Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Child taken from womb by social services

  1. #1
    Silver Member yowzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    562

    Default Child taken from womb by social services

    Child taken from womb by social services

    Exclusive: Essex social services have obtained a court order against a woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and for her child to be taken from her womb by caesarean section

    The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented” Photo: ALAMY









    By Colin Freeman

    8:58PM GMT 30 Nov 2013


    A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

    Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

    The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

    The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

    The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented”.

    Related Articles





    They claim that even if the council had been acting in the woman’s best interests, officials should have consulted her family beforehand and also involved Italian social services, who would be better-placed to look after the child.
    Brendan Fleming, the woman’s British lawyer, told The Sunday Telegraph: “I have never heard of anything like this in all my 40 years in the job.
    “I can understand if someone is very ill that they may not be able to consent to a medical procedure, but a forced caesarean is unprecedented.
    “If there were concerns about the care of this child by an Italian mother, then the better plan would have been for the authorities here to have notified social services in Italy and for the child to have been taken back there.”
    The case, reported by Christopher Booker in his column in The Sunday Telegraph, raises fresh questions about the extent of social workers’ powers.
    It will be raised in Parliament this week by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP. He chairs the Public Family Law Reform Coordinating Campaign, which wants reform and greater openness in court proceedings involving family matters.
    He said: “I have seen a number of cases of abuses of people’s rights in the family courts, but this has to be one of the more extreme.
    “It involves the Court of Protection authorising a caesarean section without the person concerned being made aware of what was proposed. I worry about the way these decisions about a person’s mental capacity are being taken without any apparent concern as to the effect on the individual being affected.”
    The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is an Italian national who come to Britain in July last year to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport in Essex.
    She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.
    She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.
    She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
    Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.
    The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.
    In February, the mother, who had gone back to Italy, returned to Britain to request the return of her daughter at a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court.
    Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse.
    The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. 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.
    Lawyers for the woman are demanding to know why Essex social services appear not have contacted next of kin in Italy to consult them on the case.
    They are also upset that social workers insisted on placing the child in care in Britain, when there had been an offer from a family friend in America to look after her.
    An expert on social care proceedings, who asked not to be named because she was not fully acquainted with the details of the case, described it as “highly unusual”.
    She said the council would first have to find “that she was basically unfit to make any decision herself” and then shown there was an acute risk to the mother if a natural birth was attempted.
    An Essex county council spokesman said the local authority would not comment on ongoing cases involving vulnerable people and children.





  2. #2
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    14,568

    Default

    This just seems absurd. There has to be more to this, surely?

  3. #3
    Silver Member yowzers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    562

    Default

    I can't quite believe it either. tl;dr Italian woman visits Britain for work, calls the emergency services for help because she has a panic attack, they section her, get a court order to forcefully sedate her and deliver the child and then keep the child in Britain! What the actual fuck.

  4. #4
    Elite Member Karistiona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alba
    Posts
    12,628

    Default

    Yeah there's got to be more to this, and social services probably can't say too much about it because of confidentiality. I'm reserving judgement for now.
    I smile because I have no idea what's going on

  5. #5
    Elite Member Kittylady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somewhere been 'General Confusion' and 'Total WTF?'
    Posts
    18,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karistiona View Post
    Yeah there's got to be more to this, and social services probably can't say too much about it because of confidentiality. I'm reserving judgement for now.
    The problem is that the courts are closed and the parent/s are hit with a gagging order so they face prison if they try and take their case public, which is why we only hear about a fraction of them in the media. There have been a LOT of similar cases over the last few years and even when the bio parent/s have won their case the children have still been lost to them as they have been forcibly adopted during the legal battle or SS claim that it is too disruptive to take them from their foster carers or re-establish contact with the natural parents.

    There is almost a quiet version of "A Handmaid's Tale" going on with some SS authorities because either they are being ridiculously overzealous or because it helps them meet their targets and thus ensure their funding for the following year. Whatever is behind this it is worth doing some digging around for other stories as there are more than you'd think.
    Ravenna and CornFlakegrl like this.
    I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S Thompson

    How big would a T-Rex wang be?! - Karistiona


  6. #6
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    13,385

    Default

    I'm not reserving judgement. This is outrageous. Even if the unborn child was in some sort of distress and needed to be delivered immediately, and the mother was too out of it to deliver, keeping the child from her after she recovers seems dead wrong. Also, why not contact family or friends for placement of the child until the mother is better? This is crazy.

  7. #7
    Elite Member Chilly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Trolltopia
    Posts
    29,139

    Default

    I can't wrap my head around this. I don't think I've ever read about any western government doing this. This is outrages. Can you imagine the trauma? They didn't even warn her, she just woke up and they had cut open her body. That can't possibly be true?
    Hello mother fucker! when you ask a question read also the answer instead of asking another question on an answer who already contain the answer of your next question!
    -Bugdoll-



  8. #8
    Elite Member Witchywoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    vat of chocolate
    Posts
    4,327

    Default

    This is from the dark ages.

