Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
deepfriedsage · 01/12/2013 22:22

I agree regarding resources available to them, no need to go around information sharing a child is mentally ill when a Dr failed the child who was left with multiple untreated physical health conditions. I am left labelled as someone I am not as well and a black mark of suspicion always forever more now as family known to SS. If drs had spotted years ago all those missed chances in me and children we would not be as ill as we are and abused by so called professionals so long. Not one was faultless, not one when we went over the files.

Worried3 · 01/12/2013 22:49

Deepfriedsage,

I am going to make one last reply to you. You have had a bad experience, if everything you say is accurate. I have no idea whether you are correct or not.

However, not every single doctor, midwife, nurse, or any other professional can be labelled incompetent because of your experiences. It is totally illogical. You can choose not to trust any professional because of your experience. You cannot categorically state that every single one, in every single field, is unprofessional, incompetent and negligent based on your experience.

Sometimes doctors make mistakes (because we are human, and therefore imperfect). When this happens, we have to be held accountable.

However, the problem is that not all adverse outcomes are caused by mistakes as a result of incompetence or negligence on the doctors part. There are no guarantees in medicine- sometimes it is impossible to know what the right thing to do is with absolute certainty, so we make an educated guess. On other occasions, the correct path is obvious.

You have clearly decided that all professionals in all fields are incompetent fools. I think you are wrong and your stance reflects an inability to see past your own situation.

However, I don't wish to get into a slanging match. Neither of us are going to agree. I hope you find medical professionals you can trust.

deepfriedsage · 01/12/2013 22:58

No, you gleened that, I said I have no respect for professionals anymore, that everyone who felt with us had made errors. I will never trust another living soul again, trust has been eroded I am getting a dog to help me, with all the abuse that goes on exposed in neurology of that chap this week, the carers the past year, no way am I allowing anyone anyway near me, I would rather struggle than be abused again. I have to bring my dc to professionals, once they are 18 I am done.

It's a shame some drs can't admit I don't know what's wrong with you let me investigate, you know what I may have a zebra here, no instead they decide your mentally ill instead and put your health at risk.

curlew · 01/12/2013 23:10

Worried3- under what circumstances would you perform a Caesarian on a patient without consent?

MollyWhuppie · 01/12/2013 23:18

I think the c-section is clouding the issue here. It is perfectly feasible that it was medically necessary in order to save the mother's life. However it is being used to sensationalise the real story here, which is that of a child being taken from it's Italian mother and forcibly adopted in this country, without her ever having a chance to get her child back now she is well.

This story by itself would be unlikely to have such an impact however, as sadly these things do happen more frequently in this country than any of us would like.

bellybuttonfairy · 01/12/2013 23:23

I havent read the article, as I know it will be completely one sided and annoy me. If the lady was sectioned for 5 weeks under the mental health act then she was extreemly poorly. A large percentage of pregnant women I care for have depression/panic attacke/anxiety issues and I can assure you that social services arent even informed.

I can only gues why she was kept on a maternity ward for such a long time antenatally. These beds are expensiveand we dont send women home 2 hours post normal delivery or 48 hours post sectionfor no reason!

I am just guessing but I can imagine she would have had something like a complete placenta previa wbere the placenta covered the cervix and she was having constant little bleeds and being monitored VERY closely. If placenta previas start to bleed heavily - mums and babies bleex to deatb very quickly. The only answer is to rush them to theatre as an absolute emergency.

She must have raised huge concerns regarding her behaviour from all professionals involved. Babies are NOT removed lightly. Something must have happened to make people think she would have been a huge threat to be left to care for her new baby on her own even for a few mins. Ive only ever accounted this once. It was a very violent person who made consistant threats to harm the baby once born.

Unfortunately, social services and hospitals would be unabke to repond to an article such as this due to confidentiality constraints.

MollyWhuppie · 01/12/2013 23:25

Having said that, none of us are in possession of the facts here, so people can only speculate. It may have been absolutely the right thing to do, or the wrong thing. We will never know.

bellybuttonfairy · 01/12/2013 23:37

Actually, I have now reac the article and there are lots of flawed statements.

