Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services!

999 replies

StarlightMcKenzie · 30/11/2013 22:38

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?

OP posts:
claig · 03/12/2013 15:58

Sorry, ignore post, just realised that this means father of baby, not father of sectioned woman.

NanaNina · 03/12/2013 15:58

I agree JacquelineHyde I was so relieved to read the judgement, spelling out exactly what had happened in this case, rather than all the sometimes nonsensical speculation that has gone on in this thread over several days. I thought that would finally be an end of the matter but NO, not at all as Claig and Claws2 are now busy pulling out bits of the judgement and putting their own interpretations on it. I take my hat off to all of you who are trying to put them right, but in my opinion they have more invested in believing their own theories than in the facts of the matter.

I have been particularly incensed by links to articles in the DM and I agree with Spero that this rag isn't a paper, it's a comic with pictures and I have no time whatsoever for the views of DM readers. I think the fact they they buy the rag and believe what they read speaks volumes.

Claw2 is now trying to draw an analogy between a mentally ill mother and a deaf person in court with no one who could do sign language to assist. You are not comparing like with like. Bi-polar disorder is a serious and enduring psychotic illness, meaning that the sufferer is out of touch with reality. They do not believe that there is anything wrong with them, that is the nature of the illness. There is effective medication for bi-polar disorder but many sufferers stop taking the meds, believing that there is nothing wrong with them, and this is what happened in this case. Therefore no amount of assistance in court was going to help this mentally ill mother to understand the court proceedings. Deaf people on the other hand are not mentally ill and can therefore be assisted in a variety of ways in a court setting.

However I think whatever anyone says now Claig and Claw2 (and possibly others, I've lost count) are going to give in gracefully and I think the judgement must be something of a disappointment to them because it spelled out in a rational manner exactly what did happen as opposed to all the sensational speculation in which they were indulging. All that is left for them to do now is to split hairs and pull bits out of the judgement to fit their own warped and ill informed theories.

I take my hat off to you Spero maryz neenypop and others who are trying to inject some rational thought into this "debate" but I think you are probably wasting your energy just as I am now.

It's a sad case and it is a pity the mother was so insistent on returning to Italy, but that was her wish. I think the fact that she was asking for 12 months (I think) to prove to the court that she would take the meds and not relapse again and would therefore be able to care for her daughter, demonstrates that she has little idea of child development. As I understand it the child is already over one year of age and she simply does not have time to wait for the mother to prove herself. The first 3 years of life are the most important years in a child's development and lay the foundation for later life. Never again will a child learn so much as in those formative years. There is evidence now to suggest that pathways in the brain are formed during those years which will have a bearing on the child throughout the lifespan.

As I understand it, the child will be placed for adoption now that a Placement Order has been made. This will be a wrench for the child, given that she has probably spent her earliest months right from birth with the same foster carers. However the introduction process with the prospective adopters is very carefully handled and thus the child gets the optimum chance of settling with the adoptive family. It won't be plain sailing (as no adoption is) because it is unlikel she will be able to be placed with adopters of her mixed heritage, and if one parent has a psychotic illness, the child has a 50% chance of inheriting the illness. However the adopters will be fully aware of all of these matters and hopefully will be able to give the child over time some awareness of her mixed heritage.

NOW where's that JH - oh maybe he's gone back underneath his stone!!

NanaNina · 03/12/2013 16:00

I meant Claig and Claw2 are not going to give in gracefully. Maybe you could continue the debate by PMing each other?

Maryz · 03/12/2013 16:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 03/12/2013 16:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

claig · 03/12/2013 16:02

"The mother was sent back to Italy because she wanted to go there. That made no difference to the "no delay" principle."

I agree.

But the mother wanted the following

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

Does the principle of no delay have an impact on that proposal?

nennypops · 03/12/2013 16:03

claw2: She was then escorted back to Italy, diminishing her chances. Given that she was unassisted and not in a good state at the time, do you think she was capable of making any informed decisions?

The flaw in that is that she was assisted. She had specialist legal representation. I strongly suspect that they advised her against going but she was obviously determined to do so. None of us are in a position to decide whether she was capable of making an informed decision, but the doctors who had been treating her for 15 weeks obviously thought she was.

claw2 · 03/12/2013 16:04

Nenny "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?"

