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.

claw2, what posters are against people questioning this? What I can see on here is a lot of incredibly patient people giving answers to people who don't seem to want to have those answers because they don't fit with their preconceptions - but no-one is stopping them asking those questions again and again.

I'm here as someone who has a great many reservations about social workers and who has seen them doing some hateful things. However, what I hate even more is papers like the DM and Telegraph blatantly distorting the facts to suit their own agenda. What makes this case particularly stark is that, to do so, they are exploiting an incredibly vulnerable woman and her children.

So it does really concern me when people posting on here are so eager to accept their version of the facts uncritically when it was obvious from the start that it couldn't be the whole story and it has now become clear that it wasn't. I will criticise social workers and the family court system with the rest of you when they deserve it, but I'm not going to assume they're in the wrong automatically. In this incredibly difficult case the available facts suggest they weren't

Oh I see Nenny, so you, along with some others are in possession of more facts than anyone else to be able to answer those questions?

I see a lot of assumptions. For example the woman would have had legal representation at the c/s hearing.

The assumption that the woman would not have been given a c/s unless she needed it is another example.

The assumption that the woman isn't being truthful, but the authorities are etc, etc.

All of which none of us know for a fact.

claw, Yes, I think we do know she would have been represented at the application for a Caesarian. That is because, as someone lacking capacity, she would automatically have been referred to the Official a Solicitor, who in turn would have appointed independent solicitors to represent her if her family had not done so.

We also know that that the law requires that an order of that type would not have been made unless the court was absolutely satisfied that it was in the mother's interests. Why should we assume that the judge and the doctors collectively went mad and ignored that duty? And why should we assume that her lawyers would have allowed them to do so and wouldn't have run straight to the Court of Appeal?

As for the mother, what we do know is that she could prove the facts by releasing the relevant papers, but isn't doing so.

It's not that the woman is not being truthful, it's that she had a severe mental illness at the time of these horrible events. You seem to have limited knowledge of being sectioned and the level of unwellness one needs to be sectioned, not just for section 2 of 28 days, but it sounds like it was extended to section 3 which is serious.

I would also point out that it is hardly arrogant to say that posters like Spero clearly do know more than others about this subject.

Is it mentioned anywhere whether or not the other children were born by caesarean? Because Italy has one of the highest rates in the world for C-section births. (In some regions it is higher than 60% and the health authorities have been roundly bollocked by the WHO for doing so many unnecessary ones.) Is it possible that the C-section, forced or otherwise, was done simply because her other children had been born by section?

Nenny I think we are all aware of what should have happened, however what everyone, including yourself are unclear on, as we do not know it for a fact, is did it happen and/or did it happen fairly and justly.

Mistakes are made, is the point.

Been following both threads but snorted with derision the moment a poster suggested that they could also have taken a kidney at the same time without the woman's knowledge.

Some days have gone on now and surprise surprise other facts like "severe mental illness" and "two previous children removed in Italy" have come to light.

It's right that questions are asked but the whole scale condemnation of SS by a bunch of women and the obligatory John Hemming who were not there when decisions were made and who don't know all the facts is laughable.....if it wasn't so bloody stupid.

Hey let's ban removal of babies eh......let's leave those vulnerable babies and watch what happens.

Trust me the squealers on this thread would be louder then as they see the damage and death which results!

Candy what makes you say I have limited knowledge of being sectioned? Do you have more knowledge of being sectioned?

Its fairly easy to google and comprehensible www.rethink.org/living-with-mental-illness/mental-health-laws/mental-health-act-1983/sections-2-3-4-5

claw, yet again: why would we assume that in this case alone there was a collective decision by at least two judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, social workers, the Italian authorities, and the woman's own family to ignore the law?

And why do you accept the Mail version so readily when not only are they failing to provide any evidence, we know that there is evidence that disproves several important aspects of what they say?

As you can see Candy from the link, section 2 follows a section 3, it does not necessarily mean 'its more serious' just a criteria for admission and detainment.

Exactly Nenny. But it seems some posters almost want there to have been faults, they are critisising other people for jumping to conclusions when they are pretty much doing that assuming all the proffessionals involved have got it wrong/not tried hard enough etc.

I'm still a bit gobsmacked by claw's suggestion that there could have been a mistake leading to the Caesarian order being nodded through. That would have required -

1. Psychiatrists to lie in court about her lacking mental capacity to give consent, thus risking their careers and their liberty.
2. Obstetricians to make up a story about her need for a Caesar and again commit perjury with the same risks.
3. A judge in the Court of Protection, which deals every day with people lacking mental capacity, to have failed to notice that the patient hadn't been referred to the Official Solicitor and was unrepresented.
4. The lawyers acting for the hospital, whose overriding duty is to the court, not their client, also to have failed to notice that fact or to have decided to lie about it, again risking their careers and their liberty.

Are you really saying that could have happened? If so, I ask again - why?

Nenny, Im not saying that the Law was ignored, I wouldn't as I do not know this for a fact.

I don't accept the Mail version. I don't accept the LA version, as neither have provided any evidence. I am saying mistakes can made, it is all a bit murkey, it is a possibility and im keeping an open mind.

Which evidence disproves anything?

Sirzy see more assumptions!

Please point out where posters are saying all the proffessionals involved have got it wrong/not tried hard enough etc?

Nenny - where did I say that there was a mistake and c/s was nodded through?

Again with the assumptions and defensiveness!

Did you not yourself proclaim not enough had been done to help her yesterday? Yet you have no evidence of that you just assumed that was the case.

Plenty of people have been saying mistakes must have been made, that it should never have happened etc etc but we can not possibly know that is true.

Sirzy, I stated yesterday that I couldn't help but feel the 'system' had let this woman down. I didn't state it was a fact and I think it was pretty obvious that was an opinion. The basis for this opinion, was if the 'system' hadn't let her done, maybe she wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Exactly Sirzy, mistakes MAY have been made, we don't know that is true, but we don't know that mistakes were not made either!

down

I am quite open to the fact that mistakes may not have been made. Given that none of us are in possession of the full facts, why are some posters finding it so hard to accept the possibility that mistake may have been made?

who has said that no mistakes could have been made though? Nobody has, just because people are nit picking every possible little error that could have been made and speculating about it doesn't mean they aren't accepting that errors could have been made along the way more realistic enough to realise that if something has gone through that many people over such a time scale then perhaps just perhaps it is actually the right thing based of the view of the many proffessionals who have been involved.

Clinical services respecting the confidentiality of the mother and child by not divulging information to all and sundry does not equal murky.

Stating otherwise is extremely unhelpful jumping to conclusions.

Jake - I snorted at the kidney removal part too.

Sirzy oh good, so we are all agreed then that mistakes may or may not have been made.

Now lets focus on the facts. How many professionals and which professionals were involved?

Claw - does patient confidentiality have no meaning to you?