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?

We do not have a 'right' to information about serious cases regarding children.

Yes, the parents can spout whatever nonsense they wish to the press.

Those professionals involved CANNOT.

What part about making unfair assumptions based on half the evidence do you not get?

Elvis says it was the right decision.

Case closed.

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

No, because I don't think it is safe to leave a child with her.

This is not about saying that everything SS do is bad etc. We hope that 99% of the time they are doing the right things, but sometimes they make mistakes and some parents are justified in their concerns that injustice has been done.

We don't have the facts about this case. It may be fine what was done. But I think questions should be asked about what went on, just as they should be asked about the children taken from Slovakian Roma parents.

Not sure if this has been linked to earlier in the thread but here is Essex CC's statement...

www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/Essex-County-Council-responses-to-interest-in-story-headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspx

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?

Of course I know that. i know you like being sarcastic, but don't treat everyone else apart from yourself as an idiot.

'They aren't running it because they can't prove it.'

The Mail can't prove it but they are still running it because they think it is an important issue and they want more explanation.

Thank you lady. Seems clear enough to me.

So we can discount the whole swathes of outrage of people at the idea Child Services went to court for the c section.

As every reasonable poster commented, this was the decision of the Health Trust, at the behest of her medical carers.

After birth. Mum still not well enough to care for child.

So automatically, UNDER BRITISH LAW, the baby becomes the responsibility of the local authority children's services.

She already has two children removed from her care by Italian social services.

She wants baby back.

After due consideration, judge decides this is not in the best interests of the baby, despite his clear compassion for the mother.

Sad sad story.

Where is the conspiracy???

The DM can't expect 'more information'. They are demanding an 'explanation'..which would involve breaching the mothers right to medical confidentiality, splash her clearly serious MH issues over the papers??! THAT would be an abuse of power for certain.

Some babies are taken into care at birth, nearly always for very good reasons

Of course SS sometimes make mistakes and handle cases very badly, but I've no heard anything about this case which leads me to think it's a terrible miscarriage of justice...woman, who has lost custody of both her children due to some kind of serious issues, has a mental health crisis which is so severe she needs to be sectionned...then has medical needs which mean a C section needs to be performed, so the Health authority apply for a court order to perform one. Woman underrgoes C section and is allowed to spend time with her new baby that day and the next. Then baby is placed in care. No close family can take care of the baby. Mother stabilises and does not want her baby to be taken away permanently. She applies to the Italian courts for them to get an order to return the child to Italy, Italian courts rule against her that the child must stay in England. Due to said serious issues, county council decide on adoption, but this is a slow process and it's over a year after the birth before adopton plan is approved by the court. No close family can adopt baby, and SS prefer not to send baby to very loosely related person on the other side of the planet

Nothing screaming of 'great injustice' there

Sorry claig but you are saying some profoundly idiotic things therefore there is a risk that I will respond in kind.

The mother and her lawyers, could, if so inclined, post every single page of decision making in the public domain.

They choose not to.

Wonder why?

'Spero is a bit frustrated by people thinking that no baby should be taken into care unless that particular baby has been harmed.'

Who has said that?

I feel for this poor woman. I really really do.

But sometimes you cannot legislate for a happy ending for everyone.

And I do think the idea of adopting out the baby to a random aunt of one of her half siblings is bonkers.

To always know your siblings were still being cared for by your 'real' family all your life?

Ghastly.

Better by far to be placed in a loving caring home, with life stories and pictures and maybe letter box contact.

'The mother and her lawyers, could, if so inclined, post every single page of decision making in the public domain.'

I don't know. Are they allowed to do that?

Yes, claig, I did reflect on that after I posted.

And my answer is I don't really know. But clearly can publish selected details in the press. So I guess I assumed they could publish anything they liked, unless of course it would be contempt of court.

I would await more info on this from people more informed than I.

Actually I don't think they could as it seems to be Court of protection and care proceedings.

But as mr justice munby is always waxing lyrical about transparency, they could certainly apply to have reporting restrictions lifted.

The important thing is that the child's anonymity is preserved.

"What we are trying to say is that if it was a mistake, that is what it was - not a forced destruction of an individual's rights and a taking of a child for adoption and monetary gain."

I haven't said this is about monetary gain. This may be all fine. But it is a matter of rights, and that is why more information is necessary in case the law possibly needs changing.

Clacton, Essex Tory MP Carswell has said

'Tory MP Douglas Carswell called Essex children's services 'unaccountable and out of control'

'These people are dictators who abuse their powers. They are arrogant bullies and people are frightened of them.

On the basis of that, questions need to be asked about this.

' You questioned it yourself.'

There's nothing wrong with questioning it. We need a certain level of transparency as a society in order to prevent possible injustice.

The mother couldn't publicise the paperwork about the care proceedings, but she is absolutely free to publish the papers relating to the decisions to section her and to keep her sectioned, and also the papers about the order for a C section. She hasn't done so, nor have her supporters. Which is interesting.

And my question would be how dare an MP malign people in that way when he probably knows half of fuck all about what is going on.

Listen to the Radio 4 programme on Birmingham social services and the impact the constant negative sniping has had on staff recruitment and retention.

I think some people won't be happy until they have driven every social worker out of a job. Then they can survey the landscape with pride and satisfaction. So who will protect children then?

JH will be very busy.

Nenny - if the medical procedure was ordered by the court of protection I don't think she can publish anything without courts permission.