|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Dec 2, 2013 23:05:44 GMT
.....by Caesarian..... ....shocking huh?
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Dec 2, 2013 23:32:40 GMT
Omg.....
Would've thought this was a wind up thread had it not been written by you....
Still had to read a couple of different newspapers' stories on the net cos is so unbelievably ....well - medieval or something you'd read about happening at the hands of goering or something....
I just don't know what to say.....
One minute you've got stephen fry standing your corner and you think things are moving forward.... Then you read this......omg
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Dec 2, 2013 23:58:04 GMT
JJ, I am immediately going off topic and I know it's not in the same league, but equally shocking....been catching up.....part of which was Kathy's thread where a number of you mention that MIND and Rethink don't accept adult ADHD??!! Or was it just ADHD per se as part of their remit unbe****ingbelievable.... (I'm not very good at swearing....wish we had a smiley with a halo ) is this not on our hit list of breaking down barriers
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Dec 3, 2013 1:16:02 GMT
No mention of adhd full stop Ridiculous isn't it.... They are on my list - but that list is sooooooo long I actually found an article written by Prof Asherson (I think on the UKAAN site, which mentioned the percentage of ADHDers with comorbid mental health problems - it was something v v v high of course - which was what I was going to quote when I write my letter to them one day.... I spoke to Andrea Bilbow from Addiss about this, she said she'd spoken to them before about this and encouraged me to write to them .... But that was October.... And I haven't yet..... Stupid adhd
|
|
|
Post by DKL - darkknightslover on Dec 3, 2013 8:02:57 GMT
Where is this?! Surely there's more to that story??!
Sent from my C6603 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on Dec 3, 2013 8:56:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 1:59:46 GMT
That is just... omg.
Any details on this 'episode' ?
I'm guessing she threatened the baby in some way...? Otherwise, how could this ever have been justified up the hierarchy AND through the court?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 7:30:19 GMT
@michael you don't need much justification in these cases and there's plenty more going through UK's secret courts which we don't get to hear about. Any "condition of the mind" can be used to justify any course of action by the state. Given the mother is back in Italy, I think it's incumbent on the Italian govt to demand that one of their citizens is returned to their sovereign shores so an equivalent agency can adjudicate as they see fit. This is getting as bad as extraordinary rendition! Referring to comments by fuzzywuzzy and JJ earlier in the thread: for instance, will we eventually see politically motivated protesters incarcerated or hunger striking prisoners being force fed because they have ADHD? You know, that condition that many CCGs refuse to accept as valid when it suits them? Watch this space because govts and their agencies, along with opposition groups (many of them hypocrites), fit square pegs into round holes all the time!
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Dec 4, 2013 7:47:36 GMT
I don't know the details about this case but often there is a good reason for something like this. I have sympathy for social services who tend to be vilified no matter what they do. If they intervene they are portrayed as baby snatchers yet if they do not and something happens to the baby then they are blamed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 8:03:35 GMT
I don't know the details about this case but often there is a good reason for something like this. I have sympathy for social services who tend to be vilified no matter what they do. If they intervene they are portrayed as baby snatchers yet if they do not and something happens to the baby then they are blamed. You're right, but secret courts don't help their cause. And anyway, shouldn't the baby be returned to Italy's social services so the mother can fight her corner there? I fit between both camps and out on a limb (as usual). I don't trust the agencies (we're told lies all the time), nor do I trust the protesters (often judge without the full facts). Or put another way: it's Establishment versus the people aka social engineering versus summary justice. Both bad!
|
|
|
Post by meepmeep on Dec 4, 2013 8:59:00 GMT
Lol @ secret courts.
Family cases aren't arent in the public domain, that's all.
Other than that most cases are in the public domain.
Such a ruling would not stand without significant grounds. If the ruling was flawed the Judge would be subject to scrutiny and the decision would simply be over ruled at a higher court.
