Woman has child forcibly taken from womb by social services

[lovetoread]

So let me see if I have this straight. The woman was nutters and the government took her baby? And people are upset?


It's bad enough we can't put crazy people in the loony bin and instead have to let them run around wild now people are complaining that we aren't subjecting children to teh crazeh? The fuck is the matter with people?

Her rights trump the child's, apparently.

 

[Aphro]

The thing is, the baby wasn't even born yet...they took it from her body by force. That's the part I find disturbing. If she had the baby, and then, they said hey, you are an unfit mother, you are not taking care of this baby properly, etc. then that's one thing. Knocking her out and performing a C-section without her consent or next of kin's consent is what I am finding difficult to swallow.

I'm sure that there has to be WAAAAAY more to the story than published here...there must be something that has been left out that is crucial to why this occurred. I just wonder where her family was in all of this?

 

[Sean]

It seems that the law was followed. As Ogg points out, even the Italian courts seem to accept that. The only reason I can think this decision was taken was that social services, and the court, considered the woman a threat to herself and/or the child.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The thing is, the baby wasn't even born yet...they took it from her body by force. That's the part I find disturbing. If she had the baby, and then, they said hey, you are an unfit mother, you are not taking care of this baby properly, etc. then that's one thing. Knocking her out and performing a C-section without her consent or next of kin's consent is what I am finding difficult to swallow.

I'm sure that there has to be WAAAAAY more to the story than published here...there must be something that has been left out that is crucial to why this occurred. I just wonder where her family was in all of this?

As a liberal, I mostly agree with the first part. I'm curious how all the Conservatives who completely believe that babies are human beings complete with the right to live from the point of conception rationalize being against this. We know enough about how miscarriages and birth defects are caused that if you honestly believe that shit you should be all about locking up pregnant crazy people and people who've abused drugs and alcohol and the like. (But the reality is nobody actually believes those things so nobody would suggest THAT)

Why would the next of kin get any say in the child being taken? I guess they should have been informed (I don't think there is any law that requires you to tell the next of kin when you arrest someone or even execute them. The fact that when someone goes missing someone usually notices isn't the point. I don't think the state is obligated to inform anybody as opposed to not actively hiding the information.

I also assume there is something we're not hearing. Like this woman has a history of some sort because she's far from the first crazy lady to get pregnant and this made the news which means it's unusual.

 

[subdued_passion]

The thing is, the baby wasn't even born yet...they took it from her body by force. That's the part I find disturbing. If she had the baby, and then, they said hey, you are an unfit mother, you are not taking care of this baby properly, etc. then that's one thing. Knocking her out and performing a C-section without her consent or next of kin's consent is what I am finding difficult to swallow.

I'm sure that there has to be WAAAAAY more to the story than published here...there must be something that has been left out that is crucial to why this occurred. I just wonder where her family was in all of this?

Of course there is. The title of the article itself is suspect because I doubt social services are qualified to perform C-sections under any circumstance.

 

[oggbashan]

...

I also assume there is something we're not hearing. Like this woman has a history of some sort because she's far from the first crazy lady to get pregnant and this made the news which means it's unusual.

There must be something really significant about the case for the British and Italian courts to agree she is incapable.

There are too many unanswered questions that will probably never be answered in public.

Where were her family? Why was she working in the UK? Had she come as a health tourist because her family couldn't afford her care in Italy? Why was she near term in the UK? Why did Social Services get involved? Who called them in? Why did the court and the health service agree to a caesarian? Was she physically unable to give birth normally? Or mentally unable to endure it?

 

[bg23]

There must be something really significant about the case for the British and Italian courts to agree she is incapable.

There are too many unanswered questions that will probably never be answered in public.

Where were her family? Why was she working in the UK? Had she come as a health tourist because her family couldn't afford her care in Italy? Why was she near term in the UK? Why did Social Services get involved? Who called them in? Why did the court and the health service agree to a caesarian? Was she physically unable to give birth normally? Or mentally unable to endure it?

