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.

If there were a MBU in place. Not a given, given the cuts the NHS has been forced to undertake.

Also, no evidence that the mother was not one of the rare ones who do need to be treated separately from their baby.

No evidence either way why mother went to Italy, and under what care, other than her express wishes.

Nothing fishy as yet.

I hadn't read the latest court transcript re the cs. I can see that they had a case to make the cs order but there are several aspects to it that I believe are very worrying.

One is the assumption that it is better for the woman to have no warning or be informed until after the operation - that is inhumane imo.

Two, is the rushed nature of the representation. Why was it left to two days before her due date? The obstetrician's statement wasn't even signed. The psychiatrist was a locum. I wonder if he had really been treating her for two months - and even if so, how many times had he actually seen her? Psychiatric services are often very under resourced.

Three, the assumption that assessing the need for a cs once labour was started was not advisable in case the woman would not co-operate. What evidence was there that that was the case? The only reference to the woman's state at that time was that she was, naturally, concerned her child would not be immediately removed post birth.

Four, the judge himself refers to immediate removal of the child post-birth by police as 'heavy-handed' and seemed quite concerned to prevent that. Of course that was exactly what happened. Why?

I agree working 9-5, the better outcome for both mother and baby is overwhelmingly achieved by keeping them together.

To accept psychosis as a reason not to do so would mean many women who suffer the more acute end of post-natal depression would risk their baby being removed from them. That is why MBU's were created.

I'm also still confused why an adoption order was made when the mother had subsequently evidently recovered her mental health, has a job, home etc. If her previous children, with their gm, were neglected due to the woman's untreated mh, which is now treated and stabilised, why is is in the baby's best interests to still be adopted?

Do ALL women who suffer mh and have had periods where their meds don't work need to have their children removed and permanently adopted?

As you were not the immediate carers your opinion on what would have been best for this mother and baby are immaterial.

Again, as you were not present at the various representations in court as to the mother's fitness to resume custody of the baby your opinion is immaterial.

And no, not all mothers who suffer mental health issues have their children remove. That is just plain silly. I suffer MH issues, and by god, sometimes I wish someone would relieve me of ds (lovely as he is). But as he points out, at 13, he is not the most optimum age for adoption.

Madame, you may take a facetious attitude, but there are seriously concerning aspects to this case on the face of it.

Many of them could have been addressed if they were heard in open court (with proper precautions taken to protect minor's identities).

However, the CoP is a secret court, so that means people like me who are worried at the increasingly restrictive state we now have in the UK, have to pick at the facts as they are drip-fed into the public domain and try and work out why such extreme state interventions have been made.

You should try to keep in mind that even professional people are not infallible. They are just people.

Regarding the CS (having just read the judgement), I think it's pretty clear that they did the right thing.

This lady was in hospital suffering from psychotic episodes & delusional beliefs. Whether this was because she couldn't take her medication or the medication wasn't fully effective, we don't know - but she was suffering in this way. Her psychiatrist, who had worked with her for some time, made that clear. (The Judge was careful to point out that this wasn't a random psychiatrist who'd just seen her once to make a report).

She was heavily pregnant & having had two CS's previously, she faced the risk of uterine rupture if she attempted a VD.

This risk is manageable in mothers with full capacity. Monitoring can take place during labour to avert disaster etc.

In this woman's situation, they faced the real risk that she might hinder their attempts at monitoring, as a direct result of her delusional beliefs. She might, firstly, refuse to acknowledge or alert anyone that she was in labour, and she then might refuse to allow any examinations & monitoring - which means that a situation potentially manageable becomes very risky. And I suspect that the nature of her delusions may have led her doctors to believe that she would seek to prevent intervention or monitoring.

It's all about the least risky option for the patient - who, it is clear, lacked the capacity to make the best decision for herself.

Allowing her to proceed to VD & then finding that she refuses permission to be monitored was tremendously risky. If this happened, it could have been too late for a court order.

Far less risky was for them to plan a CS for her.

It was all about the least risky course of action for the patient. Fingers crossed & hope for the best was far, far more risky.

They did the right thing.

The matter of whether the child should have been taken into care &/or adopted is another, separate issue.

Oh, yes, I do always use my own MN issues as a facetious counterpoint.

Do we only care about people with MH issues who can't actually string a sentence together?

And my Poirot comment was utterly serious.

You are mixing up the facts Mary Z.

The woman was still sectioned at the time of the cs - otherwise the case would not have happened obviously

The case would not be delayed and consequently rushed in the hope the woman would magically get better. She was, as you say, off meds. It was entirely predictable that she would not recover until she resumed meds.

And, as you say, my opinion is immaterial. I'm just one individual wondering what the state's court system has been doing in my name as it were as that state's citizen. However, with regard to the advisability of a MBU being best for a mother and baby, as 9-5 pointed out upthread, that is a NICE guideline.

Lastly, with regard to returning to Italy. If the Italian state is competent enough for their report to be used to justify the adoption of the child, then surely it was competent enough to be left to care for the woman had she been returned prior to the birth. It is just a 2 hour flight FFS.

Bunches, glad you take the MH issues of someone you have never encountered except through newspaper reports more seriously than those you encounter on this thread. Illuminating.

Bunches. You are being ridiculous. You think any airline is going to agree to carry an extremely pregnant woman (over the time limit for carriage) who was also suffering from psychotic episodes?

For heaven's sake. get with the real world here.

And who said she was off meds?

Mary has in no way confused the facts.

There is no question that she was not under section at the time of the c section. where on earth did you get that idea from?

Even if there were a M&B unit available, who is to say that was appropriate in this case?

After birth? Not you. Not me.

We only have the judgement prebirth, and the mothers testimony after birth. As reported by the press.

If you don't like being challenged, don't post. And don't assume everything I post is addressed at you.

How did Bunches not take MH issues seriously?????
It was Madame being glib...

It is highly unusual for a public servant to escort a patient on a flight.... and apparently she had been deemed well? I haven't read DM coverage, just court judgements and there appear to be holes and inconsistencies in those.

Nowhere was it stated that a public servant escorted this woman to or on a flight to Italy.

Gosh yes, its so glib of me to mention my own MH issues. Pardon me.

There is no reason MBU would cease to be appropriate post-birth if the mother was unwell enough to care for her baby. If she wasn't unwell enough not to care for her baby, there was no need for court order.

There are potentially grave funding issues though given the mother was not a national. I feel these are likely to have influenced decisions made, even inadvertently.

Oh come off it. You mentioned it in a glib way. I have my own psychiatric diagnosis but it's not really relevant to my current reading comprehension....