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:
amistillpregnant · 01/12/2013 10:31

I don't think there is more to this story, at all.

Months before my mother gave birth to my eldest brother, she had a funny turn/panic attack, possibly mental-health related, they said. As a consequence, he was put into care as soon as he was born and my mother was told that any other children would be.

I cannot say too much as don't want to out myself.

We were put into care. One of my siblings, my uncle and my mother all died from the same heart-related problem, which I now realise was the reason my mum panicked. She didn't know about this hereditary illness at the time.

Of course, back in the 70s, it was easier to label young single mums as not being able to cope

And I can categorically tell you that there was not 'more to this story', under the FOI, I was able to obtain my SS files.

My mother wasn't born in this country either.

EvilRingahBitch · 01/12/2013 10:35

Really never justified fudgeface? Should (eg) a pg woman with psychotic delusions and severe eclampsia just be allowed to die?

We can't know what was going on this this case, but saying that surgery is never justified without consent is clearly incorrect.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 10:36

You're talking 40 years ago, not really relevant to attitudes today.

A judge, social services and the medical team all agreed it was the best action. They're the professionals, we're sofa commentators. Who do you think knows best?

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 10:39

Bearing in mind that child is now 15 months old I am more interested in the reasons for the forced adoption. Bipolar is a pretty common condition and I don't understand why the fear of relapse was sufficient for the forced adoption ruling to be maintained. If there isn't any other deep underlying and no reported reason then maintaining a forced adoption in these circumstances seems to me to be a horrific outcome.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 10:41

Sad amistill that's so sad and frightening. I am sorry that happened to your family.

My thoughts are that if over zealous decision making led to this forced c-section, well that's just massive isn't it? They're going to have to see it through. They can hardly say, well we did all that to you now here's your baby back because actually you're fine and we overreacted. Imagine the questions and outcry not to mention substantial financial compensation if they had done this and it was found to be unnecessary? They're going to have to see it through to the bitter end.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 10:44

fifi669 what a dismissive response to someone's tragic and painful family situation.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 10:46

I disagree. There would be nothing wrong with saying she was sectioned for being a danger to herself/others. That procedures were followed legally and medically to ensure she survived the birth of her child. That she was unfit to be around the child, but now over a year later with appopriate medication etc she was well. Because she's well now doesn't mean that they made the wrong decision to start with.

Still don't know why the child couldn't live with the extended family though? There must be a reason.

Mumsyblouse · 01/12/2013 10:47

I am horrified by all of this, particularly the fact that the child was put up for adoption so quickly when there are family members who are available to care for them, and the mother appears to have recovered. It cannot be right to take away a person's baby for life and never allow them to see them again, particularly as there were relatives available to care for the child and even if the mother continued to be mentally unwell, she could still have contact with the baby, more so through relative carers. You should not have your baby removed and never see them again, however mentally unwell you were around the birth (many women have post-partum psychosis and threaten to kill their babies/themselves but once they recovered, can be excellent parents, I know at least one such example).

nennypops · 01/12/2013 10:58

bisjo, if judgment was reserved a copy would undoubtedly have been supplied to the mother's lawyers so she would have been fully advised on whether she could appeal.

Caitlin17 · 01/12/2013 11:01

The American father would seem to be the father of one of the 3 other children, not all of them. You seriously expect UK social services to hand over the baby to his sister living in US?

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 11:04

nenny do you know that for a fact where this type of family court proceedings are involved? From what I have read the judgment was given but not the detailed reasons. If detailed reasons supporting the judgment have been handed down then I really don't understand the Telegraph's article at all. From what I have read there is a huge amount of secrecy given to certain types of proceedings but I don't understand the extent of that secrecy. It would be interesting to hear what Brendan Fleming has to say over the coming days.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 11:05

I was dismissive as it has no relation to today's social services. I didn't to be fair, mean to minimise what her family went through.

difficultpickle · 01/12/2013 11:06

Caitlin why not if that is what is normal practice for adoption to be considered within the wider family? Or if there is an EU reason why that couldn't happen then why not consider family members in Italy?

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 11:08

No I expect them to hand her back to her mother when she's well enough to have her.

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 01/12/2013 11:09

A judge, social services and the medical team all agreed it was the best action. They're the professionals, we're sofa commentators. Who do you think knows best?

This.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 11:12

Yes it's always best to sit back and never question the state. Absolutely.

I wonder if that's what everyone thought during the forced adoptions in Spain and Ireland back in the day.

Oh and how about when autistic children were removed from their families and placed in institutions because autism was believed to be caused by "Refrigerator Mothers"?

