Woman has child forcibly taken from womb by social services

[AllyRose]

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.

It's always nice to see someone that is able to think rationally when personal feelings cloud our senses.

Before you assume, learn the facts.

Before you judge, understand why.

Before you hurt someone, feel.

Before you speak, think.

 

[BotanyBoy]

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.

CUZ SOCIALIZM IS EVOLL!!! INN GAWD ALLMIGHTAH COMMANDS IT~!!

 

[1sickbastard]

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.

I missed the part about the woman's mother being spoken to out the outset.
If that's the case, given the rulings from courts in both courts in both countries, it may very well be that the course of action taken might have been the least awful outcome.
It's certainly not a bad thing that the situation, and the authorities reaction to it, will receive closer scrutiny.

 

[oggbashan]

Much more information in the Press today:

1. The woman's two other children had already been taken from her by the Italian authorities because she was a threat to their safety.

2. The Social Services had contacted the womans 'extended family' repeatedly while she was in the mental hospital.

3. While she was in that hospital, and presumably receiving medical attention and the appropriate medication, 'she had a mental breakdown'.

4. The application for the caesarean was not from Essex Social Services but by the Health Service for 'medical' reasons.

5. The baby is now 15 months old.

6. The Chief UK family judge has decided that he will hear the mother's application himself because of the importance of the case.

7. Possibly speculation by the media - the Italian authorities would have taken the child from her soon after it was born and before she was discharged from the maternity ward.

 

[jenibee]

Where is the father? I mean, it's pretty clear that he's long gone, but I love how all the focus is on this mentally unstable woman and nobody mentions the man responsible.

 

[Kyle_Rayner]

Where is the father? I mean, it's pretty clear that he's long gone, but I love how all the focus is on this mentally unstable woman and nobody mentions the man responsible.

what if the woman was a serial rapist and the father is as much a victim in this as the forcibly taken child. just sayin.

 

[oggbashan]

oggbashan's comments. Assume repeated phrases of 'it is alleged that' or 'it is reported that'.

There are several strands to this case:

1. The woman, an Italian. was taken ill while in the UK, having stopped taking her medication for a bipolar condition. She was made subject of an order under the Mental Health Act. That is one decision made by the authorities.

2. She was pregnant. A court order was obtained to allow a C-section - in the interests of the unborn child. That second decision would have been taken for medical reasons.

3. Essex Social Services applied to take the unborn child into care as soon as it was born, and before the woman left the hospital. Apparently some of the health professionals were unhappy with the 'before the woman left the hospital' part, but the order was granted. The third decision - because of a risk of the mother harming the child.

4. The woman has two older children that have been taken away from her by the Italian Authorities because they feared she might harm the children. The incident that made the woman unstable in the first place was that 'she couldn't find the passports for her children' - who were in Italy, and already in the care of the authorities there. Her children had not travelled with her, nor had she had responsibility for them for some time.

5. Essex Social Services and the Health Authorities were in touch with the woman's MOTHER at the time the woman's distress became apparent. They have also been in touch with the extended family.

6. Essex Social Services, now the child is 15 months old and has been in their care ever since birth, have applied for an adoption order to make a permanent arrangement for the child's future. That would be a fourth legal decision. The woman is opposing against that decision being made, and presumably appealing against the previous decision to put the child in care. But what about the two other children? Are they still in care by the Italian authorities? If they are, her chances of winning custody of the 15-month old are remote.

7. Decisions 1, 2, and 3 above are not unique. Similar decisions are made regularly - in isolation, even if a compulsory C-section on MEDICAL grounds is the rarest. What is unique is the combination of factors in this case.

8. The media attention is not helping to make good decisions on the best future for the child and mother. Both need a good outcome but that seems unlikely given the mother's previous history of severe mental illness.

9. The judge who has decided that he will hear the case needs the wisdom of Solomon and all the help he can get from everyone involved. But, by English Law, he has to decide what are the best interests of the child.

 

[phrodeau]

I cannot...CAN NOT...believe this happened! It's like something from a dystopian novel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html?fb

Trust the press to completely misguide you.

I can understand if someone is very ill that they may not be able to consent to a medical procedure, but...

