Essex social services takes child from womb.

[Loonatic93]

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

I guess the U.S. isn't the only first world country that still has issues with women's reproductive rights.

 

[Information Analyst]

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

I guess the U.S. isn't the only first world country that still has issues with women's reproductive rights.

It should be pointed out that details are still sketchy at this stage, but - as it says in the Telegraph piece - this is absolutely unprecedented. To say it is not common practice would be a massive understatement. For coverage below.

BBC News: MP John Hemming to raise Essex forced Caesarean claim

 

[Aepervius]

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

I guess the U.S. isn't the only first world country that still has issues with women's reproductive rights.

It isn't AFAIK the first case. I remember a few case in France where the woman was either severly mentally retarded, or severly suffering from a mental breakdown., where it was estimated that the baby would be in danger or not properly carred for, and it was taken at birth.

I would like to see the details rather from other source than the telegraph.

 

[commandlinegamer]

It should be pointed out that details are still sketchy at this stage

I'd imagine much of the information will remain confidential as it's a child involved.

 

[yodaluver28]

It isn't AFAIK the first case. I remember a few case in France where the woman was either severly mentally retarded, or severly suffering from a mental breakdown., where it was estimated that the baby would be in danger or not properly carred for, and it was taken at birth.

I would like to see the details rather from other source than the telegraph.

Taken at birth because the mother is mentally unfit is one thing, forcing a C-section on an already hospitalized woman in order to take the baby is something else entirely. The woman was already under 24/7 professional care and had been for five weeks when the C-section was performed so there was no danger that the baby would be left alone with her, if she had any contact at all in the initial post-birth stages. The only possible justification for this would be if the woman absolutely needed to be medicated with something that is strongly contraindicated for pregnant women as it might affect the healthy development of the baby and a natural birth was impossible or dangerous but that doesn't seem to be the case. And she should've been informed beforehand so she had the opportunity to hire an attorney and defend herself. Bipolar very rarely means that someone is so completely out of touch with reality that they're unable to aide their own legal defense so that argument for why she wasn't informed is bogus.

I find it appalling that the judge ruled in favor of adopting the girl out because of the possibility of relapse even though the woman is now stable. All he needs to do is contact Italian social services and make sure that they agree to have her supervised to confirm that she's continuing her outpatient treatment. Stealing her child because she was sick is cruel and unnecessary unless she displays a habitual disregard for her treatment and even then it should be done by the Italian authorities.

It's also deeply disturbing that after the baby was born, social services didn't contact the woman's family in Italy about possible placement and even denied the offer of a family friend in the US to take care of the girl. They should've at least consulted with the family and social services in Italy and vetted the American friend so that they would have several options on the table and could choose the one that was right for the girl.

 

[commandlinegamer]

An update from the council:

http://www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/...headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspx

 

[Professor Yaffle]

An update from the council:

http://www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/...headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspx

Thanks for that. I'm always wary of commenting on this type of story too early because at that point, it is always very one-sided. It looks like the courts and social services have done what they could to try to keep the baby within the extended family. A very sad situation.

 

[commandlinegamer]

A detailed dissection of the available information, with less hyperbole, from the Pink Tape blog (spotted via David Allen Green, on Twitter):

http://pinktape.co.uk/cases/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-eh/

Perhaps there has been an injustice in this case. On the known facts the decisions the court has made are grave ones indeed. It is self evident that the events as we know them will have been traumatic and confusing and unbearable for the Mother. In itself that does not mean that the decisions that have made are wrong. Yet nor does an insider’s confidence in the operation of the system most of the time mean that the decisions in this case were right or properly made. We must simply wait and see. And when we have the information let us hope that somebody will report the case fully, accurately and fairly – criticising the court if it has got it wrong, perhaps criticising others if this “story” has no legitimate basis. And let us hope in the meantime that this frenzy has not impacted adversely on the child, or upon the mother or her case, nor upon her ability to focus on the sound legal advice one hopes that she is getting.

 

[lionking]

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

I guess the U.S. isn't the only first world country that still has issues with women's reproductive rights.

It seems that the lives of both the mother and child would have been at risk if the council didn't intervene. Is that what you wanted to see?

No winners here, but it won't stop the attempts at point scoring.

 

[The Don]

It seems that the lives of both the mother and child would have been at risk if the council didn't intervene. Is that what you wanted to see?

No winners here, but it won't stop the attempts at point scoring.

As far as the UK press is concerned IMO the only important thing is that the Social Services must be proved to have been in the wrong either through inactivity or too much activity or ideally both at the same time.

 

[lionking]

As far as the UK press is concerned IMO the only important thing is that the Social Services must be proved to have been in the wrong either through inactivity or too much activity or ideally both at the same time.

Indeed. It's unfortunate that the OP has adopted the same position as the UK press.

 

[commandlinegamer]

And more detail here in a court judgment from February (again thanks to DAG for the link via Twitter):

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.html

It would appear the mother has had problems prior to the birth of the child in question. The judgment mentions periods of previous admissions to psychiatric hospitals in Italy.

 

[blutoski]

Yeah, mental illness often puts the state between a rock and a hard place.
This story could have instead been "State allows clearly unstable mother to keep child, child traumatized, state shown to be incompetent as usual."

 

[jimbob]

I find it appalling that the judge ruled in favor of adopting the girl out because of the possibility of relapse even though the woman is now stable. All he needs to do is contact Italian social services and make sure that they agree to have her supervised to confirm that she's continuing her outpatient treatment. Stealing her child because she was sick is cruel and unnecessary unless she displays a habitual disregard for her treatment and even then it should be done by the Italian authorities.

