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.

Willingness is meaningless if someone is deemed to lack capacity, isn't it, Mignonette? It's no more 'meaningful' to give consent than to refuse it, if it's deemed that you aren't capable of giving informed consent.

No it doesn't say that she was unwilling but that is purely because she is unable to give any kind of consent because she lacked the mental capacity.

That's not the point I was making. People are still assuming that she denied consent when in fact insight can fade in and out and compliance/concord with an attendant lack of capacity is still psychologically better for the client that absolute refusal. There is an emotional and psychological component to it that is of great importance and value in the therapeutic relationship.

These are the intanglibles that lay observers and commentators don't get sadly.

Simon Myerson QC is asking JH to account for himself. I hope, like me, he doesn't intend to hold his breath waiting for a response.

Sorry, come late to the party and just skimmed thread but someone asked a while back what is the problem with Brendan Flemming as a solciitor?

I think these two judgments have made it very clear what the problem with him is. He was quite happy to jump on the JH bandwagon when every published FACT about this case shows their hysterical fear mongering to have been utterly without foundation.

It's no coincidence that both JH and BF are both from Birmingham when you're talking about a case in Essex - JH will have brought him in. In other words he was not the solicitor that took her through all this, he has jumped on the bandwagon and is part of all this mass hysteria.

@Spero @confuddledDOTcom

The problem is that the first Italian lawyers connected with the case were dismissed. I guess the mother is now taking advice from B. Flemming? Because one of the two Italian ones just went on Italian television a couple of hours ago... Just reminding you that in Italy the lady has a name and surname, as well as her parents.

Poor baby P ;(

There would have been British lawyers too.

I do hope for her sake she isn't taking 'advice' from any lawyer or any other person who is prepared to pontificate on the legality of a case that he knows absolutely bugger all about.

Oh, but hang on a minute, JH said yesterday that he had READ the judgment before making his absurd statements. So he knew full well what he was saying was wrong.

So what does that make him I wonder? Just what is the full extent of his malign agenda?

JH claims he knows more than the judge because he has talked to the mother. Yes, that would be the mother who was having a major bipolar crisis at the time and suffering schizophrenic delusions. As against the judge who had seen reports from her psychiatrists and obstetricians, and who was listening to her lawyer agreeing to the operation.

JH is actively despicable, isn't he?

@Spero I shudder at the thought of his agenda :(

By the way, BBC has just gone public too with the names: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25224433

There is only something to say about the article... they refer to woman's married name not being named, only to the maiden name...
It is ridiculous because in Italy women have their maiden names forever, they can't legally adopt her husband's name, EVER.
I can say this with extreme certainty given that it is why I've documents with different names in two countries!!

To Maryz and JaquelineHyde, I'm not suggesting that all children should always remain with their parents whatever the circumstances, however surely usually every effort is made to help the birth mother/parents keep the children with them before resorting to adoption. A midwife friend has told me that removing a child, let alone proceeding to adoption, is a last resort. In this case it seems that no effort has been made to reunite mother and child despite the mother's recovery. This mother was incapacitated at the time of the child's birth but as far as I'm aware (I may be wrong) there is no reason to suspect her of child abuse or serious neglect upon her recovery.

I'd agree that there must be very few children who are unwanted or unloved by their birth parents, however actually there are thousands of children around the world that have been willingly (not happily) given up by parents who believe they cannot possibly look after them. This is not the case with this child.

Blackberry - she chose to return to Italy shortly after the birth. She was entitled to do that but it makes efforts to reunify her with her child very difficult. Given her history, there is no way the court could have agreed to let the child go with her. She should have stayed and been assessed in the UK.

All those who think of JH as the great crusader - think on this. He leeches himself upon vulnerable women, who are often learning disabled or mentally ill and tells them they are victims of a great injustice that he the White Knight will remedy.

Then once the Daily Mail has had its fun, once the headlines die down, he flaps away on his great leathery wings to stick his fangs in someone else's neck.

