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?

The truth is often the most simple explanation.

Mum not capable of making an informed decision re her health care.

Medics have to decide what is best for her, and secondarily (but very secondarily) her baby.

And have to go to court to ask for permission to presumably save her life, given she is incapable of giving informed consent AT THAT TIME.

Horrible for everyone involved.

Indeed. Why construct a massive conspiracy theory when the simple explanation fits so well?

Why? because some people benefit from it. They get money or attention.

Just me feeling a bit of compassion for all the people forced to make these decisions?

Doctors, nurses, pyschiatric staff, court?

They are not all robots, in thrall to some baby snatching conspiracy.

And in these kind of cases, every i is dotted, every t crossed.

Because they are not stupid. They need the case to be watertight to proceed.

No professional would hang their career out on the line for anything other than the acute medical need of the mother.

Or is that just a wee bit to simple?

OMG how much more ridiculous can this thread become.......now we are being invited to believe the article in the DM by one Sue Reid, who has written about Diana - so yes Spero I hope you are suitably chastened by Claig's post and will now start to take the DM seriously. Yes I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but needs must. Incidentally Spero and Maryz and others sadly in the minority on this thread, you are doing sterling work, but methinks it is probably a waste of your time and energy. I don't know what drives people to believe that babies are pulled from the mother's breast to "get them adopted." or any other crazy conspiracy theories.

At the risk of repeating myself I think that many LAs (especially the inner cities) are so "on their knees" with 30% vacancy rates, inability to recruit and retain experienced social workers, and high sickness rates with stress related illness, that they are unable to remove children who may not be safe at home, as they lack the funding to care for them. WHY do people want to believe that hard pressed social workers with caseloads of 30 plus are out looking for more children to remove. It is utter lunacy but WHY do people believe it.

As for JH - I honestly thought he'd gone to ground, but NO here he is as barmy as ever (yes I know that's a personal insult and not allowed on MN but I am at my wits end with the man) I skimmed the DM article by the "senior journalist Sue Reid" which was wholly inaccurate and provided no evidence whatsoever, just anecdotes. BUT our JH never one to miss a trick says he has evidence that 1000 children every year are snatched by social workers so that they can be adopted.

I know it's no good asking him to provide this evidence because we know he can't do this, and yes he will pop up again soon with some odd soundbite and I hope that when this happens I will be able to hold myself back and prevent my blood pressure being raised.

Incidentally come on all of you posters with strong views about the work of social workers and the decisions taken about a child's future, take up Spero's offer - she has made this offer in the past and I don't know if she's had any takers, but I doubt it. It's one thing tapping away anonymously on a laptop at home and quite another thing to go to court where there are barristers and the Judge and it could all be very intimidating couldn't it............but come on I'm sure she will look after you.........SO any takers.........................NO I thought not!

I would love to take up Spero's offer! But she might well be preaching to the converted.

I was saying that staff still need to volunteer if they need someone to take her home because their management can't force them to abroad. I know SWs who've been asked and refused.

'Like I said, if this story features in a big way in the actual newspapers tomorrow'

It won't be front page because most newspapers don't care, they prefer stories on windfarms or global events. They won't run front page stories of families fighting LEAs over SEN or parents fighting to get their children back or patients dying of dehydration in hospitals. They are not big enough stories for them.

And would it be too much to ask people to consider the agenda of a news source when considering their reporting?

We all know the most simple of facts can be spun according to the bias of interested parties.

I would always take with a pinch of salt any 'fact' spun to demonise whole swathes of public servants.

Rest happy, Claig, the Dm has it as a front page story...wooo!

christ yes, who want's to accompany a psychotic, bi polar pregnant lady across Europe to be dumped in the indifferent lap of non-existent Italian social services?

I guess they could just take her to the nearest hospital and then run for hills.

Very responsible.

I dont think we know enough about what was happing in the pregnancy, how unwell she was to say if the csection was in hers and the babies best interest.

however putting the baby up for adoption because she may relapse seems odd. I trained as a mh nurse and have never heard of that happening before.

I think there is probably more to this than theyve reported

And I speak as someone who had to accompany a dear friend on a bi-polar highi on a train journey for an hour.

Keeping her on the train? not a fucking chance. Keeping her from jumping onto the rails? With extreme difficulty.

She had a baby, had ten years of abeyance of her symptoms, and only recently has it reared its head again.

No one has suggested her little boy should be taken into care, let alone adopted.

Moomins, the c section would have been sanctions in HER best interests, not that of the baby.

As for a baby being removed for good in the case of a stable parent, who might possibly relapse, I also have never heard of this, so I assume that this bit of reporting is somewhat disingenuous.

Just watched BBC Newsnight and they reviewed the front pages.

Front page of Times and Independent tomorrow is Tom Daley.

Whereas front page of Daily Mail is this story for a second day running with headline "Explain why you snatched baby girl a birth" and Tom Daley has a smaller part of front page.

Newsnight tonight had a Tom Daley piece, nothng about this story. Will they run this story? I doubt it because it doesn't fit and if they do run it they will probably tell us how good the system is.

Eh? It won't be on the front pages because it isn't a big enough story?

I thought it was huge! Massive conspiracy! Awful! Evil! etc etc.

Make up your minds.

Sorry nana, it is late and I am getting sarcastic, which is foolish. I am betraying my promise to myself never to put on line what I would not feel comfortable acknowledging in real life. This is too serious for silly sarcasm, but some of these posts are so bonkers I am struggling for any other response.

Yup, no one has ever wanted to come to court with me. Because I think, deep down, they know their conspiracy theories couldn't survive a big dose of reality and the cognitive dissonance would be too much for them.

If I represented a mentally ill parent who 'might' relapse in future and thus had child removed, I would appeal and expect to win. I would like to see a whole lot of medical evidence about risk of relapse, seriousness of that relapse, how could it be managed with medication, help in the community, family support etc, etc, etc.

This woman has very sadly already been judged not fit to care for her two elder children. Her risks of relapsing must be significant indeed.

claig, please, just for a moment, consider that this might have been in the mother's best interests? The C section I mean. And not even in any kind of humane, way just to cover their asses? because that would be sensible?

As to keeping the baby in care. We have no idea of the mother's mental health, all we do know is that she is currently not considered fit to care for her two older children.

A lot of unanswered questions. But are they questions we have a right to know the answer to?

Prurient curiosity is not a good enough reason.

Front page of Times and Indie is Tom Daley!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

JH must be spitting feathers that his moment in the limelight was so brief.

Well, the Mail is not reknowned for letting the truth get in the way of a bit of public services bashing.

Other, more measured journalistic responses will be based on the information available to the press. And yes, some of that will be off record.