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?

Can anyone explain why the child cannot be placed in the care of the woman's mother or other relatives in Italy?

I think there will have to be questions about this. This is too big an issue.

There may be assessments on going of Italian family or they may already have been assessed and deemed not suitable. Or they may just not want to get involved.

We just don't know.

All I can tell you is that the LA has a statutory duty to consider placement first with family members if parents can't care. They must assess. If relatives are not assessed or unhappy with assessment, they can challenge this in court.

This is what ory MP Douglas Carswell sais

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

After saying that, if nothing happens about this, then MPs are practically powerless.

The alternative is that nothing happens because that statement is utter crap. Not that MPs are powerless. Just not adherents of lunatic conspiracy theories.

'There may be assessments on going of Italian family or they may already have been assessed and deemed not suitable.'

Thanks Spero, if all else failed can't the child be placed in the care of Italian SS and be adopted in Italy at least?

But he is an elected MP, a representative of our democracy. If he says such things about our SS, surely this needs an enquiry or something?

When a child is physically present in the jurisdiction, the LA have a statutory obligation to act to protect child. They can't just ship a child out of jurisdiction because mother is Italian. I doubt very much the Italian authorities will be keen on volunteering to take on expense and difficulty of fostering and or adoption proceedings.

Also, I don't know where the father is, where his family is or where the other children are. Do we even know if the mother wants to go back to Italy? She may be staying in UK and asking for her baby to be returned to her care here.

All I can tell you is that the LA has a statutory duty to consider placement first with family members if parents can't care. They must assess. If relatives are not assessed or unhappy with assessment, they can challenge this in court.

Spero - we all know what they should do. They know whst they should do too - but they don't do it. You can have all the laws in the world but if LAs chose to ignore them then how do you hold them to account?

The SN boards on here are full of parents who've been forced, at great cost to themselves, emotionally and financially, to take LAs to Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals in order to force their LAs to carry out their statutory duties. It would be nice to think that LAs always did the right thing / acted appropraitely but unfortunately they don't.

You only need to look at the long catalogue of Ombudsman reports of maladministration committed by LAs to realise that LAs are not infallible.

This horrific case may finally be the beginning of getting some light shone into some very dark places. It's certainly going to pose some questions for a particular LA.

So another MP takes up the case. Excellent.

By all means, let there be an inquiry. Something other than trial by Daily Mail.

But do you want to know what I think is the real reason MPs won't want an inquiry? Because they don't want to shine a light on what happens when you strip a system down to its bones - £40 billion on high speed rail link, £113 million on child protection. To me, that says it all.

I think we get the system we deserve and we are prepared to pay for.

You hold them to account by going to court.

LA do not make final decisions. Judges do.

Or are they all corrupt and intent on stealing babies too?

I very much doubt that Carswell would say what he has said without some first hsnd experience of dealing with this LA which covers his consituency, possibly from other cases that have been brought to his attention.

They are not remarks that would be made lighly and he's done so without Parliamentary privilege.

An unborn doesn't have rights over the mother, so a mother can't be forced normally into something that would save her baby. For example, if a VB would harm a baby they can't force the mother to have a CS.

However, I could see that if she was not capable of making a decision to have a CS due to her mental state (for example they couldn't make her understand she had pre-eclampsia and they were both at risk) and she was sectioned that they would apply to the court for a judge to agree for her to have the CS.

A judge can only rule on the evidence given to them, if given a dodgy psychology report, and the Italian Woman had no representation or rubbish representation then you can't blame the judge. There will have been errors made at every stage by them all is my guess if there is an enquiry, from that first 999 call onwards.

I have no doubt that many MPs have experience of many constituents coming to them with 'horror stories'. I have had many clients who have tried to get their MPs involved.

Unsurprisingly they often do not give their MP the full story. Most MPs are responsible enough to know this and their involvement is restrained and responsible.

There is very rarely just one perspective that is wholly correct.

I reserve the right to be very suspicious of anyone who thinks that it is helpful to make these kinds of sweeping grandiose statements when they cannot possibly be in possession of all the info they will need.

'But do you want to know what I think is the real reason MPs won't want an inquiry? Because they don't want to shine a light on what happens when you strip a system down to its bones - £40 billion on high speed rail link, £113 million on child protection. To me, that says it all.'

I don't now nearly as much about it as you, but I think some of these MPs are frightened, they would rather stick to safe, non-controversial issues.

Very good point about the money. £113 million sounds ridiculously low.

deepfried, it would have been her doctors who sought permission to do the c section. no reason for them to challenge their own clinical advice.

You hold them to account by going to court.

It's ridiculous to expect people to have to take an LA to Court to enforce their statutory rights. For a start a lot of the parents don't even know they have such rights, let alone the means to launch legal action against a LA that is well upholstered with tax-payer funded legal support.

LA do not make final decisions. Judges do.

LAs like to tell you their decisons are final, that you won't get anything else by complaining, that their actions were appropraite. I was told that at all three stages of my complaint against my LA. The Local Governement Ombudsman thought differently and pointed out the error of their ways to them. Again, a process that relies on a judge to overturn LA decisions is not fit for purpose.

Or are they all corrupt and intent on stealing babies too?

No, they are not intent on stealing babies - don't be silly. Adoption costs money, they don't like spending money.

But if you're asking whether they are all corrupt - yes, definitely and morally bankrupt.

O of course. All lawyers in this field are crap and dodgy. The child's guardian is inevitably corrupt.

O I am so tired of all this.

Maybe I just won't bother to prepare for this week. I am just a pathetic cog in the great baby snatching machine.

and 'set her up' so they could perform a c section and then steal her baby?

Really?

You cannot really believe anything so ridiculous.

If you seriously do, then your judgement I feel is very very much at fault.

Dm article reads NHS drs didn't challenge SS application, which would mean SS compiled a private medical report for court.

I'll tell my lovely aunt then that she is morally bankrupt for having worked for 40 years doing her best by the babies and children she had to find homes for, shall I?

Wetaugust - I am talking about care proceedings. Where parents get non means and non merits tested money from gov to go to court and fight their case.

But clearly they shouldn't bother. Well, good to know the entire system is morally bankrupt, that means I won't have to bother reading these six lever arch files on my desk, I will just go shopping instead.

I am cross and tired, never a good combination, so I wish you good night.

As ever, this is not a debate but people digging themselves in to further entrenched positions. A shame.

They might not all be corrupt, but this lady found one who is

deepfried, again, NHS doctors would not be challenging their own clinical judgement, do you not understand that? SS would have no input or power to ask for a csection. It would have been at the behest of the clinical team looking after this ladies medical needs.

Do you not understand that?

confuddled, if you base your judgement on a very narrow set of facts available to the public, then heaven help us.

The disrespect shown to informed Mnetters, who take time to explain the real process, by ignoring their input entirely to peddle deluded personal suppositions as 'fact' makes me worry for the mental capacity of some people to follow a logical discussion.