It's a good thing people started asking questions about those situations don't you think?

conclusionjumper · 01/12/2013 11:20

I work as an interpreter and once had a case similar to this. A foreign national in the UK had a baby and severe PND at the time untreated. She was treated in hospital and made a good recovery. She had a senior position in an international company and her own home. THey wouldn't give her baby back. And in that case, I can tell you, I had ALL the information. I spent 3 hours preparing her for the judge only for the social worker to stick her head round the corner of the room to say they had gone ahead in private and the judge had extended the care order over her baby so she didn't even get to speak.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 11:25

In that case did she get her baby back in time?

lookatmybutt · 01/12/2013 11:28

*sparklysilversequins Sun 01-Dec-13 08:32:34
Of course there is more to it but its the general idea that it must be more in SS favour, that they had good reason to do this, never that there a real possibility that a series of really dreadful decisions were made resulting in the removal of a mothers child.

This woman was here on a training course, with what appears to be a functioning family back home, she was obviously pretty "together". Yet within weeks she had had her child forcibly removed and her body violated. There can be no ifs ands or buts about this.

Everyone screws up at work sometimes, only if SS screw up people lose their child, which is the highest possible stake.

I would just like to see a more critical approach sometimes. You see it time and time again on here, SS cannot possibly do wrong, must be more to it. Sometimes they CAN do wrong, sometimes there is no more to it. I just would like to see more openness to that idea.*

I'm quoting one of your earlier posts and would like to ask you a question. Are you really that dense?

SS are damned either way aren't they? In trouble if they don't intervene enough, and quite rightly so, or damned by people like you who go all SOMEBODY THINK OF THE MOTHER!!??? How do you know they didn't?

'...she was obviously pretty "together"'. Are you for real? Do you know how hard it is to get somebody sectioned? It's not One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or the 1950s anymore, you know.

And if you can't see why cases can't be more open, then I don't know what to tell you except maybe you should go off and relax with a copy of the Daily Mail or something.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 11:31

You sound ridiculous lookatmybutt. Your post barely makes sense, especially like the bit about me being a DM reader though Grin.

MurderOfGoths · 01/12/2013 11:40

SS cannot talk about it, can you imagine the outcry if they published intimate details of this poor woman's mental health and circumstances? So we are only going to get this small portion of the story - a biased portion at that.

And all the talk of SS definitely taking mentally ill people's babies away is not just stupid but potentially dangerous.

Do you know how many people will refuse to get help because of precisely that fear? How many people get much more ill as a result of not getting help?

FFS the chances of being sectioned are pretty damn low, you've got to be pretty bad, and I don't just mean suicidal - even attempting suicide isn't an automatic pass into a secure unit! When it comes to mental health this country has a far bigger problem with doing nothing at all. The likelihood of children being removed is low too, I know many many people with severe mental health problems who are in the mental health system (even under the care of crisis teams and SS) who are still with their children. Yes, there will be some mistakes, but I imagine they aren't the majority. How many of the people SS have helped successfully will go to the press? And how likely are the press to print the deeply unsensational story of someone getting help they needed?

But just stop and think before you go on about people being sectioned for barely anything, or having their children taken away for being mentally ill, especially on a large forum like this. Your words could potentially be putting someone and their children at risk thanks to scaring them off getting the help they need. Being mentally ill is likely to mean someone already feels vulnerable and scared, adding to that is horrible.

lookatmybutt · 01/12/2013 11:44

How exactly does my post not make sense?

duchesse · 01/12/2013 11:54

The baby does not have legal status before its birth so any CS in such circumstances would have had to have been done to save the mother's life. Maybe for example she had a massive bleed (placental abruption maybe?) whilst under sedation and they couldn't wait for the drugs to wear off before seeking her consent?

In the circumstances, which sound horrendous for the poor woman, I can totally understand why she would feel that she'd been sedated and the baby ripped from her, legally it is simply not a plausible option given all the hoops and consent that must be obtained. This is certainly not going to be helping with her MH issues, for sure. I'm not sure having John Hemming on board to confuse her even further is really going to help. Hmm

Poor woman. Poor baby.

BazilGin · 01/12/2013 11:56

Yes, we don't know the whole story BUT It scares me that they are trying to go with the adoption, ffs!
What about the poor children who will nver get to know their sibling. How can a child be taken away for such a long period of time and held in a foreign country. Imagine if it happened to a UK citizen in Italy. Can you imagine the outcry?
I will be watching this with hope for a positive resolution. It sounds like something out of Kafka.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 11:56

Maybe I meant it was just too ranty and rude so I couldn't really be bothered to respond properly, yes that's it Smile.

Swipe left for the next trending thread