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.

Me too - have skirting board to paint!

Exactly Wet I did try to point out the possibility that all it takes is one key professional to get it wrong or make a bad decision and the rest will follow, having experienced this myself. Also how difficult some professionals find it to differentiated between 'at risk' and 'in need' However is seems very unpalatable for some to even consider.

Yes now for something more productive!

KRITIK, it's the woman's lawyers who would have explained the decision to her and given her a copy. And they can't go on record to confirm that they did because of their duty of client confidentiality. She could release them from that duty but hasn't done so, which in itself raises questions.

I'm not saying I disbelieve everything the woman is saying; but I wouldn't necessarily believe the third hand reports we are getting of this either, particularly given that it has already been demonstrated that a number of newspapers were economising with the truth in a big way. On any interpretation she was at the time very ill, and she now seems to be in denial about that - and the adoption judgment reveals that that has happened before, leading to her being admitted to mental hospital in Italy three times previously. I understand that that is unfortunately a feature of bipolar disorder.

Yet again: I accept screw ups happen, but this one needs several monumental screw ups, active deceit and indeed criminal acts by various separate individuals. And I ask yet again - why would they do that?

KRITIK: 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.

But we have the interesting evidence of Mignonette that this is not a crap psychiatrist. And we have the fact that there were various records from Italy confirming her serious illness and previous hospitalisation, the fact that she was unable to look after her older children, the fact that one of them is said to have been traumatised by seeing the state her mother got into when ill. We also have the fact that it was open to her lawyers to get a separate opinion. And that reports are that she appeared to be still unwell when the judge saw her, and when she arrived back in Italy. Factor in also that if the psychiatrist got it wrong, there would have to have been collusion from other doctors dealing with her in the mental hospital, and from the obstetricians.

So do we all really think this decision was a horrendous mistake?

Maryz do try and keep up and yet again stop making assumptions and putting words into my mouth and read my posts. I don't think I could have made my posts and my point any clearer.

MISTAKES HAPPEN, REFORM IS NEEDED.

if this had been the first time the mother had suffered such a crisis and been hospitalised you can see how a "wrong" pysch opinion could have escalated...and in heat of moment a Mediterranean temperament shall we say could have been misinterpreted.

(i know a Mediterranean lady who told the teacher one day "i could kill my child" as child had not slept all night....this turned into a child protection alert and full blown investigaitons until all was clarified that no she didnt actually mean it... but in some ways you could say it was right for teacher to follow this up... )

but this was not the case - she didnt have a one off "panic attack"... she had a history of severe MH crises involving hospitalisaiton in italy previously - so you you would also have to say that the italian hospitals and psychs too had all colluded over many years, also the grandmother who had "stolen" the other children off her.... and everyone else.....

it is clear there was a history of hospital admissions and also her family agree very clearly acc to the reports that she was unwell and needed meds to function.

my ex denies everything that happened when he was v unwell asd hospitalised; v. specific things he did, he would deny vociferously. acc to him they never happened. i wish i had cctv/video but i dont... someone else has told me they "remember very little" about their hospitalisation and base their narrative on what they were told...

So, Claw, precisely what mistake do you say happened in this case, what is your evidence for that, and how does this case evidence the need for reform? And please don't say it's just your opinion, that really isn't an adequate answer.

Part of the problem on these threads is that a lot of posters are both making points about this specific case and general points about the system as a whole, and it gets confusing.

If people think mistakes happened in this particular case then the natural response is to ask 'What mistakes?' and 'What is the evidence for that?' whereas if the argument is that mistakes happen in the system as a whole, we have a much more diffuse and broad brush discussion (No one is arguing that mistakes never happen).

Then some people argue that since we agree mistakes happen in the system, why not in this case and extrapolate from the general back to this specific case. Or, that specific issues arising in this case are evidence of a wider malaise in the system. Cue more confusion. That's where the debate is most polarised, according to what philosophy/political outlook posters have.

Bottom line, we don't know enough about this case to say what if anything ought to have been done differently, let alone what it might or might not show about the system as a whole.

Factor in also that if the psychiatrist got it wrong, there would have to have been collusion from other doctors dealing with her in the mental hospital, and from the obstetricians.

No collusion necessary. Consultant psychiatrist is 'God' within his team - no junior would dare challange if they wanted a continuing career in their manager's NHS department. Obs definitely would not challange a psych decision - not their specialism they so they follow the psych. In our case the Consultant Paediatrician, Gp, Ed Pysch, La etc were all prepared to accept the original (mis)diagnosis. All should have realised that a (mis)dx of very serious mental illness was unsafe as it was given after a mere 5 minute 'interview' with a non communicative patient.

But no, they all fell in behind the Consultant Pyschiatrist. Once the correct dx had been secured (by me), the sheep all fell into place behind that new psychiatric decision.

So new, in my experience, no 'collusion' is necessary for a bad opinion to stand - just ineptitude, deviation from due process, apathy, secrecy, refusal to challenge fellow professionals etc.

I was once one of those people who automatically trusted all the professionals my family would be involved with were competent and acting in our interests. Very disillushioned to see first-hand how the system actually works.

I never thought that my Ex and I would be sitting down one afternoon considering whether to flee with our children to Ireland or Spain following a disasterous meeting with Consultant Psychiatrist who threatened to section our DS based on his blatent misdiagnosis.

Can you begin to imagine how terrifying that situation was?

I sincerely hope you never have to have dealings with these people. You may find that everything in the garden is not quite as rosy as you currently believe it to me.

I wont bothering responding to individuals, as I have pointed out time and time again I cannot say exactly where and when mistakes were made in this case or not. Others cannot say that mistakes did not happen, as not enough info or facts are available to ANY of us.

