PDA

View Full Version : Forced Caesarean on Italian Mother in Britain


bosnich71
2nd Dec 2013, 07:41
This has to be one of the most disgusting things that Social Services in Britain have ever been involved with.
An Italian lady on Britain for a course with Ryanair has been sectioned by Essex Social services and had a caesarean forced on her against her will.
To add insult to injury her new born was then put up for adoption.
See article by Christopher Booker in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, or E.U. Referendum.

Capetonian
2nd Dec 2013, 08:10
I suspect there is more to this than is in the articles. It hardly seems the sort of thing the social services would do without good cause.

I wasn't aware that she was on a Ryanair course. I shall refrain, in the interests of good taste, from expressing a view on that component.

mixture
2nd Dec 2013, 08:12
I suspect there is more to this than is in the articles.

What he said, particularly given the amount of paperwork that would be required to undertake such a procedure in this day and age.

Fliegenmong
2nd Dec 2013, 08:12
Let me guess Bosnich...you want KRudd to apologise for that !?!?! :}

Of course there is more to the story!

racedo
2nd Dec 2013, 08:25
Read Booker in ST each weekend and he generally very consistent and also spot on each and every time reporting on Social Services. Its him and Hemmings MP that seem the only ones to ever be asking on this.

Council will do its standard of hiding behind a veil of silence when questioned.

It is a disturbing case but sadly seems par for the course with Social services.

Curious Pax
2nd Dec 2013, 08:39
Although on the face of it this is a step further than social services have been before (as far as I am aware), they did get a court order to do this, so wasn't just on the whim of a social worker. Given that the child was born 15 months ago I assume the case was heard in secret, so we aren't aware of how widely the court sought opinions before giving permission. Previously reported cases where broadly similar matters have been considered by the courts do seem to have been probed deeply before reaching a conclusion - hopefully that will prove to have been the case here. No doubt it will all come out eventually.

ArthurR
2nd Dec 2013, 09:06
Yes CP the court was held in secret, as most child cases are. It goes against the mandate that justice must be seen to be done.

air pig
2nd Dec 2013, 09:11
I'm surprised the surgeons did this, or event he theatre staff. I'd be refusing and if threatened blow it up to the press.

bosnich71
2nd Dec 2013, 10:11
Fliegs ..... you know very well that this is nothing to do with Australia or Rudd so wind your head in, as they say, you are just being silly. :ugh:

Fliegenmong
2nd Dec 2013, 11:41
'Twas but a flippant throw away Bossy.... ;) ..... i've been baited many times myself.......still suspect there is more to this....

racedo
2nd Dec 2013, 12:57
I'm surprised the surgeons did this, or event he theatre staff. I'd be refusing and if threatened blow it up to the press.

The staff would then be hauled before a judge in camera and threatened with jail for contempt of court.

Frankly I wish they had done this and got Union involved because it would have blown the whole crap piece up quickly.

late-joiner
2nd Dec 2013, 12:58
It hardly seems the sort of thing the social services would do without good cause.


Sadly, social services in this country have form on this. They have financially incentivised adoption targets to meet and healthy white babies that are easy to place help meet these.

Christopher Booker regularly unearths disturbing cases.

CelticRambler
2nd Dec 2013, 14:24
... they did get a court order to do this, so wasn't just on the whim of a social worker. ...

A well-placed solicitor once explained to me that "the court" will always treat the opinion of a social worker, however whimsical, as the best possible advice unless proven to the contrary.

Sure enough, in the fullness of time, the court (several different High Court judges) consistently accepted the recommendation of the SWs even though their unit had been accused of "institutional abuse" by another judge and damned by OFSTED, and the five civil parties to the case set aside their differences to collectively dispute the SWs' opinion.

In the even fullerness of time, the SWs returned to the court and begged to be released from the case as it was "impossible" to deal with the different parties and the children were becoming "aggressive" towards them, a request duly granted by the court even though it created a situation where there was then no independent supervision of a situation for which the court had judged essential to the case because of the risk to the children concerned ... as advised by the SWs.

