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?

Starlight, I suspect that JH recommended she sack her team and hire BF. No idea how they would have got involved in the first place but I guess if you google and they come up and you're not local you're not going to know to avoid. Although I've had to advise people who are local to avoid.

Claw2:

Now part 1 ie sectioning the mother, sounds like a bit of an ill informed, rushed decision or even a temporary condition if she does in fact suffer with bi polar.

As I posted upthread, she is likely to have been sectioned at least twice, as a section 2 (for assessment) lasts a maximum of 4 weeks, and it is vanishingly unlikely that someone unknown to services would have been placed on section 3 without this assessment process.

How can you say that it was 'ill informed' or 'rushed' when you know nothing of the circumstances or, it seems, the processes?

@fromparistoberlin

"I think the journalists are wankers. they dont have all the facts and are writin upsetting tales that scare the bejeesus out of any PG woman with a mental health issue"
"I cannot conceive that the court would randomly manadate this for a pregnant tourist. We dont have the facts"

Yes, yes. I completely agree with your posts and with what you said. In my opinion jumping to conclusions reading what the Independent and the DM reported is wrong. We don't have a tiny idea about what happened.

I am not defending them either. If that's the way they behaved, I hope they will pay for all the harm they caused to this woman, her child and her family. But we just can't trust what they said, it is like reading a story but with too many plotholes in it.

"I agree, I would far rather be here than in the fucked up beyond belielf Italian system right now"

You'd bet!! ;)

"this story will be all over Rai Uno tonight suspect"
Probably... thank God I don't watch Italian tv anymore ;)

@claig, generally speaking there are so many good people in Italy too. Yet, generalizing about the 'family thing' is wrong. Families are tired and worn out, not helped out by a system that only thinks how to become more corrupted and nothing else.

"Our system is not perfect and not above criticism and secrecy will only prevent us improving it."

I agree, but to improve it... it will take time. I'm pretty sure, as somebody else noted, that there are so many British women and children who were harmed by the social services. Yet, think about something... they are using this lady's case to help their cause... but what if the judge was right in ordering the doctors to perform the c-section? The remaining harmed British women go out of the equation?
Something doesn't sound right here :(

Somebody said way upthread that this looks dodgy as fuck. I'm inclined to agree.
Why does everyone think there must be more to this,- because you cant believe that all of the various agencies involved can get it so wrong.. They can and they do all the time, and then cover each others backs when they're found wanting!
I cannot begin to imagne what this poor women is going through. The whole thing sends a shiver down my spine

Spero - have you heard about 'never' events? It's an NHS definition meaning errors that should never happen e.g. amputating the wrong leg.

Imprisoning someone in secret is a 'never' event if I ever heard of one. It's not merely a minor error, it's astonishing. And, I hope, unprecedented.

All the people slagging off journalists fail to realise, it is media coverage of massive, appalling 'errors' like this that helps to overturn officious wrongdoing by the courts.

"Why does everyone think there must be more to this,- because you cant believe that all of the various agencies involved can get it so wrong.. "

I'm an Italian citizen, therefore I'm seeing the whole thing from another cultural and social perspective... And believe me, this thing stinks as heck from an Italian perspective...
In a patriarchal society as the Italian one is, nobody ever, ever mentions the child's father? Husband, partner, none? 3 children and... out of nothing?
Children usually bears the father's name in Italy, forever. Women are forced to keep it, whether they like it or not.
No father to claim this poor daughter?

Remember that here it is even common to have three children from three different fathers but in 95%-Catholic Italy you can be socially burnt at the stake for it.

My first guess is that the Ryan Air course was a very good excuse to be in UK... just my Italian feeling ladies...

Badtime, you are saying in your opinion she is likely to have had x,y,z, then accuse me of knowing nothing of the circumstances or procedures!

I based my opinion on what has been written so far (although it might not be 100% at least its been written) That the woman's mother told the authorities that her daughter suffered with bi polar and hadn't taken her meds. The facts according to what has been written, the forced c/s was performed 5 weeks later.

