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.

wetaugust - why would you tell someone who was mentally ill and delusional that they were about to undergo a serious operation? What do you think they could possibly do with that information? Would it calm them? Make them happy? Make it easy for the doctors to sedate her?

If she didn't have the CS there was a risk that her uterus would rupture and she would die. She didn't have capacity to consent. what is chilling about what went on?

Wouldn't it have been more chilling to leave her to possibly die, or as JH suggested, just have shipped her back to Italy the moment she became ill at the airport?

But yeah, tell a psychotic patient they must undergo a c section for their safety, because that will lead to a great outcome for all involved.

They delivered her baby to save her life, and that of the baby.

Job done.

Not nice, not pleasant, even appalling and shocking. but not in any manner, shape or form, abusive.

You see, you're jumping to the conclusion that I think she should have been told. Did I say that? No, I didn't. I just said I found it chilling to read that she would not be told.

Of course they had no option but to keep it secret from here.

Again, you seem to think I'm implying that locum psychiatrists are inadequate. Wrong again.

I probably wrongly thought that in the case of applications to court the permanent Head of Psychiatry within the Trust would be named as her lead psychiatrist, so just surprised that a locum psych was named in this application and a different one named in the adoption case.

Also surprised to read that it was not BPD.

Maybe, Claw, Claig, and others, to admit that you have been led up the garden path by shoddy journalism.

sorry to jump to conclusions, but I couldn't see any other reason why you would think it 'chilling'. If you accept the need to carry out the operation, why is the not telling part so particularly 'chilling'?

the whole thing is awful. But necessary to keep her alive and well. Which, presumably, when she came out of her psychotic state, she was very grateful about.

Even though it was in her best interests, it is horrific to think about someone being sectioned, sedated and given a c-section without their knowledge/understanding. It's pretty horrific that this woman has had three children removed from her care, children she undoubtedly loved and never intended to terrorise or traumatise. Suffering such severe mental illness has been a horrific thing for her and her whole family.

For the umpteenth time,

The application for the c section was done in August. Whoever was the consultant at the time of the medical assessment of the need for a c-section would be responsible for that application.

a one-off.

The on-going treatment of her by a psychiatric team headed by a consultant would have been another matter. It might have been the consultant named in the c section proceedings, it might have been another involved in her care.

Do you think they keep consultant psychiatrists in cupboard ready to be wheeled out whenever needed?

Yes lily. Horrific for her whole family. Especially the children already subjected to the horror and terror induced by living with a parent who has a psychotic episode.

Severe mental illness IS horrific.

There are no happy endings for anyone involved.

There are only best case scenarios.

Who on earth wouldn't find it chilling to read that someone was about to face a CS but was not to be told that?

You would have to be without an ounce of human feeling if you could read that and not feel chilled.

Also interested in the precedent that the judge referred to that it's in the mother's best interest that her child is born alive. That would appear to give a form of indirect consideration to the welfare of the unborn child. And before you all jump on me - yes I know the unborn child has no legal entity. I can't imagine a situation in which it would be in the mother's best interest for the child not to survive (apart from abortion). So accepting that the survival of the unborn child is beneficial to the nother's mental health is a bit of a backdoor way of ensuring its welfare too.

Most cases in the child protection system have some element of horror. Some are entirely composed of horror.

Every day professionals in this field go to work to try to do their best, often juggling massive workloads with little support. They try to make some sense out of chaos and find the least worst solution for the children involved. And what do we get?

Told we are 'morally bankrupt' by the likes of JH and Booker. Out to steal babies.

Those of you who are horrified and sickened by this case, be grateful your only exposure to it is from behind your keyboard.

It's so important that the extent of the illness is recognised here. If not you'll have tens/hundreds of women fearing that their child will be removed because of feeling a bit sad or pnd or a panic attack and they won't seek help they may need. This publicity is so unhelpful in so many ways and I can only conclude that this woman is a vehicle for a wider agenda.

Such a shame that some would view get as collateral.

WhEther or not she never intended to terrorise her children doesn't make it any easier for them.

her* not get

wetagugust - the judge said that it must be in the woman's best interests to have a healthy baby. In what way is this 'back door' reasoning?

