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.

Bunch is not talking crap you know... read the NICE
Guidelines on Antenatal MH.

You'll find scant reference to enforced cs.... and normal practice is MBU. If they were afraid of her going into labour and concealing it I can see why she needed to be sectioned but not given cs. I'm not really sure why there wasn't a period of time in an MBU to see if she would stabilise on meds post-birth and assess relationship with baby. MBU staff are very highly trained to support psychotic women with infants and make recommendations to ss etc. Some severely ill women are with their babies in MBU for up to a year post-birth.
Am assuming this is what would have happened if woman was British citizen entitled to ongoing medical care here.... but guessing that court decided not safe to hand over to Italy to progress? Which I understand on one level but sits poorly with me wrt mother's human rights.

well, clearly these uber secret courts don't keep their secret judgments that secret, do they?

I have dealings with the court of protection, and personally cannot fault their outreach to extended members of the family of the person involved.

I do not believe that it is likely that people acted out of malice (although ignorance of mental health issues is widespread). But because the system is under tremendous strain and pressure, it only takes one erroneous report, one misunderstanding of something 'lost in translation', for professionals to repeat and repeat the error, and for it to rapidly gain the status of incontrovertible fact.

The Chelmsford Court transcript above shows that the judge made several judgements of this woman's psychiatric state that he himself says are at odds with her psychiatrist's assessment. That alone is incredibly worrying for anyone who is ever in the situation of being retained under the Mental Health Act.

Something has gone badly wrong in this case. The bare facts show this woman's treatment has been inhumane at the least, barbaric at worse. It needs proper and open review imo.

I suppose the question is, would this have happened with a British woman with bipolar presenting with psychotic symptoms in pregnancy in the same way or would more normal procedures wrt antenatal and postnatal mh care have been followed? To what extent did who would pay for specialist medical care have an influence?

Bunch. I cannot agree with your analysis of the facts presented.

Psychotic. .. sorry tis late

You are conflating two separate judgments.

The first, authorised the c section.

The second, authorised the care proceedings.

Two separate court proceedings.

You will see that in the c section judgment, the woman had her own representation.

As she also did at the care proceedings.

I would suggest that even if the woman had had paid for independent psychiatric advice, and independent obstetric advice, their conclusions would have not differed materially from those of the court appointed representitives.

yes. She had already had two c sections. To give birth vaginally after that would depend very much of the configuration of the scarring of the previous c sections, and the ability of the mother to work with her medical attendants at the birth.

If either of these issues are in question, would you all prefer a dead mother and a dead baby rather than a planned c section to ensure the mothers survival, and secondarily, that of the baby?

Point 8 of the judgement relating to the withdrawal of contact after birth is very worrying. Drs said P should be placed with mother. The judge says he believes this would not have been in P's interests... but this is against all research and medical advice in this area. His judgement is basically subjective, not taking medical advice and expertise into consideration.

And again, you think that all the professionals involved were not hyper aware of the controversy that could surround their decisions?

You think they were munching a bit toast in the canteen, someone came up with a piece of paper to sign and they did that without a care in the world?

The ENTIRE NHS Trust, from the CE down would have been aware of the case, and making sure no one put a foot wrong. Because the last thing anyone would have wanted was to create a potentially litigious situation. And the only reason they would have done so was in the best interests of the mother under legislation.

That is how it works.

Maryz... whatever about cs, normal procedure is NOT for a woman to be denied contact to her baby but to be given an MBU place. This is what doctors advised. This is what would happen to a British citizen. The cs issue is separate, fair enough. No reason to deny contact after birth given MBU had been suggested by medics.

Read point 8 of the judgement. Doctors advised keeping baby with mother in hospital.

Again, we need to know what state the mother was in at the time of the c section, regarding keeping baby with mum.

Information we do not have.

Reserving judgement on that one.

Ah yes, upon birth, the baby is a legal entity in its own right, with legal representation as to its interests.

mary, as ever, your clarity of thought is illuminating.

No, the judge decided that their decision was about the mother.. If there is an MBU in place the evidence is that keeping mother and child together is best for both. Seriously, 1 in 1000 women are psychotic around birth. Their children are not removed as a matter of course and in this country, ultimately, rarely. Thousands of children live with a bipolar parent. This woman was, as many with bipolar are, unstable in pregnancy due to being off meds. The guidelines and research would suggest that a period of both mother and child being treated together would have had a better outcome for both. And why was she escorted to Italy? Was she well? Was she unwell? It seems very unclear. There is something fishy about this and I guarantee money will come into it somewhere.