Hence my it was rushed, ill informed and maybe even a temporary condition.

Your reasons for believing she had been sectioned at least twice are?

Your reasons for believing she had full assessment are?

Everything was legal and above board, hence why it made the headlines

Lake, I'm with you on this.

Also on the never events, the NHS every year operates on the wrong body part, thousands of cases. It should never happen. So will social workers get things wrong too. No one expects perfection but if we had more open-ness in the courts and more rights for the individuals to appoint their own lawyers and for the fathers and grandparents always to be represented it would be a lot fairer.

We need much much more publicity for these kinds of cases and that should not scare social workers as if 99% of their decisions are right they will be able to prove that.

Saragossa, that's an exaggeration. There were 299 ‘never events’ in 2012/13, according to Dept of Health figures.

I know of one case where they mixed up two women, and gave one the hysterectomy intended for the other. Got away with it on the grounds that 'when we opened her up, we found X Y Z that meant a hysterectomy would have been indicated'. I know someone involved who made it plain this was kind of handy for the surgeons and trust involved. It's a common get-out clause when there's a healthcare fuck up - oh dear, shame your Dad was treated so badly, still, he would have died anyway so we can't blame medical negligence...

Totally agree with you! More transparency yes ;)

However I hope that this story is not scaring off the nice social workers, they mostly do a good job.
I don't like the idea that these not-so-well-researched paper articles will affect the whole social service system... first time I read it, I had this image of non-human monsters wrestling this child away from her mother, all articles are written in such a 'debatable' way.

Once you analyse the facts... you understand that some of it could be total nonsense.
I can't get over the fact that this lady was seemigly 'unattended' for months (no family or Italian authorities??), then she was supposedly deported (how do you deport someone who doesn't need a visa to stay? The deportation part, if true, would cost millions to the British government, without counting European Union sanctions, etc!), then she came back to claim her child months later...

Whatever you say, for me something is really, really off here. No matter what happened at the start, but I'd have contacted even the Queen to go back to my country with my child!!
Therefore, in my opinion the assumption that these people (judge, Essex CC, social services) acted in such a wrong way breaking all the international laws concerning the matter without any evidence to back up their claims IS wrong.

Just left my last two cents. We'll see what kind of outcome the story will have. Have a nice day everybody, ladies!

Anyhow Badtime I digress. Lets look at the bigger picture and lets assume (as its also been written) that the woman had suffered a mental breakdown due to her bi polar, do you really think the correct or best course of action is to forcibly remove her baby by c/s?

Since when has forcibly removing a baby been the correct or best treatment for bi polar and in the woman's 'best interests'?

"Why does everyone think there must be more to this"

Four words for you:

John
Hemming
Brendan
Flemming

oh right, now it's guilt by association? Anyone who speaks to JH or BF must be a wrongdoer who deserves to lose their child?

Claw2, the reason I think it was likely she was sectioned twice is because I have seen the sort of things that happen when people are sectioned, even unlawfully.

To check, I just asked my colleague, a specialist mental health solicitor, if someone who was unknown to services would ever be put on section 3 (for treatment) without first having been under section 2. She confirmed that it would be extremely unusual. If the patient was unknown to services, she would have had to be diagnosed before she was placed under section 3, as a diagnosis and treatment plan is required to place someone under section 3; from what is written, the patient did not consent to admission to hospital as a voluntary patient, and must therefore have been admitted under section for assessment, and remained in hospital under section too long not to have been resectioned.

I think her sectioning was legal as in the circumstances, the story would contain information about her proceedings for unlawful detention if there had been irregularities.

However, that is pretty much irrelevant, as the big issue is that it wasn't just a section 2 (for assessment), and she had therefore been in hospital and being treated under the Mental Health Act. I can see a situation where someone would be placed under section 2 due to a panic attack. I genuinely cannot imagine a situation where someone would be placed under section 3 for this reason.

And yes, I did say that you know nothing about the circumstances. You, in fact, know nothing about the circumstances.
Me not knowing either doesn't change that fact.