Shack37
2nd Dec 2013, 15:14
[quote]'Twas but a flippant throw away Bossy.... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif ..... i've been baited many times myself.......still suspect there is more to this....[quote]




Indeed, "flippant" is really helpful on this subject.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

obgraham
2nd Dec 2013, 16:35
I, too, await "the details". No court order or threat of contempt of court citation could possibly force me to carry out an operation against the will of a competent patient.

DX Wombat
2nd Dec 2013, 16:42
STOP!, all of you, right now and THINK! (Always assuming you are capable of thought.) You all know full well that you are hearing only one side of the story. The NHS and other services has to abide by rules of patient confidentiality so will not be able to put the other side of the argument. Forced to have a Caesarean Section? Why? Maybe, just maybe, to save the lives of both mother and baby. Does anyone here know if there was a Grade 4 placenta praevia? That's the one where the placenta lies centrally over the cervix causing a total obstruction so that once labour begins and the cervix starts to dilate it peels off and results in a massive, uncontrollable haemorrhage which, if there is no intervention, will very rapidly kill both mother and baby so if the mum was mentally incapable of understanding the situation and making a decision the doctors would have had no choice in the matter. As for Social Services - it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Does anyone know if the mum was actually capable of looking after a baby? Did she make threats about what she might do to it? What were her home circumstances? Her history? Have you read the confidential notes regarding the case history? There will be a lot more behind this case than can ever be revealed so please, use your brain and think before condemning outright.

air pig
2nd Dec 2013, 17:07
STOP!, all of you, right now and THINK! (Always assuming you are capable of thought.) You all know full well that you are hearing only one side of the story. The NHS and other services has to abide by rules of patient confidentiality so will not be able to put the other side of the argument. Forced to have a Caesarean Section? Why? Maybe, just maybe, to save the lives of both mother and baby. Does anyone here know if there was a Grade 4 placenta praevia? That's the one where the placenta lies centrally over the cervix causing a total obstruction so that once labour begins and the cervix starts to dilate it peels off and results in a massive, uncontrollable haemorrhage which, if there is no intervention, will very rapidly kill both mother and baby so if the mum was mentally incapable of understanding the situation and making a decision the doctors would have had no choice in the matter. As for Social Services - it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Does anyone know if the mum was actually capable of looking after a baby? Did she make threats about what she might do to it? What were her home circumstances? Her history? Have you read the confidential notes regarding the case history? There will be a lot more behind this case than can ever be revealed so please, use your brain and think before condemning outright.

IF there is a medical reason for a caesarian section, then fine carry on, but if this has been done to keep the mother away from a delivery room, where she could raise a commotion to alert others about what was about to happen, then that is a disgrace. Operating theatres are usually down corridors behind multiple doors whilst delivery rooms are normally freely accessible whilst theatres are not.

What if this woman had died from surgery, developed an antibiotic resistant infection or died from any other cause, would any member of the SS or the judiciary participating in this disgrace have stood in the Coroners Court.

I would have refused to take part in this and would have had my union and solicitor with me.

This smacks of court order surgery, without an oversight, more Nazi Germany than the UK. I hope John Hemming names names in the House of Commons and that politicians on the Health Select Committee have the courage to drag all before them in order to elicit who what where and when and on what grounds this happened.

racedo
2nd Dec 2013, 17:56
As for Social Services - it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Does anyone know if the mum was actually capable of looking after a baby?

As she already had 2 children then this is already answered.

SS do what they want and wobetide anybody in their way.

Forced adoption: another win for the child snatchers - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8148987/Forced-adoption-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html)

Adoption process is being rushed by councils, say judges | Society | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/18/adoption-councils-judges)

bosnich71
3rd Dec 2013, 03:49
DX Wombat and others .....

