Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

My name is URL

The thread title might make it sound as if this was done by some sick lunatic, but that's not the case.

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.

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

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.

Anyone think that's all a bit fcuked up? I understand the need to protect a child/baby from a mentally unstable mother but is forcing her to undergo a c-section and then taking her child from her really going to help her in any way.. I mean they say it was 'for her own good'.. Doesn't sound like something that's going to help her mental state to me... not to mention the fact that c-sections can lead to complications during future pregnancies.

LadyMayBelle

I work in the neighbouring borough so no doubt will hear more about this tomorrow at work. Firstly take everything reported with a massive pinch of salt. it's well hard to remove a child from the parents care and i imagine in this instance there were very serious concerns as to the safety of the baby; Ive worked in mental health also where the safety of the unborn child is jeopardised due to the mental state of the mother.
Will be very interested to find out more.

shruikan2553

I would assume that if the court decided it was a good idea then medical professionals must have been able to show she is a risk to herself and a the baby.

pablomakaveli

It's shocking but i'm not at all surprised the social services were behind the decision. They are like dictatorial fascists when it comes to they're work over here.

For an extreme action like this, I'd imagine the circumstances that prompted it were also extreme.

All the professionals both legal and medical involved in this action, didn't carry it out for kicks or because they were bored.

Thats IF it's true.

jezko

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's shocking but i'm not at all surprised the social services were behind the decision. They are like dictatorial fascists when it comes to they're work over here.

Hard to argue with this, A Woman Iknow who called the cops to protect herself and her kids from an ex (Kids Dad) who was intimidating her and lot's more. The Social Services threatened to remove the kids from her care to Protect them.
She called for help and protection and they threaten to remove her kids...

P_1

So if I get that right, the Essex social services forced an emergency c section on an Italian lady who was there on a business trip. How on earth did a court allow them do that to somebody that they clearly have no jurisdiction over?

Sulla Felix

P_1 wrote: »

So if I get that right, the Essex social services forced an emergency c section on an Italian lady who was there on a business trip. How on earth did a court allow them do that to somebody that they clearly have no jurisdiction over?

She'd have become their ward after she was sectioned I guess?

Jogathon

This is a strange and sad case, but the main point that I take from it is that the child is healthy, well, and is happy in an adoptive home.

Isn't that the most important thing?

Mr. Incognito

This is the natural consequences of the pc brigade

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

So if I get that right, the Essex social services forced an emergency c section on an Italian lady who was there on a business trip. How on earth did a court allow them do that to somebody that they clearly have no jurisdiction over?

How is that clear?

hatrickpatrick

Jesus f*cking CHRIST :eek: :eek: :eek:

Is there anyone who still doesn't believe that the UK is fast becoming an utterly dystopian society?

P_1

Phoebas wrote: »

How is that clear?

Well I would have thought that the Essex social services would only have had jurisdiction over people who actually lived in Essex and were UK citizens to be fair

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This is the natural consequences of the pc brigade

How do you work that out?

Let's say this lady had a breakdown and her pregnancy was the focus of that. The threat of self harm and/or of harm to the baby must have been very extreme for the medics to seek this order, and for the legal system to deem the threat severe enough for this order to be issued.

If they did nothing and she hurt herself or the baby, people would be asking why no action was taken when they knew the risk.

I hope this lady recovers and can go on to have a normal life with her child. I'm glad she's been helped if it's prevented any risk to herself or the baby.

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

Well I would have thought that the Essex social services would only have had jurisdiction over people who actually lived in Essex and were UK citizens to be fair

UK law applies to people who are in the UK, not just UK citizens.
Essex had a high court order in this case, so I'm at a loss to understand how you think it clear that they had no jurisdiction.
It seems clear that they did.

who the fug

Be interesting to see what comes out in the wash, if there was no effort to contact next of kin of the mother then I think some body will be doing some grovelling

That's disgusting
Lock up whoever they want against their will and steal the baby after invasive non consenting surgery, and keep her forcibly sedated for five weeks.
jesus

iguana

It really sounds horrific. Part of me thinks that the courts must have been given damn good reason to make such extreme orders but then I remember I thought similar about the guards removing those Roma children from their families recently.

My name is URL

Is it possible that the decision was made in order to get the woman back on meds, as they could have interfered with her pregnancy? It still seems extreme to me if that is the case. How is someone with severe mental problems going to deal with being put through such a horrible ordeal? The unborn child should not have taken precedence over the mother.