Last summer a pregnant Italian mother flew to England for a two-week Ryanair training course at Stansted. Staying at an airport hotel, she had something of a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters, who were with her mother back in Italy. She called the police, who arrived at her room when she was on the phone to her mother. The police asked to speak to the grandmother, who explained that her daughter was probably over-excited because she suffered from a “bipolar” condition and hadn’t been taking her medication to calm her down.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. On arrival, she was startled to see that it was a psychiatric hospital, and said she wanted to go back to her hotel. She was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html

 

[oggbashan]

Sectioning under the Mental Health Act is the last resort because there are so few places for mental health patients.

Her condition must have been severe.

 

[Ishmael]

Sectioning under the Mental Health Act is the last resort because there are so few places for mental health patients.

Her condition must have been severe.

Yet to put the child up for adoption by total strangers?????? Based on a presumption of guilt (she may stop taking her meds again).

Sorry, that is inexcusable. A bureaucracy run amok and cause for violent civil disobedience.

While one can try to excuse one of the acts of these little wannabe godlettes, the entire chain smacks of government CYA. Returning the child to the mother is an admission of guilt and cause for civil action. Soooooooooo, fuck the mother, "We're NEVER wrong."

Ishmael

 

[subdued_passion]

Yet to put the child up for adoption by total strangers?????? Based on a presumption of guilt (she may stop taking her meds again).

Sorry, that is inexcusable. A bureaucracy run amok and cause for violent civil disobedience.

While one can try to excuse one of the acts of these little wannabe godlettes, the entire chain smacks of government CYA. Returning the child to the mother is an admission of guilt and cause for civil action. Soooooooooo, fuck the mother, "We're NEVER wrong."

Ishmael

Isn't it natural to give the benefit of the doubt to the authorities who (unlike us) did most likely have access to all of the facts of the case?

 

[Ishmael]

Isn't it natural to give the benefit of the doubt to the authorities who (unlike us) did most likely have access to all of the facts of the case?

NO!!!!!!! To cede the that benefit of doubt is the first step to indentured servitude. It is an admission that the people serve the government, not that the government serves the people.

Ishmael

 

[oggbashan]

Yet to put the child up for adoption by total strangers?????? Based on a presumption of guilt (she may stop taking her meds again).

Sorry, that is inexcusable. A bureaucracy run amok and cause for violent civil disobedience.

While one can try to excuse one of the acts of these little wannabe godlettes, the entire chain smacks of government CYA. Returning the child to the mother is an admission of guilt and cause for civil action. Soooooooooo, fuck the mother, "We're NEVER wrong."

Ishmael

Since the original decision was by the High Court, there would be no grounds in the UK for guilt by the authorities, nor for civil action.

There are still too many questions. Where were her family? What is her past history of mental illness? Why wasn't she taking her medications?

It will be examined in detail because lawyers and a Member of Parliament are involved, but under UK law the safety of the child takes precedence over the rights of the parent if there is serious doubt about parental capacity AND a risk of harm to the child.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Isn't it natural to give the benefit of the doubt to the authorities who (unlike us) did most likely have access to all of the facts of the case?

That would be common sense.

NO!!!!!!! To cede the that benefit of doubt is the first step to indentured servitude. It is an admission that the people serve the government, not that the government serves the people.

Ishmael

Fine then indentured servants we shall be. It's obviously better than the alternative.

 

[oggbashan]

NO!!!!!!! To cede the that benefit of doubt is the first step to indentured servitude. It is an admission that the people serve the government, not that the government serves the people.

Ishmael

In the UK, Social Services departments are always in the wrong.

If they do something to protect children at risk of serious harm they are accused of ignoring the 'rights' of the parent(s).

If they don't do something, and allow the family to stay together, but the child is injured or killed, they are blamed - not the abuser/murderer.

If the parent(s) are lying manipulative schemers who conceal the abuse - social services are blamed.

If a parent is an abuser but the other partner takes (usually) him back despite the history of child abuse, and doesn't tell social services, the department is blamed when the child is injured.

 

[subdued_passion]

That would be common sense.

It annoys me when the press sometimes (quite irresponsibly) write articles with sensationalised headlines that create bias.