There may well have been reasons for this lady to have been subjected to a medical procedure against her will but we will not know what those reasons are as the court is held behind closed doors. What is more, if anyone involved in a case of this sort dares to put it out into the public domain then they are liable to a term of imprisonment decided by these very same courts.
Given that British justice is ,supposedly, held in high esteem then it is surely time that all of that justice is there to be seen. Secret courts, other than where state secrets may be involved, have no place in a just and fair society.
This case is by no means unusual. Lucy Scott-Moncreiff, former President of the Law Society stated ,today, ' it is not unknown for women to have caesarean sections ordered by the court and of course it is not unknown for people to be detained under the Mental Health Act'.
All well and good, Lucy, but it should not be done in secret !

bosnich71
3rd Dec 2013, 03:55
Fliegs .... I accept your apology for being flippant.
I realise that you folk up there in Queensland don't have a great deal to do except to lay around on the beach all day scratching whatever it is that you keep inside your Budgie Smugglers while you await the arrival of the next Cyclone . :)

dat581
3rd Dec 2013, 08:49
After reeding articles from a few different sources and putting the Caesarian aside, the real problem I have with this event is the SS refusing to hand the baby to the woman's family or her friends who said they would take the baby while the mother was put back on her meds to get well. Yes the woman may have been sectioned but putting her baby up for adoption instead of handing it over to family is just beyond a normal person's thinking.

Another issue is what right does a British court have to impose this action on a foreign national? What did the Italian government do about this to protect one of it's citizens and to stop the outright theft of her baby by a foriegn government?

500N
3rd Dec 2013, 10:19
Dat

After reading a few articles, agree.

Interesting that the chief of the high court has now got involved
and said all future hearings have to be in front of him.

The way the articles were written, he seemed mighty pissed off
with what had gone one.

racedo
3rd Dec 2013, 12:36
Interesting that the chief of the high court has now got involved
and said all future hearings have to be in front of him.

The way the articles were written, he seemed mighty pissed off
with what had gone one.

He is and has been scathing in his comments about conduct of Judges / Social Services and the secrecy. He has called for more openness and now he has his chance.

I have a feeling that counsel for Essex County Council are going to earn their money on this because doubt counsel for mother will be easy on them with a Judge who dislikes them and a Diplomatic incident in play.

All the makings of a perfect storm.

RatherBeFlying
3rd Dec 2013, 15:19
Pregnancy is heavily hormonal and the consequential mood swings and the odd tantrum are normative behavior.

One would think that consular services would have been brought into the picture, especially when such drastic involuntary measures were contemplated.

One also has to ask what assistance, if any, was offered by her employer? Would it have been that difficult to fly her back home to her family and doctors following her? When was her family notified?

Bipolar disorder is generally controllable with medication, but pregnancy imposes challenges because many of the medications increase risk to the baby; so, other medications may be needed.

Was her pregnancy being followed by her doctor at home. If so, why was that doctor not contacted?

And yes, late pregnancy, especially with complications, is not the best time to be out of country on course. Had I been her supervisor, I would have asked for an approval from her doctor.

cockney steve
3rd Dec 2013, 16:33
I have not read the references, merely the postings on the thread.
Having said that, Where's the difference between this case and the tales of a steady stream of heavily pregnant visitors from the Indian sub-continent who avail themselves of the UK's welfare services for the birth and then the unencumbered entry of the new citizen's next-of kin and their NOK.

Seems like this lady was unlucky, in that the child gets to stay as a UK citizen and she doesn't.....Oh, wait!...Isn't Italy a member of the EU, therefore, doesn't she have a right of UK residency and work?

Surely our esteemed social services are notso thick as to perpetuate a balls-up on this monumental scale?

radeng
3rd Dec 2013, 20:18
I suspect that were the Italian government to start pressing matters, it could be, to say the least, interesting at the ECHR. Should ECC lose, a fine of a minimum of €50 million would sort out a lot of SS departments......Even use an EAW to drag the ECC SWS to Italy.....

But they'd never do anything like that, would they?

