Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Child taken from womb by social services

  1. #1
    Registered User Poca's Avatar Poca is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    home
    Posts
    4,202
    Credits
    87,553,099

    Child taken from womb by social services

    This is craziness, wow wow wow




    Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph

    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.

    Caesarean case mother was denied chance to keep baby in hospital

    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”.

    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.
    Chen ki japé pa mòde!

  2. #2
    change is up to us... Buhbayduss's Avatar Buhbayduss is offline
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Vauxhall ch ch...
    Posts
    3,282
    Credits
    951,946,294
    Now this is crazy... how do determine and unborn child best interest... and if she was off meds, probably for the child sake...
    Why keep the child in Britain?
    Only shades of colour that are seen on IMIX, BLACK, WHITE & GREY. The beauty of all things are transform into those colours... Winter very LONG, spring, summer fall very SHORT.

  3. #3
    Registered User Poca's Avatar Poca is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    home
    Posts
    4,202
    Credits
    87,553,099
    I really find it hard to believe that a judge would order such a thing. If this is the whole story, it's quite crazy and frightening.

  4. #4
    Registered User bktrini305's Avatar bktrini305 is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    1,901
    Credits
    40,919,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Poca View Post
    This is craziness, wow wow wow




    Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph

    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.

    Caesarean case mother was denied chance to keep baby in hospital

    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”.

    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.

    Anybody know anything about Common Law? Because I honestly thought that it was designed so that type of thing specifically did not happen. Or maybe thats a US improvement on the British system or something. Or maybe I'm f0cking wrong. Still want the clarification though.
    This can't be the end.
    I'll see you again.
    Carnival Prayer

  5. #5
    where de crix Oneshot's Avatar Oneshot is offline
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brick City, NJ
    Posts
    24,667
    Credits
    40,139,677
    Poca you love big government, so what the big deal?

  6. #6
    Taj
    Loyalty to Loyalty Taj's Avatar Taj is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Fix up, look sharp!
    Posts
    48,960
    Credits
    42,728,994
    i'm not even gonna go there with this story

    wish the biological family luck
    “A sharp knife never proclaims it’s sharpness to the world…but the first to fall against it becomes it’s advocate.”

    You can put any face behind a mask but be careful cos someone else might be pretending. You might not be the only one with a secret -- Cassie/Gretel

  7. #7
    Registered User Poca's Avatar Poca is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    home
    Posts
    4,202
    Credits
    87,553,099
    There is nothing wrong with government when done right. This case and the reasoning being this decision are very unusual. It's either there is a lot more to the story or something is really wrong with Essex decision makers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneshot View Post
    Poca you love big government, so what the big deal?

Posting Permissions

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