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?

NanaNina - It is all too easy blame the problem of the LAs/SEN world on lack of money and budget cuts. And I do agree, this is part of the problem - but only one aspect of a not fit-for-purpose morally-corrupt system.

As I said up thread, I have met with some of the most nastiest and most unpleasant people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter whilst trying to get my DC help. Many in SEN departments in LAs have empire built and woe-betide you (and your disabled child) if you have the cheek to go against them. I've read the internal emails that they've written regarding my DC's case. Internal emails never meant for my eyes - a mere parent.

LAs do act illegally every single day in the SEN world.

If you want to report my post, please do feel free to do so. Everything I've said in my posts, I'd be willing to repeat in a court of law in front of a judge. Oh, I already have.

There seems to be an assumption that the C Section was directly related to the bipolar disorder and the fact that the mother was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. However, I have seen nothing to indicate that that was the case. As has repeatedly been pointed out, the C Section would only have been authorised if it was in the mother's interests, and it could well be that it was required because she had something like serious pre-eclampsia or placenta praevia and was refusing to consent, to an operation or was unable to give informed consent. It could also be that she was about to go into labour and her mental state was such that she simply would not cope with it and would harm herself. The court's authorisation would only have been given if it was satisfied on the basis of strong evidence that she lacked the equired mental capacity to make the decision for herself, and that it was needed in her best interests.

Like others, I am making no assumptions that the courts, medics and social services got this right, but the reports so far are totally silent on these issues. The mother is free to release the papers about the C-section to the public but so far neither she nor her advisors seems to have done so. I suspect that that speaks volumes.

Was she psychotic for the entire 5 weeks?

How did she get from the hotel to the clinic or whatever it is where she was treated? Was she shackled?

Volunteer?
Someone is told to do it, an employee, not a volunteer. This is a health service not the brownies.

It still doesn't change the fact, that all social services have to do is slap 'child protection' on a case and they can then withhold all the information they want from parents. They can also speak with other professionals or call meetings without inviting parents or having their permission. They can have access to all of your medical records etc and share this with other professionals to paint a picture if they like.

They don't even have to rely on actually 'evidence' they can base it purely on opinion and make woolly accusations.

They can gain reports from 'experts' who do not work in a clinic or such like, but make a living purely from writing reports for them.

This is why people are put on planes. Because you can't send someone on a nine hour coach journey if they don't want to go without handcuffing them to at least two others.

And you expect social workers to do that? Really?

Mary, you seemed to have missed the bit about me saying that ESS have got form. They have, so that is why i would be sceptical of anything they say..

Yes. It is usually very wise to be sceptical about people who have made up stuff before. Particularly in court. With no evidence.

People like JH.

You can't force someone to go abroad, even for work.

People are forced onto planes all the time - but only if they are deported. An Italian citizen has freedom of movement throughout Europe. If she didn't want to leave, I don't see how she could be forced.

That's ironic that you cant force someone to go abroad, but you can enforce medic procedures like a c/s.

'you can't send someone on a nine hour coach journey if they don't want to go'

Did they ask her if she wanted to go?

'You can't force someone to go abroad, even for work.'

Are you saying that the MH staff can refuse to go abroad?

I'm very torn on this. i've had two severe psychotic episodes. I was very very crazy. I thought I had the devil in me. If I went into labour I would have quite probably ripped my stomach open or something awful. i was very strong as well. i would have had to have either been completely sedated or shackled. Neither great.

So the C section I actually think was probably best for the mother. But afterwards, t he fact that she is at risk of getting ill again is no good reason not to return her child, that is awful. Anyone who has had an episode is at high risk of another. How come I have my kids (and never had a problem in 15 years).

That ignorance of MH problems is horrific.

I would be very surprised if anyone's terms of employment meant they could be sent out of the jurisdiction at random times, unless they were in the armed forces.

But I don't know. However, if this is a demand routinely made of SW or MH workers, no wonder these positions are so difficult to fill.

'An Italian citizen has freedom of movement throughout Europe. If she didn't want to leave, I don't see how she could be forced.'

She was sectioned. Where were her rights to free movement? And if I understand it right, she was deemed not to have "capacity" so does that mean that what she wants holds no water?

You are only sectioned if a danger to yourself or others. My right not to be murdered by someone suffering psychotic delusions trumps their freedom of movement, so long as psychosis persists.

Ah well claig if you read that stuff in the Daily Mirror it must be right!! I take no notice of anything printed in a tabloid newspaper. I think these claims about expenditure are ludicrous.

claw2 I would welcome your evidence for the claims that you make about SS slapping "child protection" on something and can withhold information from parents. You probably know someone who has been involved in care proceedings but birthparents caught up in care proceedings will always have a "cover story" that is nothing like the truth of the matter. Someone upthread is asking us to believe that children were removed because of "ink on willies" - more and more ludicrous.