Borderer
4th Dec 2013, 17:33
SIX weeks before the due date, wombat? Without informing either the patient or the proper (consular) authorities? Or her doctors at home? Do you really believe that?

G-CPTN
4th Dec 2013, 20:28
BBC News - Essex Caesarean pregnancy: Mother 'at risk of rupture', judge says (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25224433)

421dog
4th Dec 2013, 20:51
We're dealing with two issues here:

1) the risk of a VBAC (fairly small, but real)

2) the idea of doing something to someone without seeking their assent. (even though we presume them incapable of providing informed consent due to mental incapacity)

We do the former all the time on this side of the pond.

We almost never do the latter. It smacks of Orwell.

RatherBeFlying
5th Dec 2013, 01:21
1% risk of rupture sounds an awful lot like the standard boilerplate. Without reference to the patient's medical history, it's just a number picked out of the air. Where's the clinical studies to substantiate this number?

A caesarian is a major abdominal operation that takes some three months to make a full recovery.

Methinks her appointed lawyer was sleeping at the switch.

belfrybat
5th Dec 2013, 02:14
Let's see. Six weeks due, two week course. Means that when due she'd be back in Italy, taking the problem off the hands of NHS. Something doesn't add up here.

bosnich71
5th Dec 2013, 03:15
Today's Daily Mail is carrying an interview with the Mother involved and with other parties. It's worth reading even if one doesn't think of the mail as being worth even being used as chip wrapper .... after all most newspapers are exactly the same.

Flap 5
5th Dec 2013, 07:00
A lawyer stated on the radio yesterday that the reason these hearings are held in secret is because of the very poor way they are reported by the press.

I could also add the way that certain people jump to conclusions on this thread as well.

bosnich71
5th Dec 2013, 08:15
Flap 5 .. people on this site may very well jump to conclusions but it does seem that a foreign national was sectioned by British health authorities with no reference to her own country ... or family.

obgraham
6th Dec 2013, 02:30
Still not enough information here. Don't know the circumstances of her prior cesarean(s). Despite Ratherbeflying's ridiculous statement that the uterine rupture rate is not known (trust me, there are umpteen studies on this matter), a 1 to 1.5 percent is well established overall, but there can be other factors.

And there are many many cases where women have insisted on vaginal delivery over the advice of their doctors to have a repeat c/section. I can't recall that being the sole issue for a court ordered c/section.

Flap 5
6th Dec 2013, 06:59
Flap 5 .. people on this site may very well jump to conclusions but it does seem that a foreign national was sectioned by British health authorities with no reference to her own country ... or family.

You make my point for me. "It does seem ..... ". And you get your information from where? An MP in parliament and a newspaper? The MP should have known better.

The lawyer on Radio 4 was clear that the Italian authorities would have been referred to and that the MP should have checked his facts first.

bosnich71
6th Dec 2013, 08:23
Flap 5 ... the Italian authorities are now considering legal action so perhaps it is not quite so clear cut as you seem to think.
Whatever the end result of this episode is the fact remains that there is a secret court operating in Britain, do you think that that is acceptable?

racedo
6th Dec 2013, 10:41
Whatever the end result of this episode is the fact remains that there is a secret court operating in Britain, do you think that that is acceptable?

No

Appears Social Services can just tell the Police and Police comply. Interesting if a Journo does a FOI on forces requiring them to tell how many times they have taken children before a court order has been granted.

Amazingly the details of the legals all coming on line so anybody can read the judgements and what is clear is Lady was badly served by Official Solicitor and a judge too willing to go along what Health Exec states. On other occasions nowt is published.

Legals only on line because the horror of what has occurred has meant media are not cowering to threats and it is a diplomatic incident. ECC going to court to prevent naming of mother in UK shows the contempt they should be held in.

Having council and police wanting to wait to sieze the child once born comes across as a hell supposedly gone from another era but then again Essex SS probably says its all

bosnich71
7th Dec 2013, 09:00
Racedo .... the case even got a mention on French TV news a couple of days ago with an interview with a British Grandfather showing a graph giving details of how the number of forced adoptions has increased since 2007.
Not a good look for U.K.

