Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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:
ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 03/12/2013 23:37

Claig, for the purposes of the judgement, the reasons why she was in the UK are immaterial. The judgement relates to "what will we do with the child in front of us, here and now". It's not an enquiry

JaquelineHyde · 03/12/2013 23:37

Claig I think the fact that the judgement makes it clear that she wasn't on a training course. If she was there obviously would be nothing to be unclear about.

It is extremely likely that this woman in the midst of her illness jumped on a plane with no valid reason. She possibly told relatives she was going on a training course just so she could escape. Maybe she was so scared of having her baby removed in Italy due to other care proceedings that she was trying to escape and give birth in secret here.

The fact is we don't know why she was in the UK, the only person who does will be her. Therefore, the judge has no choice but to say that it is all unclear.

claw2 · 03/12/2013 23:38

Madame, can I ask you a question now please?

What is your experience with dealing with social services?

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 03/12/2013 23:39

Ah, I had missed the not actually on a training course bit

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 03/12/2013 23:41

Maybe she was so scared of having her baby removed in Italy due to other care proceedings that she was trying to escape and give birth in secret here

This was a thought that went through my mind earlier. I have heard of mothers that have moved counties to try to avoid a baby being removed at birth

claig · 03/12/2013 23:41

"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."

Agree nenny. The judgement leaves out a lot of stuff that is not directly related to the decision. Maybe a lot of the detail is not relevant in law.

JaquelineHyde · 03/12/2013 23:42

Christmas I don't want to mislead you at all with my wording. What I meant was that to me it is clear she was not on a training course because of the terminology the judge used. ie if she was on a work training course it would have been easy to verify and so there would be no 'unclear' about it.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

claig · 03/12/2013 23:42

Is there cross examination of witnesses and medical staff to determine a timeline of what medication was given, what treatment etc?

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 03/12/2013 23:43

well the judgement wasn't written for the entertainment of sofa commentators on mumsnet

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 23:44

None on my own behalf or that of my child.

Family who are sws in the area of fostering and adoption.

and other encounters. Not all positive. But mostly.

I have extensive experience both in my own family and professionally of caring with children with SEN.

I have extensive experience due community involvement and working in school regarding children on CP orders.

I have had to accompany several friends/and or acquaintances to be sectioned.

I have acted as an appropriate adult for others.

claw2 · 03/12/2013 23:44

Nenny - What I am implying to me according to what has been writing, particularly by the judge at the time and very shortly after by Italian dr's it would seem the woman was very ill at the time and shouldn't have been allowed to make decisions for herself regarding her return home and diminishing any prospects of getting her child back.

Whether she would have went on to actually get her child back or not, is irrelevant. Authorities cannot change someone mental state to suit and it seems to me this is what they did.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 23:45

claig, that would not be pertinent to publish in the adoption order.

The mother is free to publish all details of her medical treatment if she so wishes.

Is this not clear enough yet?

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 23:46

what one earth do you mean by saying the authorities changed her mental status to suit...

it doesn't even make sense as a sentence. please explain.

claig · 03/12/2013 23:47

' It's not an enquiry'

Ok, I understand now.

But how can the mother appeal if there is no enquiry? We hear she pleaded with the judge to let her keep her child, but can she her lawyer question the staff who treated her?

Can her legal team question the process carried out from when she called the police onwards to determine if every step was carried out observing her rights or if any mistakes in process were made or can she not ask any of that?

claig · 03/12/2013 23:49

"The mother is free to publish all details of her medical treatment if she so wishes.

Is this not clear enough yet?"

But can she challenge the treatment she was given, can she question the process etc?

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 23:49

The judge simply noted that he felt she was still very unwell, and should have stayed for more treatment in the UK.

He was not sitting in judgement on her mental capacity to participate in the court proceedings. That judgement would have been made by her doctors, who did not seek to retain control of her. The doctors must have judged that, although still very unwell, she was recovered enough to be a meaningful participant in the proceedings in october.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 23:50

she could always sue them. I suppose.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 23:51

But until she publishes those details, it is all pure speculation as to the rights and wrongs of the c section order, or her treatment by the pyschiatric team looking after her.

cestlavielife · 03/12/2013 23:51

There is a threshold for being sectioned.

There is a threshold for having capacity to make certain decisions. Mental capacity act etc. others will know more but I think there is a point at. Which the patient is no longer sectioned therefore can leave and go freely... but may still be unwell.

My ex produced letter from go saying he was too ill anxiety and depression to attend court hearings over contact with dc but the judge didn't accept he didn't have capacity to attend the court. (And he certainly wasn't in the crisis state he had been previously, but he wasn't "well" either. )

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 03/12/2013 23:53

Claig,
Care orders are not made as an acknowledgement that professionals acted correctly. Children are not handed back as a reward for being a wronged parent

Care orders are imposed with only one question in mind- what is the best option that will lead to the optimum outcome for the child.All the judge is interested in is securing a stable, secure home for the child. Rather like a family judge dealing with an acrimonious divorce, they are not there to find guilt. Simply deal with the fallout in a fair way.

claw2 · 03/12/2013 23:54

Madame, she wasn't a meaningful participant, quite the opposite in the judgement the judge states the totally opposite.

"I have to say that when the mother appeared before me at that time she did not appear to be at all well, and I am surprised that it was being claimed that she had legal capacity. I was led to believe that the mother was in a good state and a good frame of mind but frankly nothing could have been further from the truth"

cestlavielife · 03/12/2013 23:55

Not everyone who is me tally unwell is sectioned.
So it is quite probable that at some point she no longer sectioned and judge has therefore no powers to hold her from making what may not be rational decisions.

ChristmasCareeristBitchNigel · 03/12/2013 23:56

indeed, she could get 5 years down the line, every court in Europe could rule that she was outrageously unfairly treated but this is still unlikely to result in the child being returned as this would be an incredibly traumatic event for a child that never knew her mother.

The sole interest of the judge is the protection of the minor

claig · 03/12/2013 23:58

"Care orders are not made as an acknowledgement that professionals acted correctly."

Can she have independent evaluation of her mental state by a medical team appointed by her? Does anyone ask if thr professionals acted correctly or are their reports the only evidence looked at?

nennypops · 03/12/2013 23:59

claig, yes, there are processes for challenging the section, challenging the decision to operate, and appeal against the care orders. The interesting thing is that the mother seems to have used none of them till the newspapers got involved, which suggests she accepted the court orders previously.