Parents 'should go abroad to avoid family courts'

[ScrambledSmegs]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25641247

Yep, that's the BBC. Currently trending as one of the most read pages on the site.

I know they've tried to make this balanced by referencing CAFCASS, but it doesn't feel like much balance when the headline is something as scaremongering as that. It feels quite irresponsible.

Yes, I know that they're trying to drum up interest in their Panorama program, but I think they'd have been better off not publicising JHMP and his ramblings. Unfortunately, he's dangerous. Ridiculous and foolish, but dangerous.

I would also be very interested to know how her appeal is going as we haven't heard anything about it since she announced her intentions in December. this kind of delay is rarely in a child's best interests.

How can you tell her parents were not notified?

Iirc it was her mum who contacted staff at herhotel worried about her AP's mental state.

The newspapers at the time reported that the Italian embassy/consulate had been contacted.

You ask nennypops for proof of her statements. I think we may be entitled to ask you the same?

Redding, do you know that DoLS procedures were not followed? The mere fact that it was not mentioned in one short hearing is not proof of that. As I say, if you are making that assertion it really is for you to provide evidence.

Equally, on what basis do you say that family members were not notified? Normal practice in cases such as this is for them to be consulted, and I cannot see any good reason for believing that they would not have been: they already knew that AP was ill, and indeed it was her mother who told the authorities of her diagnosis. The reports indicate that the family were consulted about, for instance, whether they would take the baby and had indicated that they would not. Family information in relation to the older children was made available to the courts, and since it was the grandmother who had custody of them she presumably allowed it. How on earth do you imagine the authorities managed to have those discussions, and to obtain all AP's medical records, whilst keeping quiet about what was going on? And what possible motivation would they have had for so doing?

Please don't keep putting words into my mouth and trying to answer points you want me to have made rather than those I actually have made. Yet again, my point in relation to the embassy was directly in response to your claim that AP's situation was kept secret from them - something which I note you repeatedly decline to substantiate. And I have certainly not said that "AP's lawyers don't intend to file a case against these things": I simply pointed out that there were no reports that they had done so. Given the high profile of this case and the fact that AP's lawyer has been very vocal in the past, it would seem surprising if that has happened without our newspapers reporting it. Again, if you say that they are making an appeal, do provide details.

Please bear in mind that, if you can't have a discussion without misrepresenting what other people are saying, it just isn't worth doing.

There have been four threads worth of discussions about this case and I don't think anyone can bear to go through it all again. I strongly advise you to go away and read them.

The mother of AP has stated that she knew nothing of the c-sect until after it happened. Also NHS's slogan in the AP case "HER body, OUR choice.". You may believe that patients have zero rights when it comes to their treatment, but I would disagree. They were not concerned in the slightest as to the wishes of the patient as noted in the c-sect hearing.

If the mother in the other case I mentioned fled to the UK fearing unfair treatment, seems the UK subjects fleeing the UK are doing the same. Ironic no?

@Claire

Can you link to where it stated that the Italian em,bassy was contacted about AP's detainment?

Redding

In all honesty I cannot be bothered because it won't change your mind anyway.

I followed all the threads about this, read the nespapers both uk and Italian. I think there has not been a huge miscardiage of justice.

She had had 2 cs already, no one in Italy woild have let her have a natural birth. This country's dr are overtly cautioys whdn it comes to these things.

Anyway I din't see you posting any links to support your statements...

In the C section hearing they had to balance the previously expressed wishes of someone who at the relevant time was not capable of making decisions for herself against the significant risk of placental abruption in someone who had previously had two C sections. They had to weigh up the fact that, if AP had gone into labour and showed signs of placental abruption the likelihood is that she would have agreed to a C section to save her own and the baby's life, against the fact that, due to her condition, there was a massive risk that if she went into labour it would have become impossible to monitor the signs of placental abruption.

The mother in the Pakistan case fled to the UK because she was effectively being held prisoner. It's just a bit different to parents being encouraged to leave the UK rather than tell the authorities that their partners are abusing their children.

Otherwise, what Claire said.

O hurrah! Its thread number five! or six!

I agree, there is no point trying to engage Redding on this. He/She can't process the central fact, that AP was seriously mentally ill and could not understand need for nor consent for treatment.

Unless you are arguing that ALL the doctors were lying scumbags just wanting to trouser their bonus for finding an easy baby to snatch, I think we have to accept the views of medical professionals that to attempt a natural birth with someone who was psychotic, when that natural birth may have required urgent intervention and constant need to monitor baby's condition, would have been a hellish nightmare for all concerned.

Imagine if they had allowed that to happen and mother AND baby died. I wonder what headline the Daily Mail would have gone for?

Perhaps 'Rights of Mentally Ill Mother to Die due to her Illness Upheld!'

I doubt that very much.

I see this a lot on my twitter feed. It is a subset of the conspiracy theorists that ANY attempt by 'the State' or 'agents of the State' to interfere with an individuals's decision making capacity is viewed with enormous and sometimes quite irrational suspicion. I think that is what is going on here.

and apologies for awful spelling, typed in a rush on my phone this morning!

If the Italian mother was as stark raving mad as they say then they would have had to have her strapped down for months. To believe that in the 10 weeks of being held against her will that communication would harm the patient. I am sure someone with mental health issues would have felt better being given the whole picture instead of being left in the dark. Still doesn't explain why the mother of AP wasn't consulted or why they did not try and assess the wishes of the patient in the hearing.

@nenny

Now you are claiming Pakistan itself was holding her prisoner? I can understand maybe the family, but not the country. If the entire country was behind it as you seem to be saying I can understand why she chose not to pursue legal action in Pakistan.

I agree, there is no point trying to engage Redding on this. He/She can't process the central fact, that AP was seriously mentally ill and could not understand need for nor consent for treatment.

Or perhaps you fail to get it that the issue is not Pacchieri's mental state but that Pacchieri wanted to say to the judge that she was not mentally inadequate but was bamboozled out of any opportunity to do so or to ask the legal "representative" to do so.

There are very strong parallels with the case of the 94 year old published in yesterday's newspaper (yes, sadly the daily mail but I can't find any other report).
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564347/Leave-peace-94-year-olds-plea-High-Court-judge-social-workers-visit-12-times-nine-months-check-carers.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

In which the old woman was able to stand up in court, to protest, but not allowed to plead her own case and not allowed to appoint and pay for her own lawyers (we have got to protect her financial affairs being the feeble excuse) but the judge insisted that she be represented (rather misrepresented) by the Official Solicitor. Who can best be described as a quisling. And to do even that the 94 year old was obliged to sit in the courthouse for nine hours on a wooden bench - a manoeuvre transparently designed to try to wear her down and make her give up. 94 years old and a wooden bench for gosh sakes!

The difference is that in case the judge is openly defying Munby's intervening order that the names of social workers expert witnesses be made public. This despite the accused 94 year old asking in court that the names of everyone involved be made public.

Holly, I don't know that case but it does sound awful. But Munby hasn't made a blanket ruling that names must always be publicised - you can still apply on a case by case basis for your name not to be revealed if you can make out a sensible argument as to why this would harm you if it were.

Redding - you simply display your ignorance of mental health issues. She may not have needed to be 'strapped down' for months to be very seriously ill and not able to participate in the decision making process.

People can switch from lucid to psychotic very quickly and back again. It is not necessarily a 'stable state' of psychosis. Which is why it can be so dangerous.

People can switch from lucid to psychotic very quickly and back again.

Which would be reason to strap them down so as not to harm themselves or others, as they may go mad at the drop of a hat.

Yet again, redding, you are claiming that I have written things which, frankly, anyone who is not an idiot can see that I haven't. Assuming you aren't an idiot, I can only assume you have deliberately chosen to misrepresent what I have written. Given your inability to engage with what I actually have said I don't really understand why you are bothering to take part in this thread.

If you claim that I have said that Pakistan was holding the mother prisoner in the relevant case, do tell us all where. She presumably chose to pursue legal action in the UK because that is where she and at least the older children had their normal residence.

You keep making wild assertions without ever once backing them up with evidence. What is your evidence that no-one communicated with AP? Does it occur to you that someone can be so ill that they are unable to understand what is being said to them and unable to give meaningful instructions without having to be strapped down continuously?

As for your suggestion that mental health professionals would strap down people with bipolar disorder just in case they had a psychotic episode, frankly the levels of ignorance of mental health issues and treatment that you are displaying is breathtaking.

Or perhaps you fail to get it that the issue is not Pacchieri's mental state but that Pacchieri wanted to say to the judge that she was not mentally inadequate but was bamboozled out of any opportunity to do so or to ask the legal "representative" to do so.

I keep asking you for your evidence for this, Holly, and you keep not replying apart from relying on the current statements of Ms Pacchieri about her mental state when she was psychotic which, as I have pointed out, really doesn't cut it. I assume therefore that you don't have such evidence, in which case it might be a good idea not to repeat this assertion.

I would put money on the fact that there are, as usual, numerous factual errors in that Mail report on the 94 year old. For instance, it is said that she only met her lawyer a few minutes before the hearing; yet the report indicates that she was represented by Barbara Hewson, an extremely feisty barrister, who clearly was briefed on the background facts and put up a strong fight. I think it's highly likely that the reality is that the OS followed the practice of appointing an outside firm of solicitors who would have visited the client and briefed Ms Hewson.

