Gardai and HSE granted order to detain woman due to give birth

Stheno

Very strange case in the High Court today, some of it tragic in terms of the history, but don't think I've seen the Court grant an order to involuntarily detain someone before in these circumstances.

Something not right about it

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/a-genuine-human-emergency-major-search-for-pregnant-woman-who-failed-to-show-at-hospital-31486013.html

pmasterson95

This will make those pro-life eejits endless joy I'm sure.

RentDayBlues

What's not right is the fact that four, and soon five children, have a mother like this. . . . And sadly it'll probably be 6 by this time next year

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sounds like the child may be in danger so fair enough. But we don't know all the background.

Won't stop the pontification here though, I'm sure.

Nodin

Stheno wrote: »

Very strange case in the High Court today, some of it tragic in terms of the history, but don't think I've seen the Court grant an order to involuntarily detain someone before in these circumstances.

Something not right about it

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/a-genuine-human-emergency-major-search-for-pregnant-woman-who-failed-to-show-at-hospital-31486013.html

She's deemed a danger to herself and the child, by the look of it.

Stheno

Clayton Mammoth College wrote: »

Sounds like the child may be in danger so fair enough. But we don't know all the background.

Won't stop the pontification here though, I'm sure.

I probably read it assuming that any mother about to give birth would seek medical attention.

Having read it again, and the background I guess there's a potential for the child to be born without it and away from any oversight.

hairyslug

If all that is said in the article is true, then yes they are right to be concerned for both mother and child, history has a strange (or not so strange) way of repeating itself

nullzero

People like her make eugenics look appealing.

Qualitymark

RentDayBlues wrote: »

What's not right is the fact that four, and soon five children, have a mother like this. . . . And sadly it'll probably be 6 by this time next year

Would you have a titter of sense? She may well be a lovely mother, even though she's not well.

nullzero

Qualitymark wrote: »

Would you have a titter of sense? She may well be a lovely mother, even though she's not well.

Back in the real world her children grow up to be the thugs being discussed in the extortion in Dublin 8 thread.

Roger Hassenforder

"her first two children had been taken into care and now lived with their maternal grandparents. Her third child had been adopted in the UK and her fourth one had been placed in foster care...He said there were significant risk factors in the woman’s ability to parent, including evidence of neglectful parenting, eventual abandonment and inconsistency with accepting assistance from professional services throughout pregnancy."


take the child off her, give it a proper chance in life.
sterilization and what ever other medical and mental care required.

One eyed Jack

nullzero wrote: »

Back in the real world her children grow up to be the thugs being discussed in the extortion in Dublin 8 thread.

How do they when this woman's children have been taken from her already?

Back in your world perhaps.

tayto lover

Did you read your own link OP?
The woman is a danger to her own children.

RentDayBlues

Qualitymark wrote: »

Would you have a titter of sense? She may well be a lovely mother, even though she's not well.

I'm sure she's an amazing mother, naturally that's why her children are now all in care and she's currently endangering the life of her fifth child.

Unwell or not, I believe I have far more "titters of sense" than her!

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do they when this woman's children have been taken from her already?

Back in your world perhaps.

In the world where she is treated as if she is a "lovely mother" what I said is relevant. Had you bothered to read my comment in the context of what it was in reply to you would have realized that.

eviltwin

This woman could be anything from a drug addict to someone with a mental psychosis to a woman who has no real interest in her kids...we don't know and I'm not going to speculate on a vague article from Irelands crappiest rag. Things like this are not really in the public interest anyway and shouldn't be in the news.

RentDayBlues

RentDayBlues wrote: »

What's not right is the fact that four, and soon five children, have a mother like this. . . . And sadly it'll probably be 6 by this time next year

What's also not right is that at least one or more men should have some hard questions asked of them.

RentDayBlues

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's also not right is that at least one or more men should have some hard questions asked of them.

Very very true

Qualitymark

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

take the child off her, give it a proper chance in life.
sterilization and what ever other medical and mental care required.

Magdalen Laundries theme playing…

I can't believe the posters here, talking about eugenics and sterlisation. Sickening.