Femme_Fatale

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's shocking but i'm not at all surprised the social services were behind the decision. They are like dictatorial fascists when it comes to they're work over here.

jezko wrote: »

Hard to argue with this, A Woman Iknow who called the cops to protect herself and her kids from an ex (Kids Dad) who was intimidating her and lot's more. The Social Services threatened to remove the kids from her care to Protect them.
She called for help and protection and they threaten to remove her kids...

Huh? Usually the social services are blasted for non intervention and they get blamed for child abusers killing their children.
Which is it?

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This is the natural consequences of the pc brigade

What the tap dancing fuk are you talking about?
It's the PC brigade who'd be defending mentally ill people's rights. Jesus.

Czarcasm

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread title might make it sound as if this was done by some sick lunatic, but that's not the case.

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

Anyone think that's all a bit fcuked up? I understand the need to protect a child/baby from a mentally unstable mother but is forcing her to undergo a c-section and then taking her child from her really going to help her in any way.. I mean they say it was 'for her own good'.. Doesn't sound like something that's going to help her mental state to me... not to mention the fact that c-sections can lead to complications during future pregnancies.

I don't think the facts of the case are quite so simple as they are being presented in that article tbh.

Paddy Cow

Jogathon wrote: »

This is a strange and sad case, but the main point that I take from it is that the child is healthy, well, and is happy in an adoptive home.

Isn't that the most important thing?

The child is young now. How happy will it be to find out when she's older that she has a family that loved her and wanted her very much but a court decided to put her up for adoption?

If the woman was a danger to her child I can understand social services getting involved but why wouldn't they involve her family in Italy or see about returning the child to care in Italy or consider the family in America? Very bizarre that they would want to effectively cut the child off from her Italian heritage. She was born in the UK but should have been an Italian child.

pablomakaveli

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Huh? Usually the social services are blasted for non intervention and they get blamed for child abusers killing their children.
Which is it?

I personally know of two cases where they intervened unnecessarily and took happy children out of their homes even though they didn't want to leave and it was done for trivial reasons.

It's more a problem of them interfering where they are not needed and missing the cases where they are needed.

Czarcasm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I personally know of two cases where they intervened unnecessarily and took happy children out of their homes even though they didn't want to leave and it was done for trivial reasons.

It's more a problem of them interfering where they are not needed and missing the cases where they are needed.

TWO cases, in how many thousands of cases, every single day? And that unnecessary intervention would be your unqualified perception.

But don't let that stop you making ill informed judgements.

pablomakaveli

Czarcasm wrote: »

TWO cases, in how many thousands of cases, every single day? And that unnecessary intervention would be your unqualified perception.

But don't let that stop you making ill informed judgements.

Actually one of those cases was my girlfriends family so i know the details of the whole thing and i get to see how devastated her family were after the social workers.

Funny how you talk about ill-informed judgements will making ill-informed judgements yourself.

Czarcasm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Actually one of those cases was my girlfriends family so i know the details of the whole thing and i get to see how devastated her family were after the social workers.

Funny how you talk about ill-informed judgements will making ill-informed judgements yourself.

I didn't make any ill informed judgement, you did. I won't get drawn into an argument about your personal circumstances but social workers don't just swoop in and take children out of the family home just for the heck of it. There are procedures in place which they have to follow and the decision is not just taken by the one individual social worker themselves.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

That's disgusting
Lock up whoever they want against their will and steal the baby after invasive non consenting surgery, and keep her forcibly sedated for five weeks.
jesus

They can't lock up anyone they want. There are specific criteria that must be met before someone can be sectioned, and the decision is constantly reviewed, as is all her treatment afterwards. The woman is obviously gravely ill.

This is a really extreme case, it doesn't happen every day, and the mental health services are so overstretched that we can assume the medics weren't just filling beds for the sake of it. The police were so worried about the womans safety that they sought medical help for her. They don't do that for fun.

To be honest, we don't know the specifics of the case and probably never will if her privacy is respected, so there's little point in hyperbolic speculation.

Killer Wench

All of this was triggered over a panic attack? I've had panic attacks in the past. For me, I always thought that I was having a heart attack or that a noose was being tied around my neck. At the longest, it lasted a half an hour. So, I'm just curious how that could snowball into having a child removed from the womb.

Killer Wench

Killer Wench wrote: »

All of this was triggered over a panic attack? I've had panic attacks in the past. For me, I always thought that I was having a heart attack or that a noose was being tied around my neck. At the longest, it lasted a half an hour. So, I'm just curious how that could snowball into having a child removed from the womb.

