless very severe) her family/next of kin. This is a gross abuse of trust and power. There cannot be any justification which is adequate. Temporary fostering of the child while the woman recovered, I would be completely fine with, so I don't actually think social services are necessarily the problem here, more the medical staff who carried out the procedure without informed (or any) consent. Forced surgery is never, ever acceptable.

VisualiseAHorse · 01/12/2013 10:30

Evil - saving the life of the fetus doesn't matter - as far as I'm aware anyway. Regardless of whether the baby would die or not a woman can refuse a section, and one cannot be forced upon her in order to save the baby's life.

If she chooses (whether in her right mind or not), that she does not want a section, I don't think she can be forced to have one.

Swipe left for the next trending thread