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.

I don't think people realise that it's like, as I said earlier, a someone in a coma who's body is living out their nightmares constantly. You c can't apply normal rules and logic.

Stigma goes both ways. Yes your analogy is a useful one Confuddled but because it is mental health with a record of historical abuse, normalising it in line with other medical conditions is an uphill battle.

Thanks for info re MBU - that's really interesting. I have only ever had two clients with really severe mental illnesses and was told there was nowhere that would be able to take them.

I also struggle with finding mother and baby placements for mentally well young mothers- there simply aren't enough good foster carers out there.

I wonder how many have been scared off by the irresponsible posturing of the conspiracy lobby.

Good posts by bunchoffives and working9while5

According to the Mail

"After she lost her child to social workers, Alessandra was advised by doctors that she should go back to Italy and fight for Amelia from there .

Reluctantly, and with two hospital managers by her side, she took a flight home in late October last year and was admitted to hospital, where she was treated for her bipolar complaint, given suitable medicine to control the condition and discharged with a clean bill of health before Christmas.

In February, she was fully recovered when she returned to Chelmsford family court to beg for the return of her baby.

The judge said she was impressively articulate and acting normally, but ruled that Amelia should be placed for adoption because Alessandra might fail to take her medication at some time in the future

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518417/Alessandra-Pacchieri--I-feel-baby-kicking-inside-I-crying-I-begged-cut-open.html

According to the Mail, she "was advised by doctors that she should go back to Italy". What did her legal advisers have to say about this? given that Judge Newton says in his report

"I am critical of the doctors because it appears to me that she was despatched (in deed escorted ) from the UK with undue haste simply because she wished to go back to Italy.

...

She should in my view have been assisted here to participate in these proceedings. I know she wanted to go to Italy but by going to Italy any realistic prospect of P returning to her care was diminished substantially . It is for that reason it seems to me that it was a most ill-advised thing to have occurred. I was critical at the time and I remain critical to this day ."

Some documents have been released probably due to the international media interest. We may see more explanations given because there questions about it still remain and the international media is interested.

If she had been an American citizen or the daughter of the Italian President, would what happened to her have occurred after she came to England temporarily for a training course?

To be fair Mignonette if any professional were to make any decision or operate on the basis of opinions on a chat board, there would be heinous results. Public services don't work that way... however I do sometimes see a "call to silence" that suggests that anyone outside a profession can't question or have an opinion on cases like these that I don't think is quite right either.

It's very hard to make judgements in cases that cross jurisdiction boundaries and I do feel for the judge in doing so. What the Italian courts might do in relation to mh might not match what happens here and vice versa.

I know in Ireland it is not uncommon for children born to patients with a history of severe mental illness to be removed at birth, I have a friend whose sister's baby was taken at two days old as her sister had schizophrenia. That doesn't seem to happen here in the same way but then again, there are differences afterwards wrt contact too... my friend's sister has regular contact with her son and he will not be adopted as long as she can see him without causing him harm, whereas I think adoption possibly happens faster here subsequent to the decision to remove.

As a child and young person, I lived with my cousin with schizoaffective disorder who basically has spent most of his life since 16 in and out of inpatient units. He has a long-standing history of avoiding medication and I have spent far more time than I wish I ever had around him in psychotic state including at least three hair-raising Christmases, one where he was intensely paranoid of us "government workers" when my son was very tiny. It's scary. I have no doubt that caring for a child would be too much for him and in the end of the day, I don't doubt that not all parents with severe mh can be that "good enough" parent even if they would love to be... but those realities aside, there are still questions about cases like these that need to be answered because at a basic minimum, I think that as it stands, giving a parent and child time to develop a relationship in a supportive environment with maximum treatment in place as outlined in NICE guidelines should be what we aspire to. I'm sure there are many pragmatic reasons that doesn't occur... but it is right to question, always, how these decisions are made.

There is a middle way between "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and just assuming that every best practice has been followed and all decisions that have been made are incontrovertibly right. There isn't enough information about this decision as yet I think which is why it has come to the attention of the media. It is a difficult and unusual case.

