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 from womb? Truth into darkness....

999 replies

LakeDistrictBabe · 13/12/2013 20:20

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

OP posts:
NanaNina · 15/12/2013 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Spero · 15/12/2013 22:44

Nana, I think your last piece of advice was most wise.

There is nothing to be gained from attempting to reason with someone who will simply deny, obfuscate and avoid.

All my complaints about JH were evidenced by links to where he had previously set out his views.

His response was simply to deny I had provided links.

There isn't anything we can achieve by arguing with him - I think he enjoys it. Like a badly behaved toddler, any attention is better than no attention.

Save your energies for the things that matter, such as providing real help and advice to those who need it.

There are a number of lurkers on this thread who have cause to be very sorry they ever had dealings with JH and I think it will help if we can give them the reasoned debate and comment they deserve.

But I do understand your frustration. I really, really do.

johnhemming · 15/12/2013 22:46

Spero says this:

All my complaints about JH were evidenced by links to where he had >previously set out his views.

But never gives the links.

nennypops · 15/12/2013 22:46

Thefutures, I think it must have been a medical issue rather than a legal issue. You have to remember that at the time she was in the grip of intrusive paranoid delusions, so you can't judge her likely reactions and feelings by your own or anyone else's. The duty of the lawyer in that situation is to act in the client's best interests.

I agree the discharge thing seems largely pointless but it leaves the door open to challenging the principles behind the decision, and for what it's worth could establish the principles to be applied if by any chance she got pregnant again.

johnhemming · 15/12/2013 22:49

The duty of the lawyer in that situation is to act in the client's best interests.

Would it not be a good idea for the lawyer to speak to "the client"

Oh dear. The client is the "official solicitor".

What about speaking to the person who is about to have invasive compulsory surgery?

Spero · 15/12/2013 22:51

What a number of legal bloggers are hoping is that something good will come out of this case in that we will end up with very clear guidelines about what must be done in a case like this so that everyone can be reassured all relevant factors were taken into consideration.

I don't think the decision was 'wrong' from what I have read, but I appreciate I have the advantage of legal knowledge and previous exposure to judgments, so it might help for guidelines to be published so that non lawyers can easily access the information and understand it.

johnhemming · 15/12/2013 22:55

@spero that would be good, but to get that requires an appeal. The only way in practise that this may happen is for me to draft an appeal. (because it is otherwise futile as the c section has happened).

Do you want me to draft an appeal for this?

OoohKittens · 15/12/2013 22:56

Thefuture - Living with JH doesn't prevent you having an opinion on this case or commenting on the thread, however I think it's a little off asking direct questions to spero, presenting yourself as just a concerned member of the public, when you clearly have a more personal interest.

nennypops · 15/12/2013 22:57

Who, however, was arguing her point of view. viz that this was a decision she took before she lost capacity (even if she ever did)?

This will be a relevant factor, but it can't overcome the overriding duty to act in the mother's best medical interests at the time of the birth several weeks later.

As to whether she lost capacity, it's reasonable to assume that the psychiatrist and the mental health experts treating her for five weeks were capable of working that one out. She had a history of getting extremely ill and losing capacity previously when she came off medication, and we know she had come off medication on this occasion. And we know that a few weeks later her presentation in court was such that the judge had serious concerns about her mental health. I think all of that carries a lot more weight than ex post facto allegations that she only had a panic attack.

What about speaking to the person who is about to have invasive compulsory surgery?

How do we know that they didn't? Her own recollection of this is hardly going to be reliable. But if they didn't, the likely reason was that they couldn't because she was so unwell she couldn't communicate effectively.

johnhemming · 15/12/2013 23:03

Her own recollection of this is hardly going to be reliable.
It doesn't appear in the court hearing either.

OK so the doctors want to cut you up for some reason or other. A bunch of lawyers go off into a room to discuss this and no-one talks to you.

Not particularly clever IMO. I know I am only a nuclear phyicist and therefore my view does not count. It is still my view that they really should have found out why she did not want a caesarean.

MadameDefarge · 15/12/2013 23:08

Is thefuture Mrs Hemmings? Or the other one?

I think we should be told.

nennypops · 15/12/2013 23:09

And how do you know that they didn't?

MadameDefarge · 15/12/2013 23:10

as a nuclear phyicist (sic) you indeed are not qualified to make an informed judgement on this woman's medical needs. You are right there.

MadameDefarge · 15/12/2013 23:13

as for some reason or other...

could that reason have been to save her life and that of her baby?

Possibly not a random decision based on them perhaps all wanting to go out for lunch together so they needed the baby born before lunch.

Or because they were a bit out of practice and reckoned this would be a good way to brush up their skills.

Or because they are a bunch megalomaniacal Frankensteins who just love sedating pregnant woman and perfoming c sections for a laugh.

Spero · 15/12/2013 23:14

Just when I think it can't get more farcical, I am proved very wrong.

What larks.

But if all his mistresses are going to comment, we will hit the 1000 mark rather quickly.

Night all.

MadameDefarge · 15/12/2013 23:15

God no. I shan't be drawn into it again.

This has all been discussed on the previous three threads.

johnhemming · 15/12/2013 23:21

It's good to talk.

nennypops · 15/12/2013 23:29

It's clear that there was extensive paperwork in court. Therefore what is reported in the transcript does not constitute the whole of the information that was before the court. There does seem just the teeniest possibility that at some point during the weeks she was in hospital, if she had lucid intervals someone would have had a chance to talk to the mother about the pregnancy.

CarpeVinum · 15/12/2013 23:29

It's good to talk

Oh I dunno.

My next phone bill is going to be a stinker.

johnhemming · 15/12/2013 23:33

It would be nice if her views and reasoning were put before the court that is about to decide on whether or not to forcibly drug her and cut out her baby.

MadameDefarge · 15/12/2013 23:33

We do expect a higher level of probity from our elected officials, not piss poor decisions that lead to revealing the names of very vulnerable children on the internet.

In your scramble to get one over on the Italian speakers here you fucked up royally.

Way to go John.

MadameDefarge · 15/12/2013 23:36

'forcibly drug her and cut out her baby'

Or perhaps give her a general anaesthetic in order to perform life-saving surgery?

Sensationalist stirring.

nennypops · 15/12/2013 23:36

It would be nice if her views and reasoning were put before the court that is about to decide on whether or not to forcibly drug her and cut out her baby.

Yet again, how do you know they weren't? You don't claim to have seen all the court papers?

nennypops · 15/12/2013 23:39

Strange, isn't it, that when anyone else has a Caesarian the baby is described simply as being born. But when someone wants to peddle conspiracy theories the baby is described as being "cut out" as if it had been assaulted.

CarpeVinum · 15/12/2013 23:40

Sensationalist stirring

We should rechristen all Sensationalist stirring on mumsnet ... A Hemming. Or To Hemming

A) AIBU blah blah di blah

B) YABU to start a thread full of Hemming form a start.

...

A) AIBU to say poster X actually said on another thread blah blah di blah

B) Why are you always Hemminging ? JUST LET IT GO! Here have a grip, and a biscuit.