Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

My name is URL · 01-12-2013 01:58PM #1

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 · 01-12-2013 02:21PM

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 · 01-12-2013 02:40PM

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 · 01-12-2013 02:41PM

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.

01-12-2013 02:49PM

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 · 01-12-2013 02:53PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:00PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:02PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:05PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:06PM

This is the natural consequences of the pc brigade

Phoebas · 01-12-2013 03:07PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:09PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:09PM

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

01-12-2013 03:12PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:14PM

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 · 01-12-2013 03:23PM

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

01-12-2013 03:32PM

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 · 01-12-2013 04:10PM

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 · 01-12-2013 04:19PM

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 · 01-12-2013 04:52PM

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 · 01-12-2013 04:53PM

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 · 01-12-2013 05:02PM

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 · 01-12-2013 05:13PM

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 · 01-12-2013 05:20PM

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 · 01-12-2013 05:35PM

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 · 01-12-2013 06:00PM

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.

01-12-2013 06:16PM

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 · 01-12-2013 06:16PM

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.

01-12-2013 06:21PM

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 · 01-12-2013 06:29PM

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 · 01-12-2013 06:37PM

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.

Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

Comments