Roger Hassenforder

eviltwin wrote: »

This woman could be anything from a drug addict to someone with a mental psychosis to a woman who has no real interest in her kids...we don't know and I'm not going to speculate on a vague article from Irelands crappiest rag. Things like this are not really in the public interest anyway and shouldn't be in the news.

but sure take our taxes to pay for the whole ongoing train wreck of a life without raising an eyebrow...

It should be in the public interest; not for titillation, but to inform and possibly even "have a national conversation" about how children are being continuously brought into wholly dysfunctional families, and the state just picks up the tab.
The fathers are probably as dysfunctional, and arguable in need of sterilization as well. They'd probably leap at it if there was a bit of gear on offer.

sm213

If the pregnancy is a risk to both of them could be anything to extremes like pre eclampsia.
Both could possibly end up dead if she doesn't get help.
Given the extreme they have gone to something like this is probably the case.
I have met people who never went for scans or anything just turned up in labour.
Some people don't realise the dangers they could cause to themselves and baby.
Others (and given previous history I'd probably be inclined to put this lady here) simply don't care.

nullzero

Qualitymark wrote: »

Magdalen Laundries theme playing…

I can't believe the posters here, talking about eugenics and sterlisation. Sickening.

You are not troubled by the possibility of duality of meaning are you?

I said people such has her make eugenics seem appealing. Eugenics is not appealing, it is thoroughly appalling, however if you were living cheek and jowel with people of this ilk you may well allow you better judgement to fail you and wish such individuals weren't allowed to breed.

meeeeh

eviltwin wrote: »

This woman could be anything from a drug addict to someone with a mental psychosis to a woman who has no real interest in her kids...we don't know and I'm not going to speculate on a vague article from Irelands crappiest rag. Things like this are not really in the public interest anyway and shouldn't be in the news.

Times has the same story.

This is no different than forcefully bringing in people with mental issues who are in danger to others and themselves. It has to be done.

Edit: while she shouldn't be forced, she really should be offered sterilization.

Roger Hassenforder

Qualitymark wrote: »

Magdalen Laundries theme playing…

I can't believe the posters here, talking about eugenics and sterlisation. Sickening.

FFS. leave her with the child? and capable of bearing more?
Whats the cost to the state of this woman?
Give her the medical and mental care she needs, which based on her track record, probably should include sterilization. How many children does she need to neglect?
Big difference between the laundries and whats going on here.

Stheno

tayto lover wrote: »

Did you read your own link OP?
The woman is a danger to her own children.

I read it not realising the possibilities mentioned in the post quoted below.

sm213 wrote: »

If the pregnancy is a risk to both of them could be anything to extremes like pre eclampsia.
Both could possibly end up dead if she doesn't get help.
Given the extreme they have gone to something like this is probably the case.
I have met people who never went for scans or anything just turned up in labour.
Some people don't realise the dangers they could cause to themselves and baby.
Others (and given previous history I'd probably be inclined to put this lady here) simply don't care.

eviltwin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

but sure take our taxes to pay for the whole ongoing train wreck of a life without raising an eyebrow...

It should be in the public interest; not for titillation, but to inform and possibly even "have a national conversation" about how children are being continuously brought into wholly dysfunctional families, and the state just picks up the tab.
The fathers are probably as dysfunctional, and arguable in need of sterilization as well. They'd probably leap at it if there was a bit of gear on offer.

I'm all for conversation but this is not a conversation, its speculation about the private difficulties of one particular family. And we don't know what the circumstances are as to why the kids have been taken into care. A person not being able to care adequately for their kids might not be a bad person, just someone who is medically or emotionally unfit to care for them. I'd rather see help and support given to people where possible to prevent things getting this bad, I don't think forcibly sterilising anyone is the answer.

One eyed Jack

nullzero wrote: »

In the world where she is treated as if she is a "lovely mother" what I said is relevant. Had you bothered to read my comment in the context of what it was in reply to you would have realized that.

The reason I commented at all on your post is because I understood exactly the context in which you meant it, and it still made no sense.

You have no idea of this family's background, yet you're able to make predictions for their future based on nothing more than your own arrogant presumptions.

Like I said, perhaps in your world that happens, but it doesn't necessarily hapen, nor is it any more likely, in the real world.

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I commented at all on your post is because I understood exactly the context in which you meant it, and it still made no sense.

