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?

I gave you a precis of what I understood the situation to be. It sounds sad but understandable.

The father is a national of another country; he has precarious status in Italy. He could be deported at any time. we don't know anything of the life he could offer the child in Senegal. Of course he shouldn't be frozen out but as he won't be able to travel it is difficult to see how he will easily play a part in these proceedings.

The point I am making is that these things are difficult. Situations are messy. But you don't help anyone by shrieking 'consipiracy!' whenever you come across a tricky situation.

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

Do read the judgment. It makes it clear that failure to take medication had been an ongoing and recurrent problem for a very long time. She seems also to have been in denial about the nature and extent of her illness.

Really, why can't people read the judgment as a whole without trying to pick out isolated bits to support their conspiracy theories? This woman was profoundly ill during the period leading up to and after the birth, and her illness was so serious that seeing her had resulted in her older daughter being severely traumatised. She has a history of getting better after taking medication and then relapsing. Manifestly she could not have been sent back to Italy whilst she was profoundly ill, and if she had been the strong likelihood is that either the Italian authorities would have had to take the same action or that, if they hadn't, she and/or the baby may have died as a result. We know that the family were not prepared to have the baby and that she would have gone into the highly unsatisfactory Italian care system if she had been born over there.

Remember that all concerned were dealing with a pregnant woman with a dreadful mental illness who was not able to take decisions about herself or her baby, and were trying to deal with an urgent crisis. Can anyone here say they would have done better or that they know better than the doctors and lawyers who saw all the papers and heard the evidence at the time?

"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 at the end of the day, isn't the judge's judgement definitive and he has to base it on what he sees and reads before him.

I would bet no one advised her to go back to Italy. I would bet her lawyers begged her to stay as they would know full well what would happen if she abandoned a new born and forsook all contact.

But it seems this mother wasn't mentally well. She said she wanted to go home. And she went.

Again, its a tricky situation isn't it? Would you suggest she should have been forcibly restrained to remain in UK and participate in care proceedings?

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. "

Claig, you have again artistically left out the salient part of the judgment where the judge pointed out that the mother had had periods i the past when she had taken her mediation and appeared to get well, only to relapse. He was rightly pointing out that, whilst she is well at the moment and it is hoped that she will continue to be, more time is needed to prove that. It would be incredibly dangerous to return the child to her prematurely only for her to have a relapse, as witness the damage done to the older child.

I suspect that if he had done that and if this child had been harmed as a result, the Mail would be shrieking about how wrong he and the social workers were and how it was all their fault.

I think the fact the judge calls giving the child to her father a "non starter" without qualifying when he's tried to communicate through a social worker and the media a bit eyebrow raising, especially when the judge is aware that he cannot get to the UK (and as an undocumented migrant would find it very difficult to get representation, especially in a country he isn't in). Very little effort seems to have been given to communicate with him, and the child would have the right to his citizenship. Many questions have been raised on whether the father's nationality has worked against him (would they have put so little effort if he had been an EU citizen?).

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

The words "ill advised" do not necessarily mean that anyone specificlly advised her to go - we do after all commonly talk about an action being ill advised when no outside advice has been involved. However, the people who would have been responsible for advising her on this would be her lawyers, so you'd need to ask them.

"Do read the judgment. It makes it clear that failure to take medication had been an ongoing and recurrent problem for a very long time. She seems also to have been in denial about the nature and extent of her illness."

I read it to be that it was sporadic.
She was holding down a job and taking part in a course in England.

"She has accommodation, she has a secure job and she does have the support of her family."

and after eventually taking her medication (and had she been on medication while in the UK over those 5 weeks and before she was deemed to have capacity by the treating doctors which the judge was surprised at when she appeared before the judge) the judge felt that she was extremely well

Nennypops "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"

I didn't say they were wrong about her mental in August 2012, I am saying they were wrong about her mental health in October 2012, which is clearly the case, as its written in the judgment!

Why do you think that is?

claig: "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 at the end of the day, isn't the judge's judgement definitive and he has to base it on what he sees and reads before him.

The judge wasn't required to make a judgment on her mental health - he was dealing with the child. He must have had documents in front of him suggesting that she at least had adequate mental capacity to make decisions about where she would live.

She was holding down a job and taking part in a course in England.

No, she wasn't. She said she had come to England to take a course but she became ill at the airport. However, the judgment says that the circumstances in which she came to England were very unclear, so it appears that the story about coming to take a course may not have been supported by the evidence.

