Woman forcibly given a C-Section and baby taken into care

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Kerny

Original post by Gjaykay

Are we giving far too much power to Social Services? Should we allow forced C-sections?

They don't have the power to do this, as the article says it was the High Court that allowed it.

Reply 21

FlavaFavourFruit

Unethical is an understatement.

Reply 22

Pastaferian

Original post by FlavaFavourFruit

Unethical is an understatement.

True - it's astonishing that the Telegraph publishes all the rubbish he makes up.

Reply 23

ash92:)

Original post by Gjaykay

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

Wow, I wonder how this will all turn out. What do you guys think will happen to this kid?
I feel sorry for the women, wonder what her "mental breakdown" was =/

Are we giving far too much power to Social Services? Should we allow forced C-sections?

That's disgusting. Is it me, or is the only given reason her nationality and supposed 'mental breakdown'?

Reply 24

Grim_Squeaker

Forced C-Section on an Italian citizen visiting the UK. At face value that's a diplomatic incident in itself. Lets wait and see what other details emerge before starting the ragewagon.

Reply 25

Annie72

There must be more to this story than we are being told. I'm going to wait and see what else transpires about the case.

Reply 26

Dopamine Dreams

In this day and age we should be doing everything possible to support those who suffer from mental health conditions.

Disgusting.

Reply 27

IlexBlue

This makes me feel physical sick. It's the sort of thing you'd look back on from the 1920s and feel horrified over.

And over a panic attack? What on earth?

There must be more to this. There has to be. Such a drastic decision can't have been enforced otherwise.

Reply 28

Aj12

Court Orders are hardly given out for no reason. Clearly there was a justified reason for this. That or a lot of people are about to lose their jobs

Reply 29

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by thunder_chunky

I want to believe they had an adequate reason for this, however these are rather extreme measures even by standards of extreme measures.

This is the problem tbh. :s-smilie:

Reply 30

RetiredAccount89

Original post by Kiss

That's shocking even coming from social services. Absolutely disgusting.

you don't have a clue what the situation was.

for all you know she was 8 motnhs pregnant, in the middle of a psychotic break and going bonkers. not a safe situation for normal delivery.
ergo you do a c-section - cntrolled.

the delivery will likely improve mothers mental state, and will remove risk from her baby.

i think its a case of calm down and await more information (likely not to be released however - she can claim what she wants, but SS and the health board are bound by her confidentiality)

Reply 31

Kiss

Original post by Jamie

you don't have a clue what the situation was.

Neither do you.......

for all you know she was 8 motnhs pregnant, in the middle of a psychotic break and going bonkers. not a safe situation for normal delivery. ergo you do a c-section - cntrolled.

How is a forced caesarean ever considered the automatic alternative?

the delivery will likely improve mothers mental state, and will remove risk from her baby.

I don't see how having a forced caesarean then putting her baby up for adoption would make her, or anybody's, mental state any better. If I were her, I'd be pretty pissed.

i think its a case of calm down and await more information (likely not to be released however - she can claim what she wants, but SS and the health board are bound by her confidentiality)

Well you put it so nicely as 'SS' - that's basically all they are.

Reply 32

nulli tertius

There are several things here that seem very odd.

The first is that no anonymised law report has been published. Even without the forced Caesarian, the case raised enough legal novelty to justify a law report. It is not unheard of for someone to experience a breakdown on a short trip necessitating a Mental Health Act sectioning but it is not common, and surely the first question must have been whether it was better for her welfare to repatriate her for treatment abroad? There was the added complication of her pregnancy, but she must have fit to fly when she arrived. Then on top of this was the reasoning behind the forced Caesarian. Even if a forced Caesarian has been performed before, it will have been extremely rare and probably performed on someone incapable of understanding the nature of pregnancy rather than someone disturbed. This cried out for a law report.

Again, whilst the courts here undoubtedly have jurisdiction over the child, the child having never lived anywhere other than England, that doesn't mean that the court here should exercise that jurisdiction. Now that the mother has returned to Italy it is difficult to see how the English court is equipped to determine whether the child should be placed with its mother, with the wider family or adopted. Again, this looks like something that should be in the law reports. So why wasn't it?

The telegraph report suggests that the case was heard in Chelmsford (the Telegraph refers to Chelmsford Crown Court which is nonsense and only shows that the writer doesn't know what he is talking about) but the reference to Chelmsford suggests the case was heard in the County Court rather than the High Court. Again, the alarm bells ring. A case with this international dimension was not fit for the County Court.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 33

Kittiara

This is a very scary story, in my opinion. As others have said, we don't know all the details, but the thought of the state being able to forcibly give a woman a c-section and take her baby away from her just feels so, so wrong.

She has two other children, she has a job dealing with the public... surely if she was dangerous her other children would have been taken away from her by the Italian authorities, and she wouldn't have had the job she does? Perhaps whatever happened to her gave cause to think she was a danger (though, a panic attack? Many people have those and aren't dangerous at all!), but even so, she wasn't given the opportunity to show everything was fine! Why not have placed her and her baby under supervision?

Plus, she isn't even a resident in this country, so how can the British authorities have any claim on her baby? :confused:

Reply 34

OMGWTFBBQ

Social workers & the courts are always separating fathers from their children.

A shame it only hits the news when it affects a woman - though that just about sums this country up.

Reply 35

Jam'

Original post by marinajelly

Forced c-section? Disgusting, how can they separate a mother and baby before they've even seen how the mother will care for her child?!

Posted from TSR Mobile

What a stupid thing to say.

If this mother posed a significant threat to her child due to her mental illness I don't think it's worth playing games to see how well the mother would cope with the child.

The lady suffered from bipolar disorder; the problem occurred when there were issues with her taking her medication.

In her mental state, the mother may have refused to adequately care for the child, blame the child, or otherwise harm her child due to her unstable condition.

I bet you're the same kind of nonsensical thinker who would have complained in a similar fashion that "Social Services didn't do enough" if the mother inflicted harm upon her child.

To be honest this method allows Social Services to properly evaluate the situation; it allows time for the mother to recover; and it means that the child's interests are placed at the forefront of any concerns as per the Children Act 1989.

In this instance the likelihood of the mother being reacquainted with her child, if it surfaces that this is a feasible option, is highest.

Reply 36

OMGWTFBBQ

Original post by Kittiara

Plus, she isn't even a resident in this country, so how can the British authorities have any claim on her baby? :confused:

It was born on British soil?

Reply 37

Kittiara

Original post by OMGWTFBBQ

It was born on British soil?

Forcibly...

I thought that these days, if the parents aren't UK residents, their baby, even if born on British soil, will have the same nationality as them?

Reply 38

Jam'

Original post by Kittiara

Because she has bipolar and she was having issues controlling it, her likelihood of experiencing severe postnatal depression, psychosis, etc. placed the mother and her unborn child at elevated risk which this intervention aimed to prevent.

It was acceptable for British authorities to get involved - she was in Britain. Italian authorities have accepted that it was within British authorities' remit to intervene.

Reply 39

Kittiara

Original post by Jam'

If it happened as described, though, the authorities' actions are very questionable. I mean, she was doing well enough despite her bipolar to not only have a public-facing job, but also to be trusted to attend a training course in a different country. She may have had a panic attack because of not having taken her medication, but when regulated, bi-polar is manageable and it would appear that she had managed it well in the past (hence the job, etc).

Had they simply supervised her, made sure she was back on her medication, offered her guidance and support, then that would be fine. Taking her baby from her in that way, without so much as talking it through with her beforehand, feels very wrong to me.