Italian adoption case III

[Juliet123456]

The last thread says all I need to know about those in the system. It also the most legally dangerous thread I have ever seen on mumsnet. I hope someone has been through the posts for libel risk. It also entirely one sided and biased and makes me laugh.

The defensiveness of those involved in this area will hopefully disappear once we have the openness that JH and indeed many others are seeking and obtaining as the judges increasingly accept that it helps everyone to understand what are very difficult decisions - parents, children and lawyers and social workers and expert witnesses in this field.

It will continue to be important always to get to the facts and where possible publish the facts. I continue to believe that almost any of us could have our children removed if the state set its mind to that. If publishing more decisions and giving rights to parents and those involved and the children to write what they like on twitter, facebook and the like and to let parents and children even when separated communicate and talk about any issues they choose will help then let us hope the law continues down that course.

And I didn't have the choice of VBAC. I accidentally went into labour the day before my planned section.

Exactly Maryz- the warning that findings during a surgical operation may drive the course forward in a different direction.

@Maryz
Why would I want to take my opinions from blogs?

Because he has no choice. That is what happens when you can't rely on facts to prove you are right. They have no factual evidence that what they are preaching is truth.
In a while he will start a new religion....

I don't think the blogger there appreciated her mental health position. Perhaps distracted by reference in the press to things like panic attacks. Someone having a panic attack should certainly not be treated as lacking capacity. Someone who needed to be sectioned for 5 weeks, however....

The published judgment and hearing refers to a diagnosis of schizophrenia, but it is now accepted that she is bipolar.

I have several decades of my late mother in law's notes mostly collacted at this pojnt. She was re-diagnosed with schizophrenia several times, particularly when she had to be sectioned in a hospital she hadn't been to before. Sometimes you can't get a fag paper between the sysmtoms of bipolar and those of schizophenia. But when the charactersitics pmore indicative of bipolar reasserted themselves she was always relabled as suffering from bipolar I

One particularly nice psych sat me down and did a thing with a venn diagram. He was trying to explain that to lay people like me, there was a box called bipolar and one called scizophrenia and we tend to believe that an individual will live tidily in the one box with the "right" sticker on it. And stay there. But in actual fact it's not that tidy. There is overlap. And a lable is more an tool than an explanation. Or something along those lines.

I was well knackered at the time becuase it took four months to get her bed so my recall is hazy. But if you have an interest in gaining a more profound understsnding of the condition of this lady I'm sure a person in your postion wouldn't find it too hard to find a professional willing to take you over the finer details of the condition.

You cannot possibly equate the presentation and actions of labouring mentally healthy women with those of a person with acute psychotic presentation.

Don't know whether to be amused or appalled that this man appears to think they have similarities. Caring for an acutely psychotic women in labour is profoundly challenging and has great potential for catastophe. If a mentally healthy labouring women can be 'irrational' and aggressive what do you think psychosis is going to add to the pot? it won't have an idiosyncratic effect you know and I use the term idiosyncratic in the medical sense of the word.

Clearly the understanding of the realities of mental illness is poor. The 'knowledge' demonstrated here is theroretical only.

Carpe Quite. There are many many sub groups of both illnesses and there may be dual diagnosis too- bipolar overlaid with a mood disorder. schizophrenia w/ a personality disorder. Life just isn't tidy. Some people do not realise this.

John

If you actually read the Mental Capacity Act then you would know that your argument about 'losing capacity' whilst being under general anaesthetic is completely irrelevant.

For example most people prior to going under GA knowingly would have signed/agreed a declaration of their wishes, at a point when they had capacity about what their treatment wishes would be in a life and death situation. This is called an advance directive.

If any other situation occurred whilst under GA that did no require an immediate decision it would be presumed that the person would regain capacity once no longer under the influence of a GA and would then be able to make their own decision again.

This lady presumably didn't make it clear what she wished to do in a life or death situation and was felt to lack capacity to make that decision at the point at which it needed to be decided. It wasn't a decision that could reasonably have been delayed until a point at which she may have regained capacity.

