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?

Also I totally understand your concerns re cases like this making people very very very wary about seeking help when they are pregnant.

'I find it peculiar how so many people are so invested in the idea that nothing has gone wrong with this case.'

People are invested in highlighting that we don't know enough about this case to make an informed decision. It's not helpful to leap to conclusions.

'I find it interesting that people are focussing on the Mh / CS aspects rather than then nationality / other children aspects'

That's the relevant part. The fact that she's Italian is neither here nor there. The fact that there are other children is not really relevant. We have to follow our laws and procedures. Did they or did they not follow correct procedure? Did they or did they not act in the best interests of the mother and then the child? That is what is relevant.

'The woman is free to talk, and is doing so'

There is no interview with the mother. There are third hand quotes. Can you see why these may not be reliable?

'If her other children had been subject to scrutiny I'm sure she would have spoken about it'

Why are you sure about that? After all you don't know anything about her do you? If Italian SS had been involved with her children and found her to be an inadequate carer, I don't think she would broadcast this fact as it wouldn't really help her case would it?

There won't be any statements from the mother.. If there are care proceedings going on she'll be gagged

'If I go abroad when pregnant and unexpectedly give birth, my child is still English surely.'

It's not always that straightforward. If your baby is born in America it is an American citizen. If you want to bring it back you need the consent of both parents. If the father wanted to stay in America, you could be prevented from bringing your baby home. You could then be deported.

There was a thread on here about someone who was planning to have their baby in America and a lot of advice to be VERY careful.

"The fact that she's Italian is neither here nor there. The fact that there are other children is not really relevant."

Seriously?

You don't think children have the right to be handled in their own native country?

You don't think the fact she has other children is relevant?

Will you be lobbying for the rules to be changed in the UK, so that only the child who brought at risk investigations into force is looked at, outside the context of the family, and not bothering about any siblings or other people who are in the home?

Interesting.

Most "lessons learned" by SS and other agencies have talked about more joined-up thinking, not less. Maybe this is a new way forward.

So a pregnant woman with any history of MH problems would be well advised to steer clear of visiting the UK is what I do gather from this distressing case.

The UK allows forced adoptions; she might never see her child.

Yup.
Good summary.

America is very unusual though. In most countries at least one parent has to be a national or granted permanent residency for the child to be a citizen by birth.

'You don't think children have the right to be handled in their own native country?'

Decisions should be made in the best interests of the child. I don't think that it is always best they be returned to their home country. The child was born in August, but the mother was not able to return to Italy until October, who knows what went on. Why are so sure the SS made the wrong decision?

'You don't think the fact she has other children is relevant?'

Not to the discussion here, no. If she was a first time mum would that change your view? I doubt it. The issue being discussed is the CS and the subsequent care of the baby, the other children are not really relevant to that.

'Will you be lobbying for the rules to be changed in the UK, so that only the child who brought at risk investigations into force is looked at, outside the context of the family, and not bothering about any siblings or other people who are in the home?

No.

FFS people are just making up random facts now.

Tell me, Ceriser, after people who work in the system have given you countless examples of how sectioning works and who seriously ill you have to be to be sectioned, why on earth are you stating that any pregnant woman with MH issues needs to avoid visiting the UK.

Please consider who might be reading. If someone with MH issues is reading this thread and the scaremongering bollocks people are spouting puts them off seeking the help they need, that will be a dreadful, dreadful thing.

As for talk of "forced adoptions" what on earth do you think should happen to children who have to be permanently removed from their parents? They should just languish in the system and be denied any chance of a family life?

Remember this is the torygraph so this could be part of the propaganda before putting the childcare services out to privatisation. You know how they hate anything nationalised..

Well

You don't think the fact she has other children is relevant?

OUTRAGED: "Not to the discussion here, no."

Where there is a situation where concerns are so great that a child is removed at birth, clearly other children under the care of that parent / parents should be looked at.

GAG I suspect that Cerisier is being wholly honest about how this story makes her feel, and what concerns it gives her. How it makes her feel is how it makes her feel and that's an end of it. It's possible she might have a good insight into how women reading this story, who have mental health issues, will react. Please don't tell women who don't say what you want to hear to shut up for the sake of other women. That's just wrong.

Amd FYI this child has not been adopted, it is however in the care system in the UK, despite the fact that it is Italian, and has family over there.

'Where there is a situation where concerns are so great that a child is removed at birth, clearly other children under the care of that parent / parents should be looked at'

Yes, but WE DON'T KNOW that they haven't do we? WE DON'T KNOW what went on, therefore it cannot reasonably be discussed here. Any comment we make about the other children is fiction, we might as well discuss Eastenders. WE DON'T KNOW. All we can discuss here are the facts that we have, the other children are not being discussed because we know nothing about their situation.

Do you have extra information about this case? You seem very reluctant to accept that 90% of what you're saying is guess work and the other 10% is based on 3rd hand newspaper reports.

