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.

good interview with judge on today 0751

A lawyer for a woman forced to undergo a Caesarean section and give up her baby for adoption, has claimed her treatment was "brutal" and "invasive". Sir Mark Hedley, a former high court judge in the family division, speaks to presenter Sarah Montague.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z

as he points out while unusual - enforced c-sections are carried out on occaasion after full discussion in courts. it isnt done lightly. but it does happen. life and death decisions are made every day about people under section .

the actual facts as we know them eg that the baby is now 15 months old and is not yet adopted - is a far cry from the DM/DT "SS snatch baby from womb to give to adopters" .

and it is better for a small child that a decision is made as soon as feasible not languish for years in non-permanent placement . the fact it's now 15 months down the line is not exactly "rushed"

Of course it does. However, the secrecy surrounding family courts can also protect those who should not be protected. Does gagging parents have no meaning to you?

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

It has been pointed out that the mother would have been legally represented at the Court of Protection hearing. You said that there was no evidence of that, which implies that you thought it possible that she wasn't. If she wasn't, that could only have been the result of a whole series of mistakes (and indeed active dishonesty) by a large number of people.

claw2: we have the family court judgment. The only thing that has been kept secret is the name of the parents and child. Who has been protected who should not be protected?

Claw - Welfare of the child is paramount and that includes the child's right to not have their life circumstances available to all and sundry via the internet.

Nenny - I think claw will not be happy until all professionals are named and "shamed" and driven from their homes by pitchfork wielding mobs.

Hello Gosh Ann and thanks for your reply. I haven't read the first thread, but if it filled so fast, I doubt I'll be inclined to do so (this one was full enough already! :) )

I think Flavia's concern was not that a doctor could "request" a c section, but that a doctor(s) and/or their authority (NHS Trust in England in this case) could order surgical intervention against the will of the patient and without giving the rationale to the patient. I am aware there may be circumstances where medical/surgical treatment is ordered because the patient cannot consent (e.g. unconscious, severely mentally disabled, under influence of drugs, very, and I stress very mentally unwell, etc.) but I would hope in such cases that clear rationale would at the very least be given to the patient when they are in a state where they can comprehend what has happened. It appears this has not happened in this case. The judgement from the Court of Protection (which authorised the c section) has not been released to her or elsewhere to date, so we still have NO idea why the op was authorised. The fact that this CAN happen does worry me.

It also appears that the authorities failed to inform the Italian consulate when she was detained under the Mental Health Act, which if true, is a violation of the Vienna convention, thus very serious.

Certainly, more facts will emerge with time.

To be fair, I think EVERYONE who is commenting on this case is "seeing what they want to see," but surely that is so with every case, every news story.

Most of us know John Hemmings has his agenda about family court secrecy which he's pushing on the back of this - no, not a noble thing, and the mistakes and purple prose of the original article in the Telegraph I think did the story no favours. The woman and her family not surprisingly feel deeply aggrieved so are hardly likely to give fulsome praise to the English authorities on this. In Flavia's case, yes, she is highlighting the race/religion/migration status of the baby's father because she and other feminists of colour notice a pattern of such factors in similar cases internationally. These factors tend to be overlooked or downplayed by the media - and by white feminists.

Interestingly enough, I saw many white feminists blogging and tweeting the initial story with outrage, only to follow it up with, "Oh, so relieved that article got it wrong, everything's okay, whew!" Apart from a few points (e.g. it was the NHS Trust that went to court to get the c section authorised, not Social Services, but still not disputing that she did not consent to the op,) there still isn't much "new" evidence to show that "everything's okay."

Yes, I think those who are going for the "everything's alright" and "must have been for a good reason," angles are also seeing what they want to see. What they don't want to contemplate is that the "authorities" can screw up, badly, because who's to say it couldn't happen to them next time? I've also seem some pretty disablist and xenophobic comments (not talking just here) which reinforces the, "well, if it happens, it doesn't happen to people like me, so it's okay."

Just one more point - I'm not keen on the "social worker bashing" that often happens with cases like this. Social workers don't operate in a vacuum and only act within a wider health, social care and criminal justice system. I can only hope (along with the most positive outcome possible for the child and her family) that one outcome of this case will be a robust review of the system that allowed this dogs breakfast of a case to play out like this, and clear changes to ensure it doesn't happen again (but I'm not holding my breath.)

Nenny, my exact comment was '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 my point'

In relation to the case as a whole. I don't know at exactly what point a mistake could or could not have been made or by who. Again no one does.