You also still haven't answered any of my other questions, even with a non answer or irrelevant link. I feel like i'm being ignored.

An MP ignoring people and not answering the question? Surely not.

remembers to keep this thread for when campaigning for the next election starts

Carpe Quite

It was one hell of a shock to hear it though. I started out back in the day with a lable, half an hour on google and felt like an expert. 18 years later I felt like I had barely scratched the surface.

In the early days I was a walking, talking definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

It may surprise people, but I don't have all the time spare to simply respond to every comment on any internet forum. I do try to respond substantively. I am also going to the pub soon and may not post again for some time.

On the issue of VBAC etc I am not personally an expert which is why I have quoted Jean Robinson of AIMS and Elizabeth Prochaska of Birthrights. I asked Jean (of the Association for Improvement in Maternity Services) for her view on this.

To me the argument that in the circumstances VBAC was reasonable based upon both the NICE guidelines and the RCOG guidelines seems to be a good basis for argument.

When I initially read the CoP proceedings I was of a view that I would have agreed with the judge on the best interests test, but having read comments by a wide range of people including the above I now believe that the judge was wrong on that.

The CoP proceedings demonstrate a lot of things that are wrong with CoP proceedings not least the exclusion of the protected person from the whole process.

Yes it must have been and you have my sympathies and regard for what must have been immensely challenging and heartbreaking. It is the illness I would least want out of all the psych conditions because of the big dipper sweeps between terribly ill and relatively well. The temptation to live life in a state of hypermania is very strong for many of my bipolar clients. They like it and hate the meds.

Maybe campaigning for more investment time and money wise in medication and treatments without such horrendous side effects would be better? Now there's a true conspiracy of corporate greed, selfishness and disinterest.

You go to the pub a lot don't you ?

You are a self confessed non expert in VBAC so maybe best not to pronounce upon what you find reasonable argument w/ regard to it especially as you appear to be selective about which organisations are corrupt and which are not.

its ok I'm happy with yes and no answers

I've condensed my posts into 4 questions requiring one word answers.

1. Do you do any campaign work for justice for families, act as a McKenzie friend, write and maintain your blog, write and maintain justice for families website etc using tax payer's money yes/no

2. Are you doing any of the above in your role of MP (therefore on constituency time/ westminster time) yes/no

3. are views expressed by you on the internet reflective of the views of the liberal democrat party yes/no

4. Have you had a personal experience relating to your own family life of children's social care services yes/no

@Mignonette ooooooohhh finally we now know the truth... He posts here whilst drunk. I guess that is the same state he is in while making pointless public statements ;)

Maybe campaigning for more investment time and money wise in medication and treatments without such horrendous side effects would be better?

^^ That.

Between how awful they make people feel headwise and the toll they can take on their body it's not surpising people don't necessarily want to take them. I think there is a misconcpetion that meds refusal is indicative of a sort of unreasonable bloodymindedness, that as long as people are motivated to stay well they'll take them, be fine, stay fine and feel "normal".

Wish it did work like that.

Thank you Maryz. It was. I realise that my experience is purely subjective but I offer it as a counterpart to any suggestion that this rarely happens. I had all the monitoring under the sun and it still sould not have saved me had I not been being prepped in theatre and ready to be operated on w/ epidural in place (although i was later put out).

And YY to the individualised risk assessment with the inclusion of a HCP's tacit knowledge too.

You clearly haven't read the linked blogs

The people running the country base their decsions on what they read in .... blogs.

Well that explains a great deal.

I have read the blogs that JH has linked and find them interesting, but the problem I have is that I don't know who the people are who write these blogs - ok there is a name and an organisation "Birthright" and it is therefore reasonable to suppose that they are at the cutting edge of issues like the one under discussion. However as has been pointed out before, the blogs are written by people who are not in possession of all of the facts in relation to the mother's medical notes and her state of mind at the time the C section was performed.