I am fairly certain that the woman would have mentioned it if her other children had been removed? Or even if they had come under investigation. Given that she is allowed to talk about this one being removed in the UK.

'I am fairly certain that the woman would have mentioned it if her other children had been removed? Or even if they had come under investigation. Given that she is allowed to talk about this one being removed in the UK.

There has been no comment from the woman that I've seen. All reports are 3rd hand.

Do you think telling everyone her older children have been removed would help her case? I doubt it.

Why are you 'certain' about the actions of a woman you know nothing about?

Do you accept that you know very, very little about this case and 90% of your comments are guess work?

Gosh I don't live in the UK, and from the outside looking in, with two teenage DDs and with no direct experience of the MH system, this story terrifies me.

Don't allow sensationalist news reporting to terrify you. Look a bit further into it.

Totally agree Gosh.

This case sounds horrendous but I don't think we have the full story. Nobody gets sectioned for a panic attack.

I live with a mental health condition, I've had questionable treatment in the past. But when pregnant and suffering a relapse and frightened of disclosure and possible SS involvement, every single HCP I encountered was amazing. From
GPS to Consultants, Midwives and HV.

If you are reading this and are pregnant with mental health issues and need help - please please do not let this put you off. Ask to see a different GP if necessary, every surgery should have one with a mental health remit. Also post on the mental health boards here - very supportive.

John Hemming has an axe to grind. I was on a thread a few years ago when he was explicitly suggesting women do not seek treatment for mental health conditions as their children would be forcibly removed by SS.

Nobody gets sectioned for a panic attack

This is not actually true. My friends DS has a history of mental illness and had a panic attack. He was in public, agitated and looking threatening. The Police were called and because he refused to go with them and resist arrest he was detained. He was sectioned because his refusal to co-operate was a sign of mental illness.

After the 28 eight days he was told that he was no longer sectioned but if he tried to leave they would take that as a sign that he was not co-operating with treatment and the would use the Mental Capacity Act. They had no legal basis but he was too frightened to challenge them.

The law was also quite clear on forcible sections, they are illegal.

Eg George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S in 1998. The Court of Appeal found the forcible section on a women detained under the mental health Act was unlawful.

This found that women have a right to refuse treatment even if that would mean the death of the foetus and that detention under the mental health act did not allow forced medical treatment.

A good overview is here.

This case seems to be a major over turning of British Law

I'm not sure that appeal case is relevant here, for it appears to be circumscribing the extent to which the decisions of a woman close to or during labour can be held as indicative of her mental state (I can a physical issue be part or reasoning for sectioning). On the (incomplete) information here, this is unlikely to apply, as she had been sectioned 5 weeks before delivery.

The principle in English law, that consent must be obtained from everyone capable of giving it, remains; as does the counterpart that parents/guardians/doctors/courts make the decisions for those who cannot.

I don't have an issue with John Hemming being involved here. He helped Fran Lyon and she was able to bring up her daughter in peace. Hopefully he can help this lady too.

I posted this on the other thread:

I can't imagine what it must be like to have a sedated c-section and then never see your baby

Indeed, and how exactly is doing that to someone actually going to help their Mental Health issues?

Whether there is 'more' to it or not, I cannot imagine any parent without Mental Health issues remaining that way if they had been forcibly sedated and their baby removed.

I was unable to see DD for almost 12 hours following her birth (both of us too ill), after an initial hour in ITU. I knew it was for her own good, but was still irrational and emotional leading up to finally being able to hold her again. Leaving her in SCBU for a month nearly killed me - and that was with being allowed to see her every 4 hours.

This lady must be going out of her mind and if she didn't have major problems before I'd suspect she will by now.

The (incomplete) article doesn't say that the mother never sees the child; rather that they do not live together.

Of course, if the child were removed to Italy, and the mother is resident here (and the article doesn't actually give her normal place of residence, only that she had been outside UK before a course) then that would remove even the possibility of most contact.

An example of how Essex medics can act without integrity on Local Authority say so

Good posts by MadameDefarge and scottishmummy and others and also NiceTabard etc.

My first reaction was to think like NiceTabard and I still think this is wrong, but MadameDeFarge and scottishmummy have made me see the other side.

But, It seems that you can be sectioned if you have a panic attack and it is felt that you are a danger to yourself or to others, so it depends how she was behaving.

But, why can't a foreign national who is here on a visit not be transferred back to the MH services in their country?

If someone went to Russia on a business trip and was sectioned after a panic attack and then had a CS and the baby was given to a Russian national for adoption, there would be an outcry in the press and because it was Russia and Putin, the Prime Minister would possibly get involved. And if the Russian authorities then said we can't give more information and details because it is SS, the story would be all over our news for weeks.

Surely, more openness would be a better way of dealing with these incidents.