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?

I am sorry for anybody who has had bad experiences at the hands of SW or HCP.

Yes, the baby had no legal rights until born.
I gather the CS was done under the Mental Health Act and it would have been done in the interest of the woman.
That does not mean that I don't think this is horrific, but from a mere newspaper article there is no way of knowing what led to this decision and whether mistakes/errors of judgement were made.

What I don't understand is why there seems to have been little contact with woman's family if she had any in Italy? Why would that baby not have gone to them?

I do think there is some important information not in the public domain just yet.

JH has been physically thrown out of courts because he goes in and starts shouting his mouth off when he has no right to speak and doesn't know what he's shouting his mouth off about anyway.

They all give dangerous advice, they're on a crusade against SS and adoption, they lie about the processes, they lie in the press about cases.

I seem to be the only one mentioning Brendan Flemming, he's the dodgiest solicitor you could wish to meet but I'm a little concious of posting too much about it. As someone said to me today, "his brother left to go and work for a rival firm. Says it all."

You want to know about JH/ BF go to the Minories in Birmingham and catch someone who is dressed like they might be a professional.

Spero - I knew someone had complained to Clegg about him but I couldn't remember who it was, I was telling OH earlier.

Pacific - we don't know that they haven't been in touch. We'll only ever have JH's side of this.

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

If he does that,I will suck his cock without gagging in public and never deny I did it.

Confuddled - I am not the only one to complain. We have all been ignored.

I raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that it was concerning to me that Mr Hemming was a serving MP, paid by the taxpayer, yet appears to be on various internet fora all hours of day and night, saying things that were untrue and liable to cause fear and distress to members of public involved with child protection issues.

They weren't interested.

Thanks sock. Now I have to go bleach my brain.

Thank you Spero for setting out your views. I didn't realise there was 'history' to all this.

I personally can see no situation whatsoever that warrants an LA applying to force a CS.

To me it's telling that it was the LA and not an NHS trust that made the application. You would think that, having sectioned a heavily pregnant woman, she would be receiving ante-natal care and as part of that care an assessment would be completed by the clinician with responsibility for her care. I would therefore expect the hospital trust rather than the LA to have made the application, and then only for permission to operate should the situation arise.

Scottishmummy - it's all very well stating repeatedly what the LA should do and their stuatory duties but, when you've had close dealings with them, as I have, you realise that they are literally a law unto themselves. I sued my LA and won the case. I have no expectations whatsoever that LAs always 'do the right thing', indeed we saw from the case a month or so ago when the judge ordered the LA to return the child to the parents and chastised them for taking the child in the first place, that they got it very wrong.

Anyone who is working to expose what goes on in Family Courts has my backing and unfortunately, given my own exposure to SS I can quite understand Ian Jospeh's advice.

It would be very interesting to know how many "forced c-sections" are carried out on women in the UK who are sectioned under the MHA.

Is this a one-off or does it happen to others?

Where this happens, who is involved in making the decision and what are the reasons? Are the reasons mental health (e.g. won't cope mentally with a natural birth) or physical (e.g. pre-eclampsia)?

Why was a decision taken not to inform this woman that she was going to have a forced c-section? In how many cases is this also the case, that the mother is just asked "not to have breakfast"?

Someone like the National Childbirth Trust should be doing some Freedom of Information requests if you ask me - or maybe Mumsnet could!

Then, more questions:

If indeed this baby was taken into care because the mother had had a psychotic episode, how often does this happen?

The thing that strikes me in this case, if it is as reported, are that there would be lots of ways of the mother managing/ being helped to manage her condition once baby born and adoption should be the absolute last resort.

I'm amongst those horrified by this story and likely to think it's the (patriarchal) justice system at fault - but we need more info.

Just watching Sky Press Preview and this story is frontpage news in tomorrow's Daily Mail

No surprise in that

Wetaugust - you have already been given various examples on this thread how someone in middle of psychotic episode could be a real risk to her own health and the health of her unborn child.

If anyone thinks their child is being sexually abused, please, please report it. If you don't feel confident speaking to a social worker, please tell the police.

For anyone to suggest that not reporting is sensible advice shows just how far this pernicious evil of JH et al has spread and it makes me both angry and afraid.

That abused and vulnerable children end up with these men as their champions is truly awful.

Jamjar - there was a recent case about sterilising a man who could not consent by way of his mental health difficulties. He had a girlfriend and a happy sex life but couldn't reliably use contraception. His girlfriend had already been pregnant which was a very distressing experience for them both. He and his girlfriend were being kept apart to prevent another pregnancy.

It was argued that it was in his best interests to have a vasectomy so that he could resume his relationship without any fear of consequences. That case was subject to full argument and a very considered judgment.