The issue on capacity is also a complex one and is not as JH quoted "considering whether someone is too stupid to make a decision about how she will give birth." Again the writer of the blog is not commenting on the actual case, and so as someone else said this is like giving us a link to Wikipedia.

I would have thought that the mother's bipolar disorder would have been stabilised by medication, given that she was in hospital for a considerable length of time, and it may well be that she should have been consulted about whether she wished for a C section or a vaginal birth. However I think midwives attending the mother would be able to advise on the safety (or otherwise) of a vaginal birth after undergoing 2 C sections in the past. I think most mothers would want their child delivered by the safest way possible. None of us know what discussions (if any) went on between the mother and the medical team. Given that none of us know the true facts that pertained at the time the decision was made to perform a C section I don't think we can comment.

What I am damn sure about is that JH has no knowledge either and dare I say would have less understanding the of the differing ways of giving birth than most of us who have actually given birth.

On the subject of blogs I have read some by The Ministry of Truth which are like the blogs linked by JH extremely well written and cogently argue their case. These blogs lay out in detail all of the instances where JH has made allegations against lawyers and others and how he has been severely criticised by a High Court Judge. It also details his attempt at an Early Day Motion hoping for a debate on "forced adoption" but as he was the only signatory the debate did not take place! I would have to go back and look at them as the criticism of JH was comprehensive and relied on fact rather than opinion which of course gives the account great credibility.

The other issue in my mind is that if this was a case of an Italian woman who had arrived here and was pregnant, but sectioned under the Mental Health Act but there was no concern for the welfare of the child and she was allowed to keep her child would we have heard a peep from JH....

............what do you reckon folks..........I think NOT. He has jumped on the bandwagon of this case simply because it fits with his conspiracy theory of social workers snatching babies for adoption.

Westmorlandsausage I wouldn't hold your breath about answers to your questions - JH doesn't like questions and especially ones that need Yes or No answers. He likes to slither around questions, especially ones that could show him in a bad light........he doesn't have the courage of his convictions - he still will NOT say that he disassociates himself from Ian Joseph's "advice" to parents where sexual abuse is concerned.

How about a yes or no answer to that one* JH
It will only take you a second.......

I can answer No 4 for you WS - the answer is YES and the details are relayed in one of the blogs to which posters have provided links, so the matter is in the public domain. Suffice to say it goes back to 2005 and it was following this incident that JH issued his writ against Birmingham City Council in the sum of £300,000 stating the social workers involved in the incident must pay this from their own pocket. Needless to say he lost his fight. I am convinced that this is the reason that he calls the child protection system evil and believes that all professionals (including the judge) are in a conspiracy theory.

Some might think that 8 years is a long time to hold a grudge...........but this is by no means unknown and usually the grudge strengths and "solidifies" as the years go by.

Ah, I hadn't realised (though probably should have done) that Hemming's 'crusade' against social services started because of a personal grudge, as outlined in this Guardian article. Now a lot of things make more sense.

I could have also answered no 4 myself NanaNina but I wanted to hear it from him... I wasn't going to ask it and then thought I might as well to see what his answer would be.

As a casual viewer it appears that he didn't have the slightest interest in this particular cause until that happened, as can be seen from his early day motion history.

John the next time you post on this thread as I'm sure you will I would hope it wouldn't be too difficult or time consuming for you to spend 10 seconds answering those 4 questions with either a yes or no answer.

Yep exexpat that's where it all began in 2005...........and he has never let up. You would think wouldn't you that it was time to let go and move on to other constituency matters, but NO JH's grudge has gained pace over the years and no one has been able to put a stop to his wild accusations against all those involved in care proceedings and (in case you hadn't noticed.....!) forced adoption

Juliet would you care to read the link that exexpat has provided and let us have your reaction.

I ask my questions also in the knowledge that John Hemming still had the following advice posted on his lib dem MP website in 2007.

I had to go via 'the wayback machine' to get it as he has since deleted it

<a class="break-all" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070831202443/john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/leaflet.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20070831202443/john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/leaflet.html