Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services! II

999 replies

saragossa2010 · 03/12/2013 21:09

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.

OP posts:
DrankSangriaInThePark · 05/12/2013 15:11

Claig- (it's me Bucharest, your old sparring partner btw) I can tell you what the Italian TV news has said about it.......diddley squat.

Actually, that's not completely true. On Sunday evening, there was the "it appears that has happened, the Farnesina (Foreign Office) are looking into it".

On Monday (after the press, as Lake has shown in various posts, basically translated and re-churned the Mail/Telegraph stories) the story was in the last 10 mins of the 30 min news programme (after economic crisis, Berlusca, what we are buying for Christmas this year and the Pope, but before the footy) The item went something along the lines of "while it was initially thought that it has transpired that

Maryz · 05/12/2013 15:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CarpeVinum · 05/12/2013 15:28

What I will say is that this woman is being exploited

Not just exploiting. They are aiding and abetting a relapse. Mania can be induced. There needs to be a certain amount of emotional calmess maintained in order to maintain stability. The woman is already in pain, you add to that masses of "false friend" media attention, (who are euqally capetble of turning on her in a few days time in order to eek more page hits out of a story), noterity..... it's a fucking recipie to destabalise. The second she wobbles under the intense attention grandiosity (it's a symtom, not an indication of her character) can whirl out of control, being pointed out/at can feed the seeds of paranoia, being publically cricsized can cause profound depression laced with self loathing.

Perfectly (lifelong) stable people can fall over emotionally when under public scrutiny. It doesn't take much to comprehend that somebody who is mentally and emotionally fragile can end up cycling one way or the other as an outcome.

Even if the media attention doesn't undo all her hardwon stability the sudden void when she is yesterday's news, where nothing has changed, except she no longer enjoys relative anonymity and freedom from all her private life being in the public domain, could kick her into flux.

DrankSangriaInThePark · 05/12/2013 15:33

That latest DM would be risible if it weren't such an awful thing.

So in June she was 4 months pregnant and the child was born at almost full term in August? They can't even fucking count.

Wannabestepfordwife · 05/12/2013 15:45

I hope if the mother does relapse then jh will resign for his part in the media furrore but I very much doubt it- odious little man

AmyMumsnet · 05/12/2013 15:46

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your reports. We've been through the thread to delete personal attacks, but please do report anything you'd like us to take a second look at.

In the meantime we'd appreciate it if you could keep your posts within the talk guidelines.

Maryz · 05/12/2013 15:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

working9while5 · 05/12/2013 15:52

"I don't understand why anybody would think mania, paranoia and psychosis 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."

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that it often is ignored. There was a major uproar on the mh boards the other week when I said I felt that a person self-harming when solely responsible for a child might be a safeguarding concern. Apparently it has "nothing" to do with child welfare. You will note that addiction and alcoholism are often frequently ignored wrt child welfare also, certainly they are in comparison with dv as though it's absolutely fine to live neglected in a house with someone unpredictable and unavailable but if they so much as raise a hand to you it's suddenly a wholly different kettle of fish. I see huge inconsistencies in response with some of my child clients really let down by services who minimise their suffering because they have parents "engaging" with mh teams or addiction teams (even though they are actually not currently able to provide best care for their children). I have no doubt there may be very heavy-handed responses in some areas and far too much leniency in others.

I personally had the experience of having my own mh interfere with my ability to provide optimal care for my second son. I was heavily engaged with mh services at the time and doing everything possible e.g. had been going to weekly CBT from when he was 10 days old, having CPN visits, all sorts... but communication, as Spero says, was appalling between teams. Early on I had a crisis about my son losing weight (breastfed) and my mh team decided it wasn't in my interests for me to weigh my son as I had OCD about it (and quite severely) and communicated this to the community team including midwifery and HV etc who basically totally "backed off" and ceased to even suggest he should be weighed.

In my anxious and depressed state, I totally misunderstood this as meaning there was no risk to my son, that the greatest risk was my anxiety. My husband was never informed nor was I that actually there was good reason to think that he wasn't thriving and that choosing not to weigh might impact on him. It was literally just left because the mh team decided, out of absolutely NOWHERE, that it would be "dealt with in CBT" and communicated this to the child health team (but never mentioned this to the CBT therapist, me or my husband). I never even realised they considered it was a key anxiety because I saw them telling the community team to back off as "justification" that weighing him was unnecessary as I was fixated on that at the time. Meanwhile, I was busily using my CBT sessions to deal with my fear of contamination on public transport and doing well with it.