Flap 5
7th Dec 2013, 14:45
Flap 5 ... the Italian authorities are now considering legal action so perhaps it is not quite so clear cut as you seem to think.
Whatever the end result of this episode is the fact remains that there is a secret court operating in Britain, do you think that that is acceptable?

Considering legal action. They also got their information from the press, the MP and a complaint from the Italian citizen concerned in the case. An Italian court would deal with the facts.

It is irrelevant what you or I think about secret courts as they operate to protect the individuals in the cases heard by those courts. The press in this country are voracious and dangerous for personal privacy when it comes to cases where jumping to conclusions is dangerous.

bosnich71
8th Dec 2013, 03:13
Flap 5 ... If you think that this is a beat up by the press I would suggest that you read the transcript of this case.

The lady concerned was detained for a total of 5 weeks before receiving a caesarean section. During this time she pleaded to be allowed to return home to Italy.
The mother was deemed to be psychotic and schizophrenic by a psychiatrist although her bipolar condition resulted from a chemical imbalance which had previously been treated by medication.
She had ceased taking her medication because she had been advised that it could be dangerous to unborn babies.
An obstretrician's report stated that a caesarean section was advisable because with a natural birth, as asked for by the Mother, there was a one per cent chance of a uterine rupture.
The Mother was represented, on behalf of the Official Solicitor, by David Lock Q.C. who never actually met with her.
Mr. Lock did suggest that the Mother be allowed to bond with her new born child and should be given a fair chance of being treated for her condition in a mother and baby unit.
This suggestion was ignored by court and Mr. Justice Mostyn instructed that the social services should apply for an interim order to take the child into care.
This order was applied for and granted including the use of force if necessary.
The child was taken and the Mother was denied even the chance to hold her child something which is in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
After three days the baby vanished from the hospital to be put into foster care.

dat581
8th Dec 2013, 04:01
I'd add unlawful detention to a list of charges to be brought against whoever is responsible for this mess. What right does the British government have to detain a foriegn national without criminal charges? She wanted to go home and was detained against her will, here's hoping those responsible are detained at Her Magesty's pleasure for a VERY long time.

dat581
8th Dec 2013, 09:57
There have been plenty of examples of people "just following orders" over the last hundred years who should have known better. Sack the bloody judge too. Was there no one along this sorry chain of events who said what we are doing is wrong and we need to stop?

flash8
8th Dec 2013, 12:15
What a deeply scary story.

Why did not the Clinicians support the mother, rather than go along with all this, complicit by default?

She should go to the GMC with her concerns among pursuing other avenues.

obgraham
9th Dec 2013, 02:18
Why did not the Clinicians support the mother, Exactly. Somebody, somewhere, needed to stand up for their principles.

bosnich71
9th Dec 2013, 03:32
In fairness to Flap 5 and all involved the lady's Father has now come forward and said that he agrees with the decisions made by the court and social services. Obviously there are always two sides of a story.
However, I still have a problem with the whole concept of courts where decisions are kept secret and anyone involved with those decisions are threatened with punishment, which has been carried out in some instances, if they talk to the press etc. about their individual cases or, as has happened even send a birthday card to their child.
The zeal with which social services and this court handled this case seems to be in direct contrast to another case reported this morning but this time involving the family Court in Britain.
This report concerned a Father who has been attempting to see his Daughter for the past 12 years. The ex Wife has been ordered on 82 occasions to give the Father access to his Daughter and has blatantly refused. A total of seven judges and ten social workers have been involved in the case yet despite the woman ignoring court orders she has never been charged with contempt etc.
Allegations that she made of sexual and physical abuse of the Daughter by the Father were found to have no basis, again no sanctions against the mother.
Lord Justice McFarland sitting in the appeal court stated that the Father was of unimpeachable character whilst the Mother had been diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality disorder, paranoid traits and occasional depression. She had also used alcohol and illicit drugs.
It is also worth noting that the father has spent upwards of 100,000 pounds sterling whilst the Mother has had her bills paid for by legal aid.