"whilst she is well at the moment and it is hoped that she will continue to be, more time is needed to prove that."

But they didn't give her more time. She asked for more time

"She told me that she knew that P might not be able to return to her but she was asking that she should do so and in fact what she was proposing, as her psychiatrist, I think, had proposed in Italy, was that P would remain in foster care for approximately a year, or up to a year, and to show that the mother would be able to maintain her medication and maintain a stable life, and in all other respects her life in Italy is ordered."

...

"I remind myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist section 1(3) and also what is known as the no delay principle , delay being inimical to the welfare of any child."

'the judgment says that the circumstances in which she came to England were very unclear'

Why are the circumstances unclear ? Can no one find out?

claw2: I didn't say they were wrong about her mental in August 2012, I am saying they were wrong about her mental health in October 2012, which is clearly the case, as its written in the judgment!

Why do you think that is?

It isn't "clearly the case." The judge didn't think she was unwell, but he hadn't been treating her over the past 13 weeks as her doctors had, and isn't medically qualified. Mental illness does tend to be a fluctuating condition. He may have been right, he may not, but it is not for you or me to start speculating about it.

What is interesting is the way the conspiracy theories have suddenly changed. The theorists have seem to have abandoned the idea that she was well enough previously to go back to Italy and she was being held here as part of some dark social services plot, and are now saying she shouldn't have been allowed to go back when she wanted to because she thereby prejudiced her case. You can't have it both ways.

claig, you have answered your point about why the mother wasn't given more time when you quote ""I remind myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist section 1(3) and also what is known as the no delay principle , delay being inimical to the welfare of any child." The child has to come first. It would take a long time for any court to be properly satisfied that the mother was sufficiently well to be sure that the baby was safe with her, and it has to be borne in mind that the Italian courts were still not satisfied after some years that she was capable of looking after the older children. The baby is entitled to stability now.

"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"

Why wasn't she assisted in the proceedings?

Strange how her mental health improved dramatically after been sectioned for a Court hearing only to regress dramatically during the hearing, even a Judge comment on it and being in very poor mental health once sent home shortly after.

She was stitched up. Capable or incapable of looking after her child, she deserved fair treatment.

Spero says

"But it seems this mother wasn't mentally well. She said she wanted to go home. And she went."

First off they had said she had capacity. If she wasn't mentally well then why did they let her go after treating her for 5 weeks when she was mentally unwell?

And the judge says

"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"

She was at risk of losing her baby forever, why the undue haste ?

Nenny, I have explained why I think that up thread, circles spring to mind.

She was allowed to return home in poor mental state, after her baby was taken, just not before it seems.

"you have answered your point about why the mother wasn't given more time when you quote ""I remind myself of the provisions of the welfare checklist section 1(3) and also what is known as the no delay principle , delay being inimical to the welfare of any child."

You said

"whilst she is well at the moment and it is hoped that she will continue to be, more time is needed to prove that."

There was undue haste in despatching her back to Italy according to the judge, and the law contains a principle of no delay

I was really pleased when I saw the judgement had been released.

I naively thought it might stop some of the conspiracy theorists, ss haters and family court haters from making ridiculous statements and claims.

Sadly it hasn't.

Maryz, even if there were no family to look after the baby and mother was incapable of looking after the baby, its no excuse to treat the mother the way she has been treated.

SS have taken full advantage of her ill health.

Claig - I would guess that the haste in going back to Italy was because she wanted to go back, and the doctors treating her at the time (possibly mistakenly) thought she was well enough/had mental capacity to decide to return.

If she had mental capacity to make her own decisions, no one would have had the right to make her stay in the UK against her will. Leaving may well have harmed her case to gain custody of her child, but I presume psychiatrists are not experts on international child custody/care proceedings, so they may not have realised that, and it's not really their business to advise her on that.

Some people seem to be seeing 'the system' or 'the authorities' as one body making decisions on this case, but in fact there are obviously lots of different people and organisations involved in different aspects of a complex case (psychiatrists, ob/gyn departments, social workers, courts, Italian government bodies etc etc), with no one in overall charge.

It sounds like she could have done with some legal advice at various stages, but I'm not sure who should have been responsible for making sure she got it, or paying for it, and given her mental state at the time, she may well not have acted on it anyway.

This whole case is a huge, sad mess, but it is very far from the picture initially presented in the Telegraph story (panic attack leads to enforced c-section in order to put baby up for adoption).