She is very ill.

 

[jenibee]

what if the woman was a serial rapist and the father is as much a victim in this as the forcibly taken child. just sayin.

I think it's pretty clear that someone took advantage of a mentally ill individual, had unprotected sex with her, and then split.

Even if he was raped, how is he in any way, shape, or form "as much a victim" as the child in this case? This child will likely never have a stable home life.

Then again, rapists probably don't have the best home life either, so (the man intention's aside) let's hope they ALL get the much-needed help they need. Mother, Father, and children.

 

[dolf]

I think it's pretty clear that someone took advantage of a mentally ill individual, had unprotected sex with her, and then split.

please tell me this was humour.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

please tell me this was humour.

If so, not even I could see it.

 

[dolf]

If so, not even I could see it.

i thought men (and women) were ok to fuck any adult who was willing, sober, lucid and not obviously retarded or crazy. i was not aware that men were obligated to do a full background check to ascertain a woman's mental and emotional stability before starting. all these men having casual flings or one night stands... they have been breaking the jenibee law of sexual congress?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

i thought men (and women) were ok to fuck any adult who was willing, sober, lucid and not obviously retarded or crazy. i was not aware that men were obligated to do a full background check to ascertain a woman's mental and emotional stability before starting. all these men having casual flings or one night stands... they have been breaking the jenibee law of sexual congress?

It wouldn't be a bad law.... would have saved me a lot of grief.

"Can I please see your non crazy card?"

Then again crazy was fun. So I would not change it. As a good friend once told me; "you know what your problem is? Your are attracted to shiny things".

 

[Sean Renaud]

i thought men (and women) were ok to fuck any adult who was willing, sober, lucid and not obviously retarded or crazy. i was not aware that men were obligated to do a full background check to ascertain a woman's mental and emotional stability before starting. all these men having casual flings or one night stands... they have been breaking the jenibee law of sexual congress?

Where were you when me and Candi had our tiff? A man (or woman) is obligated to do a full background check in addition to disclosing all personal information and being 100% honest before sex. Otherwise it's rape and you deserve to be killed.

 

[dolf]

Where were you when me and Candi had our tiff? A man (or woman) is obligated to do a full background check in addition to disclosing all personal information and being 100% honest before sex. Otherwise it's rape and you deserve to be killed.

imo, there should be a legal obligation to declare disease, a moral obligation to declare marital/relationship status, and both parties should be sure that the other is capable of informed consent.

but then i'm a reasonable and intelligent person.

candi has some funny idea about shit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I agree with your opinion. Though Candi would argue that if you pretend to be a rap star you've commited a crime worse than murder.

 

[dolf]

I agree with your opinion. Though Candi would argue that if you pretend to be a rap star you've commited a crime worse than murder.

immoral ain't the same as criminal.
if we start trying to foist our sexual morality on people by way of the legal system, we'll end up stoning people for extramarital sex and enforcing the wearing up burqas.

 

[oggbashan]

A sideline:

A comment from an Italian lawyer was reported that in Italy the woman would have been allowed to have a 'natural' birth and that a legal order for a compulsory caesarian was 'immoral'. Comment on that has suggested that the lawyer's statement was because "Italy is a Catholic country and caesarian delivery is against the Catholic Church's teaching."

But, according to Wikipedia:

"In the United Kingdom, in 2008, the Caesarean section rate was 24%. In Ireland the rate was 26.1% in 2009. The Canadian rate was 26% in 2005–2006. Australia has a high Caesarean section rate, at 31% in 2007. [US rate 32.8% in 2010.]

In Italy the incidence of Caesarean sections is particularly high, although it varies from region to region. In Campania, 60% of 2008 births reportedly occurred via Caesarean sections. In the Rome region, the mean incidence is around 44%, but can reach as high as 85% in some private clinics."

 

[BotanyBoy]

nobody mentions the man responsible.

Because he's not responsible......at all. Not in either country as far as I know, deff not in the US.

You could easily prove me wrong though and name the legal authority/control he has over the fetus.