I don't entirely buy the thing about being traumatised by the effects of seeing a manic mother as my experience suggests really generally this isn't something taken into consideration routinely in this country

But we're talking about decisions taken in Italy. From the judgement, it appears that the Italian reports talked in terms of the child having been "terrorised." I'm sure that was not the only factor in whatever decisions were made about the mother's inability to look after the older children.

fgs, claig, why are you placing any reliance at all on what the Mail says, particularly after they have been conclusively demonstrated to have seriously misrepresented the facts previously? Remember how they depicted this as social workers ripping the child out of her mother's womb, which has now been proved to be completely false? I am disgusted that they have published that interview with the mother, purely because I think they are doing her potentially irreparable harm. When you bear in mind that at the relevant time she was psychotic and delusional, are you seriously going to take her memory as unfailingly accurate?

I strongly suspect that her lawyers advised her against going back to Italy, but they could not prevent her from doing so if she was determined. It was obviously understandable that she wanted to be in her own country. There would also have been an issue as to where she would live if she had stayed here and who would support her.

Again, what do we know about what any of this means?? Sometimes I'm horrified by how little child trauma is taken into consideration in decisions here. I am frequently found banging my head against a brick wall on behalf of some of the children I work with those very clear evident trauma receives very little attention from child and adult mental health services in comparison to the treatment given to their parents etc. I worry too how it might contribute to cases like that of Hamza Khan etc. It may simply illustrate how standards vary from country to country.

I'm really only maintaining a position here that it does seem that there are questions that are worth answering in this case. This isn't the same as saying everyone was out to get this mother... but it's worth talking about, no?

I hope nobody feels that their requests to understand what has happened have been unwelcome from those of is who have experience in this field.

I always welcome discussion and debate as there are many things we urgently need discussion and debate about.

For example, what as a society are we prepared to do to help vulnerable people keep their children? This will involve more money. What do we do if those resources aren't forthcoming?

Given the urgent need to have a real debate you can understand why I and many others get frustrated by constant attempts to drag this back to theories of grand conspiracy to steal babies. This is a distraction from the real issues about pressure the whole system is under AND probably terrifies anyone faced with care proceedings at the moment.

I think the response of the courts has been a lot better this time in that they released the judgments pretty quickly, so I think there have been improvements in the way the legal system is prepared to engage with people's legitimate concerns to understand what is being done in their name.

Working. - I suspect the primary problem is even now, the lack of clear communication between departments. I find this acutely for parents with leaning difficulties - the adult social work teams don't often seem to have clear line of communication with child protection teams but we urgently need to know what resources are or could be available to let the parents look after child.

learning not leaning difficulties. Not sure leaning difficulties would ever be an issue...

nennypops, all newspapers get facts wrong on many stories because in the beginning they don't always have access to the full facts. Now that official documents have been released and interviews with the woman and her lawyer have been released, more information has become available. They still may not be the full facts, and more information may be revealed over time.

' I am disgusted that they have published that interview with the mother'

What do you expect them to do? Ignore her? She has been talking to the Italian media and our media and I expect she would like to talk to Obama, the Pope and anyone else if necessary. This is what she said to the Mail

‘Your family courts and your social workers invaded my body and stole my baby. I believe that the British authorities planned to adopt my daughter from the very beginning.

‘Something very unfair has been done to me. I am fighting to get my daughter back and I never want another innocent mother in your country to suffer as I have.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518417/Alessandra-Pacchieri--I-feel-baby-kicking-inside-I-crying-I-begged-cut-open.html

We live in a free country and a free continemt and it is her right to be heard and it is only right that our media listens.

I wasn't referring to taking advice from talk boards working. I was referring to the knee jerk responses to what is read in newspapers. Different point altogether.

don't entirely buy the thing about being traumatised by the effects of seeing a manic mother

I don't understand why anybody would think mania, paranoia and psycosis wouldn't have the capcity to traumatise a child, unless they were not all that well aquainted with how this illness can present at the severe end of the spectrum.

I was a full grown adult when MIL came into my life. Traumatic is exactly how I would describe what it felt like to me as a grown woman with the power to choose and options. I don't need to immagine how it felt as a powerless and zero options child. Becuase my husband is very eloquant.

