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.

As a 2VBA2SS2C (or 2 vaginal births after special scar and 2 caesareans - special scar means I have an upside down T shaped scar that goes the full length of my uterus which gives me a 5% risk of rupture) I did find it funny that they were saying that's a high risk, especially as the risk of cutting a baby is 1%... however!

They couldn't trust she would not hide her contractions from them.
They couldn't trust that she would allow them to monitor the baby.
They couldn't rely on it being easy to monitor baby if she allowed them.
They couldn't rely on her responding to the signs of rupture.

It wasn't said in the transcript but I do already know that the effect of labour on someone like that is unpredictable.

oh dear. poor lady.

lucky the nice doctors were there to look after her.

And the nice judge who thought how sad she would be to be dead.

or to have been alive with a dead baby.

So the cs was necessary medically? Where does that information come from?

Everything I wrote was in the transcript.

This sums things up nicely www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/

If you can't be bothered to read the thread, and the associate links, don't ask other people to answer your questions.

And this is good too pinktape.co.uk/rants/update-on-the-essex-c-section-case/

So the judge said she should not be allowed to take the risk because she was not in a fit mental state to decide for herself.

I am not being obtuse, but you are not referencing any of the information you are asserting? Is that in the public domain?

You see I have a lot of experience of psychiatric illnesses and sectioning practice. And I know that most psychiatric drs are very very loath to section because in most cases it never needs to come to that.

In this case, the woman had a very good reason not to take medication - the safety of her foetus. She was apparently under the impression that she would deliver her child vaginally and then be transferred to the mother and baby unit of the psychiatric ward. Which sounds like normal procedure and humane treatment.

So where did the forced sedation, cs and removal of baby stem from? And why?

oh beans, you and your facts!

lets wait for the mother to release all the details of her care then, bunch, then we will know.

You can read the whole judgements bunchofolives! Look, I posted some links too.

Not my facts Madame, I think these are right!

I HAVE read the thread and the previous one.

I HAVE read the Chelmsford Court transcript of the adoption case.

As far as I can see in 2 and 3 the Judge says that the doctors recommended the baby was kept with the mother in hospital. It was the judge who took it upon himself to overrule that even though he obviously could not judge the psychiatric state of the mother as expertly as the drs.

But just to say, are you imputing that the care team in charge of this very troubled woman had less knowledge of drugs used to counteract the effects of a bipolar psychotic episode in pregnancy than that woman in thrall of one?

really?

I would suggest that going to a foreign country having decided to abandon your drugs regime is the height of folly, and almost criminally negligent, given your pregnant condition.

Except I would never do so. Because I do not lack compassion.

But again bunch. until the mother releases the details of her care while here we do not know.

moot point, anyone?

sorry beans, I got my bunches and my beans mixed up!

oh no, I was being ironic!

gah!

And I got you confused with a Marmalade! (From a thread where I may have been wrong on something)

Night!

Madame are you refuting that anti-psychotic drugs are harmful to a foetus? They are. I doubt very much that her 'care team' (with whom her psychiatric treatment would have actually nothing to do at all - that would be between the patient and her consultant) would be trying to insist she took medication.

Normal protocol in pg would be simply to look after the patient until her baby was born then resume medication after delivery. During the period while the effect of the medication was built up normal practice would be to look after the patient WITH her baby until she was recovered. THAT is precisely why mother and baby units were opened.

and I think we can all sleep well knowing that whatever the circumstances, there are three little girls who fell asleep tonight feeling loved and safe.

No bunches. I know perfectly well, and you would know that I know that, that Lithium in particular is contra indicted in pregnancy.

I do take issue that her care team would not comprise her psychiatric consultant.

that would be bonkers.

If you are as familiar with the care of bipolar pregnant patients, perhaps you would like to suggest a course of treatment appropriate to this woman?

Oh right. you weren't there. You have no idea.

Neither do I.

Therefore I am not prepared to comment on any possible issues with her care.

Because her care regime is not in the public domain. Until she wishes to release it.

I just suggest, that in all fairness, we assume her medical attendants were not motivated by ignorance and malice.

Maybe Madame.

But there is one woman (and many many others) who has grave and serious concerns that the state has overstepped its powers considerably in this case. That a shocking and terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred and that a system of closed courts prevents that injustice being challenged for the future.

Courts operate in society's name and must be able to be held to account for their decisions. This is such a serious and shocking denial of someone's personal rights - the most fundamental right to control of one's own body - that it is too important to be left to the secret judgements of a small group of people.