The media has done what it does best, report a half ass story, add in catchy phrases to make it look like we are some backwards draconian society, or at least the government.
Some cases need to be private, I.e. family cases, terrorism and anything that is sensitive.
I've worked in child abduction cases way in the past, spent many hours sitting in family courts and I can assure you decisions aren't reached in a willy nilly fashion.
For that reason I bear no opinion on the matter, without considering all the evidence in the case we are just speculating.
As harsh as this sounds there is a lot more to consider that's unavailable to us.
As for handing over to Italian authorities the over riding factor is to protect the child best to this jurisdictions ability. If mother and Child go to Italy, left to be and the child is at risk. ..what would be the headlines? "English courts send mother back to Italy, xyz happens to baby" I'd much rather read that the preventative measures were taken and so this child has a chance to flourish.
@michael you got it in one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 9:28:49 GMT
I've only skim read the papers the last 2 days, but it sounds like 2 different news reports have got confused with each other on this thread, both involving child protection cases in Italy.
There was a case reported about a woman with bipolar who was forced to undergo a caesarian and her baby was taken away by social services.
Then there is the British woman who brought her child here from Italy to escape her abusive ex, and father of her child.
Just wanted to point that out, as defending the actions of the courts may cause offence if the two stories are muddled up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 10:16:54 GMT
Lol @ secret courts. Family cases aren't arent in the public domain, that's all. Other than that most cases are in the public domain. Such a ruling would not stand without significant grounds. If the ruling was flawed the Judge would be subject to scrutiny and the decision would simply be over ruled at a higher court. The media has done what it does best, report a half ass story, add in catchy phrases to make it look like we are some backwards draconian society, or at least the government. Some cases need to be private, I.e. family cases, terrorism and anything that is sensitive. I've worked in child abduction cases way in the past, spent many hours sitting in family courts and I can assure you decisions aren't reached in a willy nilly fashion. For that reason I bear no opinion on the matter, without considering all the evidence in the case we are just speculating. As harsh as this sounds there is a lot more to consider that's unavailable to us. As for handing over to Italian authorities the over riding factor is to protect the child best to this jurisdictions ability. If mother and Child go to Italy, left to be and the child is at risk. ..what would be the headlines? "English courts send mother back to Italy, xyz happens to baby" I'd much rather read that the preventative measures were taken and so this child has a chance to flourish. @michael you got it in one. On the other hand - I know a disabled child with an absentee father who is litigious. In court the judge asked about the medical condition and said I know someone with that, it's not seriousThis is a condition that can go wrong in a matter of hours and will end in death if not treated. The father is not conscientious about treatment (I know both parents). The judge made an error in assuming medical knowledge from incomplete anecdotal evidence. This was a custody/access case - the mother was 'asked' to keep quiet when she protested about the medical SNAFU and the father got access (there have been incidents since which resulted in at least one trip to A&E and several emergency trips by the mother with medication). This case might not be in the same league as the caesarean but it does illustrate that our system can be flawed (though generally seems to get most things kind of right).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 10:32:29 GMT
I've only skim read the papers the last 2 days, but it sounds like 2 different news reports have got confused with each other on this thread, both involving child protection cases in Italy. There was a case reported about a woman with bipolar who was forced to undergo a caesarian and her baby was taken away by social services. Then there is the British woman who brought her child here from Italy to escape her abusive ex, and father of her child. Just wanted to point that out, as defending the actions of the courts may cause offence if the two stories are muddled up. Thanks ditzynerd. This is the case to which I refer: www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/03/italian-woman-forced-caesarean-wants-baby-back-essex-county-council"The mother returned from Italy in February to regain custody of her daughter" So regardless of any clinical judgement on the mother, for me the baby is an Italian citizen as it wasn't actually born in the UK in any normal sense, it was forcibly removed as a prenatal foetus from an Italian citizen here in the UK. IMO, the Italians have a responsibility and duty to take ownership of their problem and look after this child according to its own law. And the UK should concede, otherwise it sets a really dangerous precedent regarding the extraordinary rendition of kids from non-UK citizens according to a potentially flawed system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 10:46:31 GMT
