Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services!

[StarlightMcKenzie]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Woman-has-child-taken-from-her-womb-by-social-services.html

Could there ever be a justifiable reason for this?

Its not unheard of for some parents to be abusive those parents need to have their children protected often by being removed. Hell I've met many who shoud be in prison (but to be fair to the cps mostly they do end up there).

It is NEVER ok to abuse another, it is not ok to abuse a vulnerable family to protect your own career then hide behind that kind of comment. You do realise it makes you as bad as Tracey Connelly or Daniel P's Mum oto abuse your position to abuse innocent vulnerabile families all so you keep your job.

It is important to remember that at least one social worker has been fired because of recommending that a family be reunited. The system is under a lot of pressure to deliver more adoptions. That is mainly achieved by babies not returning to their parents. I have the stats.

Prove it.

And by prove it, I mean... Prove that the system is under pressure to take more children into care.

Not get children WHO ALREADY HAVE A PLACEMENT ORDER adopted, I.e. out of the care system and into permanent homes.

Gosh if you had the stats to substantiate that claim you need to go to press
Not mn.proper disclosure of these stats
Go on then

I would be really interested in seeing statistics to support the various claims made by Hemming, Booker et al.

I am sure we would all agree that it is important for such a serious topic to make sure we are discussing real issues, supported by evidence.

Otherwise there is a risk of descending into scare mongering and agenda pushing. Which I am sure we all agree helps nobody.

Unless some people are more interested in publicity and a high profile. I do hope that isn't the case here.

Injustice needs to be investigated, and needs a worthy champion.

Good thing I decided not to hold my breath over the statistics.

But as I understand it fast tracking of baby adoption does occur because they are easier to place (and so cost less money).

I'm glad others understand exactly why I got so excited by these stats then felt let down.

they sounded really exciting.

NiceTabard, it could have been done perfectly by the book and JH will be telling his spin on it. Even if things haven't gone well, we will still be getting his spin on it. That's why people are posting like they are because all we have is JH's spin on things.

LtEveDallas, if you don't have a problem with JH you don't know enough about him. Why don't you ask someone who does know him IRL? I think there's enough of them here to ask.

As for the targets/ bonuses, I asked a senior social worker about it today and she said there aren't targets or bonuses. I said I'd seen a list of what each LA got and she said she had never heard of it but individual SWs aren't given bonuses. She said (same as I did when I read it) that it's probably to do with timescales and not keeping children in care for years on end which had got ridiculous and is damaging for children.

'Fast tracking' of babies occurs because the emotional harm done to a child of forming numerous attachments to different carers in first few years is immense. If you can get a child placed before he is a year old, he has much better chance of bonding with new primary carers.

But that does not mean babies are targeted. I have represented a number of drug addicted mothers - one had a twenty year addiction to heroin, crack and was taking methadone right up to birth. She was quite rightly, given every chance to show she could care. By time her child was 7 months old she agreed she could not.

I have just heard Mr Hemming on Radio 4 wondering why this mother wasn't sent back to Italy immediately, thus saving us all a lot of money.

So I appreciate he must be very busy, far too busy to bother himself about providing evidence for his many exciting claims.

He has clearly been too busy for about three years now to ever answer my request for proof that the government pays a 'bounty' for every baby snatched.

He has also been too busy to provide any journalist with this evidence, which is such a shame for his campaign. I hope his busy whirl of media interviews lets up soon so he can concentrate on the vital work he is doing for all the vulnerable parents and children.

If you think his behaviour online is bad enough, you should have the honour of meeting him face to face.

I contacted JH and was offered a meeting, it never was organised in the end, I had my email address given away to other people who contacted him, they were informed i was compiling a list, first i knew about it, they gave me their story, heartbreaking what could I do for them? I justgot on with things myself, there was not going to be any help given.

I find this forced CS to be one of the most disturbing things I have read about.

Anyone who has had experience in dealing with LAs will be rightly suspicious.

I think the woman found herself subjected to this barbaric action merely because she was visiting the country and don't think the same action would have been taken had the woman been a UK national.

I can imagine that, once the call for help was made, the authorities had absolutely no idea what to do with her. She had no UK 'fixed abode', so no address at which SS could oversee her. IShe was alone with no one to advocate for her. would expect the hotel would probably have wanted her removed. You can't put her back on a plane to Italy as she's pregnant. The only option available to them would be to remove her from the hotel to a place of safety and if she was resistant to this, you'd need to sction her.