That is how I understand these cases are dealt with. Any interference with anyone's goodly integrity is taken very, very seriously, as it must be. I wouldn't want to be part of a society that didn't take these issues with utmost seriousness.

Which is why I think a lot more is going on here than we yet know and I would be very wary of taking at face value the views of some commentators - I am afraid they are just not trustworthy.

There was a Radio 4 programme last year about a pregnant woman who was in a coma and the dilemas the doctors faced in treating her. I seem to remember that her situation was hopeless but the baby had a chance of survival if they could keep the mother alive for a few months more.

I can't remember whether it was an actual case or a hypothetical one, but the one thing they wrestled with was the question of assault. Obviously this case ended in a CS too.

Sorry 'bodily' not goodly.

Spero - save some for me!

'No surprise in that'

scottishmummy, when the Mail gets involved there will be questions in the House. Its the paper of Middle England and when they read it, they may go bat crazy, and Cameron may be asked about what is gioing on.

wetaugust - we don't know that the LA did apply for it and not the NHS.

Haven't read it yet, but it is already online and the Mail is not mincing its word

"Case of Italian woman condemned as extraordinary and totalitarian"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Please-dont-baby-Agony-mother-baby-girl-adoption-secret-court-judge-forced-caesarean.html

Good. Let there be questions in Parliament, shine a light on the truth.

If JH is right, let's hang our collective heads in shame that we allowed this kind of thing to happen. Let's make sure it never happens again.

If JH is wrong - as he was about the involvement of the Official Solicitor, which he took all the way to Europe - will he apologise?

Again, I suspect holding my breath would be unwise course.

Wetaugust - you have already been given various examples on this thread how someone in middle of psychotic episode could be a real risk to her own health and the health of her unborn child.

Unborn child's health is, as others have already pointed out - immaterial. But as you know that, but have mentioned it, I expect that the unborn child's health was actually a real consideration to those involved in this case too. You never know, the psychiatrist involved may have misdiagnosed her, just as my son was misdiagnosed by an NHS consultant psychiatrist - it happens.

If anyone thinks their child is being sexually abused, please, please report it. If you don't feel confident speaking to a social worker, please tell the police.

Reporting it to the Police does not protect you from SS - as the first thing the Police will do is notify SS.

For anyone to suggest that not reporting is sensible advice shows just how far this pernicious evil of JH et al has spread and it makes me both angry and afraid.

It's nothing to do with your perceived 'pernicious evil of JH et al'. Anyone who has had dealings with SS can make up their own minds about whether they would want to be involved with them again. For me they were as useful as a chocolate teapot but I know people who've been dragged through child protection issues because they have an autistic child for which the LA is failing to make suitable provision (i.e. totally ignorong their statutory duty) and, as a result, the child has posed a danger to other children in that family - hence the CP action. A totally unnecessary situation if the LA had acted in unison to fulfill it's duties to that child.

That abused and vulnerable children end up with these men as their champions is truly awful.

I agree, but don't see anyone else stepping up to do the job.

'Tory MP Douglas Carswell called Essex children's services 'unaccountable and out of control'

"It may also be raised in the Commons by Lib Dem MP John Hemming, a long-standing campaigner against court secrecy, who said: ‘It is hard to avoid the suspicion that adoption targets set for Essex may have come into play.

‘We do not know whether she was held in the UK as a favour for Essex social workers. We cannot know because of the disgraceful secrecy of the courts.’

Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP for Clacton, said: ‘As an Essex MP, I have serious concerns about Essex children’s services. They are unaccountable and out of control.

'These people are dictators who abuse their powers. They are arrogant bullies and people are frightened of them.

‘They operate in secret, they have great powers, and they are unaccountable.’

The SOS – NHS Patients in Danger pressure group said: ‘This is extremely troubling. We would ask why the caesarean order was not challenged by NHS doctors.’

DM are quoting a patient group, who are asking why no NHS Dr challenged the csection. I guess SS got a private psychiatrist or psychology report, asked questions in a specific way, didnt tell the italian Woman or explain and set her up. No wonder the Essex MP is fumingng.

Surely the health of the baby can't have been irrelevant to the doctors? I know you can't issue care proceedings until baby is born but I didn't realise doctors also ignored unborn child. Maybe it's a case that if a heavily pregnant woman is going to do something to hurt the baby it is very likely to hurt her too.

Sorry, I don't understand this argument you seem to be making, because you don't perceive anyone 'stepping up' for vulnerable families, it's ok for narcissistic idiots to do it?

I know 100s of dedicated professions who step up every single day for vulnerable children. But as they aren't in the Daily Mail, I guess they don't count.

Please stop saying people shouldn't report abuse. I don't know what you went through and I am sorry it is so clearly leaving its mark but please stop being so irresponsible.

There are a lot of people on out Special Needs boards who would very much agree with Douglas Carswell.

Unfortunately, it's not confined to Essex.