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:
Caitlin17 · 01/12/2013 12:01

look your post does make sense. This is a very one sided report from a newspaper with an agenda. Of course they will put the best possible spin on the family circumstances as that suits their agenda of doing down social services.

Bisjo you really consider the sister of the ex who is the father of one of the three other children to be family to this baby?

feelingood · 01/12/2013 12:04

I really feel for this mum.

I imagine she may have stopped taking her medication as she was worried about the effects on her unborn baby. She left home to attend a work related training event - not running off somewhere, just going about her business as best she could.

What a nightmare to wake up from and realise what has happend. My thoughts are with them both.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 12:10

SS's decision to take the baby and have the section performed was actually supported by the high court - in full possession of the facts

Social Workers didn't do this on a whim

Place children in foster care and going through adoption costs money - you can bet your arse if there where SAFE and SUITABLE family members they would have been the first choice

SaucyJack · 01/12/2013 12:16

On the face of it, it sounds horrific and a serious miscarriage of justice. But these things simply do not happen over one panic attack. She would have been very ill- and quite probably doesn't remember herself what she'd said/done at the time. I don't find it hard to imagine that it was the interests of both mother and child to deliver the baby, and then have it fostered.

lookatmybutt · 01/12/2013 12:22

Well, Dr Sparkly, I'm sure that poor woman is disappointed that you were not there to fight her corner as you have plainly diagnosed that she is completely sane just from the information contained within one sensationalised news report.

In general, this is a very, very sad situation. If it's any consolation, adoption proceedings are a little more 'open' these days than they used to be in that it's a bit easier to contact respective birth parents/children. This would still be carefully handled by SS to protect the parties and details would remain confidential.

It's not even really newsworthy; it relates to someone's deeply personal problems. Equally tragic cases occur all the time.

feelingood · 01/12/2013 12:24

Yes its possible the 'panic attack' may have been part of a more serious illness (a fucking ILLNESS that women seems to have recovered from) I understand that she have been a risk to herself and/or her baby. I'm not sure where I stand on the consent issue re surgery tbh.

BUT I am dam sure that if that women has recovered from her illness and has the right support why oh why can't she have her baby back? I feel very angry about this.

Why can't the baby be at least become a ward of the Italian system - removed from its mother and from its cultural heritage.

feelingood · 01/12/2013 12:26

I want to believe there is more to the story. Then I will be wrong.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 12:26

The section may have been nothing to do with her mental health - the baby may have been at risk

As to the rest Feelinggood - yes it is sad but there will be reasons

duchesse · 01/12/2013 12:34

And having fragile MH does not immunise a person against physical health problems either- as I said earlier it could equally have been a more mainstream physical problem that forced the section.

lookatmybutt · 01/12/2013 12:37

I'd also like to add that here in the UK, you will not be sectioned over one panic attack. If you go to a&e with one, they will basically tell you to fuck off. They will also tell you to fuck off if you are suicidal.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 12:46

I honestly can't be bothered to respond to your aggressive posts towards me, so I won't lookat.

I am no expert but I find the standard "there must be more to it" response on these threads really dangerous and limited. As another poster said, who was involved as an interpreter in a similar case, she had ALL the information and that woman still didn't get her child back. It stands to reason by the law of averages alone that mistakes will be made. When it comes to removing a child then I don't think we can afford to just bleat "well they know best". Because they don't always and this had been proven many times over the years.

FraidyCat · 01/12/2013 12:48

Bisjo you really consider the sister of the ex who is the father of one of the three other children to be family to this baby?

The sister is closer family than random British adoptive parents.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 12:48

"They will tell you to fuck off if you are suicidal". What ALL of them? Nonsense.

I worked in old age psychiatry at a London hospital for four years and I have never seen a suicidal patient be told to fuck off. I have had medical attention for panic attacks and had wonderful care.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 12:50

Sparklysilersequins do you really think a high court judge would allow this to happen - within the bounds of British law, without there being a really really good reason?