It wasn't just a panic attack. It was a panic attack that was precipitated by her not taking her medication for bi-polar disorder. It's not that simple or clear cut.

Grayson

Candie wrote: »

They can't lock up anyone they want. There are specific criteria that must be met before someone can be sectioned, and the decision is constantly reviewed, as is all her treatment afterwards. The woman is obviously gravely ill.

This is a really extreme case, it doesn't happen every day, and the mental health services are so overstretched that we can assume the medics weren't just filling beds for the sake of it. The police were so worried about the womans safety that they sought medical help for her. They don't do that for fun.

To be honest, we don't know the specifics of the case and probably never will if her privacy is respected, so there's little point in hyperbolic speculation.

Yep. Anyone who goes off the handle at this point is a bit dim. We don't know most of the facts. She would have had to been extremely disturbed for social services to consider it. The evidence would have had to clearly shown the danger for the HIGH court to allow it. I'd imagine the home office were probably consulted since she was a foreign national.

This was a woman who was bipolar and wasn't taking her medication. She could have been a danger to herself, the child and others. Anyone who goes around making statements about how horrible social services are is just being hysterical and probably didn't even read the news story that was posted.

This happened ages and and a court in Italy also agreed that she had no capacity to instruct lawyers.

clairefontaine

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

Femme_Fatale

clairefontaine wrote: »

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

No, "everyone" doesn't. You're not denying it exists are you?

Actually the days of people being locked up at the drop of a hat for mental illness are long gone.

Pompey Magnus

Candie wrote: »

I hope this lady recovers and can go on to have a normal life with her child.

If the child is up for adoption will she be able to get her child back? From the way the article is worded it seems the judge has ruled she can't have the child back even if she does make a full recovery.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

So if I decide tomorrow that it would be a really good idea to cut my leg off with a rusty hacksaw, I should be patted on the back and sent home to do it? Or should I be put in a place of safety while the medics try to treat the underlying cause of my problem, thus saving my life/leg?

We don't know anything about the case. She could have made statements about hurting herself or the child and needed to be protected from herself. We just don't know enough to make assumptions about the breakdown of the individual or the manner in which her rights were, or weren't, respected.

And 'everyone' isn't bi-polar. We hear about these things more as the stigma lessens, a good thing in my book.

Underplaying the effects of devastating mental illness serves no one. Not society, not the families of those affected, and certainly not the sufferer.

Hyperbole like being locked up without a trial because the State decides you're nuts does nothing to encourage people who need help to seek it.

This is one case. It's not a commonplace occurance, it's extreme. Extreme actions are most often prompted by extreme circumstances.

Pompey Magnus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If the child is up for adoption will she be able to get her child back? From the way the article is worded it seems the judge has ruled she can't have the child back even if she does make a full recovery.

Yes, I think you're right. The risk of it happening again is the deciding factor I suppose.

I don't know much about bi-polar disorder but afaik it's controlled rather than cured, so a recovery is unlikely. If she keeps taking her medication it may be controlled but she would appear to have a record of stopping her meds.

who the fug

for those in the know is there any legal requirement for the state in the UK to contact next of kin, or in this case the consulate

end of the road

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread title might make it sound as if this was done by some sick lunatic, but that's not the case.

well in fairness that is kind of debatable, sounds like something that could have happened in the 1800s in some mad cult, whatever council is involved here should be forced to sease to exist and the judge sacked, from hearing about various cases to do with social services in britain it seems to be about egos and shock value rather then protecting children, while our social services aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination i can't imagine something happening like this in this day and age

My name is URL wrote: »

Anyone think that's all a bit fcuked up? I understand the need to protect a child/baby from a mentally unstable mother but is forcing her to undergo a c-section and then taking her child from her really going to help her in any way.. I mean they say it was 'for her own good'.. Doesn't sound like something that's going to help her mental state to me... not to mention the fact that c-sections can lead to complications during future pregnancies.

i remember a case similar to this before where a baby was removed from a mother at birth, but the social services involved was forced to return the child by the courts, i can't for the life of me remember the actual case though

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. The risk of it happening again is the deciding factor I suppose.

I don't know much about bi-polar disorder but afaik it's controlled rather than cured, so a recovery is unlikely. If she keeps taking her medication it may be controlled but she would appear to have a record of stopping her meds.

I currently know five parents with bi polar, two of whom are fathers.