You have no idea of this family's background, yet you're able to make predictions for their future based on nothing more than your own arrogant presumptions.

Like I said, perhaps in your world that happens, but it doesn't necessarily hapen, nor is it any more likely, in the real world.

What exactly is my world?
You're not making any sense.
Let's defend the rights of irresponsible people to bring children into the world, not just one child, but FIVE children, and burden them with the knowledge that their parents are completely unfit to raise them as well as all the other disadvantages that go along with that.

What presumptions am I making exactly? Arrogant or otherwise, I was speaking hypothetically.

One eyed Jack

nullzero wrote: »

What exactly is my world?
You're not making any sense.
Let's defend the rights of irresponsible people to bring children into the world, not just one child, but FIVE children, and burden them with the knowledge that their parents are completely unfit to raise them as well as all the other disadvantages that go along with that.

What presumptions am I making exactly? Arrogant or otherwise, I was speaking hypothetically, you silly person.

The answer to your question is in your own post.

There's no otherwise about it either, you are making arrogant presumptions, based upon your hypothetical world thinking where without any sort of background on the family you immediately suggest that this woman makes eugenics look appealing?

Roger Hassenforder

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for conversation but this is not a conversation, its speculation about the private difficulties of one particular family. And we don't know what the circumstances are as to why the kids have been taken into care. A person not being able to care adequately for their kids might not be a bad person, just someone who is medically or emotionally unfit to care for them. I'd rather see help and support given to people where possible to prevent things getting this bad, I don't think forcibly sterilising anyone is the answer.

I can see your point, and I'm all for giving people a chance, but having regard to the four she had, I'd prefer if someone intervened and prevented future such issues, for her sake, future kids' sakes, and to be honest, my sake as a tax payer. she has the wherewithal to beget them, but not the capacity for one reason or another to look after them.

too many kids lives are ruined by being brought into dysfunctional families.
I do hope she gets help though.

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The answer to your question is in your own post.

There's no otherwise about it either, you are making arrogant presumptions, based upon your hypothetical world thinking where without any sort of background on the family you immediately suggest that this woman makes eugenics look appealing?

Eugenics isn't something I agree with at all. You're taking my point out of context in an attempt to be offended by me. Get real you supercilious pompous imbecile.

Spanish Eyes

The mother obviously has challenges and issues. Well known to social workers it seems.

And that gives me great hope.

We can criticise the HSE and social workers all we like, but look what happened here. A High Court hearing to sort it all out, for the benefit of the mother AND the baby.

I'm happy with that. I hope they find her.

One eyed Jack

nullzero wrote: »

Eugenics isn't something I agree with at all. You're taking my point out of context in an attempt to be offended by me. Get real you supercilious pompous imbecile.

I'm not taking your point out of context at all, and no amount of childish name calling is going to change the fact that without knowing anything about this family, you jumped to conclusions about their possible future, comparing them to people from another thread who committed criminal behaviour.

I'm never offended by hyperbolic nonsense talk btw, I know better than to take such nonsense seriously.

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not taking your point out of context at all, and no amount of childish name calling is going to change the fact that without knowing anything about this family, you jumped to conclusions about their possible future, comparing them to people from another thread who committed criminal behaviour.

I'm never offended by hyperbolic nonsense talk btw, I know better than to take such nonsense seriously.

For all you know her family could be horrible people. Neither of us know, this is just a discussion, I am not making serious judgements about this person, simply discussing the topic.
You appear to want to be offended by what I am saying, what I am saying shouldn't be offensive to anybody with the cognitive ability to understand what is it I am saying as well as the context it is being said in. You seem to be either genuinely struggling to understand me or you are willfully taking it out of context, which is it?

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm never offended by hyperbolic nonsense talk btw, I know better than to take such nonsense seriously.

Your conduct on this thread suggests otherwise.

One eyed Jack

nullzero wrote: »

For all you know her family could be horrible people. Neither of us know, this is just a discussion, I am not making serious judgements about this person, simply discussing the topic.
You appear to want to be offended by what I am saying, what I am saying shouldn't be offensive to anybody with the cognitive ability to understand what is it I am saying as well as the context it is being said in. You seem to be either genuinely struggling to understand me or you are willfully taking it out of context, which is it?

I'm not offended by what you were suggesting at all. You made a stupid statement, followed it up with an ill-informed assumption, and then you resort to childish name calling when you're questioned on it?

If that's your idea of mature discussion, I think it's for the best we leave it there.

jimgoose

I don't think the HSE should be able to have anyone arrested. I personally would quite like to have the HSE arrested but I can't afford it.

nullzero

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not offended by what you were suggesting at all. You made a stupid statement, followed it up with an ill-informed assumption, and then you resort to childish name calling when you're questioned on it?

If that's your idea of mature discussion, I think it's for the best we leave it there.

That "stupid statement" was hypothetical, you seem unable to grasp that concept which is not my fault.
You blatantly misrepresented me in your replies on more than one occasion. Yes I shouldn't have resorted to name calling but your bullish determination to be offended or some sort of injured party was not conducive to mature discussion either.

You have repeatedly used terms like "arrogant" and "stupid" in reference to my posts, this is clearly childish name calling also.
You have some neck to even attempt to take the moral high ground here.

The_Valeyard

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This will make those pro-life eejits endless joy I'm sure.

This sad horrible story would make no group of people happy.

zeffabelli

Approaching 40 weeks, she and the baby are at risk. There is something amiss with this story. Maybe she thinks another baby will be taken away...maybe there's some previous birth trauma...maybe mental illness.... The conjecture can go on and on...

I agree with evil twin this is not public interest and why is it in the papers?

Who are the men who keep choosing to reproduce with her? Funny how all the judgy pants go after her but nothing at the door of the men sticking their wick in the wrong wax.

meeeeh

zeffabelli wrote: »

Who are the men who keep choosing to reproduce with her? Funny how all the judgy pants go after her but nothing at the door of the men sticking their wick in the wrong wax.

If someone is unfit parent it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

Btw I disagree that this is not a public interest story, firstly because someone could spot her and secondly because it is important to keep an eye how often state needs (or doesn't need) to use forceful measures.

zeffabelli

meeeeh wrote: »

If someone is unfit parent it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

Of course not..... Not sure what your non sequitur is about.

meeeeh

zeffabelli wrote: »

Of course not..... Not sure what your non sequitur is about.

I am not going to speculate where kid father(s) is/are but there is just one person who is pregnant and on whom the child's well-being is dependent.

zeffabelli

meeeeh wrote: »

I am not going to speculate where kid father(s) is/are but there is just one person who is pregnant and on whom the child's well-being is dependent.

Yes but she didn't get pregnant by herself. There were other people reproducing with her who are also responsible.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Stheno wrote: »

Very strange case in the High Court today, some of it tragic in terms of the history, but don't think I've seen the Court grant an order to involuntarily detain someone before in these circumstances.

Something not right about it

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/a-genuine-human-emergency-major-search-for-pregnant-woman-who-failed-to-show-at-hospital-31486013.html

What's not right about protecting this woman and her unborn child? It's not like the guards will arrest her and throw her in prison, she'll be taken to hospital and given proper care and attention. Would you rather they left her to her own devices? No doubt then you'd be on asking why a vulnerable woman and child were not properly looked after by the state. There's nothing strange about the case in the slightest. What is strange though is people like you questioning actions that are in the best interest of the woman and child!

lanos

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yes but she didn't get pregnant by herself. There were other people reproducing with her who are also responsible.

The man or men she is associating with have no rights or responsibility in the eyes of the law.
What if she tells them she can't have children, is on the pill, is already pregnant.

sex is a recreational activity and the buck stops with her.

and until the child is born, a paternal DNA test can't be performed so why even mention paternal responsibility.

unless you are merely moralising

zeffabelli

lanos wrote: »

The man or men she is associating with have no rights or responsibility in the eyes of the law.
What if she tells them she can't have children, is on the pill, is already pregnant.

sex is a recreational activity and the buck stops with her.

and until the child is born, a paternal DNA test can't be performed so why even mention paternal responsibility.

unless you are merely moralising

I'm responding to the moralising landed on her.

KKkitty

I know this woman and I don't understand why she's like this at all. There's all sorts of contraception available now so I don't know why she's not on something. I'm not sure if she's doing this for attention or if she has mental health issues. It's a sad situation for everyone involved.