air pig
9th Dec 2013, 09:52
Actually she could have been aero medically repatriated back to Italy with a psyche nurse and an obstetric team under sedation prior to the C section.

bosnich71
9th Dec 2013, 10:06
Air Pig .... exactly.

radeng
9th Dec 2013, 16:49
One could see this ending up at the ECHR......

racedo
9th Dec 2013, 21:36
One could see this ending up at the ECHR......

Actually believe it will be worse than that.

In less than 20 years time there will be thousands of kids who will find that while their adoptive parents love them and that is reciprocated in reality they were stolen by use of court orders from their parents and handed across.

How different is UK from Argentina, ok they didn't execute the parents or other countries who have engaged in this.

I have adopted friends who know they were given for adoption by their mother many years ago but think that if they had been removed using secret courts in effect their whole life had been a lie built on a Govt deciding what was best for them.

RatherBeFlying
11th Dec 2013, 20:59
In fairness to Flap 5 and all involved the lady's Father has now come forward and said that he agrees with the decisions made by the court and social services. Obviously there are always two sides of a story.This was reported by the Guardian. But let's consider motives as the mother and father do not seem to be a couple. By having the child born and adopted in the UK, the father gets out from under any support obligations:E

PTT
15th Dec 2013, 12:25
An excerpt from the ruling (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/re-aa-approved-judgment.pdf) itself:
NOTE BY MR JUSTICE MOSTYN (4 December 2013)

Although no-one has sought to appeal the judgment dated 23 August 2012 during the last 15 months, or to have it transcribed for any other purpose, I have decided to authorise its release together with the verbatim transcript of the proceedings and the order made so as to inform and clarify recent public comments about this case.

It will be seen that the application to me was not made by the local authority or social workers. Rather, it was an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 by the NHS Trust, supported by the clear evidence of a consultant obstetrician and the patient’s own treating consultant psychiatrist, seeking a declaration and order that it would be in the medical best interests of this seriously mentally ill and incapacitated patient, who had undergone two previous elective caesarean sections, to have this birth, the due date of which was imminent (she was 39 weeks pregnant), in the same manner.

The patient was represented by the Official Solicitor who instructed a Queen’s Counsel on her behalf. He did not seek an adjournment and did not oppose the application, agreeing that the proposed delivery by caesarean section was in the best interests of the patient herself who risked uterine rupture with a natural vaginal birth. I agreed that the medical evidence was clear and, applying binding authority from the Court of Appeal concerning cases of this nature, as well as the express terms of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, made the orders and declarations that were sought.

Although I emphasised that the Court of Protection had no jurisdiction over the unborn baby, I offered advice to the local authority (which were not a party to or represented in the proceedings, or present at the hearing) that it would be heavy-handed to invite the police to take the baby following the birth using powers under section 46 of the Children Act 1989. Instead, following the birth there should be an application for an interim care order at the hearing of which the incapacitated mother could be represented by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. So it seems the child was at term and the caesarian was for medical reasons rather than anything else. Th local authority did appear to plan to use police powers to take the child into protection, and the judge advised that this would be heavy-handed and they should go through the courts, which they did.

bosnich71
17th Dec 2013, 03:44
PTT ..... and the secret court agreed.

Worrals in the wilds
17th Dec 2013, 04:01
So how did 'interim care' turn into adoption? I can see why a Caesarian may have been needed, but permanently removing the baby seems very drastic, particularly from a foreigner.

RatherBeFlying
17th Dec 2013, 04:21
an urgent application first made at 16:16 on 23 August 2012 by the NHS Trust, supported by the clear evidence of a consultant obstetrician and the patient’s own treating consultant psychiatristThe problem here is that the "patient's" consultants were imposed upon her for a period of several weeks until time had backed them into a corner.

