Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

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.

@cestlavielife
if she was in thores of a MH episode/crisis there may have been little point in the official solicitor speaking to her; or perhaps medical advice was not to bring them in to speak to her; we dont know.

conversations with someone who has come out of their crisis is fine, but it is very hard to make assumptions about what their state of mind was during their crisis - the medical reports will give that.

during a severe crisis, the official solicitor is not going to be able to sit and have a rational conversation with that person... they may not be in fit state to converse with anyone and therefore appropriate only for trained medical people to be involved.

have you tried to converse with someone in throes of an(delusional, paranoid etc) episode about decision making and their views?

Good post!! No he hasn't, because he does not have any clue about what a mental health patient is. Or he wouldn't get confused about mental illness and stupidity as he did on his blog.

read the transscript "it was an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 by the NHS Trust, supported by the clear evidence of a consultant obstetrician and the patient’s own treating consultant psychiatrist, seeking a declaration and order that it would be in the medical best interests of this seriously mentally ill and incapacitated patient, who had undergone two previous elective caesarean sections, to have this birth, the due date of which was imminent (she was 39 weeks pregnant), in the same manner"

my bold.
whatever conversations had been had between medical team and patient prior to this it was clear that at this stage 39 weeks she was "seriously mentally ill and incapacitated" .

what kind of conversation is the official solicitor going to have with her?

there was little time at this stage (leaving a patieint to go to 42 weeks as JH suggested pvsly ibelieve - well it really isnt usual...and potentially dangerous especially if patient not cooperating with scans etc )

and yes as nennypops pointed out - normally a caesarean is still simply a "birth" even in extremis emergency - not a bloody assualt and knife attack ..but if you want tobe pedantic ALL caesareans are women knifed and cut open to "rip the baby from the womb" . or is there some other gentler form of caesarean whereby the womb is not cut open and baby pulled out ?

and yes as nennypops pointed out - normally a caesarean is still simply a "birth" even in extremis emergency - not a bloody assualt and knife attack ..but if you want tobe pedantic ALL caesareans are women knifed and cut open to "rip the baby from the womb" . or is there some other gentler form of caesarean whereby the womb is not cut open and baby pulled out ?

Thumbs up for your post! Besides, lots of my friends chose to have a c-section anyway because they felt too old to have a VBAC.

The childsnatching party tried to push the 'consent' issue in this case (woman was not given a choice) but as ANY politician should know, when mental health patients are involved the 'consent' part is different.

I made that assertion on the basis of speaking to her and the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

So you felt confident to make that assertion on the basis solely of conversation with a woman who was, on the basis of highly experienced medical evidence, at the relevant time in the grip of a severe manic episode and suffering intrusive delusions, with no other evidence whatsoever and in the knowledge that extensive paperwork would have been presented to the court which you hadn't seen.

Wow.

BTW there was an interesting para in the "other essex case" [which highlighted some concerns about the granparents ability to care for child P - but ultimately the grandprents pursued and got the outcome they want, which is only a good thing right?)

"As an aside, I should say that on the day that the justices started the hearing (the 26th of October) a letter was received by the family proceedings court from a local MP, copying a letter he had written to the Prime Minister in the strongest terms. I strongly deprecate such conduct. It appears to be a clear political attempt to interfere with the judicial process. The justices proceeded to hear the case as I think they should have done in the circumstances but it is a matter which should be taken further, because at that time the case was still subject to judicial enquiry, whatever the circumstances, it should not have occurred in the way that it did. I do not criticise Mr. and Mrs. P they do not know the niceties of the law but an experienced Member of Parliament should, it shouldn't have happened."
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/31.html

@nennypops

So you felt confident to make that assertion on the basis solely of conversation with a woman who was, on the basis of highly experienced medical evidence, at the relevant time in the grip of a severe manic episode and suffering intrusive delusions, with no other evidence whatsoever and in the knowledge that extensive paperwork would have been presented to the court which you hadn't seen.

If I go to speak to him saying that I think that social workers are all aliens, that I was abducted at my private residence, taken away, stripped naked in an unkown and strange place and then brought back after endless tortures.... he's probably going to believe it because it fits what he believes.

Wow, yes wow.

Thanks for that link cestlavie. Interesting case - shows cock ups happen but certainly this particular Judge doesn't seem to have been informed about the government targets to snatch babies for adoption...

