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

[saragossa2010]

As the other is full.
There are far too many cases where the authorities rush to remove children and do not give both parents and wider family a say. Adoption is rushed through.
The fact a senior family judge is insisting he is involved in the rest of this case is a good thing and the more cases like this which receive publicity the better.

The point is it is like justice in China and Russia. If it's secret then those involved cannot justify themselves. If we have more in the public domain that is a greater good than any risk from disclosure to the children and parents involved. it is why open justice and published judgments and rights for all those involved in child disputes to use twitter, blogs and emails and no stifling of free speech.

Thankfully things are all moving this way and we lucky to have people like JM and C Booker to give publicity to the issues which need much wider debate. I would imagine most social workers and lawyers involved in this area are very happy that the issues get more public debate not less. Most professions would.

given that all of you clearly have an interest in deciding the number of the section... Can some of you explain me if all these 'sections' apply to a visiting EA national?

...and you said that to argue against my assertion that she would have been placed under section 2 then section 3, and that she would have had to be sectioned at least twice, and that it wasn't just a panic attack. Which it in no way contradicts.

Anyway, none of this is relevant. I really just came back to post the stuff about tribunals etc.

Badtime and i said on the other thread, I am not disputing whether she was legally detained and we are digressing away from the whole picture splitting hairs about the finer points and wording. Debating which section she was admitted to hospital one is even more irrelevant now, as we now know she was admitted under 2!

LakeDistrictBabe, they apply to anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Act 1983, i.e. they can apply people of any nationality while in England & Wales (as other laws apply in Scotland and NI).

Maryz, the only bizarre thing is you are like a dog with bone! putting words into my mouth and insisting i stated my views as facts.

I think i have made it perfectly clear time and time again all I can do is give my opinion of what possible mistakes could have happened, my views and why in my opinion reform is needed.

The fact you don't like my opinion or views, doesn't mean i am not entitled to voice them or that i am stating them as facts!

@badtime thanks for the answer and the info. I am not a British citizen yet so if something bad happens to me and my husband is not reachable, just wanted to know what kind of legal measures are in place for any case.

@Maryz I do believe the British authorities took the least worst decisions. Yet, it seems that JH wants to promote his reform of the family courts using a case that nothing seems to offer in that regard. I see plenty of evidence that clearly shows that the baby is better off here. But that doesn't seem to be of any interest to many posters, here or elsewhere.

@claw2 reform is surely needed but the leader who promotes this reform chose the wrong case and the danger is that it will backfire on him.

Why didn't he choose the many British cases supporting his idea of reform? Hmm the international outlet was more appealing, wasn't it?

What I despise about the whole thing is that they are exploiting the feelings of a whole family, mother and father of the baby included, to push their agenda despite none of these people is even British.

There is this: British citizenship by adoption

A child adopted by a British citizen only acquires British citizenship automatically if:

the adoption order is made by a court in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Falkland Islands on or after 1 January 1983, or in another British Overseas Territory on or after 21 May 2002; or
it is a Convention adoption under the 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption effected on or after 1 June 2003 and the adopters are habitually resident in the United Kingdom on that date.

In both cases, at least one adoptive parent must be a British citizen on the date of the adoption. The requirements are different for persons adopted before 1983.

In all other cases, an application for registration of the child as a British citizen must be made before the child is age 18. Usually this is granted provided the Secretary of State accepts the adoption is bona fide and the child would have been a British citizen if the natural child of the adopters. Usually the adoption must have taken place under the law of a 'designated country' (most developed nations along with some others are 'designated' for this purpose) and be recognised in the UK. This is the standard method for children adopted by British citizens permanently resident overseas to acquire British citizenship.

The cancellation or annulment of an adoption order does not cause loss of British citizenship acquired by that adoption.

British children adopted by non-British nationals do not lose British nationality, even if they acquire a foreign nationality as a result of the adoption.

British nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some might question the legitimacy of a British judge deciding on whether the child of an Italian national should be adopted. It really should have been up to the Italian courts to decide on adoption proceedings.

I nabbed this from another forum but it does bring up the legality of the adoption. Which I suspect is what the woman is upset about, rather than the forced c-section story that all the papers seem to be running with.

@Geckos48

I think you are quite right. I guess it is the adoption process that upset the mother. Yet, this lady has been deemed unfit for two other children, twice. If she was really well as we are told, she should know what the terrible fate of a child adopted in Italy is (I am Italian, by the way, and from Tuscany as this lady).

My idea is that this lady is so deluded and so ill that she prefers to ignore the truth... That she is an unfit parent and that her parents start to be too old and emotionally drained to care for three children.

I think this was not posted... My two cents, this is a very fine blog article about this matter:

pinktape.co.uk/cases/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-eh/#more-4418

Geckos: it appears that the Italians basically washed their hands of this, and were happy to let the British courts deal with it.

claw: if all you are saying is "I think i have made it perfectly clear time and time again all I can do is give my opinion of what possible mistakes could have happened, my views and why in my opinion reform is needed" I'm more than ever baffled. Possible mistakes could be made all over the place, in relation to virtually any and every news story. I really don't see how stating that fact achieves anything or makes any case for reform.

The two older girls were cared for by their Grandmother and contact restricted by court order in Italy :

"There were investigations by the equivalent of Social Services in Italy as to the welfare of C and D. What the reports show is that the mother had a sincere affection for her daughters and a desire and wish to care for her children but she was not able to do so in a suitable way because of her condition which interfered with her ability to maintain both her own life and therefore those of her children. As I made clear during the course of argument, the mother was anxious to point out that she had never terrorised C in particular, but in fact the way in which I had understood the translation was that C has been particularly upset by the experiences which she has had to witness, that she has been both traumatised and indeed has been terrorised, not by the mother's behaviour, but by what it is that she has witnessed and in particular her mother being profoundly unwell.

In any event as far as I can understand it, the dates may be wrong, C and D appear to have been in their grandmother's care since at least the early part of 2011 and continuing until the present date. There was for a long period of restricted contact, restricted both by the grandmother's wishes and by the courts and there has been as a result of the mother's condition considerable conflict between the mother and her respective mother and father. I am pleased to hear, if it be the case, that mother now being well, that the relations with her respective parents have improved, her father has not been very well himself,but are much better than they have been historically. "

The Father was unable to leave Italy because he wasn't legally in Italy, let alone having visas for anywhere else.

The aunt is only aunt to one of the children and it's highly unlikely that visas for the USA would be permitted for unrelated children.

The whole thing is a massive mess and it's no wonder the judge felt there was no other option.

Those poor, poor children. All of them.

So am I correct in thinking that claw 2 is the only person left (out of the dozens of angry people at the start of the other thread) who is still giving any credence at all to the JH/CB propaganda and the DM lies, and who still thinks this is a miscarriage of justice?

You are not correct. Claw is not alone.

I don't recognise this 'propaganda' and 'lies' that you write about.

The Telegraph also covered, if not initiated, the story which seems to be forgotten.

I keep asking but no one seems to be able to answer - why is it in JH or CB's interests to spread what you call 'propaganda'.

It's a real pity that this thread keeps denigrating into personal attacks on other posters. Eveyone has different views based on their own life experiences and how much trust they have in 'the system'.

I feel very sorry for those who blithely think that every professional decision is always correct or justified. They may have their eyes opened one day to the fact that they can get it spectacularly wrong - but we rarely get to see these cases as they conveniently hide behind their cloak of secrecy.

Here's an example of the ridiculous secrecy that LAs operate under - the educational placement for a child with special needs is taken by an LA appointed Panel, most of whom have never met the child or the parents, behind closed doors, minutes are not taken and the parent and their legal representative is denied access to this cabal so cannot represent their child. Fact.