There certainly seems to have been ample time to have repatriated her to the care of the practitioners she had selected herself.

VP959
17th Dec 2013, 07:03
The problem here is that the "patient's" consultants were imposed upon her for a period of several weeks until time had backed them into a corner.

There certainly seems to have been ample time to have repatriated her to the care of the practitioners she had selected herself.

If you read the full case details it's clear that she had been detained under the Mental Health Act for some time prior to this. Her two previous children had been taken away from her, as she was unable to look after them (although in their cases foster care was via her grandparents, I believe).

What doesn't seem to have been made clear is that this woman was severely mentally ill, and medication to help control her condition was either inappropriate (because of her pregnancy) or was being refused by her.

The corner her doctors found themselves in seems to be because they did give her every opportunity to choose (as she had done twice before) to have an elective caesarean. They had explained to her that the risk of womb rupture from trying to have a normal delivery, because of the weakening caused by the previous caesarean sections, was high, and that this risked both her own life and that of the unborn child.

I think any doctor would have found themselves in the same predicament with a patient with her medical history, regardless of whether or not that patient was sectioned.

The separate issue of taking the child away was a matter brought to a different court, and judge, by the council. Their argument centred on the woman's inability to safely care for a child, an argument that was strengthened by the fact that she had been found to be unable to look after her two previous children, who were already being fostered.

Notwithstanding the sensationalist reporting, that focusses on her country of origin and partially ignores her severe illness, it seems that the first judge (Judge Mostyn) ordered the caesarean solely on the basis that the risk to her life of a normal delivery was too great, and that her mental illness meant that she was unable to make that rational decision. The second judge made the decision to allow the local authority to take the new born child into care because of medical evidence that the woman was incapable, again because of severe mental illness, to care for a child. The second judge was determining what was safest for the child, rather than the mother.

It's a sad story, but I find it hard to see what else could have been done in the circumstances, short of forcing the woman to take medication to control her mental illness.

As I understand it we stopped forcing medication on people many years ago now. There is an argument, perhaps, that, for some people with long term mental illness, forcing them to take their medication should be reintroduced. Certainly a friend of mines son would still be alive had he been forced to take his medication. He, too, suffered from severe schizophrenia, that could be well-controlled with medication, but repeatedly chose not to take it, culminating in one of his many suicide attempts being successful.

Curious Pax
17th Dec 2013, 08:02
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the pregnancy aspect of this, am I the only one a little perturbed that someone with such a medical history had managed (if reports are to be believed) to get on what appears to be a cabin crew course? People who have had mental issues shouldn't necessarily be barred from such jobs if things are demonstrably stable and under control, but this lady seems to have struggled with her health considerably over the years.

Worrals in the wilds
17th Dec 2013, 09:48
The second judge made the decision to allow the local authority to take the new born child into care because of medical evidence that the woman was incapable, again because of severe mental illness, to care for a child. The second judge was determining what was safest for the child, rather than the mother.As I undersand it, permanent and irreversable care, if adoption laws in the UK work the same as similar laws in Australia. That's the only part of the story I stumble with, if it happened as per the media reports (and I realise that it probably didn't :ugh:).

I have no issue with the court ordered Caesarian or even taking the child temporarily into care in his/her best interests, but isn't adoption a permanent removal? It's not foster or temporary state care pending talks with the family; isn't it permanently and legally giving a child to another family to raise as their own, with no coming back? Or am I confusing one country's laws for another? :confused:
...someone with such a medical history had managed (if reports are to be believed) to get on what appears to be a cabin crew course?I also wondered about that.

bosnich71
17th Dec 2013, 20:22
Having travelled via Virgin Oz, and Jetstar I've often been left with the impression that a bit of lunacy was a pre-requisite for the cabin staff.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

radeng
17th Dec 2013, 21:50
I can't help feeling that there needs to be a response as to why her request for repatriation wasn't met. Even given a degree of mental instability, such a response could not really be unreasonable...