Exactly, treating dr's said she was well, judge and Italian dr's said the opposite. 23rd August she was seemed legally incapable and given c/s by 12th October she was deemed legally capable and allowed to attend court unassisted, as the judge and other dr's say she clearly wasn't and was still very mentally unwell.

As I said previously, particularly with complex cases, involving multi professionals, all is takes is for one key professional, like SS to get it wrong and the other professionals follow and for it to gain momentum. This woman and her child were clearly 'in need' of services and support, 'in need' doesn't necessarily mean 'at risk'. Social services are not experts in mental health and once labelled 'at risk' and with this woman history, I doubt any other professional would be prepared to stick their neck out and say 'in need' of services, not 'at risk'.

Im not saying that this child should have or would have been left with the mother, however I think mistakes were made. I think they were hoping she would just disappear.

Obviously just my opinion, but the fact this case is being investigated suggest mistakes were made.

nennypops · 03/12/2013 16:07

claig: But the mother wanted the following

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

Does the principle of no delay have an impact on that proposal?

Obviously. And NanaNina has explained very cogently why. I am not sure why you are fixating on this principle, as it destroys your argument.

Maryz · 03/12/2013 16:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 03/12/2013 16:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nennypops · 03/12/2013 16:11

claw2, I don't understand why you think it is inconceivable that someone who is ill on 23rd August won't be well by 12th October? By then it was around 14 weeks since she was sectioned and she had been receiving continuous treatment.

And why on earth do you keep saying she came to court unassisted when she was assisted by specialist lawyers?

You rely on the fact that the case is being investigated, but that is on the basis of the first very flawed newspaper reports that came out. I suspect it will die away now that the judgment has been published.

NanaNina · 03/12/2013 16:14

Yes Claig the mother's proposal was very relevant in terms of the "no delay" principle and I have tried to explain the reasons in my post above if you care to read it but I expect you will find holes in it somewhere. Aren't you tired of all this now?

Claw2 where is your evidence to demonstrate that all it takes is for one key professional to get it wrong and all the others follow. Please tell me where is your evidence. How many care proceedings have you been involved in.

You are so desperately wrong. If only you knew what really happens. Do you honestly think a consultant psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist and a health visitor and GP and the Guardian are going to "follow like sheep" and borrow the beliefs of the social worker. I know you have a lot invested in believing that but you are absolutely and totally wrong. In fact Guardians very often disagree with social workers and if they can't find common ground, they have to go to court with differing views, which happens in quite a few cases and then the Judge makes the final decision.

How would it be folks if we all said we are all wrong and Claig and Claw2 are right. Would that make you two go away.

claig · 03/12/2013 16:16

' I am not sure why you are fixating on this principle, as it destroys your argument.'

I am asking questions to try and understand the process. As far as I understand it, she wanted time to prove she was capable (time of about 1 year with the child being placed in foster care and not adoption) so that she could prove that she could remain on medication etc, but the decision went against her.

The baby has not yet been adopted and has been in care for about 15 months now.

Should she have been given that time to prove herself and is there too much haste in the process and does the principle of no delay work against the rights of someone wanting to keep their child?

claw2 · 03/12/2013 16:18

Nananina, "Bi-polar disorder is a serious and enduring psychotic illness, meaning that the sufferer is out of touch with reality. They do not believe that there is anything wrong with them, that is the nature of the illness. There is effective medication for bi-polar disorder but many sufferers stop taking the meds, believing that there is nothing wrong with them, and this is what happened in this case. Therefore no amount of assistance in court was going to help this mentally ill mother to understand the court proceedings. Deaf people on the other hand are not mentally ill and can therefore be assisted in a variety of ways in a court setting"

So why was she still like this after 15 weeks of treatment? Why was she deemed 'legally capable'? Why was she sent back to Italy, when she was previously detained, sectioned and not allowed to return to Italy for being like this?

saragossa2010 · 03/12/2013 16:20

I don't see why the baby cannot go to her parents or the father in Italy. What is the reason for that? Surely blood relatives should always have a very massive say?

claw2 · 03/12/2013 16:21

The Judge said in his judgment "She should in my view have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings" not me!