I do think some of you want to have your cake, eat it and then vomit it back up again. It was a full term pregnancy, presumably she wanted the baby and presumably she would have been utterly distraught when she recoverd her mental health to learn that her baby died or suffered because of her mental illness??

I have no problem with the judge's reasoning at all.

I would love to know what you would all be saying if she had been left to give birth naturally in a psychotic state.

Yes spero. Very very well said.

For all of those posters who have had an appalling experience at the hands of SS, I have nothing but sympathy. I do know that the system can be very flawed.

But there are legions of inadequate, appalling, abusive parents who continue to terrorise and abuse their children. Not because SS don't care, but because the burden of proof in court to take a child from their parents is so high you would be scared.

So much for those who think children are ripped from their parent's loving arms. The vast majority are children who it has taken months of patient work and involvement, often years, before SS applies for a care order.

These are the cases you should be fighting for.

yup. that would be honouring your hippocratic oath, to see a pychotic patient give birth vaginally, where every moment risked the rupture of the uterus. Watching the mother and the baby die as you fought, finally, to save their lives.

Even though you knew from the outset the probable outcomes.

Lovely scenario.

Just for anyone that has any final doubt that she was not properly advised this is the barrister appointed on her behalf

Why the hostility Spero to the remark I made about a legal argument?

I don't want to eat my cake and vomit it up thank you. What I did want was a civil discussion on that particular remark.

I'm actually interested in legal reasoning and interpretation. Forget this case for a momemnt. I just find it interesting that although an unborn child has no legal entity the presumption is that it's in the mother's interest that it should be born healty.

If you accept that (and I don't think there's any argument that it's the desirable outcome) then surely this means the survival of the unborn child should be considered as part of the treatment decisions made about the mother.

You see the way the law stands at the moment, with no rights for the unborn child, the mother could be given drugs that were toxic to the fetus and perhaps rendered it inviable. But if you follow the argument that the survival of the fetus is beneficial tyo the mother it would be difficult to justify treating the mother in such as way as the survival of the fetus was compromised.

I am a lay person but I am actually very interested in the law. I find it quite depressing that when you try to have a debate or ask people who appear to be legally qualified about certain aspects they appear to treat me like an idiot.

Doesn't exactly encourage the ordinary person to take an interest in current affairs.

What I think is appalling, is the fact that two well-respected newspapers, (if not by me personally) felt free to publish this in the first instance.

Mnetters might well not know the ins and outs of legal representation, who appplies for what and so on...

THEY have fully equipped legal departments who at no point said hang on (or if they did they were ignored) this will not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

As indeed it did not.

The fact they were prepared to publish stories which assumed gross abuses of the legal system, which in fact were not the case, reflects very very poorly on them.

Why would they do it? Just why?

There are many many cases, as Mnetters here have witnessed, that would have benefited from the muscle of a national newspaper. Have they been interested?

It would seem that they just got above themselves and couldn't help but run with a false and appalling story to suit their own agenda.

No regard to the mother or child, or other children in this case.

And really , to point out the law, that the mother's interests comes before the babies, is not in any way to agree, or sanction that (though I personally do).

It is just to acknowledge the legal parametres professionals have to work to.

By all means take up that cause, if it irks you. But don't dare besmirch those professionals who have to work within the law.

Spero,
I think that a lot of MNers are quite naive about just how horrific some parents are. They cannot imagine a world where you would do some of the things that i have seen come across my desk - and i only touch the tip at the periphery of investigations, not the daily nitty gritty.

Some cases i will never forget, for the whole of my life, they are that awful. I am grateful every day that people are still willing to work in children's services as it is a horrifying job with little thanks, much criticism and enormous stakes. Most people would run a mile or have a breakdown being faced with having to dela with the fallout. Little is heard of the millions of children whose lives are infinitely better becuase of the interventions of their SWs

I am sad that there is so such suspicion of SS in general. Yes i have dealt with some no great ones but in general all sws i have worked with have cared deeply for the children on their books and wish they had more time to help families. One case i dealt with affected the SWs involved so much that they went to the sentencing just to give them closure after such a traumatic case

Has anybody linked to the latest piece in the DM?

It is unbelievable

oh god. I don't think I can bear it.

Does it refer to this case? you might as well link,.