Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 16:58

I was responding to the question about the surgeon specifically when I said that. But I said professionals because I wanted to encompass others involved too.

I'm sure it's extremely rare but I think it CAN happen, a chain of decisions and professionals all coming together in a negative way.

I have two dc with ASD, the majority of the experts knew nothing about it, social workers, teachers etc, you'd be astounded how incompetent some trained staff can be. My parenting was constantly questioned by everyone. I was reduced to sending links from the National Autism Website (freely available to all with quite basic knowledge that professionals working with children would be expected to know) to explain my child's behaviours in school.

Point is I was coming up against a brick wall time and time again and know many other parents have experienced the same. If it is so common in the world of SN how can we say that it is not in other areas involving mental health and illness etc. I had to explain to my GP Shock how autism manifested itself in many children. She didn't know.

Those are MY experiences and I think that all it takes is for one or two to get the wrong end of the stick and a vicious chain could be set in motion with an devastating outcome. Not ALL these families claiming as treatment at the hands of the state can be lying or unaware it's not possible and the end result is nothing short of disastrous.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 17:02

yes I have one with ASD and one with Dyspraxia and I also come up against constant barriers - but that doesn't equate to a case going all the way to the high court, with barristers on either side arguing the case in full possession of the facts being the same thing

Most teacher know very little about SEN in general but that isn't especially relevant to this case

I would imagine specialist in mental health understand quiet a bit about mental health

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 17:07

You'd imagine a SENCO would know a lot about SEN too wouldn't you? That has not been my experience. I think it IS relevant here.

Out of all those families that Sad Face in the papers, do you think they're ALL lying or withholding? That's not possible. If a "chain" of professionals are able to screw up so badly that children like baby P are murdered (and he's not the only one). Why not the other way too.

I think people don't want to believe that something so horrific could be true but it's just common sense to know that in some cases it will go wrong. By thinking there's more you're protecting yourself from the knowledge that YOU and yours could possibly be affected one day because one over zealous professional got it wrong and somehow it went all the way.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 17:11

Had that woman been at home with her family it's very likely this would never have happened. Her Mother who was caring for her other kids would have helped. But she wasn't, she was somewhere else when things went wrong for her and all the circumstances combined to make this happen. Just one small detail. Being in the wrong place. That's terrifying isn't it?

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 17:11

No because a SENCO is a teacher with a bit of extra responsibility towards SEN and not time or budget to devote to it - having worked in schools for years I get this

I have an SEN case load and produce reports for families but I don't have any specialist training in all disabilities or learning issues - I ask!

I work with social workers daily - some good some not so hot but this is not simply a social worker making a decision

you seem to be unable to imagine that a court, in full possession of all the facts in with both sides being represented, could make the right choice - trust me, given my 17 years experience, sometime it IS the best thing for a child to be removed

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 17:16

Of course it's sometimes the right choice. I have never said it wasn't. I have only questioned the immediate "there must be more to it" response that I see on here. I think it's limited and horribly unhelpful.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 17:17

And to reiterate I KNOW there is not always something more to it.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 17:19

but there is more to it - do you honestly think a women in perfect health has a panic attack, one panic attack, is sectioned for weeks and the courts decide she is unable to make decision - seriously - over ONE panic attack

not a chance - but social services are never able to defend themselves while parents can sell any old pack of shit to the press and people assume it's fact

curlew · 01/12/2013 17:22

I still want to know what the social worker could have said to the surgeon that would have made him perform an illegal operation which could have got him struck off.

Taz1212 · 01/12/2013 17:22

Ignoring the condition of the mother, I don't understand why the baby was not turned over to the Italian authorities. I don't see how the baby is even a British citizen at this point !

SaucyJack · 01/12/2013 17:25

Had that woman been at home with her family it's very likely this would never have happened. Her Mother who was caring for her other kids would have helped. But she wasn't, she was somewhere else when things went wrong for her and all the circumstances combined to make this happen. Just one small detail. Being in the wrong place. That's terrifying isn't it?

