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?

What I do know from my limited dealings with SS is once they start on a course of action - it is very hard to get them to admit they are wrong or to get an apology from them.

I was treated dismally (and there was never any suggestion I had ever done anything wrong or mistreated my children.

For me it's all too easy to see how once they started on a path they kept going.

And regardless of all the things we don't know - this baby belongs in Italy with her extended family.

And again regardless of the ins and outs of the case. I find it horrendous that this woman - with no criminal convictions, has had her baby forcibly removed and placed in a different country.

'and the article doesn't actually give her normal place of residence, only that she had been outside UK before a course'

I think the article said she was "habitually resident" in Italy. Not exactly sure what that means.

That story is awful, Starlight really, really awful.

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

Surely that would come down to in part whether they were well enough/safe enough to actually travel?

But how do they travel from the hotel to MH services when they are sectioned?

You might also want to read this report by the CQC on Slade House. On page 9 it states that points out how at least one resident was unlawfully detained.

The care in this mental health unit was so bad, it was closed. But nobody did anything until an eighteen year old died.

Abuses by SS and MN are not common, but they do happen.

Totally horrific.

The rest of the world should be boycotting the UK for human rights abuses based on this case.

Our whole system is corrupt and abusive. It's about time people properly woke up to this fact.

Just to add to Acrylic's very informative posts, this is how the Mental Health Act works: in order to be detained (sectioned) 3 professionals all have to agree- these are usually 2 senior psychiatrists who have to have specific approval to carry out these assessments. The third person, and the one who has the final say, is an Approved Mental Health Professional who is usually a social worker. Their role is very much to safeguard the person's rights and to make sure that every other option has been considered first. I've seen quite a few occasions when a social worker has gone against the doctors' wishes and refused to section someone. So. it isn't something that one or even 2 maverick doctors can do.
As soon as someone is sectioned they can appeal and this appeal is usually heard very quickly - within about 12 days. At the appeal, there is a panel comprising of a doctor, a lawyer and a lay person who have the power to release the patient from the section, even if their psychiatrist disagrees. The doctor has to attend the hearing and gets a very thorough grilling, it is treated exactly like a court and the patient has their own solicitor.
Police do have the right to use a particular section to take someone to a place of safety, usually a hospital, if they believe that a member of the public is suffering from a mental illness. This only lasts for 72 hours and the person then needs a full mental health act assesment to detain them in hospital.
Those of us who work in psychiatry are very aware that it has a very dodgy track record in terms of human rights which is why there are now so many safeguards in place. talking to people i iknow wh work in mental health in other countries, the bar is pretty high in this country - you don't get sectioned unless you are seriously ill.
Obviously, none of us know the details but it isn't a decision that would have been taken lightly - I once looked after a woman who had tried to perform a c-section on herself with a kitchen knife because she believed her baby was a demon. I can only imagine that it's a very extreme case for this to happen.
I would hate for people to be scared of getting help because of wrong information and scaremongering.

As far as child protection is concerned there are two key phrases for jurisdiction: "Ordinary Residence" and "Habitual Residence".

Habitual Residence affects which country's courts have jurisdiction. If you look at the Re: B case on my blog you can see a case where a mother was on a visit to the UK and stopped in Heathrow and her child removed from her. The UK did not have jurisdiction, but took about 15 months to find that out.

The Italian lady on a course in the UK was clearly still habitually resident in Italy. In short they should have sent her back to Italy at an early stage.

What is unclear to me is whether the objective of putting her child up for adoption had any influence on the sectioning and C section or not. I will find this out over time, but at the moment this is not proven either way.

Whether valid or not, this case has reinforced my feeling that I would never admit to any health care professional any mental health issues I might have. When DC2 was 6-12 months the lack of sleep caught up to me (very poor sleeper) plus the decline in breastfeeding made me all over the place and at times I felt depressed, like I was a terrible mother and they would be better off without me etc. but I would never contact anyone to tell them in case it was held against me (especially as my own mother is bipolar). (I did tell DH who helped.) My aunt had a stroke and the medical staff at the care home were told it was just the one whereas really she had many mini strokes in hospital so they decided she wasn't improving and ruled her incompetent and gave medical proxy to a close relative despite them being estranged in real life. Luckily she moved care homes and the new place didn't know about my other aunt and consider my aunt OK.

I agree with what NiceTabard has written. i think especially that this baby should be with extended family preferably in Italy but even the stepaunt in America is acceptable. I really hope that the Italian ss get involved- surely this baby is an Italian citizen?- and if she is considered unfit to be a mother to this baby its the same for her other two?

I hate these threads. I don't hate them because I think that social services are always right. I work and have worked for them; I know they aren't always right. I hate them because people, with very wrong limited knowledge about the way SS works, scaremonger and make sweeping statements based on media 'information'. I don't deny anyone the right to have their feelings or have their say, of course. But please think about what you are saying and the impact your words can have on scared parents or scared pregnant women. There are numerous campaigns to reduce stigma against mental illness and posting complete and utter shite on here, you are undoing all that good work.

'There are numerous campaigns to reduce stigma against mental illness and posting complete and utter shite on here, you are undoing all that good work.'

Don't you understand that people are scared about the powers that the authorities have and their lack of transparency and openness and accountability to the public and that is why they voice their concerns? Why aren't there any "campaigns" for more openness and for more rights for those who are vulnerable and may end up having babies removed?

There was talk of wanting to test all schoolchildren at the age of 7 for things that include mental health. People are worried that this might mean that incorrect diagnoses are placed on file and then may be misused at a later date.