When you know that this sort of thing goes on every day across the country you wonder - Why? Why can they not be open.

For the ones who don't believe me about adoption process in Italy and the ones concerned about letting the baby adopted in Italy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_Italy

"Adoptions in Italy numbered 4,130 in 2010. This figure relates to overseas adoptions, domestic adoptions from within Italy being relatively difficult"

@wetaugust

It is a bunch of propaganda and what I hate is that it is a whole bunch of propaganda done by two (enter whatever swearword you like here) debatable British characters damaging the lives of at least 6 of my fellow citizens.

Therefore, yes, It is a BUNCH OF LIES, aimed to discredit the social system in Uk, disregarding the rights of this poor mother who went public in Italy.

For any Italian citizen, CB & JH should be burned at the stake, believe me.

Why exactly are the number of adoptions in Italy involving native Italians so low?

Is it because the extended family steps in to a greater degree than in the UK or is there some sort of stigna / religious objection to adoption?

Just interested - as the daughter of an adopted father and the sister of an adopted sibling.

No, it is because the local authorities are messed up by a lot of useless bureaucracy and stupid laws that actually render the whole process unmanageable.
There are lots of Italian children who grew up in foster care place until they are 20 years old.
It is that bad.

Therefore, when you go through the process the adopting family often chooses to go abroad to adopt, then they come back with the baby and legally register him/her as their child. Then he or she will become an
Italian citizen when they are over 18.

Extended family are a legend believed just by people abroad. Couples decide to adopt only as the last resort, very often for religious motives.

I am no expert wetaugust but as an Italian, I'd say yes, that would be the case.

Thank you for explaining why you dislike the actions of JH/CB Lake. I presume the Italian citizens you refer to are those involved in this case.

I am struggling though to understand this - 'It is a BUNCH OF LIES, aimed to discredit the social system in Uk, disregarding the rights of this poor mother who went public in Italy.'

The UK social system does a fine job of discrediting itself without the help of JH, CB et al. You only have to look at the repeated failures towards all those poor children who were murdered to realise that the UK social system is pretty dire.

Surely by raising the profile of this Italian lady's case he has helped rather than hindered her? Or do you think it would have been better if her case had gone unremarked, as it was until the JH/CB publicity. Do you say that because she may have had more chance of putting the episode behind her and rebuilding her life without this publicity.

Really trying to understand this JH/CB dislike.

wetaugust: I keep asking but no one seems to be able to answer - why is it in JH or CB's interests to spread what you call 'propaganda'.

We know why it is in JH's interests. He has chosen to put himself forward as fronting a campaign about this and is having a lovely time publicising himself about something which is bound to be eye-catching to journalists. Publicity is meat and drink to politicians. It's in CB's interests for similar reasons, i.e. he's a freelance journalist, he knows this is the sort of story newspapers love and that that it may also help him to pick up other gigs.

I am absolutely in favour of campaigning politicians and journalists, provided that what they campaign about rests on solid foundations. What really concerns me about these two is that they only look for cases that support their viewpoint, and have regularly been caught out ignoring or even misrepresenting highly important facts. They also take advantage of the fact that these cases are very easy to present as supporting their argument, because social services' and health authorities hands are tied when it comes to giving their side of the story; and because many of the people who take such cases to the papers will suppress facts that go against themselves. What that means is that they achieve the opposite of what people like you want to achieve, because they damage their case and those of the people they purport to be trying to help. They are actually helping people who want to sweep genuine mistakes under the carpet.

KRIT

I would want my own children cared for by the Psychiatrist in question should they ever develop a psychiatric illness. That is an idea of the respect and high regard I have always had for them.

I have two friends who adopted children from other countries, a child born in Romania and the other one from Colombia.

That is why I don't understand why people was so in a fuss about letting baby P to be adopted in Italy.

What are you actually wishing upon baby P is letting her rot in a foster place until she is in her teens. How that is better than being fostered by an English family is beyond my logic.