Kangaroo courts don't care about facts, they just want their justice.

 

[Ishmael]

In the UK, Social Services departments are always in the wrong.

If they do something to protect children at risk of serious harm they are accused of ignoring the 'rights' of the parent(s).

If they don't do something, and allow the family to stay together, but the child is injured or killed, they are blamed - not the abuser/murderer.

If the parent(s) are lying manipulative schemers who conceal the abuse - social services are blamed.

If a parent is an abuser but the other partner takes (usually) him back despite the history of child abuse, and doesn't tell social services, the department is blamed when the child is injured.

Essentially it's the same over here, but you still don't allow them to get away with anything without full disclosure.

For example, they had the mother under lock and key for weeks before taking the child, and were aware of her bi-polar condition. Why didn't they just give her her prescription? And if the prescription was endangering the child then it could be said that the mother was acting in the best interests of the child by NOT taking the meds. Obviously the meds straightened her right out after the child was born, and that being the case why isn't the child being returned to the mother.

There needs to be a full rectal examination of everyone involved in this case.

Ishmael

 

[eyer]

Meanwhile, closer to home...

Ohio Amish girl, family flee to avoid forced chemotherapy

A 10-year-old Amish girl with leukemia and her parents haven't contacted a guardian appointed two months ago to make medical decisions for the girl after her parents stopped her chemotherapy treatments, the guardian's attorney said Wednesday.

It's unclear whether the girl has resumed treatments, and there are indications that the family has left its farm in rural northeast Ohio

...An appeals court ruling in October gave an attorney who's also a registered nurse limited guardianship over Sarah and the power to make medical decisions for her. The court said the beliefs and convictions of her parents can't outweigh the rights of the state to protect the child.

...Sarah begged her parents to stop the chemo and they agreed after a great deal of prayer, Hershberger said. The family, members of an insular Amish community, shuns many facets of modern life and is deeply religious.

Full story here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...-girl-resumed-chemo-amid-fight-with-hospital/

 

[Sean Renaud]

So in this case the court has decided that you're not allowed to kill your kid and that's bad.

In all honestly I don't have a problem with euthanasia but it's still illegal so the judges really have two choices, legislate from the bench and RADICALLY this isn't interpreting the existing laws in the way that you want this is simply ignoring a law that you don't like because you don't like it.

So I get the parents for the most part and support them in this particular case. But each year we hear about a case of two of parents who essentially killed their children because they believed "God" would heal them. When you turn 18 you have the right to suffer moron induced death but nobody has the right to impose tha ton you period.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm not surprised the Brits wanted to keep the Italian child. Every nation needs more Italians.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Back to how it all began-

Last summer a pregnant Italian mother flew to England for a two-week Ryanair training course at Stansted. Staying at an airport hotel, she had something
of a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters, who were with her mother back in Italy.

She called the police, who arrived at her room when she was on the phone to her mother. The police asked to speak to the grandmother, who explained
that her daughter was probably over-excited because she suffered from a “bipolar” condition and hadn’t been taking her medication to calm her down.

The police told the mother that they were taking her to hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. On arrival, she was startled to see that it was a
psychiatric hospital, and said she wanted to go back to her hotel. She was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that
she must stay in the hospital.

By now Essex social services were involved, and five weeks later she was told she could not have breakfast that day. When no explanation was forth coming
she volubly protested. She was strapped down and forcibly sedated, and when she woke up hours later, found she was in a different hospital and that her baby had been removed by caesarean section while she was unconscious and taken into care by social workers. She was not allowed to see her baby daughter, and later learnt that a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. In October, at a hearing before another judge, she was represented by lawyers assigned to her by the local authority and told she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html

 

[Aphro]

As a liberal, I mostly agree with the first part. I'm curious how all the Conservatives who completely believe that babies are human beings complete with the right to live from the point of conception rationalize being against this. We know enough about how miscarriages and birth defects are caused that if you honestly believe that shit you should be all about locking up pregnant crazy people and people who've abused drugs and alcohol and the like. (But the reality is nobody actually believes those things so nobody would suggest THAT)

Why would the next of kin get any say in the child being taken? I guess they should have been informed (I don't think there is any law that requires you to tell the next of kin when you arrest someone or even execute them. The fact that when someone goes missing someone usually notices isn't the point. I don't think the state is obligated to inform anybody as opposed to not actively hiding the information.

