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?

But that does not obviate the fact she was subject to British law upon her birth

Oh definitely, citizenship doesn't matter for that

I just felt like picking up on the citizenship issue because it gets onto various threads etc, and I'm surprised by how many people assume it works just like in the US, when it doesn't

Citizen or not, it doesn't make a huge difference to care proceedings

Although citizenship issues can be a complete nightmare for adoptive parents later on!

oh bugger, caught out in being reasonable on MN!

damn!

Now if you could just convince JH it's ok to admit to being wrong

Do you know, I think I can hear the oh so slight sound of a large pig with delicate butterfly wings above my house....

You should be ashamed of yourself MadameDefarge , I mean honestly

has anyone noticed how very small JHs features are in his face?

Just saying.

No particular reason. Just struck me.

Should I assign any malign force to this?

Just reading the Mail story.

"Her ex-husband and her parents, who look after her two other children, insisted they would care for the girl."

Fabio Roia, the most senior judge in Milan, said the woman’s treatment by a secret court resembled a horror film – an unprecedented ‘act of extreme violence’ that could not have happened in Italy

and Shami has got involved. I usually don't have much time for Liberty because they seem as progressive as the rest of our press, but it is good to see them getting involved because this is about rights of citizens and is therefore important.

"Shami Chakrabarti, of the Liberty pressure group, said: ‘At first blush this is dystopian science fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares that those responsible will struggle to defend in courts of law and decency.’ "

It looks like we may see some changes in the system

"Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court, ordered yesterday that further moves towards adoption must be heard before him in the High Court.

Sir James, who took over the family courts in January, has made a series of judgments and speeches demanding greater openness in family hearings and in the Court of Protection.

He has said family hearings should be held in public, that social workers should be named in court, and that families who feel wronged should be able to speak out publicly

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517144/Top-family-judge-orders-social-workers-insisted-mother-caesarean--Explain-snatched-baby-girl-birth.html

I am intrigued as to what your interpretation of progressive might be Claig?

And as Shami said, 'At first blush' (might want to advise her a bit on word usage here)

do we know what would have happened in Italy regarding the care of a psychotic pregnant patient?

Italy is. after all, a predominantly Catholic country, that has traditionally favoured the rights of the baby over that of the mother.

"I am intrigued as to what your interpretation of progressive might be Claig?"

It is difficult to sum up easily because it encompasses so many different things. But basically left wing, politically correct and favouring the state over the individual.

You are right, we can't trust everything papers say in early reports. The true facts will come out over time as they are confirmed etc.

Surely this is very simple: A woman has had two children removed from her care and has then fallen pregnant again. Why on earth would people consider that it was appropriate to leave that baby with a mother who has already been deemed unfit to look after her children?

If the mother was unfit to consent to a c-section (regardless of the circumstances) then permission would need to have been saught. But we don’t actually know the reason for the c-section, do we? It could be because she was suffering a psychotic episode and labour would have been too traumatic. It could, in fact, have been that she was having a psychotic episode and the baby needed to be born by c-section but she was unable to consent.

But you cannot simply decide that every time someone falls pregnant they should be given another chance to get it right. How many chances do you give? How many more damaged children do you put out into the system every time she gets it wrong? I know people who have been the victims of such a system and who carry those scars with them well into adulthood. But as long as the mother was given a chance eh? Or two or three or seven or eight.... doesn’t matter about the children. Because that’s what people are essentially saying here, it doesn’t matter that there is a risk a child could be harmed here, as long as the mother is given a chance.

At some point you have to say enough is enough and if two children have been removed already then you don’t give the chance to damage a third.

As for jh, his opinions are based largely on his personal vendetta against ss, and the fact that he is spouting this sensationalist claptrap on sites like this while apparently working for the taxpayer is frankly quite scary.

Interesting Claig.

I'm not sure I know what makes me. I believe the state has a vital role to play in balancing the interests of the whole of society, without favouring any section overly.

Because that is what we elect a government for. To safeguard our interests and police a common agreement of parity in the law.

Those who are on poor wages need to know that the vagaries of capitalism, however inevitable, will not cause their children to starve. Else the economy would not have a work force prepared to work.

Those who are poor and unable to fight their cause need to know there is recourse in law (as in this woman's case) which is not dependent on money.

Those who are entrepreneurial need to know their risk taking of their own capital is support in some sense by society.

Those who are wealthy need to know that their wealth is based on a common accord with their workers. Treat me well, I'll be happy.

This is how a functioning capitalist society works.

Over tip the balance either way will cause probs.

IMO.

So, someone quite high up in the judiciaty is now actively involved.

Good.

It's front page news in the Express as well as the Mail now.

Wet, if you had any idea how blinking scared LA's and medical professionals are about making these kind of out there decisions, you would seriously rethink your position.

Really.

Surprised the Express had any space left over on the front page....surely Diana did something tomorrow this day twenty years ago?

Didn't say I agreed with that fb thing but I can go on personal experience. I feel sorry for the mum in this case but still reserving judgement, anyway let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if the baby turns out to be female. Here's why. My own dd was removed from my care and kept for 11 yrs in tl foster care. I kept care of my ds. I became pregnant with ds2 and the jungle drums began beating, visits from SS - let's just say they tailed off when a scan proved the baby was male. A DV incident with his father brought them back when ds was six months old, justifiably so. I kept him though but not before being categorically told if he had been female he would have been removed. Don't ask why the sex makes a difference bc damned if I know, but I will do any lie detector in the land to prove I am telling the truth about that. When I found out I was expecting dd2, I was petrified .. The midwife told me she was on my side, contacted SS to find out if there was any interest from them, heard nothing. Was kept in hospital and refused permission to leave until SS had been contacted to tell them I had given birth. Allowed to leave, health visitor finally managed to get confirmation that there was no interest in my family, she told them I had a girl, next thing I know they're asking dd1 how things are at home ect, having not been bothered for four years, it's all a bit strange to me.

Just to say they do some dodgy stuff and the secrecy they hide behind enables a lot that wouldn't be acceptable if it was made public.

we do actually know the baby was a girl.

Don't see what relevance her gender has.

Well for the same reason care leavers are one of the top groups that have their children removed and adopted. Nice little adoptable babies from a vulnerable group who have pasts that can be twisted and used against them

Things, did you have any male accused of abusive behavour towards girl children in your life?

After all, to have a dd removed for 11 years suggests some issues.

And then to have a DV incident with his father before his birth. You still stayed with him?

And then you had another baby with him?

Please don't peddle your truncated version of your own life as a reasonable contribution to this thread.

I can say what I want as a contribution to this thread thank you very much. When you pay my internet bill then you can tell me what I can and cannot post on an Internet forum

Things, your last statement shows how unreasonable your judgement is.

The idea that vulnerable care leavers are regarded as some kind of baby factory for the adoption system is bonkers.

You think people give a fuck that much?

You can post whatever you like, but don't expect to get any easy ride as a mother who has had a child removed from their care for eleven years, had another under radar as being exposed to toxic dv and then yet another.

MN is not apologists corner for poor parenting.