Family cases aren't arent in the public domain, that's all. "That's all"? The term "secret court" isn't a misnomer: it's a very convenient way of expressing the extra judicial powers applied to Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) here in the UK. Are you aware that in many cases, court "advocates" at CMP hearings often don't even list a full series of allegations against a defendant? In many cases, the defendant is non-the-wiser to the charges being brought against them. This isn't a conspiratorial leap of faith on my part, it's the essence of the procedures which were further laid out in the Justice and Security Act this April - and that's just one example of where injustice can occur. But then what about appeals as a safeguard you allude to? Well, assuming you have the money for lawyers and/or inclination to represent yourself to make an appeal (and most don't), you then have the same secret court restrictions that applied in the first instance. And you think appeal judges don't react to the current zeitgeist of the time? You think appeal judgements are purely and objectively mechanistic in nature? And what about this being the thin end of a very restrictive wedge? You think the slow acceptance by the public of such state interventions won't lead to a mission creep elsewhere and in other aspects of society? "Think again" would be my suggestion. We could argue about the validity of defence on the back of a dubious and aggressive foreign policy another time. Of course, and let's use a general case, if there was evidence to suggest that a mother could harm a baby in prenatal phase, no-one is denying that all the options to protect would be on the table. But where have i suggested this shouldn't be the case? Nah meepmeep, I like my position. I'm not part of the reactionary hysteria nor am I bought by the Establishment's official line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 12:33:33 GMT
My bad. Lol at myself for being so dim this morning!!!
I still don't know all the details, but it seems to me that different issues remain intertwined.
The original story I read about the caesarian was a 'shock, horror' type report regarding this original decision. It highlights the issue regarding 'mental capacity' and 'best interest' decisions, and the rights and welfare of people with mental health conditions in Italy.
I don't know how the system works (or doesn't it seems) in Italy, but over here, best interest decisions are made by doctors, social workers, or other professionals following a period of consultation with all relevant people (unless it's an immediately life-threatening situation). In this woman's case, I read that social services sought to remove her baby via caesarian, at the request of her family, who had some sort of guardianship over her care. If I've misinterpreted this story, then please correct me. I read a paper (daily moan?) that was lying around, so I haven't checked.
The debate about court proceedings in family matters is separate from the above. If these courts are not serving people effectively, then this needs to be addressed. However, there is a big difference between 'privacy' and 'secrecy'. The right to privacy, including family life, is part of the human rights act. It should only be interfered with when absolutely necessary.
I think meepmeep was just trying to highlight this point. Family matters are too private to be in the public domain. This just means that hearings are held in closed courts. The way they operate, the knowledge of judges etc, absolutely should be open to public scrutiny IMO.
|
|
|
Post by DKL - darkknightslover on Dec 4, 2013 12:54:09 GMT
There is not enough evidence to be able to hold a valid opinion as a lay person on this case. How bad was the "panic attack"? Did it get worse? Was it even "just" a panic attack? How long had the mother not been taking medication for? Why? Did she have capacity? If not, why not? (It's the medical practitioners' duty to prove a patient DOESN'T have it!) Why was the the baby deemed to be at higher risk by being left in the mother's body as opposed to being brought out into the world (notice I'm not even presuming if the baby was early or late - as far as I can remember/tell, we don't even know what method of travel she used to get to this course)? There are sooo many more questions to ask I could write a few thousand words on the possibilities of this story.
