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?

"and a child of Italian nationals born abroad is AUTOMATICALLY an Italian national (all is required is registration of the birth certificate"

[b]No. The birth certificate has to be registered at a consulate/embassy. It is NOT automatically.[/b]
Then the father is not Italian in this case, therefore the child has NOT Italian citizenship.

As well as my husband is not entitled to ask for Italian citizineship until the marriage is registered at the Italian authorities and we move to Italy.

and please don't link the Italian consulates website, which are full of misinformation and nonsense...
Pfft tell me about Italian bureaucracy, I fought with it for the last 10 years. I'm so fed up that once I receive the British passport I'm very keen to give back the Italian one!! It is a nightmare that never ends for us.

@whistleblower

I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy to be given for adoption in Italy.

You'd have a child who is in care of an orphanage (which they are similar to prisons!!) until she's 20.

The process to adopt a child in Italy lasts 'centuries'. That's why adopting parents have often chosen to go abroad and get a child there, legalising as theirs once back to Italy.

It was an unusal order to order a C section because such a situation is not 'usual'. i.e. it does not often happen. But when a situation presents itself when a patient is too ill to consent or understand a proposed treatment, the matter goes to court and a judge rules.

I suspect why the Judge was critical of the doctors is that they must have felt enormous sympathy for the mother and were presenting her as being 'better' than she actually was in order to help her case to keep her baby. But this of course back fired as she wasn't well and travelling back to Italy probably didn't help her mental health. It certainly didn't help her case to have her child returned to her care. By leaving the baby in England she would have had no direct contact; after a few months I doubt a baby that age would retain any recollection of who her mother was and would have bonded securely with the foster carers. This would inevitably have an impact on the mother's later wish to be reunited.

@Spero, great analysis and I wholeheartedly agree with what you said.

If you take into account that this baby could have been sent back to Italy.... then she was born in an Italian hospital.... then the grandparents would have refused to keep her and her real mum was not able to.. baby would have been given for adoption anyway... baby stayed in a foster care home resembling a prison falling apart for at least 15 years.... honestly, it is not better to be adopted by an English family (I hope a good one, of course) and live a 'normal' life.

Apart from any sentimentalism... but I lived 30 odd years in Italy.. and read on papers endless tales of mum throwing toddlers out of the window, babies still in their placentas in the rubbish cans... I've even a friend who nearly tried to kill her child... mums are not supported in Italy at all, whether you're sane or not...

If I think about the huge sadness that I felt while reading these articles... I wish this baby a better life in U.K., whether the human rights wagon likes it or not.
Do they bother to think of the huge number of British women whose human rights are disregarded every year?
Shameful.

"By that stage it was being asserted by the treating doctors that the mother had regained capacity under the relevant test. I have to say that when the mother appeared before me at that time she did not appear to be at all well, and I am surprised that it was being claimed that she had legal capacity.

The medical experts thought she had regained capacity and the judge was surprised about that claim. Can a hearing only take place if she has capacity? Could it be that she had been claimed to have capacity too soon?

I am critical of the doctors because it appears to me that she was despatched (in deed escorted ) from the UK with undue haste simply because she wished to go back to Italy. I was led to believe that the mother was in a good state and a good frame of mind but frankly nothing could have been further from the truth , because if one looks at the reports of the admitting Doctors in italy , it is clear that the mother when she arrived in Italy was in a very poor state .She should in my view have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings. I know she wanted to go to Italy but by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially . It is for that reason it seems to me that it was a most ill-advised thing to have occurred."

Did the undue haste with which she was despatched diminish "any realistic prospect" of winning her case and why was there "undue haste" when the judge says that what he was led to believe about her "good state" could not have been further from the truth?

Spero, the treating dr's are who sectioned her in the first place, which resulted in her being legally incapable of making decisions and resulted in the 'unusual' order and c/s.

Are you not a little sceptical, that the treating dr's report that she regained legal capacity so she can attend Court without assistance shortly after deeming her incapable where c/s was concerned? (when according to the Judge and Italian dr's she clearly wasn't capable)

Does this not shed some doubt on their competence or motives involved and why this is under investigation?

