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?

Obviously I would do the brain bleach inducing thing first,I'm a woman of my word.

And btw I don't agree it is 'all over our press'. Its front page news for the Daily Mail. And that isn't a newspaper. Times put small article on page 8. Not front page on the Telegraph.

MY EYES MY EYES

I think it s a great pity there are not 1000 JMs publicising when things go wrong.
Also here why would the grandparents and father not take in the child until the mother was better? Have they been interviewed in the press?

The Italian grandparents are already looking after two of her children and - presumably, I speculate - may not be that keen on looking after a new baby.

the father, I have no idea. Of course he should be in the picture. But there are many reasons why he might not be, not all of which are the fault of the UK authorities.

The Essex statement confirms that it was the Health Authority, not Social Services, who applied for the order permitting a Caesarian. I don't think the fact that it was done in the interests of the baby as well as the mother makes it unlawful. It's entirely possible that a procedure that is required in the best interests if the mother will also benefit the baby: e.g. If she had something like placenta praevia both mother and baby were at risk of death.

"And btw I don't agree it is 'all over our press'."

google it, it has gone viral.

It started with Booker's article in the Telgraph and has had lift-off with the Daily Mail's frontpage. Now the BBC have it, the Independent, the Guardian, Huffington Post, IB Times and local papers etc

or that she needed to be put back on drugs that would harm the baby

Ok, if it is front page news in Times, Telegraph and Independent tomorrow, I will eat humble pie and accept it is indeed 'all over' our press.

Otherwise, no I don't accept that Huffpost internet wafflings are a true barometer of the importance of an issue.

All this nonesense about so-called 'baby snatching' is distracting from the main issue of whether the CS was warranted.

As I said upthread, I think this course of action was taken because the woman was
a visitor (which made treating her in the community within the UK, impossible as she had no fixed abode)
had long-standing MH issues
was probably beyond the safe travel period in her pregannacy that would enable her to be returned to Italy
had need of medication that they were unwilling to administer to a pregnant woman
was of no interest to the Italian authorities.

For these collective reasons I believe the decision was taken to perform the CS and return the woman to Italy. They probably expected no fuss whatsoever from the woman and never expected the case to feature prominently in the UK Press.

I believe it was just a 'take immediate action and sweep the whole mess under the carpet as quickly and cheaply as possible' job that unfortunately has attracted some publicity.

It seems that all the decison-making was done in a very short period of time and nothing like the months / years of assessment etc we have been told is attempted before a child is placed for adoption.

She could have stayed in the UK while her fitness to mother the child was assessed.

But they didn't do that as they'd probably jumped to the conculsion that she'd already had to forfeit the care of her other 2 children so consequently couldn't be a fit parent to this one either.

The child could have been returned to Italy in the care of the Italian authorities - just because they said they didn't want to take the child doesn't mean it shouldn't have been returned to the country where its mother (and siblings) were naturally inhabiting.

Instead the child remained in the UK care system - by defualt rather than by design.

I just think that they were unwilling to expend much money or effort in this case and hoped to 'do minimum' and expected the case would never be subject to scutiny.

Looks like they got it wrong.

'Otherwise, no I don't accept that Huffpost internet wafflings are a true barometer of the importance of an issue.'

How many people read online news nowadays like the Huffington Post and how many still buy a physical paper. The net is where the real news spreads after the physical press prints it.

I think it's a great pity there are not a 1000 JMs publicising when things go wrong

If only that were what he does. But the truth is that he seizes on causes that help to publicise him without trying to establish whether anything actually has gone wrong at all.

Wetaugust, that entire scenario is (a) totally speculative and (b) ignores the fact that it was the Health Authority who got the order for a C-section, not social services.

It may well be speculative but I bet it's pretty accurate.

Cock up (as in being found out) rather than conspiracy.

But we've already seen that Essex LA has put pressure on the Health Authority to make certain decisions from the other link I posted.

Why would it not also have been possible in this case?

i.e. Essex had got their Health Authority to 'un-diagnose' a child who was as a result of that diagnosis, going to cost them a lot more than he would without one.

LA and NHS collaborate. They have to. For instance, LA will expect NHS to chip in if a medical need advises a certain course of action e.g. special school. So it's in NHS interest too to wave Italian lady off at the departure lounge asap.

I presume they talk to each other

@Spero
"Lakedistrict well obviously because the Italian authorities are equally corrupt and part of an international paedophile ring and this baby probably had blue eyes and didn't you know that every social worker gets a Ferrari and tea at the Ritz for each baby she steals.
God, you are so naive."
No, I'm not naive. And if you thought you were being sarcastic (with the Catholic church being actually accused of being a part of a paedophile ring), you didn't come across that way. Besides, plenty of my Italian friends have blue eyes, stop watching the Godfather or Montalbano, Sicily is one of the 20 regions forming the Italian country.

Therefore, stop insulting my country with silly prejudice, given that it is actually your fellow citizens and your press all in a fuss about something that is actually deemed in Italy (with a reason) of no importance at all.

@claig Italian papers didn't care and didn't want to. When you've half of a country flooded and dozens of people die, when you've a factory that blows up and it is full of illegal immigrants who died while sleeping in cardboard boxes, do you think that such a situation deserves front page news?
Or do we want to consider this as more shocking than the hundreds of people dying because of wars and natural events?

Here nobody dies, first. Second, the situation is front page in UK because probably human rights were disregarded and lots of people like to jump on the politically correct/incorrect wagon.
In Italy, press is not free, parties own the press. And human rights are disregarded every day, hundreds of times. And nobody goes to the press, as you could well see from this lady behaviour.

Claw2, sorry, I was away from my computer.

She could have been placed on section 4. FOR 72 HOURS. After that, she would have been placed on s2 or discharged from section. She could not have been held for 5 weeks under section 4, or without seeing a second doctor.

Good point, they have other problems.

The Daily Mail does tend to focus on stories that affect ordinary people and our rights as individuals rather than the global events which the Guardian is more interested in.

'In Italy, press is not free, parties own the press'
We've got a group of progressives who want something similar.

A court ordered intervention by the Court of Protection requires the following:

that the person lacks capacity
that it is in the person's best interests for the intervention to go ahead

If there was a threat to the baby's life as well as the mother's or even to the baby's life alone, it might possibly be argued that it was not in the mother's best interests for her baby to die, given the immense distress that would be likely to cause her. But any consideration of the baby's fate would have had to be in relation to the best interests of the mother, as I understand it.

Lake District - I was trying. - and obviously failing miserably - to be funny, so you can come off your high horse. I did not intend to insult your country and while I am surprised you took my post in that way, I have obviously caused you offence, so for that I am sorry.

Starlight - the difficulty with the conspiracy theory that Essex leaned on doctors to make a serious diagnosis is WHY would a cash strapped LA want to create very expensive care proceedings unless it had to? Foster care is about £30k a year.

The only way that makes sense is if you believe that the government pays out vast sums of money as 'bounty' for adopted babies and they don't. JH claims they do and claims he has proof, but he is yet to share that proof with anyone.

Or the internet is where the lunatics fossick in stories that respectable journalists wouldn't touch with ten foot pole...