 

[phrodeau]

A sideline:

A comment from an Italian lawyer was reported that in Italy the woman would have been allowed to have a 'natural' birth and that a legal order for a compulsory caesarian was 'immoral'. Comment on that has suggested that the lawyer's statement was because "Italy is a Catholic country and caesarian delivery is against the Catholic Church's teaching."

But, according to Wikipedia:

"In the United Kingdom, in 2008, the Caesarean section rate was 24%. In Ireland the rate was 26.1% in 2009. The Canadian rate was 26% in 2005–2006. Australia has a high Caesarean section rate, at 31% in 2007. [US rate 32.8% in 2010.]

In Italy the incidence of Caesarean sections is particularly high, although it varies from region to region. In Campania, 60% of 2008 births reportedly occurred via Caesarean sections. In the Rome region, the mean incidence is around 44%, but can reach as high as 85% in some private clinics."

The Romans invented it, after all.

 

[jenibee]

i thought men (and women) were ok to fuck any adult who was willing, sober, lucid and not obviously retarded or crazy. i was not aware that men were obligated to do a full background check to ascertain a woman's mental and emotional stability before starting. all these men having casual flings or one night stands... they have been breaking the jenibee law of sexual congress?

I think perhaps the gist of my post was lost here. I personally happen to be a huge fan of one night stands.

I am not, however, a fan of UNSAFE one night stands. It's my personal law if you'd like to call it that. I insist on a condom and if it breaks or if he decides to cum in my mouth or whatever I get tested and disclose the results to him. I've been lucky that I haven't gotten pregnant from a one night stand or caught any diseases, but it's just that: luck. If I did get pregnant, I would let him know that I would be getting an abortion. I've never had one but that's the most likely course I'd take. If he wanted to pay for it (or pay for my pregnancy and child support for 18 years) he's more than welcome, but I wouldn't expect it. The expectation is that he *knows* I got pregnant, however.

Call it the jenibee law if you like, it's kinda catchy.

 

[dolf]

I think perhaps the gist of my post was lost here. I personally happen to be a huge fan of one night stands.

I am not, however, a fan of UNSAFE one night stands. It's my personal law if you'd like to call it that. I insist on a condom and if it breaks or if he decides to cum in my mouth or whatever I get tested and disclose the results to him. I've been lucky that I haven't gotten pregnant from a one night stand or caught any diseases, but it's just that: luck. If I did get pregnant, I would let him know that I would be getting an abortion. I've never had one but that's the most likely course I'd take. If he wanted to pay for it (or pay for my pregnancy and child support for 18 years) he's more than welcome, but I wouldn't expect it. The expectation is that he *knows* I got pregnant, however.

Call it the jenibee law if you like, it's kinda catchy.

if no condom was used, assuming she appeared sane and sober at the time, why is he the one taking advantage of her, when for all we know she could be the more domineering and persuasive party? it may have been a person she was dating whist she was in a saner phase who believed she was taking birth control. he may have been a one nighter who failed to notice a small hole in the rubber. he may have been into her but been rejected and denied and have no idea what is going on.

point is, we have no fucking idea and the sort of assumption you spew is exactly the kind of bullshit that gives feminism a bad name.

''I think it's pretty clear that someone took advantage of a mentally ill individual, had unprotected sex with her, and then split.''

the 'jist' wasn't lost. you said it was 'pretty clear' he's the one to blame, despite having no evidence to back up that assumption. man bad, woman victim assumptions are ugly.

 

[jenibee]

the 'jist' wasn't lost. you said it was 'pretty clear' he's the one to blame, despite having no evidence to back up that assumption. man bad, woman victim assumptions are ugly.

But statistically the most likely scenario.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or world view, just sharing my own.

 

[dolf]

But statistically the most likely scenario.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or world view, just sharing my own.

The most likely in your sexist opinion. Thank you for sharing your assumptions so that people can see what you are.

 

[Sean Renaud]

How is that any more statisically likely than mutually consenting sex? It's not like most people have any reliable way for knowing when someone is crazy. I mean unless I start with the baseline of if she's willing to sleep with me and she's not drunk she must be high and if she's not high she must be outside her mind crazy. I mean I doubt, even without her medicine, that this woman was bouncing around drooling.