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.

Lake

I am so very sorry to hear about your experiences, I cannot imagine what you have been through

I have no experience/knowledge of ss so cannot comment on that, but I still think that most families are close and supportive of each other (i agree it can get a bit excessive though). But this is the country where many 30 year olds live with the family. Most of my married friends live within a mile of their family of origin and get lots of help from them, and I am often seen as odd to have chosen to give birth in a foreign country (where I was living with my dh) and away from my family!

At the same time I can see how the issue of domestic abuse (as well MH problems) tends to be minimized because of a misplaced sense of shame deriving by the ' so lovely' catholic morality.

Judge Mostyn has approved his judgment for publication and it should be online anytime.

He has prefaced it with the following note:

Judge who ordered "forced" cesarean releases transcript and adds this note.

NOTE BY MR JUSTICE MOSTYN (4 December 2013)

Although no-one has sought to appeal the judgment dated 23 August 2012 during the last 15 months, or to have it transcribed for any other purpose, I have decided to authorise its release together with the verbatim transcript of the proceedings and the order made so as to inform and clarify recent public comments about this case.

It will be seen that the application to me was not made by the local authority or social workers. Rather, it was an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 by the NHS Trust, supported by the clear evidence of a consultant obstetrician and the patient’s own treating consultant psychiatrist, seeking a declaration and order that it would be in the medical best interests of this seriously mentally ill and incapacitated patient, who had undergone two previous elective caesarean sections, to have this birth, the due date of which was imminent (she was 39 weeks pregnant), in the same manner.

The patient was represented by the Official Solicitor who instructed a Queen’s Counsel on her behalf. He did not seek an adjournment and did not oppose the application, agreeing that the proposed delivery by caesarean section was in the best interests of the patient herself who risked uterine rupture with a natural vaginal birth. I agreed that the medical evidence was clear and, applying binding authority from the Court of Appeal concerning cases of this nature, as well as the express terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, made the orders and declarations that were sought.

Although I emphasised that the Court of Protection had no jurisdiction over the unborn baby, I offered advice to the local authority (which were not a party to or represented in the proceedings, or present at the hearing) that it would be heavy-handed to invite the police to take the baby following the birth using powers under section 46 of the Children Act 1989. Instead, following the birth there should be an application for an interim care order at the hearing of which the incapacitated mother could be represented by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor.

Maryz, you are quoting me out of context.

I just had a quick look too and one of my comments that you have quoted actually was

"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"

I cant be bothered to put every comment you quote back into context, I have dinner to cook!

However I thought we had moved on since and agreed that mistakes may or may not have been made and no one can say without knowing the full facts.

So definitely not done to allow local authority to take the child, or even because of her mental health but for her own physical safety.

Imagine if the NHS trust had just conceded to her wishes, let her refuse and then subsequently die.

WELL DONE Judge Mostyn!

Thank God he has released the judgement, however, it is sad that he has needed to release it.

Hopefully the hysteria, scaremongering and conspiracy theories will now stop.

I doubt this will make front page news though.

It's sad that it wasn't released as a matter of course. There is nothing in that statement which needed it to be kept secret.

Yes Jacqueline, I doubt the DM will be interested now.

Well fancy that.

She had a C-section because she'd already had some.

D'oh.

claw the way you were treated by ss was an absolute disgrace ant the people responsible need to be held to account.

Ss is like any organisation with power like the police, doctors, MPs there will always be a few who will use their power for their own agenda. I would even agree that some LAs have their own agenda.

However I refuse to believe that there is a nationwide conspiracy between the 10,000s of sw's and LAs to steal babies. I mean someone would have whistle blown with evidence social workers ime want to help people

To my mind it defies comprehension that the social services have decided to put the child up for adoption, and what on earth are the prospective adoptive parents playing at? What decent human being in their right mind would apply to adopt a baby forcibly taken from and wanted by it's own mother? How do they imagine the child will react upon finding out at a later date that it was adopted despite this knowledge? There are so many unwanted children out there who really need homes.

BBC Essex caesarean pregnancy 'not full term'

So the statement said 39 weeks and here they're saying 6 weeks early?

Court of Protection judgement regarding the caesarean

BlackberryandNettle, most of the adoptions which take place are of children 'forcibly taken from and wanted by its own mother.' It isn't very common for a child to be willingly relinquished by its parents. Sometimes, the child's needs are incompatible with the parents' capacity to parent.

"It will be seen that the application to me was not made by the local authority or social workers. Rather, it was an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 .... to have this birth, the due date of which was imminent (she was 39 weeks pregnant), in the same manner."

The Judge says she was 39 weeks, Hombre.

Yes the (judge's) statement says 39 weeks as I stated. So why is a story going out this evening stating that the baby was not term when delivered? I can't understand how at this stage they can give time to one lawyer's statement without offering up the contradicting information given by the judge.

Blackberryandnettle Surely you must realise that everyone who ends up in care isn't just some unwanted kid? This women it is increasingly clear was incapable of looking after a child, i'm pretty sure she wants her children taken away from her in Italy too.

Sadly, just because you love something, doesn't mean you can take care of it.

Blackberry That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Most children that are placed for adoption are forcibly removed, it is very rare that a mother or father gives consent for adoption.

Are you honestly saying that the children in these cases should never be allowed a secure permanent home?

Several mothers who have killed their own children have stated that they love them and want them.

So rather than pregnant woman has a panic attack, social workers have her sectioned, sedated and steal her baby from her womb -

She has long standing mental health problems (I noticed schizophrenia mentioned in the latest judgement, and paranoid delusions)
She has lost care of and had restricted contact with her older children, one of whom is described as "terrorised and traumatised"
Due to two previous caesarians, her obstetrician wishes to perform a planned caesarian to reduce risks to her and her baby - as she lacks capacity to consent a judge makes the decision on her behalf
Social services go to court for a care order after the baby is born
After liaising with Italian SS, no family member is found to take the baby
The mother wants to keep her baby and requests that she remains in foster care for a further year to allow her recovery
A judge makes an adoption order after deciding the baby has already waited long enough, and it is in her best interests to be placed in a stable home quickly.

More than she was 39 weeks, they were planning it the day before her EDD.

The judgement has just been posted re the C section
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/re-aa-approved-judgment.pdf
Sorry if already posted, haven't read thread.

But interesting to note her previous two children were born by CS so it was the clear medical advice that she should have an elective planned CS to avoid risk to herself of ruptured womb.

So there is evidence this was definitely a decision in her best interests.

At no point in the ruling does it say the person was unwilling to give consent to the ELSCS.

People are still making assumptions.

That's true - her QC didn't object to it either.