However if you want to talk specifically in relation to legal representation, how do we know legal representation was appointed fairly and justly. Maybe the legal representation was appointed by the, a deputy, who acts as an attorney when someone is not capable of making decision for themselves. What experience do they have? How do we know who appointed this legal representation and how independent they were. How do we know, what facts were presented or not. How accurate was the info available at the time etc, etc, etc.

There are lots of contributing factors and mistakes can be made. In fact, this discussion itself is pretty futile, as no one is in possession of the facts!

But the mother is clearly not 'gagged' she is quoted widely in the press.

I think the problem with this case is simply that the initial reporting was done without full knowledge of the facts and in a way designed to cause most controversy.

The two very separate legal issues of the C-section and adoption were conflated so it could be made out that social services had forced a C-section on a woman to take her baby.

We know now this is wrong. The local NHS trust under whose care the woman was applied for the C-section in proceedings entirely separate from the care proceedings which were not initiated by the Local authority until after the child was born.

Yes, we don't yet know the full facts surrounding the C-section. The judge who made the order did so verbally but I understand that he has asked for it to be transcribed so it can be released to clear up the misreporting.

However, legally the only circumstances in which a C-section can have been ordered were 1. where the mother lacked mental capacity (which would have been assessed very carefully by the Court after considering medical evidence) and 2. it was necessary for the mother's wellbeing. Moreover, because of the issue of her being an Italian citizen only here temporarily, the Court would only have had jurisdiction to make the order if it was required 'urgently'. This suggests to me that a complication arose in the pregnancy requiring immediate surgical intervention for the health of the mother.

I have not read anything to suggest that the mother is actually appealing the Order that allowed the C-section, only the adoption order. She has said that she was not told about it but she was 'very unwell' at the time so this may or may not be correct. Certainly, from reports that have appeared in Italian newspapers, the Italian courts had been contacted and informed about the woman's situation as had her family.

Also, whilst she herself would not have been present at the hearing to decide on the C-section she would have been represented. The whole point of lacking capacity is that you are unable to make your own decisions. This does not mean the Court simply rides roughshod over you. Once it had been determined that she was not capable of being involved in the proceedings, independent solicitors will have been appointed to represent her.

The adoption judgment has been published and from it, it is quite clear that a lot of the reporting was incorrect. It is tragic for both mother, but certainly not unjustifiable given the fact that the mother had a history of going off her meds such that she had been unable to care for her other two children, one of whom had apparently been 'terrorised' by her illness. The baby's father is in Italy illegally and without permanent right to remain could not possibly provide the baby with a stable home environment. It is not mentioned in the judgment, but Italian papers report that the grandmother who was looking after the other two children was not willing to take the baby.

The sister of the father of one of the other children (all 3 have different fathers) apparently offered to take all 3. However, this would involve moving all 3 children to the US where she lives, separating the elder two from the grandmother who had so far brought them up and their home, so that they could be brought up by someone who was technically only related to one of them. Again not a great solution.

The mother was represented in those proceedings by not just a solicitor but also a barrister (as is clear from the judgment). They were not done without reference to her and she had expert professional advice.

There do seem to be some issues here which are questionable - why the woman was deemed competent and allowed to leave after the initial care proceedings when the Judge seems to have doubted this, why she was not sent back to Italy during the weeks before the birth (it may be she was just too ill but she was 'accompanied' back later) and the exact interaction of the Courts here and in Italy.

But, there is certainly nothing to suggest that either the Local Authority nor the NHS trust were doing anything other than trying to achieve the best outcome for both mother and baby in very, very difficult circumstances.

Making sacrastic and unneccesaary remarks to a MN poster, who appears to share similar views to yourself, about another MN poster who does not, is bullying.

Claw - don't waste your time any more. There are some on here whose views are just too entrenched. Shame we never experienced the LA utopia that is supposed to exist nationwide.

Gosh, yes I agree the child's welfare is paramount and again stop with the defensive assumptions, that I wont be happy until everyone is named and shamed, its extremely boring in a discussion.

Lots of people, including top judge of the Family Division of the High Court believe there should be more openness around 'secret courts' why does it come as such a revelation to you?

Kritiq: where do you get the evidence that the rationale for the Court of Protection decision hasn't been given to the mother, or that she hasn't seen the judgment? If it's just the reports of what she says, I wouldn't rely on that. Her lawyers would undoubtedly have been given a copy of the judgment and I'm sure they will have both given her a copy and explained it.

Equally, who says the Italian consultate weren't informed of her detention? The reports I have seen indicate that the Italian authorities were not only fully informed but co-operated by supplying copy reports etc.