I also assume there is something we're not hearing. Like this woman has a history of some sort because she's far from the first crazy lady to get pregnant and this made the news which means it's unusual.

I'm just wondering why they were not the first line of choice to care for the infant, if it had been deemed that the mother was incapable because of her mental illness to do so. If this woman had relatives (parents, sisters, brothers, etc.) who were able and willing to care for the child, then I think they should have had the opportunity to foster/adopt their own flesh and blood.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm just wondering why they were not the first line of choice to care for the infant, if it had been deemed that the mother was incapable because of her mental illness to do so. If this woman had relatives (parents, sisters, brothers, etc.) who were able and willing to care for the child, then I think they should have had the opportunity to foster/adopt their own flesh and blood.

If this woman had relatives (parents, sisters, brothers, etc.) who were able and willing to care for the child,

We don't know. There's so much we don't know.

What we do know is this is very, very unusual.

Why? We don't know that either.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm just wondering why they were not the first line of choice to care for the infant, if it had been deemed that the mother was incapable because of her mental illness to do so. If this woman had relatives (parents, sisters, brothers, etc.) who were able and willing to care for the child, then I think they should have had the opportunity to foster/adopt their own flesh and blood.

I'm curious about it myself but I'm not sure I would give a child to the family of someone who was known to be damaged goods without a really high level of proof that they would actually be the ones caring for the child as opposed to signing their name on a piece of paper and handing the child right back to the mother in all but the most legal of senses. This isn't a dead relative or even a relative who is in jail in either case I would 100% agree with you. This is a damaged, but likely loved by whatever family she does have.

And we don't know for sure that she even HAS immediate family that she's in touch with who are in a position to take the child. I'll agree that it's a safe assumption that she does since MOST people do but not everybody is in that kind of situation.

That's not to say they shouldn't get a shot though, just that I would set the standard pretty high.

Ultimately my point is still this sounds like an extreme enough case and knowing how CPS works in the United States and listening to Ogg tells us about the UK I suspect that the case has to be pretty fucking extreme for the government to even take a child (a born child) from a mother. To have sedated her, cut her open and ran away with the child this woman must have been seven shades of fucked up.

What we do know is this is very, very unusual.

Why? We don't know that either.

We know why this is very unusual. Whatever the hell happened here is extremely uncommon whatever it was.

 

[1sickbastard]

The critical sentence in the news report is:

The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.

If that is true, and the British and Italian judges seem to agree, then she is and was seriously disturbed and incapable of making any decisions about herself or the baby.

That makes this case very unusual indeed.

I did make note of that in the article.
It's still unclear why the local authorities made no attempt to contact the woman's next of kin.
I expect both British and Italian authorities will now work to entrust the child's guardianship to suitable relatives of hers in Italy. I also expect, due to the negligence of the local authorities to contact her next of kin before the cesarean was authorized, the woman will be awarded compensation from the public funds, though she may or may not be awarded legal custody of her daughter.

 

[oggbashan]

I did make note of that in the article.
It's still unclear why the local authorities made no attempt to contact the woman's next of kin.
I expect both British and Italian authorities will now work to entrust the child's guardianship to suitable relatives of hers in Italy. I also expect, due to the negligence of the local authorities to contact her next of kin before the cesarean was authorized, the woman will be awarded compensation from the public funds, though she may or may not be awarded legal custody of her daughter.

What information we have got, which isn't much, is that the woman's MOTHER was spoken to at the outset.

There is something about the relatives' actions or reactions which doesn't ring true from the information we have. Why weren't the relatives involved before the caesarian? We don't know whether they were or were not. Perhaps they refused to get involved. We don't know.

As with most of this case, we don't know about the relatives.

Edited to add: The Italian authorities have no standing in this. What happens to the baby will be decided by an English court under English law.