LA should already have been in contact with Italian SS, however those of us who've had dealings with LA know they can't be arsed to contact parents who live half a mile down the road, so expecting them to try to liaise with SS thousands of miles away is probably well beyond their comprehension and ability.

So they have a preganant foreign lady sectioned. Now they're probably scared stiff to medicate her for fear of the effect on her unborn child. So they apply to the Court to forcibly remove the child.

You'd think they would have involved Italian SS regarding possible options for caring for the child?

Child is born, mother can be medicated and is kicked back to Italy.

Once I saw which LA was involved I wasn't surprised.

wet august, until birth has taken place, the baby has no rights. Any Csection would have been undertaken for the benefit of the mother.

Now the press are involved and the tireless, fearless campaigners we know and love, if a hideous miscarriage of Justice has occurred, the spotlight will be well and truly shone on it, as it should be.

But unless and until we all know a lot more about what happened and why, it is foolish and hysterical to launch into the usual, all social workers are baby snatching villains etc.

But hey, this is the internet so me complaining about hysterical fools is a bit like complaining about bear shit in the woods.

Now the press are involved and the tireless, fearless campaigners we know and love, if a hideous miscarriage of Justice has occurred, the spotlight will be well and truly shone on it, as it should be

^^^

This

I know the reasons given for fast tracking of babies, however the scales of belief fell from my eyes when I had the misfortune, as a victim of crime, to have SS in my life.

I used to be the most square, most trusting that support is there for those who need it.

I no longer have that belief

wet august, until birth has taken place, the baby has no rights. Any Csection would have been undertaken for the benefit of the mother.

Yes, I know the mother's interest is paramount at this stage, however I bet they still had a big worry with the idea of medicating a heavily pregnant woman. Enforced CS solves that problem.

I really don't undertsand what the big anti is on here against Christopher Booker and John Hemmimg.

It's so convenient for the Family Courts to act in absolute secrecy, unaccountable and unchallangeable. I'm happy to see any journalist investigate.

I've seen too many LA 'wrongdoings' to be naive enough to think they always get it right.

I find this chilling. I can understand why, if the mothers health is at risk, a woman would be sectioned and am emcs performed, but the story implies that it was SS who sought the cs, in order to take the baby, and I believed in the UK the women's right to refuse treatment out trumped the welfare of the unborn. I also find it disturbing that SS seem to want to adopt the baby 'in case she has a relapse' to take a child from its family for 15 months is awful enough, but to adopt 'just in case' doesn't seem right. Family courts seem to be a law unto themselves and I would be terrified if I had to have dealings with them.

If it helps, from my perspective I am 'anti' JH, CB , Ian Josephs et al because they say things which are dangerously wrong, they stir up fear, they claim to help the vulnerable but they are more interested in raising their own profiles.

For eg - Ian Joseph advices women who believe their children are being sexually abused by partners NOT to report it.

John Hemming has been repeating for years that LA are paid a bounty by government to 'take' babies for adoption. He has been repeatedly asked by me and many others on this forum to provide the evidence for this. He repeatedly fails to do so but continues to make this untrue and frightening claim all over the internet.

Ask some of the mothers on the threads about adoption what they think of JH and his interventions.

I could give you many, many, many more examples but if we are having the usual polarised debate then you probably won't want to read it. But I am quite happy to pontificate on and on. I could type out the letter of complaint I made about him to Parliament last summer if you like. God knows it would be nice if someone read it. Nick Clegg couldn't be bothered.

Prebirth assessment will be of maternal mental health,the unborn baby had no rights til birth

See post by wonderstuff just now to support my repeated warnings about just how dangerous it is for people ostensibly in positions of power to spout all this dangerous nonsense about the family justice system.

It is not 'a law unto itself'. It is governed by the law of this country and international law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights.

I do not argue that it is perfect and that there are never any mistakes, because I am not mad. Of course it isn't perfect.

But it isn't some lawless, baby stealing anarchy. It really isn't.

The fact that so many people come on threads like these and say they have had awful experiences with social workers is really sad and means there clearly is a problem that needs addressing.

But I suspect the problem lies much more with a system which is overloaded to breaking point, rather than one that was deliberately designed to steal people's babies.

Of course, if Mr Hemming would care to finally provide the statistics he keeps citing, I will be the first to humbly apologise for having been so wrong and unfair to him.