I keep saying I acknowledge that the "authorities" can screw up, but for this decision to have been dodgy there would have to have been not only an absolutely massive screw-up by several separate people, but also active dishonesty. And I ask again: why would they do that? But none of the conspiracy theorists ever replies.

claw, you really are clutching at straws now. Yes, everyone might have gone collectively mad and appointed a totally incompetent deputy who in turn might have appointed a totally incompetent solicitor who not only took a case outside his or her expertise but also appointed a totally incompetent barrister. Or the case might have been referred to the Official Solicitor in accordance with the rules who in turn might have appointed one of the tried and tested independent experts solicitors' firms on his list, who in turn might have instructed an expert barrister. Or something in between might have happened.

But do believe the first scenario if it makes you happy.

I wont bother Wet its pointless trying to have a discussion, when it turns into a personal attack! Several times on the thread already I have been accused of saying things I haven't actually said, to try and add weight to someone elses views.

KRITIQ - The father does not have a secure country of residence, his race and religion will have nothing to do with it.

Nenny, again more assumptions, you seem to be missing my point and coming up with your own scenarios!

Anyhow I will leave you ladies to it.

KRITIQ,

I think you raise a lot of interesting points, but do wou really believe whoever decide to enforce the csection would not have explained the reasons to the mother?

From reading reports on newspapers (in Italian as well as English) I get the feeling she is being very economical about the truth. She sounds like someone who is failing to recognise just how ill she had been. (and she must have been int he past too, for her other kids to have been removed). Even her father has been quoted as saying "my daughter is not crazy, she only suffers from bipolar disorder"

I am very curious to read her exclusive interview with the Italian magazine Panorama when it comes out, to see if more facts will be revealed.

xpost with nennypops

Nenny, you are starting from the point of disbelieving anything the woman has said. Okay.

But, you are also assuming that the authorities in England DID release the Court of Protection decision to her and DID liaise with the Italian consulate. Because of the rising shitstorm in this case, you would think the authorities in England would be keen to go on record that they did these things and it would not breach the woman's or the child's confidentiality to do so, but they haven't. Neither are referred to in Judge Newton's decision P (A Child) [2013] EW Misc 20 (CC) (01 February 2013) either, although the judgement does include much extraneous information and you'd think he might have mentioned one or other of these if they'd happened, just maybe.

Systemic screw ups DO happen - think Victoria Climbie, Stephen Lawrence, Baby P, Hillsborough. However, authorities and the general public try to point fingers at individuals or specific departments, perhaps because it's more "palatable" than to recognise that maybe a whole system needs reform.

I have known and worked with a consultant Psychiatrist named in the court orders. I have always known this doctor to try their utmost to maintain contact between parent and child in other cases I have worked alongside them. I have seen this psychiatrist shed tears because of having to intervene in the parent-child relationship and because no Mother-baby unit place could be found which would allow a patient to live with their child (another patient).

This doctor does not carouse about the countryside tearing mothers, fathers and children apart without a great deal of soul searching, evidence and consultation.

Bowing out as have too much to do today to get caught up in this. Don't think it will be particularly productive in any case.

His religion was an issue raised by the judge - a different religion to the mother.

I think everyone agrees that fact is irrelevant.

The person whose views are most likely to have swayed eveyone in this case is the consultant psychiatrist. Everyone else, lawyers, LA etc hide behind his opinion. No barrister is going to challange his medical opinion.

So all you need is a very incompetent NHS Consultant Psychiatrist and the rest of the choas duly follows.

And they do exist. We had one - no longer practiising in the UK thank goodness. But it wasn't his fellow medics, LA, lawyers etc who challanged his competency - no, they were quite content to take their lead from his (mis)diagnosis. It was left to me to find another, more soecialist psychiatrist who overturned the first psychiatrist's blatently incompetent diagnosis.

At that point the same LA, lawyers, fellow medics etc all dutifully changed their opinions and accepted the 2nd opinion I had secured.

Sheep - they whole lot of them.

When you've been through something like this so realise just how easily mistakes are made - and adhered to.

The 'never event' occurs.

You can field as many people as you like: counsel for the child, the parent, Guardian, etc etc but f they are all following crap psychiatric advice you get a crap judgement.

Will be interested to see if they ever make the transcription of the CS application public.

Well said KRITIQ @ reform

I am really am off now too!

Bear in mind that, as the mother was represented at the COurt of Protection hearing, the court's decision re Caesarean section and the reasons for it will have been clear to her legal team. They could and should have communicated it to her as soon as she was well enough to speak to. So she will not have had a transcript of the judgment but I do hope she was at least briefed on it.