Both my husband and his brother carry profound emotional and mental scars that have deeply impacted their lives due to the trauma of the behavoirs and acts that were part of their mother's severe mental ill health. She never delibratly hurt or neglected them. The rest of the family took care of their needs (food/shelter/love). But children don't pop out of the womb with a special forcefield that protects them from the crisis, high tension, sleep deprivation, choas, paranoia and the unpredictability of behavoirs, thought processes, beliefs and acts that can go hand in hand with mental ill health at the severe end of the spectrum.

But you are correct that the risks to children's emotional wellbeing caused by being obliged to live on a severe bipolar rollercoater are not routinely factored into the equation over here in Italy ..... although they bloody well should be. In fact one thing that caught my husband's eye in this case is that the children have been placed in the care of the gradparents and as he understands it have limited contact with their mother. That is rare here. Which potentially indicates the degree to which the system here was unable or unwilling to ignore the trauma suffered.

It's not that SS are inherantly apathetic here. But they are overwoked, underfunded and the red tape has to be see to be believed. There are significant barriers on every level that impeed the seperation of a mother from her child/children becuase there is a particular Italian abhorance for the concept of taking children away from a mother..... due I suppose to the special status motherhood holds here. That seperation was sought and achieved in this case is notable.

She is an Italian citizen. You would have thought that counted for something. What has the Italian President said about this? What have the Italian media asked of their elected representatives about this and about how British SS can decide the future of the child of an Italian citizen who was in England on a short training course?

If she were an American citizen, I suspect that US papers would be interviewing the mother, I suspect that there would be questions in the Senate and I suspect that the US media would ask Obama about it at a press conference. I also expect that Obama would start to make enquiries and there would be phone calls to England. I expect that some people might be flown over to explain to Obama and the US media and the US public what had happened.

There is a middle way between "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and just assuming that every best practice has been followed and all decisions that have been made are incontrovertibly right.

I really agree with this and I think the tone that some professionals on here have adopted can be alienating to those who are not immersed in that culture, although I'm sure it must be frustrating to see events misrepresented.

As a former journalist and current PR professional, it's a very interesting debate to see and one that has to be won, if it can be won, by patience towards towards those that are not familiar with legal process and who won't see things with the dispassionate eye which is so prized.

It is such an emotive case and shines a light on things that most people instinctively do not know happen. You can be separated from your baby because of SMI? Forever? the Police can take babies from hospital bedsides? Although a judge says that you are better now and that you clearly love your child - predictions about your future health state means that your baby will be adopted against your will? That this child will be adopted in the UK and, presumably, now have little or no access to her Italian roots and family?

It may well be routine or at least non-remarkable, or even in the best interest of the child but to outsiders; it all seems extraordinary.

the mail is quoting the views of someone who was not well at the time and it is very poor of them to do so. look at for example interviews with stephen fry and others - they would openly say how unwell they were during episodes and that what they said and thought at the time was not reality.... of course the knowledge she had a baby while unwelll must be horrible for her. but focusing on the c section doesnt do her any favours when the ruling suggests there was sufficient medical evidence to have to have it done. it would have been inhumane to ignore and elt her give birth and possibly suffer a ruptiure.

the Mail could equally be running the story from their usual single mother /illegal immigrants / nhs tourists /benefits seeeking angle:

"single mother of two from TWO different fathers came to england against medical advice while heavily pregnant with her THIRD baby from a THIRd father who is a senagalese illegal immigrant in italy who wants to come to england to taek advantage of our luxurious benefits system. she hoped thet by giving birth in england, essex county coucil would give her and her baby a flat and she would get housing benefit and benefits for her and her baby and her illegal immigrant husband.

but things went wrong and she was forced to have a caesarean then it came to light her two other children by two different fathers had been removed from her care already. the womans mother said she had tried to stop her but she had stopped taking medication for a psychotic illness and was always running off doing wild things, like getting pregnant with different men. but the grandmother said she could not take on another one of her own daughter's offspring.

there are questions over why she was allowed to fly to england so heavily pregnant and why she wasnt sent immediately back home instead of taking advantage of the nhs system as an nhs tourist. "our nhs and benefits system is just too easy," grumbled mr. M>P> . "we should close our borders to illegal immigrants and heavily pregnant women. " now the baby is being cared for at great cost to our system over here. "this is another case of our system being seen as an easy touch"

the poor woman is not a well person by all accounts, she is now being exploited by the mail et al.