My whole point is that none of us actually know, but that there is a lot about this story that doesn't add up, if the 'facts' are taken at face value.

I have never said that at all. I said that's why I don't trust the story and know there is more to it. John Hemming is a liar. The story in the press will have come from him. I have expressed many times in this thread sadness for this woman because she has no hope with them involved.

Claw2, the situation with the child (or family law), I don't know anything about.

I could speculate, but it would be entirely pointless.

I do think the whole adoption thing is weird, though.

Well, there have been some disturbing cases lately of lies and cover-ups in health and social services as well as police and even, on very rare occasions, judges. Fortunately we have never seen any such reprehensible behaviour on the part of politicians or journalists.

Oh...

OK. 299 'never' events for one year in the NHS.

Events so shockingly badly wrong - such as amputating the wrong limb - they should NEVER EVER happen.

and yet they did. 299 times in one year.

So thats not far off one every single day for a whole year.

but I don't see anyone jumping up and down to say that this is a deliberate conspiracy by doctors to cut off the wrong bits and sell them on to the Ukranian mafia? I don't see John Hemming saying that each hospital is paid a bounty for every kidney they wrongly take?

Edam - re your guilt by association point.

Far from it. These men prey on vulnerable women largely for their own aggrandisement. I honestly don't think they give a damn for the women or the children involved. They love getting involved in this kind of thing for the newspaper headlines and the publicity.

(yet I note with interest that neither the Times nor the Telegraph put this on their front page, it seems only the Mail who deems this worthy of a front page froth. Hmmm.)

this is why they are dangerous. They may well be contacted by someone who has a good case, but after they have taken up cudgels and made fanciful allegations about deliberate corruption and state paid bounties for adopting babies, you can bet a lot of damage has been done to that woman's case.

'she has no hope with them involved'

Why?

Spero, what percentage of cases are they successful in?

I'm not sure whether the DH figures on never events are for the NHS alone or whether they include private hospitals/professionals as well - I certainly know of one 'never event' that happened in a private hospital near where I live.

claig, I don't know.
I have no idea.

All I know is this

John Hemming claimed a solicitor had lied in court and made up a file of papers about instructing the OS. The Judge was appalled and said he would never take JH seriously again. JH took this to the European Court and lost. God knows how the mother felt about this.

When I was complaining about him last summer a mums netter contacted me saying she had asked JH for help and he told her not to co-operate with Social Services. She lost her baby and she wished she had never met him.

JH flew the flag for Vicky Haigh and even now alleges she was a victim of the corrupt evil family court system. This is the women who tried to convince her daughter that her father had sexually abused her. When the daughter went to live with her father, Vicky Haigh tried to abduct her from a petrol station.

JH openly boasts about 'helping' women flee the jurisdiction if they are subject to child protection investigations.

He refuses to dissociate himself from Ian Josephs and his advice not to co-operate.

google him and his personal life and you will see why he has started on this crusade. It all started with one of his girlfriend's babies who was subject to care proceedings in Birmingham. It makes interesting reading.

having made several attempts to get people interested in what I see is his clear abuse of his position as a serving MP I sadly conclude that a child will have to die as a result of his advice and 'help' before anything is done.

Badtime, she could have been detained under section 2, 3 or 4 or even 5 if she tried to leave. I am not questioning whether she was legally sectioned or not. I am questioning whether forcibly removing her baby is the best course of action.

There are plenty of loving, caring parents who suffer with bi polar or other mental health issues. Part of the bi polar condition can be that you suffer periods or 'episodes' and might even require you to spend some time in hospital or periods when support is needed for both suffer and their children.

I would have thought social services should provide a supportive service, involve family and supportive network and try to keep families together, not forcibly remove babies.

They do try to provide exactly that. This is their legal duty under the Children Act as well as a requirement under the European Convention. Every effort has to be made to keep the family together.

Unfortuntely this costs money and we are seeing many services cut down or cut out entirely.

I refer back to what I said earlier. We get the child protection service we are willing to pay for.

As we are only prepared to pay pennies in comparison with budgets for defence and high speed rail links, you do the maths.