He must give these women enormous false hope. They are so desparate they want to believe him. Despicable is too kind a word.

Blackberry, have you looked at the transcript of the judgment in the adoption case? There was every reason to worry about neglect. Her two older children had been taken away from her due to neglect, and had been seriously traumatised by seeing their mother whilst still at her most manic. She has a serious mental disorder and a history of stopping taking her medication. She had been hospitalised three times before as a result. It is unfortunately a feature of bipolar disorder that the sufferer often reaches points when she does not believe she is ill and stops taking her pills. Do you seriously believe this baby should have been put into the care of a woman with that history who might suffer a manic episode set any time?

Blackberry - did you read the adoption order judgement? The judge took into account the likelihood of the mother relapsing and the impact her illness had had on her older children, and also the baby's need for a stable home as soon as possible. Adoption is a last resort but children can't be expected to wait in foster care indefinitely while the parent gets themselves together - sad as it is for a parent who wants to keep their child, the interests of the child have to come first.

Blackberry - the mother was asking for the child to remain in foster care for another year while she was assessed and demonstrated she would remain mentally well. The child just couldn't wait that long. It is very cruel and unfair to the child to allow her to bond with a foster carer for nearly two years and then move her.

Again, such a pity the mother didn't stay in the UK and make this argument shortly after the birth. That she did not does not indicate a massive conspiracy on the part of the system.

I am sick and tired of being called 'morally bankrupt' by the kinds of people who would tell lies about this kind of case to spin their own careers.

So by that reasoning Blackberry I can assume that whilst you are disgusted that any adoptive parents would come forward and attempt to adopt this little girl, you would be perfectly happy for the adoptive parents to do a Madonna and buy adopt a child from abroad?

You are right about adoption though it is a last resort. SS always try and place a child back with its parents or in a kinship care arrangement with an SGO etc.

In this instance no kinship care could be granted and in order to fully assess the mother as a viable option a very long assessment period would have been needed. Especially as there is a long history of the mother failing to maintain her medication and therefore relapsing and causing serious trauma to her other 2 children.

That kind of lengthy drawn out assessment time would have left the baby with no permanence and confused attachments and at the end of it all may not have been returned to the mother any way.

The child comes first. Not the mother, not the father. The child, and in this instance adoption was the right option.

But I guess that won't happen.

In this case there seems no effort was made...

God in Heaven, what information are you reading, clearly not the bits where they say extensive liaison was conducted with Italian SS, nor that the court had been in contact with the father, and the sister of one of the elder daughter's father...

And yes there was serious evidence, based on the experience of her elder two daughters, now in the custody of her parents (with limited access) to know exactly how she behaves once the child had been born.

what on earth are you basing you judgement on?

You know if someone has fucked up so badly their two elder children are in kinship care, (an 11 year old and a 4 year old) that these children are described as having been terrorised by their mother's behaviour...

hey, let her loose on baby number three. bound to get it right this time

Just a piece of info.

Yesterday, I went to a talk given by the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby. He reminded us of the new Public Law Protocol which will soon impose a statutory maximum of 26 weeks (6 months) for all care proceedings to be concluded.

This is being imposed by the government that presumably some of you voted for.

If you genuinely fear that decisions about adoption are 'rushed through' then maybe you might want to protest about that rather than wasting your time and energies on the kind of bonkers frothing that these threads have generated.

But I guess that would be a bit boring. Much more fun to wrap yourself up in the warm embrace of a conspiracy theory.

Surprised it was a locum psychiatrist involved in this.

Very, very chilling indeed to read that they all agreed she would not be told beforehand that she was to undergo a CS. That really made my blood run cold.

This would be the same Sir James Munby who has taken jurisdiction of this particular case?

Gosh he is going to be cross that SS are over their time limit in finding just the right family for this little girl.

wetaugust, are you suggesting that locum psychiatrists are by their very nature inadequate?

The clinical needs of the patient were clear, to create hysteria and a meltdown in a vulnerable patient would not help anybody.