She had bipolar and had stopped taking her miedication. That is not one small detail, and you cannot possibly begin to say it wouldn't have happened if she had been at home.

sparklysilversequins · 01/12/2013 17:26

I've answered that curlew, as I was not there I am unable to provide you with specifics. Tbh I am speaking more of the forced adoption in my posts. I think it may be as another poster said that she was felt unable to give consent when considering the medical side of it.

ImagineJL · 01/12/2013 17:28

I doubt we'll evere know all the details because once its resolved it won't be newsworthy any more. But Sparkly I really think you're worrying unnecessarily if you think this is something that could happen to anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We've heard one side of the story. There are so many possibilities other than gross miscarriage of justice, it's an inappropriate waste of energy to assume at this stage that this is one of them.

edamsavestheday · 01/12/2013 17:35

Shocking, extraordinary case. Tragic for the poor mother and child. Shaun Chakrabati of Liberty called it, at face value, a dystopian nightmare.

deepfriedsage · 01/12/2013 17:37

I agree with sparkly, I have also experienced incompetent professionals. My take on this is poor handling of the situation started a chain of events. I amddisgusted at a forced csection and the lack of support to keep the child within its family.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 17:38

yes at face value it is - but face value isn't the facts - removing children isn't easy or taken lightly

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 17:40

deeffriedsage what did they offer to support the family, what did the family want, why was the woman unable to consent to a section, what was mishandled - you seem privy to more information than me - I am curious

edamsavestheday · 01/12/2013 17:40

Conclusion, your story is terrifying. The fact the SW and judge went ahead with the hearing behind the mother's back, when they knew she was preparing her case, is outrageous.

deepfriedsage · 01/12/2013 17:46

Just going on my experience, if you as a service user had a text book experience, good for you, we were failed, I expect most people are. If you read serious case reviews there are mulitagency fuck ups, that's our experience, and what probably went on in the Italian case.

gordyslovesheep · 01/12/2013 17:50

it's not 'probably what went on' at all - I am sorry you had a bad experience but you are projecting

we don't KNOW what happend - so without that knowledge I think it is very wrong to start making assumptions and apportioning blame

It may be that it was a 'comedy' of errors - it may be that actually it was totally the right choice - we don;t know - any of us

deepfriedsage · 01/12/2013 17:58

Well experience taught me raise an eyebrow to so called professionals. My opinion is there will have been professionals who fucked up here. None of them can be trusted, met police plebgate, incompetent des baby p to name a few. More fool you putting trust in humans, who make human errors, have egos and so on.

ImagineJL · 01/12/2013 18:12

Have you heard the phrase "there are 2 sides to every story"? If you only hear one side and form an opinion based on that, you will never make a true assessment. If you were to go round a prison, I'm sure you'd find many people who were totally innocent, fitted up, honest as the day is long. Would you believe them all, or would you want to see the evidence first?

zubin · 01/12/2013 18:16

Not sure if this has already been pointed out but a cs would fall under the mental capacity act not the mha which brings a whole different set of guidance into play, nobody would be sectioned for that length of time for a panic attack and lack of capacity would need to be proven at point of decision for the mca to kick in - it really does seem that there has to be more to this

badtime · 01/12/2013 18:18

If this woman was under section for 5 weeks, she was almost certainly sectioned at least twice. She was a visitor and unknown to services, so would have been placed on a section 2 for assessment. Section 2 lasts for a maximum of 28 days. She would then have been discharged if her consultant concluded she did not require further treatment. She was not, so the treating team must have felt that she needed to be detained in hospital under section 3. (She may have been placed straight onto section 3, though; this would only happen where she was known to services and/or very unwell). This was not about a 'panic attack'.

The caesarian was ordered by the Court of Protection, which deals with cases where people lack capacity. It wasn't SS or a surgical team taking matters into their own hands.

The article linked is very definitely one sided, and in addition contains some technical legal information which I think is the lawyer representing the mother is using to obscure the details. Its still says enough to know that the mother must have been very unwell.

drudgetrudy · 01/12/2013 18:27

Their are an awful lot of people who will have been in this chain of decisions: consultant psychiatrist, adult mental health social worker, CPN, consultant obstetrician, midwife, health visitor, child protection social worker, judge. I am well aware that there are a lot of ill-informed, undertrained, judgemental professionals out there but there has to be more to it if all these people have been involved. It must be a complex situation