Randomly when he was 20 weeks old, I went somewhere and a mother with a child the same age as mine made a comment to me about how skinny my baby was and suggested I have him weighed. I was much more stable at that point as had had five months of therapy and meds etc and it was a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes, I suddenly looked at him and saw that actually he was very thin looking. I went to the next baby clinic where it turned out he was on point of hospitalisation, having dropped from 91st centile to 0.4 of a centile. I totally FREAKED to the point I just shored up at MBU asking them to take him off me as I couldn't care for him and I had clearly totally failed. To this day I can't remember how I got from the doctor's surgery to MBU but I know I was not in my body and I can imagine that wildly wandering about with my son I was not very safe Sad.

The CPN who I had trusted absolutely sat there and said to me: "well isn't it just as well you realised this on your own terms as if we had had to involve external agencies, it would have been very uncomfortable for you"....

They had NEVER EVER suggested to me there were ANY concerns about his weight to the extent I had complained about the midwifery team insisting on weights after their recommendation and had a written and verbal apology! I 100% believed what I was doing was in both our interests when actually, I was really not making a clear or rational decision and I was actually putting him at risk by not paying more attention to his feeding and weight.

It is a source of great pain to me, as someone who has been committed to child development professionally for my whole life, that my own mental health issues put my baby at risk at a time I genuinely believed I was doing everything necessary to protect us both. I think in many ways, the adult team just didn't see the risks to my son... they were so fixated on my wellbeing and on psychological risks.. the CPN had sat there challenging me in home sessions when I said he looked like he had no fat on his head because to her I was obsessing, meanwhile he was wasting away...

And so... despite what I said above... I do understand that adult mh services can be very adult-centric at the expense of a child's well-being and though my case was (in the grand scheme of things) very, very minor... and there were no long-term ill-effects, it was a sobering lesson to learn about miscommunication between adult and child teams. I still have to do a lot of meditation and work on it because the pain of that time is quite raw. There's something unbelievable and unspeakable about the idea that your mind could betray you so badly wrt caring for your own child... and I "only" had OCD/PND.

It's all a very thorny and sad area.

Spero · 05/12/2013 15:57

Claig but do you really not see the distinction between freedom of speech and the responsibility not to spread dangerous lies and misinformation?

I understand that sometimes we have to experiment to see which side of the line we fall, but this is the Daily Mail exploiting a very vulnerable woman for the sake of advertising revenue.

It is sickening.

LakeDistrictBabe · 05/12/2013 15:59

Claig

I have to admit that after 1600 posts on mumsnet it wad downright impossible to have written your lasts posts....

Honestly! You are still reading the Daily Mail and its rubbish? Hmm

I agree with Maryz there... You don't appear to even understand what we are discussing....

You are still going back to the same old same old refrain nearly every page......

Italy system:

  • family courts act differently, as Carpe noted in the last pages. *The fact that the mother was deprived of custody of two other children speaks volume! In Italy they NEVER, NEVER give a child to somebody else than the mother, even abused and raped ones sometimes. There must be danger of possible serious harm or even death.
  • the president of Italy... Pfft! With a country going bankrupt, would you care? Super ROFL
  • the lady has three children from three different fathers. In Italy a woman like is considered like a "pr*tute". The Catholic prejudice is running high everywhere. She is lucky if after outing herself someone doesn't try to lynch her in the street. And if they don't get to that fanatic extremism, probably someone has already painted a giant "w**re" on her car!

Did I make myself clear this time? :/

@Dranksangriainthepark. Yes, my mum said the same after lunch, she didn't hear anything mentioned on the news. Surely this lady lost all the available support when she decided to give exclusive interviews. I am amazed she didn't end up on Novella 2000...,,

Wannabestepfordwife · 05/12/2013 16:07

maryz I don't think you should have been deleted as I don't think you have attacked anyone but I don't think it's to do with jh or I would have been deleted

LakeDistrictBabe · 05/12/2013 16:09

@Maryz

I am personally reporting all links to John Hemming blog because, as an Italian citizen, I find deeply offensive what he is doing to one of my fellow countrywoman.