working, I could give you an example of children taken away because of the "trauma" their parents are supposed to have inflicted on them, children who are the happiest, confident, secure children you could meet. When the GAL saw the mother and her eldest playing together nicely she called it codependancy and proof of how damaged the child was. Don't go on that children aren't removed for the trauma caused to them!

claig: nennypops, all newspapers get facts wrong on many stories because in the beginning they don't always have access to the full facts

The point is that the Mail wrote grandly about having seen the documents, including the judgment in the adoption hearing, and still went ahead and reported facts that we know to be absolutely untrue. They clearly had no evidence that social services authorised the C-section, and a quick call to a lawyer would have demonstrated that that would be incredibly unlikely; indeed, they seem to have been in touch with the woman's own lawyer, who could have confirmed the true facts - that element wouldn't be confidential. So what possible justification could they have had for reporting it in those terms?

They really don't have to report what are, I am afraid, further untrue statements by the mother (or at least not without pointing out that they are untrue); also, given that they claim to have access to her, why aren't they checking the facts further by getting the relevant reports and documents from her? It would be very illuminating to see some of the medical reports, then we would know whether she is right in claiming that she wasn't really ill when she was sectioned. Certainly the judge thought she was two months later.

What really concerns me is what this must be doing to her mental health, not least in terms of giving her false hope. When she goes round talking about the British authorities "invading her body" and "planning to adopt her baby from the beginning" it does, I am afraid, demonstrate that she is now buying into conspiracy theories which will not help to demonstrate that her mental health is stable, or her ability to parent her baby properly. And I strongly suspect that, if she had not been wound up by all the papers, she would not be saying these things.

You can be separated from your baby because of SMI? Forever? the Police can take babies from hospital bedsides? Although a judge says that you are better now and that you clearly love your child - predictions about your future health state means that your baby will be adopted against your will?

Well, yes. Does anyone really think you might not be separated from your baby if, for instance, you have a mental illness which means you think voices are telling you to kill her? Or that police might not be involved if, for instance, there is evidence that you are so ill that you might harm the baby at any time? Obviously the judge thought that inappropriate in this case, but it might arise if, for instance, there is reason to believe the mother might take an ill baby out of hospital or hand her over to a paedophile.

I do think the issue about the mother's future health is very clearly set out in the judgment. She has bipolar disorder and a history of stopping her medication resulting in very severe manic relapses. She has said before that she understood her illness and would not stop her meds but in practice, because of the evils of that illness, she has done so. We know that the Italian authorities decided she was not safe to look after her older children. As things stand at present, there is unfortunately no guarantee that she will continue taking her medication or indeed that that medication will continue to be effective. Would you entrust a baby of yours to a woman in that situation? That picture might change in future, but you can't leave the child in limbo for years to see whether that happens.

I never said that all decisions made by HCPs/SS were right and fair all the time. I did blow the whistle at my fomer trust (and it is my former workplace because I was bullied out of my post for whislteblowing) so I am aware of malpractice and certainly no apologist for it.

What I will say is that this woman is being exploited by those with a self glorying agenda who will look for trouble with a microscope and when they don't find it, spin a story out of nowhere.

We don't know how much insight this woman has into her own condition and medical history. We don't know whether her memory of the events before and after the birth is complete or accurate. We have to read what she has told the media with that very much in mind. Just as we don't know how accurate or insightful are the opinions and judgments of the people involved.

Beyond some basic facts, there is no absolute truth in these cases. We have to make inferential judgments about probabilities, and about the credibility of people involved.

Which is precisely what judges are trained to do, and why their judgments should carry weight unless there is shown to be some specific reason to doubt them.

But technically they did invade her body and take her child as a CS was performed against her wishes and a care order applied for the next day when the baby was born. Against her wishes and also the recommendations of her doctors. No MBU.

We don't actually know that the CS was against her wishes. After all, she consented to two previous C sections. The point is that, if she did consent, they still had to get court authorisation because they could not know that that was properly informed and reasoned consent. Sure, the care order was against her wishes but she was again legally represented. We know that she was very seriously mentally ill so it would be wrong to assume that she was capable of looking after the baby even if an MBU place was available.

Exactly Nenny.