As for that suggestion that she was "made" to sit on a wooden bench for 9 hours - nonsense. No-one could have forced her to sit in court, and she could have brought in a cushion or gone out for breaks; there would certainly have been regular breaks during the hearing, and if it was 9 hours long it would probably have stretched into a second day.

@nenny

The hearing stated that AP was not to be told. Yes sounds like open lines of communication indeed. Also AP was declared to be a serious threat to herself and others, seeing as they could not monitor her 24/7 they would have had to find ways of restraining her so that she didn't harm herself or others. How do you suppose they would go about such?

Also you have not responded to the parents not being consulted about the c-sect or the lack of concern on what AP's thoughts and wishes were in the matter.

Despite Italy being AP's place of residence she was scolded for going to Italy to fight her case, being told that it was UK jurisdiction before the Italian court even decided.

If the 94 year old was represented by Barbara Hewson then I put my house on a bet that the Mail is absolutely full of shit.

Redding: Yes, at the hearing it was said AP should not be told about the order. None of that means that no-one communicated with her beforehand.

If you want to know how mental health professionals go about keeping ill patients safe, I suggest you go and ask them. Are you seriously trying to construct some sort of scenario where AP was tied up for weeks on end? Even she doesn't claim that.

Until you respond on the numerous points you have conveniently ignored (and the ones made below), producing evidence for your factual assertions (including the allegation of lack of concern for AP's wishes), I'm not terribly inclined to get into discussions about things you say that may or may not be true. By the way, I note that you haven't tried to substantiate the allegation that I said Pakistan was imprisoning the woman in the recent case, nor apologised for misrepresenting what I said.

What bemuses me about people of the JH/IJ persuasion is that (1) they carry on as if all AP's and her baby's problems would have been solved had she returned to Italy. The reality as demonstrated by people who actually know about the system in Italy (see the various previous threads on this) is that she would have had to have a Caesarean, and her child would have gone into the care system and remained there. And (2) that whenever they are asked what motives there could possibly have been for a large number of social workers, doctors, nurses, lawyers and judges to collude in a plot to keep AP in this country and take her baby into care they never, ever give any answer.

@spero

I hear you. Its not the job of the court to determine capacity, that is the job of the NHS. In the AP case the court did not test for capacity, why would they in the 94yr old case.

@nenny

They never noted the concerns of AP in the c-sect hearing which one would think to be important if they were deciding best interest. Still no explanation for why the parents were not consulted on the c-sect decision.

AP was not "scolded" for going to Italy. What the judge said was that she should have been assisted in the UK to participate in the proceedings, because the fact that she didn't participate whilst she was abroad diminished her chances of success - presumably because there was no chance of her building up any relationship with the baby. It is perfectly clear that the people the judge was unhappy with were those who helped her to return.

Do we know whether she actually started any proceedings in Italy prior to the care hearing in February 2013? We know that in May the Italian courts decided that it was in not in their jurisdiction in any event.

I hear you. Its not the job of the court to determine capacity, that is the job of the NHS

Really? So how do you imagine disputes get resolved when there are disputes between doctors on that issue?

They never noted the concerns of AP in the c-sect hearing which one would think to be important if they were deciding best interest

It was a short hearing where there was clearly a lot of documentation before the judge. They wouldn't have gone through that documentation during the hearing exhaustively because the judge had read it. Equally it is unrealistic to think he has to recite everything in the documentation in his judgment. Therefore the mere fact that AP's concerns weren't mentioned orally does not and cannot meant that they weren't taken into account. You do realise, don't you, that the starting point in any decision of this nature is that both the doctors and the courts will go for the option involving the lowest level of medical intervention unless there is good evidence dictating the need for more?

We still don't know that the parents weren't consulted on the C section decision, because the hospital has understandably not gone public with all the details. Do you suggest that the parents would have refused knowing the potential serious risk to their daughter and grandchild? And, if they had, do you suggest that their wishes should have overridden the patient's welfare?

Still no comment on the many, many unanswered questions that have been put to you, redding. This is looking uncannily similar to experience with a certain MP.

@nenny

I see sarcasm escapes you, as I was referring to how the capacity test were not applied in the AP hearing which is good practice.

You are right important decisions should be rushed and not closely examined. Also you should read Re C (a minor) (detention for medical treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 180 (Fam Div). It states that even if the patient is deem mentally incapacitated that they still have the right to refuse treatment. There was no mention of this test being performed in the hearing. Are the public to believe that everything that was left out the hearing was done previously without ANY documents released to substantiate such claims?

Again the parents have stated that they were not informed of the c-sect til afterward. Are they lying?