Please, if anyone wants to help, let's all report him and block him from spreading stupid lies.

It seems that the Italian embassy, yesterday, unofficially declared that they were highly embarrassed by the stupid charade mounted by this man.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:19

'Claig but do you really not see the distinction between freedom of speech and the responsibility not to spread dangerous lies and misinformation?'

Spero, this is the freedom of speech of the mother to speak about what happened according to her. As far as I know, that is not against Italian law, and our newspapers have interviewed her too, so I presume it is not against our law.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:20

'You are still reading the Daily Mail and its rubbish?'

It makes mistakes and got some facts wrong, but I don't think it is ALL rubbish.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:21

'The fact that the mother was deprived of custody of two other children speaks volume'

But what decision did Italian SS make about this child?

exexpat · 05/12/2013 16:21

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:23

How many fathers there are and 'Catholic prejudice' should not affect her rights as a citizen of an EU country.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:26

'my mum said the same after lunch, she didn't hear anything mentioned on the news. Surely this lady lost all the available support when she decided to give exclusive interviews'

I think that is sad and shameful of Italian media. I am glad our media do not take the same view.

AngelaDaviesHair · 05/12/2013 16:27

But what decision did Italian SS make about this child?

As far as I can tell, they decided not to make any decision at all, because it was for the English court to determine what should happen to her. Which seems right-the child was not an Italian national, no one had applied to make her one, and the Italian mother was already represented in the proceedings.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:31

I have not said this case is a stitch-up or a conspiracy. I think there are valid questions that are being asked by the media and the mother about how it came to happen. I understand that the law was followed, but laws do change over time and people do question whether the law is as good as it can be.

LakeDistrictBabe · 05/12/2013 16:32

@exexpat I guess you are right.

@claig my English is surely far from perfect, but if you had carefully read my posts, first you could read the number of the fathers (3), second you would have seen that Italian authorities dismissed this case as being under British jurisdiction after the baby was born, therefore... For the umpteenth time, there is no conspiracy, Italians DON'T care or WON'T do anything for this child.
Italian audiences are even less concerned than the authorities because in the eyes of a socially prejudice Italian (which is the 95% of the population) this lady "behaved" in a morally unacceptable way.

I think I explained that in the most polite way possible Claig.

CarpeVinum · 05/12/2013 16:37

In Italy a woman like is considered like a "pr*tute"

Until you sit down and explain (several times becuase whereever people come from there is still some resistence) that having three children by three fathers with whom neither you or your children have an on going relationship (in a country where that is incredibly rare) is actually a consequence of the symptoms of severe bipolar I.

It's an uncomfortable truth that hypersexuality can be a feature of mania, as is scarily reckless behavoir of the promiscious kind. In some women it results in multiple pregancnies with men they barely know, who may have taken gross advantage of them in an only too apparent vulnerable state.

Having resuced my mother in law several times in her 60s and 70s when manic and hypersexual, I personally found it wasn't the case that the men involved don't notice notice the degree of impairment, just that some of them don't care if impairment is present all that much. Even when it is spelled out to them at the top of your voice with threats of police. Some of them are reluctant to give up on their "lucky day" until the police actually do rouse themselves enough to actually turn up.

working9while5

I am so sorry I appear to misread what you wrote. I have to go to work and I don't want to dash off a reply to what must have been a deeply painful post to write, one that is highly relevant to the central topic of the thread. I'd like to reply with more thought when I get back, but didn't want it to appearhat I hadn't read or acknowledged what you have written.

claig · 05/12/2013 16:38

'As far as I can tell, they decided not to make any decision at all, because it was for the English court to determine what should happen to her.'

This is why it involves the rights of citizens of one country and whether another country can make decsions that affect the children of that citizen. The mother committed no crime in England, she did not break any of our laws.

Could a similar thing happen to a British citizen in another country and would our media not ask questions of our Prime Minister if it did?

ClairesTravellingCircus · 05/12/2013 16:39

Angela the baby is an Italian national, but it seems from reports that theitalian courts recognised the UK ones had jurisdiction over this case.

This is what comes up from the newspapers.