Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

999 replies

StarlightMcKenzie · 30/11/2013 22:38

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?

OP posts:
santandhishappybandofelves · 02/12/2013 00:30

Spero, I am not saying people shouldn't report abuse, but can categorically tell you - after our experiences, I would never report again, we were failed from the moment I made the first phone call, by all but one of the multiple agencies we were involved with.

The core failure was the LA and SS, who decided that despite there being a trial involving child witnesses, we did not class as having children in need as we had banned abuser from their lives, we were therefore denied multi agency working, leaving me at one point, dealing with 13 separate agencies/departments.

I now know I could have called a multi agency meeting myself, but in the eye of the storm I had no idea, I also now know

Also - I was left suicidal - not by what had happened but by a SW who is supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable.

And I have heard tales like mine, over and over and over again, I am not a lone voice. I don't think it is a conspiracy - I agree with this I think we get the system we deserve and we are prepared to pay for

wetaugust · 02/12/2013 00:35

MadameDefarge - the doctors could not rely on their clinical judgement in a case like this of 'consent'. They would have to have court approval for their proposed actions. To have blundered on without it would have been prima facie assault.

It'll be interesting to see if Essex did get a set of private reports to justify its action.

These things always boil down to money and going for the cheapest (easiet) option. We see this time and time again.

Private reports justifying the action that then allows them to ship the mother back to Italy is very low cost compared to ongoing support for the mother and baby in the UK.

Shame we found out Angry

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:37

well indeed, wet, that would be my point. Was that not obvious?

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:37

I mean, regarding her medical team. It would have been their application to court, or an application based on their assessment of this woman's medical needs.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:38

If they were psychology reports rather than psychiatrist reports will make a difference too, psychologists are not medically trained solicitors, SS and a judge may not be aware of that.

confuddledDOTcom · 02/12/2013 00:38

Excuse me??? What've I said???

wetaugust · 02/12/2013 00:38

Well, we'll have to see what transpires in the House tomorrow.

Nighty-night.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:41

I. Believe it wasn't the NHS that made the application to court it was SS.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:42

deep, if she was sectioned at the time, then any reports would have been made by the psychiatrists involved in her care.

You can be pretty sure that lawyers and judges and social services know perfectly well the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist.

Most people do.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:43

it was the comment regarding corruption, confuddled.

Spero · 02/12/2013 00:45

O god, I really am going to bed but before I do please let me reassure you there is NO WAY a judge would be unaware of the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist! Please be reassured on that point.

Confuddled, I think there may be some confusion about your post with the sad face emoticon.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:46

No they don't, someone I know had to inform quite a few professionals of this fact one being SS who wasted a fortune on one Such report, when she had a medical condition, which they were unqualified to comment on, didn't stop them.

I understand the Italian lady was on a maternity ward for weeks, I doubt they got her italian medical records.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:51

from what I have read she was sectioned for five weeks, therefore in a secure psychiatric unit, not a maternity unit.

Having been the victim yourself of chinese whispers you should be a deal more careful about reading the very few 'facts' in the public domain.

IneedAsockamnesty · 02/12/2013 00:53

In all fairness it does read as if CS made the court application not the doctors

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:55

And why would you doubt they had her medical records from Italy? Unless they were unable to trace her medical practitioner there...its perfectly normal for medical records to be transfered between countries.

claig · 02/12/2013 00:56

MadameDeFarge I think you have misunderstood confuddled, I think she was being ironic.

She supports SS and is anti John Hemming and the solicitor mentioned in the Telegraph article.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 00:57

thsts what i read too sock, and the patient group questioning why the NHS didnt challenge the court order, sounds like a private psychology, psychiatrists report was used to obtain the court order.

IneedAsockamnesty · 02/12/2013 00:59

Now obviously I'm not saying that's what actually happened just that its how it reads so obviously that's what the rag is reporting so I can understand why a reader would think that's the case.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 00:59

apologies to confuddled if so...sometimes hard to spot the irony...though I did think it a bit at odds with your previous very sensible post!

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 01:00

can someone provide a link to this patient group's concerns about this?

IneedAsockamnesty · 02/12/2013 01:00

Fwiw if the daily mail told me that my mother was my mother I would call her and check just incase.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 01:03

Go back a few posts its already on the thread, I think clag posted it.

claig · 02/12/2013 01:10

Mail reader comments are going wild. The highest rated comment already has over 6000 green arrows saying how can this be legal, and the article has only been up a few hours.

Someone has said is this Essex, China or Essex, England.

If this doesn't go all the way to the top now that Mail readers are onto it, I'll eat my hat.

MadameDefarge · 02/12/2013 01:11

Yes, the wording is ambiguous.

And whatever the Mail says, a c section is a medical procedure which would only be performed for medical reasons., the safety of the mother, and hopefully the baby.

Therefore the request for a court order allowing it would come in the first instance from the medical practitioners.

The ambiguity will be around who considered the woman to be incapable of providing informed consent. Perhaps everyone involved agreed. SS would have to be informed as they would then have responsibility for the baby from birth.

deepfriedsage · 02/12/2013 01:20

I hope they do debate it in parliament. I have an idea co is on the agenda. A few points.

A only celebs got caught up in yewtree. That porno raidin cancanada no arrests here.

There have been large mystery donations to charities like the condition we have who get false accusations against parents.

Swipe left for the next trending thread