I agree that the media are looking to sell papers. Mental Health issues are still a big draw. It is nice to see that they're being more sympathetic to people with mental health issues, but yet again they don't give the full facts of the case. It will be interesting to read when/if they finally do get reported.
|
|
|
Post by Lesley on Dec 8, 2013 11:00:33 GMT
Article about this in Sunday Times today - no time to read now (News Review section). ST website has a paywall, so not posting a link.
|
|
|
Post by bigboyted on Dec 8, 2013 19:14:29 GMT
I ended up hyper focusing on this poor ladies case when it was in the news earlier in the week partly because she seems to have received a poor standard of care from the mental trust because her situation wasn't bureaucratically neat and tidy . She fell between two stools as a non resident taken ill here . If she had been in the UK throughout her pregnancy then discussions would have taken place with her whilst she was well to guide lawyers if they had to be appointed to represent her and help doctors fend off management's attempts to minimise care . As it was her interests and wishes were steamrollered by both the mental health trust and social services who were insufficiently challenged by the courts .She was then bundled out the country about a month after have given birth whilst still unwell and according to her she was told by her doctors that she would be to still oppose her daughters adoption proceedings from Italy .Appalling advice according to one of the commentators on a legal blog that discussed the case . The Telegraph has a good summary of the case to date .And two of the legal judgements concerning the forced caesarean and adoption proceedings .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 23:55:23 GMT
Thanks for posting that.
I hope every single detail of this case comes to light because the potential impact on struggling families could be disastrous.
Regardless of her 'panic attack' (which there still don't seem to be any details for) I hope this doesn't become another precedent.
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Dec 9, 2013 0:14:03 GMT
It does need clearing up. The last bit I thought was important. That mothers in pregnancy who are bipolar will be discouraged from seeking medical help for fear of having their babies taken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 1:51:23 GMT
...or seeking any help and kids having to grow up with undiagnosed conditions.
|
|
|
Post by twix on Jan 2, 2014 19:24:16 GMT
If you read through the court judgments linked above, you will find that she did not have a panic attack, she was suffering from a psychotic delusional episode serious enough for her to have been sectioned under the mental health act.
The doctors were concerned that as she had previously had 2 elective cesareans, a natural birth would be dangerous to her in normal circumstances, and that due to her delusional state (caused by her failure to take her medication) that they would be unable to keep her or the baby safe during a normal birth. They needed the court to agree to her having a cesarean, as she was not in a fit state to give her consent.
|
|
|
Post by twix on Jan 2, 2014 19:27:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Jan 2, 2014 20:08:39 GMT
I have more of a problem with the aftermath. Was she given every opportunity to keep her own baby?
|
|
|
Post by twix on Jan 2, 2014 21:36:24 GMT
It doesn't sound like it. Probably with good reason, as she is unable to look after herself, or her other 2 children. However that is a separate issue from the cesarean. The papers made it sound like she was cut open before her time by social workers just so someone could steal her baby for no reason at all. The truth is out there, but it isn't what you read in the news...
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Jan 2, 2014 21:53:36 GMT
I have more of a problem with the aftermath. Was she given every opportunity to keep her own baby? Same here......My understanding was that she was bringing up the other two children with the help of her mother who had formal custody......
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Jan 2, 2014 22:31:00 GMT
I agree the papers have made a sensationalist story out of nothing. There has been a spate of articles like this about private family courts. None of them have any real substance to them on closer inspection. That said I am uncomfortable about the way adoption is handled sometimes.
It doesn't seem fair for a mother to have her children taken away permanently because she has a mental health condition.
|
|
|
Post by twix on Jan 2, 2014 22:38:24 GMT
Possibly more recently she has been able to see the other children, but according to the transcripts she has not been bringing them up, her mother was looking after them and the Italian courts had restricted contact and proceedings were ongoing with those children. According to the court there was no suitable relative able to take this baby at this time.
|
|
|
Post by twix on Jan 2, 2014 22:43:47 GMT
It is very sad, but sometimes that is how it is. Its far from usual. It would seem that this particular case involves an extremely severe illness, and no real certainty that the mother would be able to sustain looking after this child. Her oldest child has been clearly very tramatised by seeing her mum in a bad way. It wouldn't be fair to this child to let this happen to her as well.
|
|