Social workers cannot get matters before the court without evidence and assessments of the birthparents are undertaken by a whole variety of professionals: social workers, clinical psychologists, consultant paediatricians, consultant psychiatrist (if there are Mental Health issues) GPs, Health Visitors/Nursery workers. All of these professionals have to submit comprehensive reports in Court. In addition in every case of care proceedings a guardian is appointed (who is independent of the LA) and employed by CAFCASS - their role is to investigate all of the circumstances and submit a comprehensive report, and they also appoint a solicitor to act for the child in court. In addition before a final hearing there can be the appointment of an experienced independent social worker who works on a freelance basis and he/she assesses the birthparents once again and submits a report.

You claim that social workers can gain a report from "experts" who do not work in a clinic. I have no idea what this means. All experts will by definition have a place of work.

All of the professionals who carry out assessments on the birthparents are cross-examined by the solicitors for the parents (as birthparents are entitled to Legal Aid for their legal representation) It is customary for social workers to be cross-examined for 3/4 hours. No professional would be stupid enough to try to put in a report with "woolly accusations" as they are all to well aware of the lengths that the solicitor for the parents will go to fight their corner, which is of course their role and although I don't agree that the adversarial system is the right process in these cases, this is the system as it stands.

Final hearings usually take some 4/5 days and the Judge reads all the documentation and listens to all the evidence and cross examination, and if he/she wishes will ask questions/seek clarification themselves. At the end of all this it is the Judge that will make the final decision.

OK now where's your evidence Claig

I know that JH advocates opening the family courts that deal with these cases, and I totally disagree because the child/ren at the heart of these proceedings deserve the intimate details of their lives to be confidential.

However I sometimes wish people like Claig and others who think that social workers stroll into court and make a few "woolly accusations" and hey presto the court makes a Placement Order, meaning that the child can be adopted, could really see what goes on in these final hearings. I think they would be very very surprised.

"OK now where's your evidence Claig?"

Evidence for what?

I am talking about rights and the law and legal rights. I don't know what the evidence is, I can't see it.

"people like Claig and others who think that social workers stroll into court and make a few "woolly accusations" and hey presto the court makes a Placement Order, meaning that the child can be adopted"

Sorry, where have I said that?

I want greater transparency and independent legal representation and greater rights for the parents, that's all.

Sorry my question was meant for claws2

Someone upthread is asking us to believe that children were removed because of "ink on willies" - more and more ludicrous. I think you'll find it the post said "ink on wellies". I'm old enough to remember the case - I think it was pre-internet days. It must have been maybe even as long as 20-25 years ago.

If I recall correctly, there was ink on the inside of a child's wellington boots. It rubbed off onto the child's legs. The class teacher thought that it was severe bruising and so reported it as a case of "child abuse" to social services. I can't remember the outcome as was such a long time ago.

@maryz @Spero your posts are so informative and interesting, good job!

On the Italian front, that article is not even news in Italy..

See www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/?refresh_ce
And www.repubblica.it

And all this silence from the Italian sources, usually ready to jump on the Brit-shaming wagon, is very suspicious....

A few people have wondered why this lady's two older children are with her parents... Social services in Italy are nearly nonexistent. If a court granted the care of the children to the grandparents, the mental disorder of this woman is quite serious.

And I know it is a hot topic and difficult to talk about.. but did nobody thought about her baby getting a British citizenship straight away?
As a mother of a baby born as a British citizen, she had some advantages (or so she thought!), even financial ones... If that was not the case, why didn't her original family stepped in and claimed the baby? In the end, they already care for the others... Mmm average children per family in Italy is: 1. Three children for a family in Italy is like having two mortgages to pay at the same time. Please remember that social welfare doesn't exist in Italy.

Re: citizenship topic: In UK you have the 'jus soli' rule... In Italy, it is 'jus sanguinis'.

My comment about the notion of sws strolling into court etc was also meant for Claws2 so sorry Claig

Thanks, NanaNina

Whatagain I don't doubt a teacher mistook ink on the wellies was bruising but if you read my long post upthread about what has to happen in a final hearing of care proceedings where the Judge makes the final decision and there is absolutely no way that a case like this could get to court, so it is ludicrous. Incidentally "willies" was a typo and I meant "wellies" I recall a birthmother telling a new foster carer that her children had been removed because she didn't take them to the dentist and the carer was very upset naturally. The true facts were nothing to do with dentists - they were to do with serious ill treatment and neglect.