Saying shut up and be quiet because we are the experts and we know what we're doing and running "campaigns" is not the way to silence the fears of many of the public. Lambasting campaigners and MPs and solicitors who support people who believe there have been injustices is not the way to allay public fear. On the contrary, it increases public fear because the public think what have they got to hide.

Openness, transparency and accountability is the way to end public worry, not a blanket of secrecy and a call to shut up.

Very scary :(

The people who assume ss would fail to do what's best are probably the same idiots who believe that the police would lie to stitch someone up. Just as policemen never lie, I'm sure ss never send a bureaucratic train down the wrong track.

The fact that child protection takes place in secrecy and we are not allowed to know the facts is no reason to think they are getting anything wrong.

Since everyone else is speculating, I may as well join in. It may well be that there is no person or organisation in Italy they can entrust this child to, their objective assessment is that their own care is superior to that of any other option.

And don't tell me that UK law doesn't allow them to do what's best, our legal system has been evolving for centuries and is long past the point where it's capable of prescribing any injustices.

We live in the best country in the world, where no-one in power would ever, even accidentally, do anything objectionable to harm helpless individuals.

Couldn't agree more candy. So many people are already scared of getting help for mental health problems. Of course people can have opinions but, without any understanding of how the system works, those opinions count for very little but can still scare people. The Code of Practice for social workers who carry out mental health act assessments is nearly 700 pages long which makes it so frustrating when people post nonsense about someone being sectioned for a panic attack.

We don't have enough beds to use them for people detained because of a 'panic attack'. I'm not going to speculate specifically on the condition of this woman because it would be unprofessional but Acrylic says it all really.

All I will say is that some medication for acute Mania/psychotic episodes is not advised for pregnant women. Without it, their lives may be in danger from suicide or misadventure including the very real risk of the dehydration that acute MI can cause because they are not capable of eating or drinking.

And it's not just ordinary people and some MPs and some solictors who are shocked by this, it is the High Court in Rome who are shocked by it too

"The High Court in Rome expressed outrage at what had been done to an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. But the judge there concluded that, since she had not protested at the time, she had accepted that the British courts had jurisdiction – even though she had not known what was to be done to her, was deemed to have no “capacity” to instruct lawyers because she had been sectioned, and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority."

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10485281/Operate-on-this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html

'and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority'

Is there no way that a foreign national, not one of our own subjects who has no options apart from our law, can have independent legal representation via advice from the Italian embassy or some Italian body, before being operated on?

Did they have access to her medical records, did they know her medical history, had they spoken with the authorities in Italy?

claig so where did you hear this "talk" of "testing" 7 year olds? You "don't test someone for MH problems, you assess them thoroughly over a period of time. It's not like giving someone a blood test.
I work with young people with severe mental illness and some of them have been ill for years by the time they get to us and never fully get their lives back on track. More often than not, the reason is that their family didn't get help because they were scared of the mental health system - often because of some crap they'd read or heard.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

'claig so where did you hear this "talk" of "testing" 7 year olds? You "don't test someone for MH problems, you assess them thoroughly over a period of time. It's not like giving someone a blood test.'

I read about it on MN in the "In the News" section.

"Every child should undergo mental health checks at school from the age of seven to identify anxiety disorders, anger problems and other mental health conditions, experts have said."

"A study published in the British Medical Journal recommends that pupils should be asked to complete regular tests throughout their schooling to assess their emotional and psychological health.

The checks, administered by school counsellors or specially trained staff, would identify children with depression, anxiety, anger and disruptive behaviour, at a cost of around £18 million a year, experts said.

Researchers said three-quarters of adult mental illness began in childhood, and that monitoring and cases at a younger age could mean earlier treatment, and intervention before problems worsened."

www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/10330960/Call-for-mental-health-checks-on-all-school-pupils-from-age-of-seven.html

"You "don't test someone for MH problems, you assess them thoroughly over a period of time. It's not like giving someone a blood test.'"

Yes, that's what I would have thought, but we're just teh people "who talk shite", it seems that the "experts" now have "tests" that only cost £27, oh and the "experts" want it to be "universal", so that there is no "stigmatisation"

"A universal screening programme would mean children did not feel stigmatised by being asked to undergo tests, said Mr Williams, who is also a visiting school at Feinberg School of Medicine, in Chicago.

Researchers said such tests , which ask children to respond to a series of questions about their emotional state , could be administered at a cost of around £27 per child."

'Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts.'

Exactly, that is why I believe in independent legal representation which is able to challenge the "facts" of the "experts".

More often than not, the reason is that their family didn't get help because they were scared of the mental health system - often because of some crap they'd read or heard

No system is perfect, no one expects it be. But the more that those in the MH profession pretend that they never get it wrong, the less they will be trusted.

There are cases of illegal detention. The problem is that the Court of Protection is secret. But here is one that is public.

creamteas Of course that case is awful but it's not the kind of case that comes under the Mental Health Act or would be dealt with by MH services.
Of course, mental health services get loads of things wrong - and I say that as someone who's used mental health services extensively as well as working in them.
I've seen all sorts of bad practice but I can honestly say that, in over 20 years experience, I have never seen anyone sectioned when I didn't believe it was necessary. And I say that as a bleeding heart liberal.
Honestly, there are so many safeguards - see my previous post about how the system works.
Honestly, there are many things that I hate about the whole system but I really believe that the whole section ing thing is really watertight and pretty transparent, which absolutely isn't the case with family courts.