It's also deeply disturbing that after the baby was born, social services didn't contact the woman's family in Italy about possible placement and even denied the offer of a family friend in the US to take care of the girl. They should've at least consulted with the family and social services in Italy and vetted the American friend so that they would have several options on the table and could choose the one that was right for the girl.

The Essex council link is down, but I think is short enough to be reproduced here:


I think this answers most of your concerns

Mother detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act on 13 June 2012
Application by the Health Trust to the High Court 23 August 2012
Application for Interim Care Order 24 August 2012
Mother took part in the care proceedings ending on 1 February 2013.
Mother applied to Italian Courts for order to return the child to Italy in May 2013. Those courts ruled that child should remain in EnglandIn October 2013 Essex County Council obtains permission from County Court to place child for adoption

Context

The Health Trust had been looking after the mother since 13 June 2012 under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. Because of their concerns the Health Trust contacted Essex County Council’s Social Services.

Five weeks later it was the Health Trust’s clinical decision to apply to the High Court for permissions to deliver her unborn baby by caesarean section because of concerns about risks to mother and child.

The mother was able to see her baby on the day of birth and the following day. Essex County Council’s Social Services obtained an Interim Care Order from the County Court because the mother was too unwell to care for her child.

Historically, the mother has two other children which she is unable to care for due to orders made by the Italian authorities.

In accordance with Essex County Council’s Social Services practice social workers liaised extensively with the extended family before and after the birth of the baby, to establish if anyone could care for the child.

 

[Darat]

From what I've read so far the decisions made all seem very rational, albeit very tragic.

 

[jimbob]

From what I've read so far the decisions made all seem very rational, albeit very tragic.

Indeed

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Mother applied to Italian Courts for order to return the child to Italy in May 2013. Those courts ruled that child should remain in England

I think they only ruled that UK has jurisdiction.

Bipolar very rarely means that someone is so completely out of touch with reality that they're unable to aide their own legal defense so that argument for why she wasn't informed is bogus.

[T]he situation when the mother has not taken her medication is that she has had a number of very intrusive paranoid delusions.

I find it appalling that the judge ruled in favor of adopting the girl out because of the possibility of relapse even though the woman is now stable. All he needs to do is contact Italian social services and make sure that they agree to have her supervised to confirm that she's continuing her outpatient treatment. Stealing her child because she was sick is cruel and unnecessary unless she displays a habitual disregard for her treatment and even then it should be done by the Italian authorities.

It's also deeply disturbing that after the baby was born, social services didn't contact the woman's family in Italy about possible placement and even denied the offer of a family friend in the US to take care of the girl. They should've at least consulted with the family and social services in Italy and vetted the American friend so that they would have several options on the table and could choose the one that was right for the girl.

I think the below passage answers all those concerns. There is no mention, BTW, of the grand-parents offering to care for the new-born or of supporting their daughter's/the mother's quest to obtain custody.

The mother has had two previous children: C, and D, [...]

The background is an unhappy one. The mother, as I say, has had two previous children, both are currently cared for by their grandmother and the mother as long ago, she told me in evidence, as 2007, has had problems with her mental health. There have been admissions to psychiatric hospitals in Italy and of the three admissions of which I am aware one was voluntary and two were enforced. My understanding of the documents from Italy which are many and are helpful, is that the mother was treated in 2008. It appears subsequently she was in the USA for a time and during 2010 and 2011, the preceding years, she had been most unwell.

There were investigations by the equivalent of Social Services in Italy as to the welfare of C and D. What the reports show is that the mother had a sincere affection for her daughters and a desire and wish to care for her children but she was not able to do so in a suitable way because of her condition which interfered with her ability to maintain both her own life and therefore those of her children. As I made clear during the course of argument, the mother was anxious to point out that she had never terrorised C in particular, but in fact the way in which I had understood the translation was that C has been particularly upset by the experiences which she has had to witness, that she has been both traumatised and indeed has been terrorised, not by the mother's behaviour, but by what it is that she has witnessed and in particular her mother being profoundly unwell.

In any event as far as I can understand it, the dates may be wrong, C and D appear to have been in their grandmother's care since at least the early part of 2011 and continuing until the present date. There was for a long period of restricted contact, restricted both by the grandmother's wishes and by the courts and there has been as a result of the mother's condition considerable conflict between the mother and her respective mother and father. I am pleased to hear, if it be the case, that mother now being well, that the relations with her respective parents have improved, her father has not been very well himself,but are much better than they have been historically.

 

[casebro]

What about the father's' ? I mean plural/possessive. And since there is no mention, I assume 'them', and in her kookiness she was sleeping around so much that she has no clue as to the father's' ID- and neither do they? Good poster-mom for enforced sterilization?

 

[casebro]

And um re: the cesarean, how were the other kids birthed? Was Cesarean the only option anyhow?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

What about the father's' ? I mean plural/possessive. And since there is no mention, I assume 'them', and in her kookiness she was sleeping around so much that she has no clue as to the father's' ID- and neither do they? Good poster-mom for enforced sterilization?

From the court judgement linked above:

Her father is B who is a Senegalese national, he is currently living in Italy. His situation is unclear, as I understand it he travelled there under a student visa, at least on one version, and is an over-stayer. He certainly has no status in Italy and he is unable, as I understand it, as a result of his status, either to leave Italy at all , and is certainly not able to come to the United Kingdom. As long ago as 2nd November 2012 I gave him permission to intervene, that is to say to take an interest in these proceedings. I had not necessarily expected him to attend, because there was a information that he had lawyers in Italy, he has failed to take any part except for the fact that he saw both the social worker and the Guardian when they visited Italy, and has written to the court today indicating that he opposes the application of the Local Authority.