She was then escorted back to Italy with undue haste, diminishing any prospect of her baby being returned to her care.

So deemed incapable of logic thought, given c/s, then very shortly after deemed capable of logic thought for court hearing without assistance, then escorted back home where dr's deem her incapable again.

Whether this woman is capable of looking after the child or not is irrelevant, she has been taken advantage of and totally deserving of investigation.

Claig, you have failed to highlight the point that she was sent back to Italy because she wanted to go. The judge himself expressed the strong view that she shouldn't but she seems to have been determined.

"The good news is that as a result of the mother eventually complying with her medication which she did for some considerable time whilst out there , it is very evident that she is actually extremely well and has given evidence before me. "

She complied with her medicine in Italy. Was she on that same medicine in the UK and was she on it when she appeared before the judge and when he thought she did not appear to be at all well and when the treating doctors were asserting that the mother had regained capacity ?

eventually complying with her medication

Eventually? For what period had she not been taking her medication?

www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2013/12/03/news/io_sedata_e_raggirata_per_partorire_ecco_come_si_sono_presi_mia_figlia-72552982/?rss

Because it has been asked and few of the papers (none of the British ones I've seen) seem to be bringing it up - The father is a Senegelese migrant worker, and has overstayed his visa in Italy while waiting on news of his daughter (and thus cannot come to the UK, his stay in Italy is tenuous at best due to now being undocumented). He wants his daughter, but have so far been denied, the American relative has come in to help as well because she is free to travel to the UK but has also been denied. The erasure of the father is quite problematic on many levels.

"C has been particularly upset by the experiences which she has had to witness, that she has been both traumatised and indeed has been terrorised, not by the mother's behaviour, but by what it is that she has witnessed and in particular her mother being profoundly unwell"

from the judgement. very sad for the children. i cld say the same for my oldest dd re her father.

it is certainly a far more complex case thah DM would have it and indeed jh etc.

annoys me that today's thought for today speaker
Thought for the day, with novelist and columnist Anne Atkins. radio 4

spoke about it with obviously not having read this whole judgement! and based solely on the DM story!

ugh

Sorry I am really not seeing the conspiracy here.

Seems very sad and pretty straightforward to me after reading judgment.

Mother panics at air port. She phones the police. They telephone her mother in Italy who explains her daughter's lengthy history of really serious mental illness (to the extent I note that her elder children were 'terrorised' by it).

Police do their job and get her to safe place where she is found to be so very unwell she has to be sectioned.

Presumably due to her extreme mental ill health a C section has to be performed without her consent.

When she appears in court she wants to go back to Italy. The Judge is sceptical that she is well enough but the medics say she is so coupled with her own wish and the medical opinion, she is allowed to go.

Presumably you would also be unhappy if she had been prevented from going back when she said she wanted to?

Mental health fluctuates. You can be okish one day, delusional the next. This is why it can be difficult to treat and monitor.

But I am sure those who wish to continue to see conspiracy will not be detered by any words from me, if a clear, full, reasoned, sensible and compassionate judgement has no impact for them.

Sectioned patients have no say as to whether they go or stay. Seems to me like sectioning was changed to suit.

lakedistrict

I have had my fair share of dealings with the consulate, you have my sympathies (I am also italian but have, unfortunately left the uk now), but at the risk of sounding like a dog with his bone

Registration is needed just as it is needed to register a new birth happening in the same country as the parents citizenship.

If the baby didn't have automatic citizenship, you wouldn't be able to register the birth with the Italian authorities, you'd have to apply for citizenship first.

The fact that the father is not Italian is irrelevant as you need only one parent to be Italian.

And if you prefer a better source than the consulate you can check Il ministero degli Interni o degli Esteri, you will get the same information.

Sorry for derail, everyone, this of course doesn't change the fact that is a tragic situation of which we do not know enough details, and I hope that the best decision for the child has indeed been made rather than a colossal mistake

'Claig, you have failed to highlight the point that she was sent back to Italy because she wanted to go.'

She wanted to keep her child too, but that wish was not granted.

When she wanted to return to Italy, it appeared to the judge that she was despatched (in deed escorted ) from the UK with undue haste and the judge felt that "by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially"

not to say the facts shuold not be reviewed, but there seems to be a lot of indication that the mother had v severe MH issues and was expereincing a v severe episode.. very extreme to have c section forced. but it doesnt mean that it was necessarily the wrong decision at the time. what would the other options have been ?

That 'thought' for the day piece was particularly awful.

She said at one point that the law gives no regard to families? Which is simply arrant nonsense.

She is completely ignorant of UK and international law. Maybe Shami would like to give her a little heads up about the ECHR.

Why have we come to a place where people feel that they can spout any old nonsense they like because their 'feelings' are just as important as any silly old facts.

I wouldn't care if these people weren't scaring quite a lot of others - as can be seen from this thread.

I wonder how many abused children are right now being kept hidden from the authorities out of misplaced fear.

You have just had the opportunity to read the judgement. What more details do you want? Every last scrap of information about this poor woman's life and her medical treatment?

Seriously, what do you conspiracy theorists now believe this judgement is covering up? What more do you think you 'need' to know?

claw2, the hearing was at least two months after the child's birth, when she had already been in hospital for 5 weeks. I don't follow why you seem to seek to suggest that the fact that they may have been over-optimistic about her mental health in October 2012 must mean that they were wrong in August 2012 in saying her mental health was so poor that she lacked capacity to make decisions about her health.

We will probably never know why they apparently got it wrong in October - though, for what it's worth the judge's opinion on that based simply on seeing her for a few hours in court is not necessarily definitive. But you cannot assume that they weren't simply being over-positive simply because they thought it was helpful to her, and also that they thought she would be helped by going back to her family in Italy. Can you really say that was wrong?

"C has been particularly upset by the experiences which she has had to witness, that she has been both traumatised and indeed has been terrorised, not by the mother's behaviour, but by what it is that she has witnessed and in particular her mother being profoundly unwell"

She was "terrorised" not by the mother but by her mother's behaviour, and presumably this was when she was not on her medication, but when teh judge sw the mother at a later stage after she had been on her medication, he said

"The good news is that as a result of the mother eventually complying with her medication which she did for some considerable time whilst out there , it is very evident that she is actually extremely well and has given evidence before me. "

It seems to me that even if the mother were to issue a statement saying that she was satisfied she had been fairly treated and everyone did the best they could in an awful situation, some of you would be suggesting she had been drugged or coerced into saying that.

I will now eagerly await JH's apology for some of the madder things he has said about this case.

Where is the father in all this? He wants his child. It should not be adopted. Just because he is Sengalese does not mean he has no rights to have his child or shares it care assisting the mother.

Spero where in the judgment does it say all that?

I read "As I made clear during the course of argument, the mother was anxious to point out that she had never terrorised C in particular, but in fact the way in which I had understood the translation was that C has been particularly upset by the experiences which she has had to witness, that she has been both traumatised and indeed has been terrorised, not by the mother's behaviour, but by what it is that she has witnessed and in particular her mother being profoundly unwell"

'tetroised not by the mother but by the mother's behaviour'

There is a distinction that means absolutely nothing to the child who is being terrorised.

I don't want to seem uncaring or lacking in compassion for the mentally ill. It must be terrifying. Yes, some people get better. But for the little child caught up with a mentally ill parent it can be extremely damaging.

Sympathy for the adult cannot make us lose sight of just how dangerous some parents can be, through no fault of their own. They are ill. I get that. but it doesn't change the situation on the ground for the children.

"Presumably you would also be unhappy if she had been prevented from going back when she said she wanted to?"

Absolutely not. I think she should have been advised to stay in England and as the judge said

"She should in my view have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings"

...

"I know she wanted to go to Italy but by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially . It is for that reason it seems to me that it was a most ill-advised thing to have occurred

Who advised her to go back to Italy? Did they not realise how it would affect her prospects as the judge had realised?