Then another judge allows the child to be placed in foster care

THEN after a full investigation and a full report with all sides presented another judged allowed the child to be adopted

all without good reason?

Of course there is more to it - it's a misconception that social workers act alone with not reason and just sweep in and snatch babies

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 12:51

I think a string of mistakes could lead to this yes. I think anything is possible.

curlew · 01/12/2013 12:54

In your cock up scenario, sparkling- what did the social workers say to the surgeon to get him to operate on a non consenting patient?

FraidyCat · 01/12/2013 12:56

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

Or, to put it another way, the law requires ss to not give a flying fuck about the rights/interests of the mother, or what any of the baby's family think is best for the baby.

I've always thought that the idea of giving priority to the presumed interest of a child was bollocks. Wherever more than one person, of any age, is affected by a decision, it should be required to take everyone's legitimate interest into account. Giving absolute priority to any class of person is a recipe for injustice.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 12:59

I've no idea but let's not forget arrogant "expert" medical witnesses in the cases of Sally Clarke and Angela Cannings. Do you honestly think that could never happen again? That there aren't professionals out there that make bad choices and decisions and then are so blinded by arrogance that they cannot admit to it? I know there are. I worked in the NHS for years and I saw the mentality of some of the high ranking consultants and their do not cross me attitudes. Nothing would surprise me.

VisualiseAHorse · 01/12/2013 13:00

gordylovessheep I'll say it again...the section would not have been performed to save the baby's life. The baby does not take precedence over the mother while still in her womb. It is much more likely that maybe she (the mum) would die, and that's why they performed the section.

I think the reasons for performing it without her consent were either ; that she was going to die unless they did it, or her mental health state meant that she was a danger to herself and/or the baby AFTER it had been born. However, none of these reasons allow for the child to be adopted out with no chance of rebuilding the relationship with the mother, once she had got better.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 13:01

She didn't say the woman didn't get her child back, she said the care order was extended. Big difference.

lilyaldrin · 01/12/2013 13:01

It does seem very unlikely that someone could be sectioned, for a longer period than normal as well, for "just" a panic attack.

I also am under the impression that the c-section cannot be order just for the baby's safety. The woman would have to be both incapable of giving consent, and her health would have to be at risk if the c-section wasn't performed.

The whole situation does sound horrific, and of course mistakes are made, but in this case psychiatrists, judges and social workers were all involved in a series of quite complex decisions. One social worker can't have decided this was to happen.

I also think that if things had turned out differently - the woman wasn't sectioned and killed herself, or she refused the c-section despite being mentally incapacitated and died in childbirth, or she kept the baby and it subsequently died - there would be an outcry that despite the involvement of so many different professionals, action wasn't taken.

It's pretty impossible to weigh up the decisions that the courts made without knowing all the circumstances.

fifi669 · 01/12/2013 13:01

She didn't say the woman didn't get her child back, she said the care order was extended. Big difference.

duchesse · 01/12/2013 13:02

The SS would have been advocating for the baby only once born. A foetus does not have a legal status until it is born. There are SW who I believe specialise in Mother & unborn child combos but those circumstances are very particular. I repeat again: a person does not have legal status or rights until they are born. The moment they are born they become a person in their own right. A SW could have been standing outside the operating theatre ready to take the child into care for example. BUT they cannot "order" or even push for a forced CS without consent.

The woman's doctors would have been advocating for her and her best interests. I would imagine that an obstetrician would have been involved alongside the MH personnel.

Any decision to perform a CS without informed consent requires a huge number of legal hoops.

curlew · 01/12/2013 13:03

"That there aren't professionals out there that make bad choices and decisions and then are so blinded by arrogance that they cannot admit to it?"

No, I don't think that for a minute. But if the facts as we have them are true, then the surgeon must have broken the law, and done something he could be struck off for. What could possibly have convinced him to take the risk?

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 16:33

That there aren't professionals out there that make bad choices and decisions and then are so blinded by arrogance that they cannot admit to it?

yes of course there are but in this case it is not one or two professionals but a whole legal system, the medical team, the psych team, social services etc not just the odd over caution individual