  9. #9
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    52,293

    Default

    holy crap, there has to be more to this story, i can't believe they would be such fucking savages. it's like going back 50 years back in time...
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  10. #10
    Elite Member Karistiona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alba
    Posts
    12,628

    Default

    And that's why I think there has to be more to the story...it's just fucking insane.
    I smile because I have no idea what's going on

  11. #11
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    14,568

    Default

    Now reading this it makes more sense..

    essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/Essex-County-Council-responses-to-interest-in-story-headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspx

  12. #12
    Elite Member yanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,980

    Default

    Thanks for posting this, sarzy. It makes a lot more sense. If she already has two kids she can't take care of I don't see why this one should be given to her.
    What if Superman is psychotic and everyone can see that he's Clark Kent but they just play along not to set him off?

  13. #13
    Elite Member azoria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    far and away
    Posts
    3,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yanna View Post
    Thanks for posting this, sarzy. It makes a lot more sense. If she already has two kids she can't take care of I don't see why this one should be given to her.

    Makes sense? There is no way anything about it makes sense.

    The state held this pregnant woman against her will, drugged her so she could not object or fight back, FORCIBLY and without her consent performed invasive surgery into her womb, and then absconded with her seized infant. Aided and abetted by medical 'professionals'.

    If this doesn't frighten the fuck out of every woman in Great Britain I don't know what will.

    It is one of the most egregious examples of legalized tyranny and medical malpractice in the western world since the 1930's.

    There is absolutely NOTHING defensible about the state's seizure and ransacking of this woman's body, there can be no kind of moral or righteous justification for this kind of abuse and barbarity. Fucking none.

    I hope the investigating justice finds all parties--the judge of the secret court who signed the order, the social workers responsible, and the medical personnel involved--guilty of the highest crimes against humanity. And I would wish the local residents show these culpable barbarians the same punishment meted out against other such fascist overlords.

    To wit:

    Benito Mussolini

  14. #14
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    14,568

    Default

    ^ Yes they held her against her will as she was detained under the mental health act. That's what happens. Obviously she was in a very bad way for them to take such actions.

  15. #15
    Elite Member Kittylady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somewhere been 'General Confusion' and 'Total WTF?'
    Posts
    18,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azoria View Post

    If this doesn't frighten the fuck out of every woman in Great Britain I don't know what will.
    It frightens the fuck out of me, and has done for many years since I first started reading about these cases, especially as I was medicated for depression at one point in my life and, in some cases that have fought their way into the media, that is all it has taken for a closed Court to be convened and the child removed at birth, even when any incidences of ill health are historical in the extreme and there is a loving and supportive partner in the picture.

    This is one of several cases that have been leaked (often in breach of Court Orders banning the parents and relatives from speaking publicly) where SS have acted aggressively against an expectant or new mother, and one of what is speculated to be thousands where the gagging orders have kept those involved silent. This woman's immediate and extended family have all offered to step in and raise this child with the intention that the little girl can maintain her cultural identity and contact with her blood family. Now that the mother is back on her meds (which she seems to have been off or on a reduced dosage due to her pregnancy) she has been examined and found to be intelligent, articulate, stable and able to work and support herself. She was, in fact, only in the UK to attend a two week training course as part of her employment. If she has the support of her immediate and extended family then the child should be given to them to take care of instead of being used to meet government quotas on adoptions.

    These are some other cases that have been reported on:

    Are over-zealous social services acting on orders to meet adoption quotas? - This Britain - UK - The Independent

    Social services took my children - Telegraph

    500 parents in legal action to win back 'stolen' children taken into care - Mirror Online

    Social workers tore me from my babies for a year: Nightmare of innocent mother accused of harming son | Mail Online

    British baby siezed in Ireland after parents flee social workers over custody row - Telegraph

    These cases are the tip of an iceberg where the word of SS is taken with little or no opposition from the Courts and anyone attempting to contest or defy the rulings faces prison.

    The biggest fear in all of this is the number of women and couples who will now be too scared to ask for help with postnatal depression or other issues in case the SS comes down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks and forcibly adopt their children out or put in place an order banning all contact until the children reach the age of majority. Only a few weeks ago there were two separate cases that made the news where mothers with PND had killed themselves because they feared that seeking or accepting PND treatment would go badly for them. This has to stop. Social Services are meant to be a safety net for those in need, a help for times of temporary difficulty where applicable, not a walking checklist for boosting figures to secure their funding for the next financial year or a knee jerk reaction against innocent parents because the authority fucked up a case that lead to a major enquiry and a media mauling.
    I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S Thompson

    How big would a T-Rex wang be?! - Karistiona


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 313
    Last Post: December 4th, 2012, 04:48 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 30th, 2009, 05:46 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 26th, 2009, 06:43 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 16th, 2008, 11:44 AM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 18th, 2007, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •