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.

the judgement says 'despatched (indeed escorted) NOT deported.

where does what say deported?

Ok ive added it to the list

June mother is detained and sectioned for 5/6 weeks, the reasons for being sectioned are unclear

August mother has unusual order of forced c/s followed by LA proceeding with interim order upon birth

October mother is reported to have regained legal capacity, although Judge says when she appeared before him she didn't seem at all well and he was surprised that it was being claimed she had legal capacity. mother wants to go back to Italy Mother is 'despatched' indeed escorted out of UK, diminishing any prospect of getting her child back. When arrives in Italy dr's report she is in a very poor mental state.

February mother returns from Italy for court hearing and same judge comments she is extremely well, clear and articulate etc custody is awarded to LA.

I will add that I find it strange that although her legal capacity and state of mind was questionable in October, she was allowed to make this decision for herself, against all advice.

According to reports when in a similar state ie not legally capable of decision making, when taken to hospital she asked to return to her hotel and wasn't allowed to.

But that is just my opinion.

'Judge really sorry, but has to make judgement for the best interests of the baby in these circumstances.'

Yes, that is why the mother has apparently hired lawyers and seeks to challenge the decision. I guess it now comes down to the fine points of the law.

claig, you rightly query why it can't be established whether the mother was on a course or not. Maybe the fact she hasn't apparently been able to produce evidence demonstrates that she just might be wrong about that?

Under the section immediately after being taken to hospital (which legal force would last for 72 hours) she was deemed by medical staff to be a danger to herself and or others.

Her legal capacity to make a judgement re her health care regarding the c section would have been a one-off judgement.

If after several months she had recovered enough (nobody is saying cured or really well) to no longer be a danger to herself, she will have been assessed as to whether she was capable of taking part meaningfully in the first court session regarding the baby.

So if she wants to go back to Italy she can.

You will note that the period in question covers over 8 months.

Madame in that case a mental break down does sound similar, a 9 year old trying to throw himself out of the window, stab himself, head butt walls and attacking me etc

Surprisingly enough with child protection turning up at my house trying to force him out of the door to return to school in his mental state, telling him he is a 'law breaker' for being too unfit to attend school and also the subject of a mental health safety plan and signed off from school too.

Its amazing what SS get so very wrong!

"Very intrusive paranoid delusions "

Behaviour which "terrorised " her other child.

This is more than a "panic attack " .

We can only imagine the behaviour but these imply non rational thinking and not just an inward depression type breakdown...

I witnessed my ex stabbing himself with kitchen knives, throwing and smashing things, saying he wanted to die, pacing, etc etc... yes frothing at mouth etc.... Then turning around and saying he was going to drive to pick up the dc from school... And stating that he was "fine" . It is mind blowing to witness. And trying to stop him getting in car to drive etc was v difficult.

I can imagine the police saying to her "we going to get your baby checked " because it was the only way to rationalise with her that they were trying to help...

Re the american "relative" Given that the children don't have the same father and the two in Italy have not presumably met their half sibling, the notion of "keeping them altogether" is a little unrealistic. Sad yes and hopefully they would when older be able to trace their sibling, but being carted off to usa just so they can be with a half sibling they never met is perhaps not well thought out. ...

"Claig, keeping all three children together in the care of the US woman would entail taking the older two from the home where they have been settled for almost 3 years. How would that conceivably be a good idea?"

It seems that the woman's lawyers in Italy were discussing the adoptio of teh other two children by the American Aunt. I guess that would be something for the Italian SS to decide and would not be a concern of British SS. Surely British SS only has a say in what happens to the child born in England.

However, since the American Aunt is not kin, then that was a factor in not proceeding with that, even though a UK citizen is also not kin. But there may be a legal obligation to proceed like that. I don't know.

That sounds absolutely horrific for you both claw, I am very very sorry that happened to you and the little boy in your care.

No one is saying ss never get it wrong.

But I cannot see where they have got it wrong in this instance.

I read the judgement which was both clear and compassionate.

Whilst I agree with the judgement (and who could not?) I am worried by the enforced CS. Would it really not have been possible for a natural birth?

wetaugust Yes someone experiencing a bi-polar episode would be able to make a phone call.

My sister has paranoid psychosis and one of the things she does a lot when she is experiencing an episode is engage with the police. She calls them sometimes ranting and raving about them watching her etc, sometimes as calm as can be making bizarre accusations against them and other innocent people she knows.

I have been called by the police to sit with her at the police station and when she has refused to voluntarily be assessed at the hospital I have watched her be forcibly detained and taken to the cells for assessment.

Claw2, we don't know the reasons the mother was sectioned because the authorities aren't allowed to reveal them. Interestingly, despite the fact that she's gone running to the Italian papers, she doesn't seem to have shown them the papers which would give those reasons However, we know that the normal criteria for this are that she must have been seriously mentally ill, and that she had previously been subject to the equivalent in Italy three times.

You seem to imply that there is something dubious about this, yet you fully accept that she was very ill at the point when she returned to Italy. I must admit to being very confused as to what point you are trying to make, apart from being fairly desperate to find anything that might support a conspiracy theory.

And what about the father's of the two older children? They don't seem to feature in the adoption debate. The one who must be the sibling of the Aunt doesn't seem that keen to look after his own daughter, let alone his daughter's half siblings.

The enforced c-section would have been subject to a separate order, which the mother would have the full right to disclose as it regards her physical health.

She has chosen not to do so. Therefore we can only guess at the circumstances which led to the medical practitioners making an application for the c section to be undertaken at that time.

Not a very fruitful exercise. Perhaps her legal team would like to advise her to put those proceedings into the public domain?

Until she does we will never know. But it is in her hands entirely.

Earningsthread, there could have been all sorts of reasons why a Caesar was necessary, for instance if the mother had pre-eclampsia or placenta praevia. If she was too ill to give valid consent they would have had to get a court order authorising it. As a matter of law this could only have been ordered if the court was fully satisfied that it was in the mother's best interests.

"claig, you rightly query why it can't be established whether the mother was on a course or not. Maybe the fact she hasn't apparently been able to produce evidence demonstrates that she just might be wrong about that?"

Possibly. But there must be records of when she entered on a flight and hotel bills etc and if she claimed to be on a course but there was no evidence of that, then shouldn't the judgement have stated that clearly rather than saying

"In circumstances which are not entirely clear to me, the mother came to the United Kingdom in 2012"

It is a judgement, not a bleeding timeline of every single action taken in the case.

Would someone experiencing a full-blown bi-polar episode that necessitated her admission to a psychiatric hospital be caable of making a phone call to the Police, in a foreign county

Nicola Edginton called the Met 3 or 4 times asking to be sectioned in the immediate run up to the schizophrenic episode that concluded in her pretty much decapitating Sally Hodkin at a busstop.

So yes, I would conclude that it was very possible, given that she was attending a training course in the UK and would therefore presumably be very conversant in English.

The judge didn't have to make findings about each and every detail in the background facts. He was only concerned with facts relevant to the adoption decision, and the background events leading to the mother's illness wouldn't be relevant to that.

The last paragraph is very sad, I would not like to be the judge in this case:

If in later life P reads this judgment, as she may well do, I hope that she will appreciate that her mother in particular loved her and wished for her to return to live with her and to bring her up. It is not her fault, nor P's that that was not possible and that a predictable home could only be secured by way of adoption. P should know that the mother very much wished to parent her and bring her up and I hope that that is some small comfort both to the mother and also to P.

Claw2 your experience with the 9 year old does sound like a lot of people, getting things wrong. Wen a child does not go to school a lot of people get the wrong end of the stick. I have experienced this with my own dd.

In this case tho we are talking about an adult. - the mother - and whether she is fit to have the child in her care and there Appears to be a lot of history and reasons why it might not work.
And why for the baby the sad reality is that a stable upbringing may come from being adopted...

It s about how much insight the mother has into her condition. The fact the judgement says she was profoundly unwell But she says she did not consent to c section as tho she was perfectly fine is telling...

So at this moment in time the only things we are unsure of are that

a) the circumstances of her arrival in the uk are unclear

and

b) the circumstances surrounding the c section can only be revealed by the mother, which she has so far chosen not to do.

and possibly c) a blow by blow account of communication between ss here and in Italy.

we really need the mother to publish the full details of the judgement regarding the c section to indulge our prurient curiosity get to the bottom of why it happened.

which she can do.