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?

Is it being investigated? I thought it was just that the presiding judge was reserving any future hearings to himself.

claig, I think Booker's version has been overtaken and proved substantially wrong by the judgment.

'Do you disagree with that principle?'

It sounds like a good principle, but I also think a parent should be given some time to prove themselves or the cards may be stacked against them.
It's difficult. I don't know.

Sign back at you Nenny, all ive done is quoted the judge. She was very obviously unassisted in some way for him to say it!

Claw2: 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)

Maybe because an opinion needs to be based on the correct facts? Baseless opinions are notoriously not worth anyone's time considering.

'claig, I think Booker's version has been overtaken and proved substantially wrong by the judgment.'

Ah, Ok, I didn't realise that.

Claw2: 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.

This is going round in circles. You cast massive doubt on the possibility that she could be well on 12th October if she was sectioned on 23rd August, I pointed out that that there is nothing inconsistent in that. You then shifted your ground and relied on what the judge said. That is a different issue. As has been pointed out, mental health fluctuates, the judge isn't medically qualified, maybe she was having an off day or had been getting better but had once again stopped taking her meds and begun the slide back to the state she was in when she arrived in Italy.

Or maybe her doctors were just over-optimistic and she wasn't as well as they thought. Guess what, sometimes people make mistakes. But the question you have evaded answering is - if this was part of some awful plot to take the baby away why would the doctors have risked their careers to help the social workers? And why would social services go to all those lengths to keep the baby here? It would have been so much easier for them to bundle her onto the plane with her mother, even if it would have been catastrophic for the baby.

claw2: Sign back at you Nenny, all ive done is quoted the judge. She was very obviously unassisted in some way for him to say it!

I do hope that was meant to be "sigh" and not "sign".

You emotively depicted this mother as being like a deaf person in court, lost with no-one to help her. It is 100% clear that she had legal assistance. I've dealt upthread with the issue of the judge's words, how about engaging with that rather than just repeating them?

claw2 The Judge saying "she should have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings" reads to me that in his view she would have been better assisted HERE IN THE UK. With the Counsel who was clearly named as assisting her on the front of the document.

I think Italian courts and SS should draw the line, not British ones in this case.

According to Booker, she was at the airport on her way out of the country when she called the police. According to Booker, they told her they were taking her to hospital to make sure her baby was OK, but it was a psychiatric hospital and when she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was forcibly restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Claig, you already posted this one million times:

"I think Italian courts and SS should draw the line, not British ones in this case."

They don't care. Get over it. And a few hours ago it became obvious why they don't care.

Don't publish the mothers name or you could find yourself in contempt of court

Court Transcript for clarification. I hope I'm not breaking any MN rules here!www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.html

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.html

No but nenny will get cross with you because it's been posted before. Steel yourself.

How does contempt of court work when the woman's name is plastered all over the web/Italian press?

(delurking, as was just curious as to how that works legally)

@Spero, I don't break the law given that the mother waived her right to anonymity on her own. As I was trying to tell you, she went to the press today in Italy, her choice. British newspapers alraedy published name and everything.

That would be different from the case it was me revealing something private, of course.

6-7 pages ago there was also an article (don't know who posted it) already with the name. So I'm not even the first one.

By publishing the name of someone who can lead to the indentification of child under a child protection order, you will be committing contempt of court.

MN, for example, is a registered company bound by UK law and thus vulnerable to legal proceedings arising from contempt of court by posters here, as they are considered the publishers and owners of the comments.

the anonymity was not for her benefit, it was for her child's benefit.

so she wasn't waiving her right to anonymity, she was herself in contempt of the British court.

Posting judgment is fine as all are anonymous

So how does that work, given the woman is on Italian television telling her story?

claig: According to Booker, she was at the airport on her way out of the country when she called the police. According to Booker, they told her they were taking her to hospital to make sure her baby was OK, but it was a psychiatric hospital and when she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was forcibly restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

The judgment says that the circumstances in which she came to be sectioned were unclear, so it doesn't appear that Booker is accurate. There is masses of evidence in the judgment and indeed in the Italian papers that she was very seriously ill indeed, and had been for years. If she had a serious psychotic episode at the airport then clearly she had to be hospitalised and could not be allowed on a plane - in fact the airline wouldn't have taken her.