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?

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

It is a big story for the Mail because the Mail is interested in the individual's rights vs the state's rights, but none of the progressive papers care about that. For them Tom Daley is more important.

don't worry Maryz, I am sure Sue Reid's incisive analysis will make things clearer for us. Maybe Diana can voice her opinions from the grave.

I think Tom Daley has revealed he may be bisexual but I am disturbed I even know that much.

the Mail is interested in the individual's rights!!!

hahahaha

O thanks, giving me the best laugh of the night.

Just so long as you aren't an individual of the immigrant or gay persuasion eh?

"claig, please, just for a moment, consider that this might have been in the mother's best interests? The C section I mean."

Yes, I agree it possibly was after 5 weeks. But I question the adoption to a UK citizen and why she had not been returned to Italy at some stage during the 5 weeks.

The Daily Mail headline tomorrow is "Explain why you snatched baby girl at birth?"

If the Daily Mail keeps this up, we may get more explanations.

or female. Or a single parent. Or a single parent who doesn't work. Or a single parent who works. Or a mother who works. Or a mother who doesn't work.

Or anybody 'tainted' by public money in the service of the community.

sorry madam ive had wine, yes any number of reasons that would be in the mothera best interest for the baby being born at that time. what they would also have taken into consideration is how they mother would feel if she was well.

if she was suffering from psychosis and the pregnancy was adding to that, if she needed meds that could harm the baby etc, all these things would have been taken into consideration.

whqt people dont seem to understand is when you relapse and become unwell to the point that your life and the life of your baby is at risk, you are not at a point where you can make a rational, informed decision.

Even if she is now fine, on meds and well it doesnt mean she understands or accepts how ill she was at the time.

"But are they questions we have a right to know the answer to?"

The Mail thinks so. Tomorrow it may be a British citizen. I think we have the right to ask questions if babies are taken at birth.

My goodness, haven't read all the comments just read the story. How utterly awful and heartbreaking for her that she would have been forcibly sedated and have her baby taken like that! She would have woken up expecting to still be pregnant and found she wasn't anymore and couldn't even see her baby because she'd been taken away! This is really truly fucking horrifying. As if that wasn't devastating for her, she then applies to have her child given back when she's better and is told that the judge is 'impressed' with her but has decided HER baby should be put up for adoption!

That is fucking mental!!

No, it's a big story for the Mail because they love to bash social workers and don't believe in letting the facts getting in the way of that agenda. They know that there are only too many credulous and not very bright people who will swallow the story uncritically and they will, they hope, have reinforced their trusting readers' prejudices just that bit more. It never ceases to surprise me how many people there are willing to swallow uncritically whatever rubbish a bunch of callow journalists put in front of them.

Right, if she detained under the Mental Health Act for five weeks, as has already been explained clearly, there are several exhaustive processes to go through. And all of which would necessitate the mother having independent legal representation.

Have you ever been in the company of someone in the grips of a bi polar high?

It is fucking terrifying.

You CANNOT physically remove a patient from secure care simply because you want to wash your hands of the responsibility.

The moment she needed to be sectioned, a whole swathe of services swing into action.

No reasonable psychiatric consultant who agree to release a patient into the care of an untrained professional simply in order to repatriate a very sick patient.

You need to stablilise the patient, and deal with any medical emergency that occurs along the way...including perfoming a c section to SAVE HER LIFE.

In no other circumstances would any health care professional put themselves on the line.

Surely that must make sense to you?

www.facebook.com/keith.lindsaycameron/posts/10153615305785372 interesting read

Blatant, go back and read the thread and decide whether you should really be taking the report at face value

the majority of people i know who work in mh do so because they want to support people.

The majority of us dont do it because we enjoy drugging people, sectioning them and taking their chidren ffs.

" it would "fit" and it would be front page news everywhere"

It wouldn't fit because it is about the state and progressives favour the state over the individual. The Daily Mail is the opposite and if you read the comments of its readers you will see that they agree with the Mail in huge numbers.

"If this was a provable case of a woman with no long-term mh issues, who was incarcerated illegally"

It's not provable because there is not enough information, that is why the Daily Mail is asking for more.

"I truly believe all the papers would be willing to make it front page news."

They wouldn't because this is political.

The Mail may force it to the top of the agenda because it has that power if it wants to, then the progressive papers and Newsnight will have no choice but to run it.

Claig, would you be this concerned if, say, Baby P's mother had another baby who was taken into care at birth?

Of course you have every right to ask questions.

My problem is that you do not show a similar eagerness to understand the answers.

Some babies are taken at birth because otherwise there is a very serious risk they will die or suffer very serious harm because their parents are drug addicts, sexual predators, violent criminals or even all 3.

Does that help you understand a bit?

Bet those babies abused by Ian Watkins with their mothers own eager connivance would bloody wish they had been taken at birth.

Ah moomin, we all know you are Nurse Ratchett really!

'Tis bonkers.

As is I am afraid the say, the testimony on this thread of people who have had their children 'snatched' by SS.

To have your children removed means that there were very serious concerns about your ability to care for dcs.

The fact that many do not admit this means their testimony is suspect to say the least.

There ya go. I'll pin my colours to the mast.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming the 'evil state' for all of the ills that afflict them.

Christ. Stop the press.

DM readers agree with DM!

Who would have thought it?

ive worked with people suffering from addiction, 1,3,4 DC and they bend over backwards giving support, detox, trying to facilitate environments where they can stabalize on low levwls of methadone while pregnant. They dont just take the dc away

O god that Facebook post.

I just want to scream and cry in rage. That people can write this utter horseshit and other people, presumably intelligent enough to own and operate a computer, stroke their chins and say hmmmm. Yes that makes sense. Parents aren't even allowed to read the reports about them!

For the possibly 10000th time. Parents in care proceedings have a lawyer paid for by the state. The LA cannot rely upon evidence it doesn't share with everyone. The judge decides cases on evidence corm a variety of sources including the child's own guardian.

Some of you must be sitting at home in your tin foil hats having conversations with Elvis Presley right this minute.