So now the Judge has got it wrong, as well and Claig and I!

cestlavielife · 03/12/2013 16:22

where is the evidence that one key profresional SS worker has "got it worng"?
everything in that judgement points to a seriously ill woman and actions taken to protect the baby and fofer the baby a stable upbringing, given the experioence of the two older siblings... . funny how the daily mail isnt jumping on "give the baby to its biological but illegal immigrant father!" oh wait DM doesnt like illegal immigrants... (i any case judgement explains about father not being much involved .)

SS would not have given the medical opinion - that would have come from psych etc.
to suggest that one SS worker has power over clinical psych is far fetched...

LakeDistrictBabe · 03/12/2013 16:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

claw2 · 03/12/2013 16:25

Cest why are you asking for evidence, did you not read the part about it being just my opinion? (based on my own any many others experience of SS)

claig · 03/12/2013 16:28

According to Booker, it seems that she was on her way out of the country, at the airport, having finished and passed her course

"Preparing to return home to Italy, having successfully passed the course, she had a bipolar episode at the airport and became over-excitable when she thought she had mislaid the passports of her two daughters who were still in Italy. She contacted the police for help.

When they arrived, she was on the phone to her mother, so she handed one of the officers the receiver. The mother explained to the police about her daughter’s mental condition and said she had not been taking the medication and needed to calm her down.

The police then apparently contacted Essex social workers — as they are routinely instructed to do in such cases — and told the woman they were taking her to ‘a hospital to check that your baby is OK’.

On arrival, she was startled to find that it was a psychiatric hospital.

She protested that she wanted to return to her hotel, but was forcibly restrained, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told she must remain in the psychiatric hospital".

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2517239/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-A-terrible-act-inhumanity-shows-justice-secret.html

nennypops · 03/12/2013 16:29

Claig: Should she have been given that time to prove herself and is there too much haste in the process and does the principle of no delay work against the rights of someone wanting to keep their child?"

No, she shouldn't have been given that time, for the reasons given by NanaNina in her long post. Do go and read it. Yes, the no delay principle may work against the rights of someone wanting to keep their child, because the child comes first and would be harmed by delay. Do you disagree with that principle?

nennypops · 03/12/2013 16:31

Saragossa10: I don't see why the baby cannot go to her parents or the father in Italy. What is the reason for that? Surely blood relatives should always have a very massive say?

Because the parents did not want her, and the father had no rights to stay in Italy, and wasn't asking for her.

Do read the judgement.

claw2 · 03/12/2013 16:35

Nenny "claw2, I don't understand why you think it is inconceivable that someone who is ill on 23rd August won't be well by 12th October?"

I based that on what the judge reported in his judgment on the 12th October that she clearly wasn't very well or of good state of mind, despite him being lead to believe she was at the time. Also what Italian drs reported when she returned home very shortly after that.

And why on earth do you keep saying she came to court unassisted when she was assisted by specialist lawyers? Again I didn't say that the Judge did ""She should in my view have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings" referring to October.

"You rely on the fact that the case is being investigated, but that is on the basis of the first very flawed newspaper reports that came out. I suspect it will die away now that the judgment has been published"

I doubt that very much, however for now we will have to agree to disagree.

nennypops · 03/12/2013 16:37

claw2: The Judge said in his judgment "She should in my view have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings" not me!

So now the Judge has got it wrong, as well and Claig and I!

Sigh. Look at the front page of the judgment. Do you see where it says "Counsel for the Mother"? That is the person who was assisting her. The reference to being "assisted here" seems to refer to her being assisted either to make the decision to stay here, or to come back from Italy to participate in the proceedings. I'm not too clear what assistance he thinks she could have been given, however, if she was determined to go to Italy: I'm sure her legal advisors would have strongly advised her to stay. Unless you're suggesting that they were in collusion also with the psychiatrists, obstetricians, social workers, health visitors, LA lawyers, guardian and all the rest?