LakeDistrict: precisely. No doubt if Baby P's mother had come to him and told him that everything was absolutely fine at home, P was a thriving, happy child and that evil social services were trying to take him away without doing basic checks, JH would happily have come on discussion forums like this one proclaiming what she said as the truth.

I have always found this the fundamental flaw in their stealing babies nonsense - the number of children left to die at the hands of their parents.

That fully supports my theory of a system in crisis because of years of under investment and lack of support.

But I think IJ says that these children are left to die because they aren't adoptable. I do hope I am not misrepresenting him but I dimly recall some foul ranting on his site along those lines.

spero - JH himself gave us that link above about page 3 i think. he said it showed that ...well i cant remember what he said it proved...the grandparents were pushed back, but they used their right to appeal and and got their result... should they have had to go thru that? maybe not but the system allows for appeals etc.

it does show tho that MP's too can get it wrong, eh ?

see, spero, they adopting the "wrong" babies... they taking babies from nice families... dontcha get it?!!

still; look on the bright side, if the policy to cut child benefit from third child goes thru; there should be more babies available to adopt? !!!!

Hello

We've had a bucketload of reports about these threads, plus some correspondence from Essex County Council about possible breaches of reporting restrictions.

So we're going to lock this thread now while we take a look.

PLEASE DON'T start another one. We will unlock this one when we've had a chance to have a thorough look at what's going on.

Any new threads that start kicking off or causing reports will probably be deleted.

Thanks
MNHQ

Hello everyone,

We've now been through this thread, and removed posts that broke our talk guidelines. If you think we've missed anything, please do report it to us.

We've been advised that in regards to the mother concerned in this case, the name Alessandra Pacchieri is fine to use, any other names should not be used. As for the child in question, they have an absolute right to anonymity, so to err on the safe side please don't post anything that could be used to identify her.

If the thread continues to create a lot of reports, we may consider locking it again. If you have any question or queries do get in touch.

Hello!

And as a fully paid up member of IMSW, since we've been frozen, I have written very many letters !

Well I thought the Munby judgement was extremely enlightening.

Anybody else ?

PS His clerk has the sexiest voice EVEH!

As I was going to say before we were interrupted, the second Essex judgment is a classic illustration of what is wrong with the tabloid approach to these cases. The case was reported in very black and white terms as the grandparents having been obstructed in getting custody purely because of social services. However, the report indicates that problems were caused initially by the grandparents' own original lawyers, and subsequently because the independent social worker whom they instructed produced a detailed report giving her view that the grandparents would not be suitable carers.

Thereafter there was a mess-up by the original court which was put right on appeal, and as we know by the time it got back to court everything had been sorted out and the council agreed to the grandparents having the children. I suspect that the grandparents used their report as a checklist of the things they needed to address, leading to the ultimate resolution of the case.

Very helpful blog on the Munby judgment here - pinktape.co.uk/legal-news/blogosphere-in-the-judgosphere/

However, the report indicates that problems were caused initially by the grandparents' own original lawyers, and subsequently because the independent social worker whom they instructed produced a detailed report giving her view that the grandparents would not be suitable carers

So just a teeny tiny bit of misrepresenting the facts then ?

That casts rather different light on matters.

nennypops

From the blog link you posted...

It also concerns me greatly to have been made aware (from two different sources) of information suggesting that an individual (who I will not name but who ought to know better) published information on the internet in this jurisdiction on Friday evening (at a point where the interim RRO had been renewed, but prior to the publication of the judgment and order confirming that renewal) which named all three of Ms Pacchieri’s children. That was clearly a breach of the RRO, although I do not know if it was with knowledge of the continuing existence of a RRO, that person must have known it was likely such an order would be renewed. It is plain from Munby’s judgment that there can have been no legitimate public interest or necessity to publish those names and nor can there have been any justification.

Good job no speculation will happen on this thread.

I really really like that last line in the bit I quoted.

bit.ly/19vm6jU

Mumby judgement where he makes clear his annoyance with Mail et al.

I offered mumsnet £10 to keep this thread locked so I might actually do some work, but they never listen.

Spero as I understood it, the original order was extended on the last day, before it expired, correct ? So there was no "free pass" gap between the first and the second ?

Yup seamless extension of first order.

But even if there had not been he was still in breach of requirements of Children Act that children in on going proceedings should not be named.