It shocks me to think the state can take their kids off them because they have a mental illness, and with the ever expanding lists of what constitutes mental illness and disorders, people should be circumspect, especially as the family courts and their judiciary have zero accountability. They are even protected from litigation.

end of the road

Candie wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. The risk of it happening again is the deciding factor I suppose.

I don't know much about bi-polar disorder but afaik it's controlled rather than cured, so a recovery is unlikely. If she keeps taking her medication it may be controlled but she would appear to have a record of stopping her meds.

so in effect this is a forced adoption? i thought that nonsense went with the magdillen laundries?

shruikan2553

clairefontaine wrote: »

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

There are varying degrees of bipolar. There are people who can control it themselves, there are those that just need to talk to a professional, there are some that need medication and I'm sure there are some that are a danger to themselves. We dont know all the details but this is someone that is mentally unstable when off her medication and she has gone off it. If she did it again and harmed the child there would be outcry that they didn't take the child away from someone who could have harmed him/her.

My name is URL

Grayson wrote: »

This was a woman who was bipolar and wasn't taking her medication. She could have been a danger to herself, the child and others.

What child? Can people seriously not see the problem with and possible consequences of a judge showing jurisdiction over what is still inside of a woman's womb, based on her mental health?

Annasopra

clairefontaine wrote: »

I currently know five parents with bi polar, two of whom are fathers.

It shocks me to think the state can take their kids off them because they have a mental illness, and with the ever expanding lists of what constitutes mental illness and disorders, people should be circumspect, especially as the family courts and their judiciary have zero accountability. They are even protected from litigation.

That's a ridiculous statement that children are taken off their parents because they have a mental illness. They are taken off them because the children are at risk!

Salt001

Well I don't think we know enough to assume that the state acted out of turn. If a child was at risk then act now and sort it out later. How many cases of parents killing themselves and their children have we heard about in the last couple of years, that poor woman who threw herself off a cliff whilst eight and a half months pregnant with twins for example.
The man that killed himself and his two sons earlier this year.
The woman this week that disappeared with her children from Rosscommon, an all Ireland alert went out and they were found before anything tragic happened.

end of the road

they took the child out of the woman, how near the due date was the child
? sounds like a risk was taken here by doing this

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

I currently know five parents with bi polar, two of whom are fathers.

It shocks me to think the state can take their kids off them because they have a mental illness, and with the ever expanding lists of what constitutes mental illness and disorders, people should be circumspect, especially as the family courts and their judiciary have zero accountability. They are even protected from litigation.

There are degrees with which people are affected with bi-polar.

Kids aren't taken off their parents because their parents are ill, they are taken off parents who can't/don't care for them. The two aren't necessarily one and the same and shouldn't be conflated.

Staff who have to take decisions for people during periods where they can't MUST be protected from litigation in order to do their jobs effectively.

That's not the same as having zero accountability, which is not the case anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Forced invasive surgery without consent is never ok. Ever. It belongs in old stories of WWII POW camps, not in the 21st century.

Rewind one

This is what a lot of you people have fought for and are actively supporting,thank god the baby survived. supporting abortion and introducing the acceptance of terminations into society only leads to this kind of horrid act.

Fox_In_Socks

Rewind one wrote: »

This is what a lot of you people have fought for and are actively supporting,thank god the baby survived. supporting abortion and introducing the acceptance of terminations into society only leads to this kind of horrid act.

Oh oh! You've done it now!

Gatling

After reading this still can't understand how a judge was able to force a C section then add a caveat that the child wasn't to be returned to the mother because she can't be trusted to take her meds,

Completely discusted reading ,

Would love to know what the European court of human rights has to say about this

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

so in effect this is a forced adoption? i thought that nonsense went with the magdillen laundries?

If the mother has impulses that put herself and/or her child in danger, I don't see any alternative.

Of course, we don't know enough to form considered opinions and all we can do is speculate.

If she's dangerously ill and the child pays the price, everyone will blame the legal system, the medics, the police, and social workers involved.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, so all they can do is act with utmost caution.

Pompey Magnus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If the child is up for adoption will she be able to get her child back? From the way the article is worded it seems the judge has ruled she can't have the child back even if she does make a full recovery.

She has made one, the child is apparently 14 months now and the state refuse to give her back

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.
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

Horrible.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, so all they can do is act with utmost caution.

Keeping her imprisoned and drugged up and undergoing invasive surgery does not appear cautious to me
Refusing to even let the baby be returned to italy, no, she has to be stolen and kept in a different country.