She was kept on the maternity ward for weeks - she probably had a serious obstetric issue
She was not told that the baby would be removed - very rarely if sw's feel that there is a high risk of the mother absconding and harming the baby once born then it has been known that the mother is not informed (safety of child is paramount)
She was forceably sedated and had a c section - makes me suspect she had a very emergency section, women are usualky given spinal anaesthesia. But if there is a risk of rapid death of mum or baby then a general anaesthetic is gi en (much quicker to administer)

TreaterAnita · 01/12/2013 23:38

curlew there are entirely foreseeable circumstances where a court might order a c section without the patient's consent, eg if the mother was refusing one and putting her own life and that of the child in danger and she was assessed as lacking capacity to make that decision because of her mental health. It's not a decision that the medical staff would make on their own, unless a failure to act would lead to immediate harm, but a court hearing can be arranged very quickly to make a best interests decision, and the mother would be represented by the Official Solicitor.

bellybuttonfairy · 01/12/2013 23:43

Also, the baby cannot just be taken to Italy just like that. Do you thinm a social worker would just pop it on a planeto be handed overthe other side.......? Its difficult and lengthy enough to go through the legal system to get a chikd removed via the courts. It takes months from the first emergency protection order to the implement the systems to assess mum and her condition before the final decision on removal

cestlavielife · 01/12/2013 23:43

"the woman says....".

The version my exp gives of his time in psych unit/why he was admitted (albeit voluntarily as they wouldn't section him) is completely different from my version, and frankly as he was having the mh crisis I think I trust my own version more.. There has to be more to the story and I not sure you can go by what she says...

The telegraph is all pro-life emotive ...even reading the first line it conjures up image of a social worker performing the c section or being in the operating theatre to literally put their hand in and snatch the baby... Which clearly has to be far fetched. ." ,baby removed by caesarean section by social workers" child taken from womb...

Woman with severe mh given c section after lots of people had to agree to it.
Following birth baby handed to ss as presumably woman wasn't able and ? Where were the relatives? Why wasn't grandmother there ? Why was no family member there and why weren't they given kinship care of the baby ?

what nationality is the father ? Where was he ? If no father known then one assumes rest of family knew she was pregnant. If they did not and woman was hiding pregnancy then who knows ?
Lots of unknowns .

cestlavielife · 01/12/2013 23:51

She wasn't on maternity ward for week's acc to the dt.

She was taken to psych hospital, wasthere five weeks, was sedated one day and woke up In a diff hospital having been given a c section. Acc to dt.

That is her version.

Worried3 · 01/12/2013 23:52

Curlew,

I have never personally made that decision.

It could not be done without a court order, or extenuating circumstances in an emergency. You would have to be very sure of your case to proceed without consent from the patient or a court order- if done inappropriately you risk an assault charge with resultant criminal proceedings and would also be struck off. I don't think anyone would risk a jail sentence and loss of career on a whim.

I have only heard of one case where this was done- the mother had a severe psychiatric disorder (I think psychosis), and was refusing treatment for a serious complication of pregnancy which was life-threatening. She was deemed to lack capacity to make informed decisions about her care, and a court order obtained to allow treatment to be carried out. From memory, I think the patient in question was glad that action was taken in her case, once her condition stabilised, although at the time I think it was very traumatic for her. I think it would be somewhat traumatic for the staff involved too.

deepfriedsage · 01/12/2013 23:56

The csection request wasn't challenged by nhs dr? Sounds like SS compiled a dodgy prive psychiatric report brought to a judge?

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS · 01/12/2013 23:59

Agree that this is up there with one of the worst things I have EVER heard. Absolutely unbelievable that it happened under the jurisdiction of English Law. I sincerely hope there is a massive compensation payout to this poor, poor woman. I hope she gets her baby back Sad.

lilyaldrin · 02/12/2013 00:04

Surely there would only be a payout if the baby was wrongly removed? Is it clear that that has happened?

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:14

I doubt she nor tthe baby will get an apology, best interest of child will ease their conscience and it doesn't matter does it, fuckibg up all those lives, professionals rarely are held to account, their managers would be in trouble they just move people about and they are ok jack.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:16

deepfried, tbh honest, please try and take on board what worried is saying.

your last post makes no logical sense. Sounds like what?????? this is an invention of your own mind, and to suggest it as even vaguely possible shows a real lack of understanding of the processes, clearly outlined previously, on how this might have come about and who would have been involved.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:18

have you read the thread at all property?

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:30

Have you read the comments from the patients group, NHS drs didn't challenge SS, this means SS would have compiled a private report for court from psychologists or psychiatrists to show the judge, as NHS drs don't seem to have done much in the case, it seems SS lead from what I have read.

lilyaldrin · 02/12/2013 00:31

"NHS drs didn't challenge SS" - surely that means they agreed?

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:32

You are ignoring the fact that the c section would have been requested BY NHS medical staff.

Why would they apply for a c section, and then challenge their own application?

Seriously?

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:33

Maybe, we have to wait and see, just sounds to me like nhs drs kept out of it and did as court ordered them to do.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:34

I thought SS brought the application not the NHS?

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:39

Whoever brought the application to court would have done so at the behest of the woman's medical team who considered a c section to be the best option for this woman's health.