All I can do is give my opinion of what possible mistakes could have happened, my views and why in my opinion reform is needed. If nothing else, I hope this case highlights the need for more transparency and accountability.

As I stated earlier, this discussion on this specific case is futile as we are not in possession of the all the facts. We are going in circles with opinions and I am going to continue with my housework!

My experience of solicitors acting for the protected party on behalf of the Official Solicitor in Court of Protection cases is that they are some of the most competent solicitors I have encountered.

If there were questions about her diagnosis, and even if there weren't, her solicitors would have been able to instruct an independent psychiatrist to prepare a capacity assessment. We do not know details of the Court of Protection case, so we don't know what information was relied on.

Claw2, you said upthread that the information on sections was easy to understand. Why, then, did you try to argue on the previous thread that she may not have been placed under section 2 or 3, but could have been held under section 4, even after I had already pointed out that s 4 can last for a maximum of 72 hours?

I can't remember who was asking the questions about questioning sections, but anyway; a patient who is placed under section 2 or 3 has the right to appeal their section with the hospital managers and, more usefully, to the mental health tribunal. Legal aid for a mh tribunal is non-means tested. In the process preparing for the tribunal, the patient is seen by the tribunal doctor, who is not part of her treating team, who then participates in the hearing. Tribunals can and do discharge patients from section even if the patient's treating team don't want them to.

If it emerges that someone is held under section improperly, they can start proceedings for unlawful detention. I have personal knowledge of a number of cases, but I also know that a lot of people believe they were detained unlawfully when in fact they were detained as they had 'a mental disorder of nature and degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital' (or 'which makes it appropriate for him to receive medical treatment in a hospital'). I think someone asked about how they would test this. In one case with which I am familiar, a report was written by an independent psychiatrist based on notes from the time from various medical and social professionals.

It is notable that the patient in this case does not appear to be taking issue with the decisions with regard to her mental health or capacity.

Badtime, she could have been admitted to hospital under section 4, as section 4 can be used in an emergency situation, when it is of urgent necessity that you are admitted and detained under section 2; and section 2 requirements would involve 'undesirable delay'.

Again a bit futile, as we now she was admitted under 2.

She could have been admitted under section 4, then placed on section 2 then placed on section 3. You used the argument to state that she may not have been assessed for section twice (or more), as I had argued, and you said that after I had already pointed out that she would have had to be reassessed within 72 hours if she were to remain ounder section.

You may understand this now, but you clearly did not when you first brought it up, as it supported my argument rather than detracting from it.

Wow, left the other thread and I found another one...with two hundred posts..and no progress!

Claw2, mistakes do happen, yet I think there was only a huge one.

The only legal mistake here that I can clearly see is that British authorities overstepped their boundaries once their Italian regional counterparts washed their hands over this case...

And despite it wasn't in the best interest of the baby, what they should have done was to alert major Italian authorities, not regional one, or to pack the lady back to Italy with her parents or have them to come here and she could leave with them after the birth.

I think that NHS and the Essex council court shouldn't contact the Tuscan court of Florence for their issues but the embassy directly in September 2012. Because the Italian Foreign minister should have been called before the baby was born, not now.

In my opinion all the mess it has been created by the mix of different nationalities and this could have been avoided if some steps were taken at that time.
Now the British authorities, in the attempt to give this baby a decent family and home, appear as the bad guys of the story.

And this is awful, because the job they do is great and it is a lot more caring than whatever could have been done by any of the SS in Italy.

Quite right AngelaDavies

Unless I am mistaken, sections are just admission and detention criteria.

Section 2 can be used when you not well known for mental health problems. Requires 2 dr's to detain to up to a period of 28 days.

Section 3 if you are well known. Requires 2 dr's to detain up for up to 6 months.

Section 4 in an emergency. Only requires 1 dr, however 2nd dr must assess you to detain you for longer than 72 hours and decide if section 4 should be converted into section 2.

I cant remember my exact wording on other thread. Maybe i worded badly or you misunderstood.

One of us did, that is for sure.

I have looked at this story with interest.

We are not in full possession of the facts, we don't know why the Caesarian was decided by a judge but we know her three other children were born by Caesarian so she would most probably have had one.

She would have been on drugs for bi-polar probably lithium and on a reduced dose because of the pregnancy, it's likely that she was not reacting well to the low dose and the risk to her would be greater than the risk to the baby if she delivered earlier than anticipated.

As for sending the child back to Italy. Well the child is British, born here, I for one am really glad that we don't send newborn babies 'back to their own country' because the reality of that is simply awful.

Section 4 in an emergency. Only requires 1 dr, however 2nd dr must assess you to detain you for longer than 72 hours and decide if section 4 should be converted into section 2.

This does not make clear that after 72 hours, you are then either detained under section 2 or discharged from section. A section 4 cannot last for longer that 72 hours, no matter how many doctors you have seen.

Badtime, You are right, i did not mention the 72 hours. I was stating in brief, rather than typing the whole thing, which is readily available to everyone if they wanted more details.

My previous comment on other thread copied and pasted "Badtime she could have been sectioned under 4. Section 4 is used in an emergency and 'it is of urgent necessity that you are admitted and detained under 2 and that compliance with usual section 2 requirements would involve an 'undesirable delay''. In brief section 4 just means you need to be detained under section 2, but only one dr is needed to section, instead of the usual 2 drs"

@Geckos48
In the other thread our conclusion was that the child is not British, because none of the parents is a British citizen. There seems to be some kind of legal confusion about this point so I hope that some expert in European law will clarify that for us, sooner or later.