Woman has child forcibly removed due to mental health issues
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-services.html

I am hoping that this is a dream. I am so angry about this article.
Is anyone in Essex- is this true?
I thought that some bipolar medication was bad for babies in utero.
I am very confused by the concept of the child being given up for adoption because the woman might suffer a relapse.....
So if a woman has cancer, the child should be given away too?!

I read this article this morning and was literally speechless. That poor woman, as if it wasn't bad enough to be pregnant and unwell in a foreign country, social services then decide to cut the child out of her without her permission or even telling her?? And now they want to put the child up for adoption? In the UK? Why isn't the child sent home to Italy? Ugh, I'm so angry.

There's been quite a few stories in the Irish media over the last year or two about British women turning up at Irish maternity hospitals in the last days of their pregnancies/already in labour in order to avoid social services in the UK taking their children when they're born. I didn't have that much sympathy for them, but if this is what they're dealing with at home, my opinion has changed. Unbelievable, Orwellian carry on.

You do realise that because of confidentiality rules this woman's social workers,midwives and psychiatrists can't comment on her case. We are only hearing one side of the story and it may be embellished or missing certain key facts. For example, if the woman was catatonic, it may be that she would be completely unable to have a natural birth. I think it highly unlikely that this woman suffered just a panic attack, they don't section you and keep you in hospital for weeks for something so simple and treatable. The story, as reported, is horrific but certain facts don't add up which leads me to believe that things are not as they have been made out to be.

I'm sure there is another side to the story, but she was at least able to communicate:
Source
I would guess that part of the reasoning behind her sectioning was because she was a non national with no family, friends or fixed abode in the country and also because she was pregnant.

I cannot fathom how traumatic that must have been for her. I can't understand why social services are hanging on so tight to the baby. She has no relationship with the UK and if the mother is unable to care for her, she should at least be returned to Italian social services where she can be raised in her own country, learn her own language etc. To deny the child the opportunity to be raised by her mother or access to her culture etc is wrong. She has extended family, two siblings, a grandmother, she deserves to know them.

There was a case in Ireland recently involving a woman that came to Dublin to give birth in order to avoid social services in England. The child was taken into care at birth, the report says the mother has a personality disorder. The High Court here decided that the child had no relationship to Ireland apart from being born here and the child was returned to England (despite the local authority in England wanting nothing to do with it and saying there was nothing they could do for the child). Just to add, this is taken from the statutory body that is responsible for oversight of and reporting on childcare proceedings so it is factual.

On the face of it, the whole reaction of social services up to now seems to be very heavy handed. I sincerely hope this is raised in the House of Commons because it is a matter of public interest and if social service's actions are shown to have been fair and proportionate, that's fine, but if not perhaps it will stop this happening to another pregnant woman suffering with a mental illness. If there is an inquiry, then the professionals involved in her care can be compelled to break confidentiality and give evidence. This is the kind of story that really frightens people and for that reason the facts of the case need to be established.

It makes me so angry, I also saw an article today about a women with paronoid schizophrenia saying she isn't sure wheather to have children even though she has been stable a whole and the amount of people commenting saying she shouldn't have children makes me soo angry!!! Mental illness is still so stigmatised. You wouldn't tell someone with a long term physical illness like diabetes or someone who used to have cancer but is in remission to not have children when they are just as likely to be effected and develop the condition themselves!!! People said that it would be 50% in the baby's genes to have schizophrenia itself!!!

I'm soo angry!!!!

I don't even.....

Sadly, with my experiences with social services, it doesn't surprise me as much as it should.

I read a few articles in The Times advising anyone who has had problems with mental illness to get the **** out of the UK as soon as you find out you are pregnant, as long as you have your family around you. It's getting really, really bad.

I live in Essex and this is the first I've heard, I am really shocked.

But to be honest we're not getting the full story. There's no way the police get called on you for a panic attack. You don't get sectioned because of a panic attack and have your baby forcibly removed. She must have been extremely violent or making threats towards her unborn baby.

I'd like to think that social services did this for a really, really good reason.

I was very unwell during my pregnancy and spent most of it in psych hospitals, but even then, all that happened was that I was made to have an induction on my due date, so I couldn't go into labour randomly and went to a mother and baby psych unit. I'm unsure why they didn't do that here.

Social services are incredibly panicky, they have been since Baby P. Since then, the number of children taken into care has gone into the 10,000s for the first time ever and the children to get taken for the most ridiculous reasons. Guilty until proven innocent.
I could go on for a while about this, cases I've seen and heard about through the contact centres but I won't.
Social services are a mess. I will leave it at that.

I feel confused and bewildered by this. How could social services make that call? The welfare of an unborn child is extremely important but was this in the best interests of the mother? It does state that theoretically the council would have had to have shown that there was an acute risk to the mother. Were there intensive assessments made by perinatal psychiatrists or maternity medics? I'm confused. Was it in the best interests of mother and baby alike? Who were social services focussing on. I can't imagine this woman got the specialist psychiatric care she so clearly needed prior to such a horrifying decision. There again, i don't have all the facts to make my own opinion. I only have lots of questions.

Okay so i just read it much more carefully. They must have got her under the mental capacity act as I'm pretty sure they couldn't do this just under the mental health act. So i wonder if she had an advocate or a solicitor to listen to her and explain things to her. To sedate her, enforce her to have a caesarean and to not even talk to her in a way she could understand first (if they didn't) then it feels barbaric and terrifying to me. She should have had all the top specialists involved in the country as an emergency before a decision like this was made.

Urgh trying to write this on my crappy phone and re edit it to add more is not working well, my reply is all over the place.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...caesarean.html

I myself was surprised that only one newspaper was reporting- but it seems a few now are carrying the story.

Definitely, my understanding is that the sectioning act is not always accurate- and while we may not know the entire story, it concerns me that she is facing so much discrimination due to her diagnosis of bipolar. The issues are the adoption and mental health decisions the LEGAL system are making. How can a judge determine a woman may not take her medication in the future without a psychiatrist saying she is not competent!! This has to be competency hearing- and there is a big difference between being fostered and being adopted in terms of the rights of the mother.
It is just sending the wrong message....

You do realise that a psychiatrist will prepare reports on the woman to advise the judges decision right? They make an informed decision based on the advice of experts. And it was the social workers who determined that she may not take her medication in future.
I don't think you can say she is receiving discrimination based purely on her diagnosis. This isn't someone who has been stable and taking meds consistently for a while. It seems to me that the decision has been made based on her behaviour, not taking medication and becoming seriously unwell.
There is a big difference between fostering and adoption in terms of rights of the mother, but there is also a massive difference in terms of outcomes for the child. We know that prolonged stays in the care system damage children, they have worse outcomes in health, education, contact with the criminal justice system and just about any other factor you might consider. We also know that the younger the child, the easier it is to adopt. Lack of early adoption could lead to a child being stuck in a cycle of foster placements and care homes. These risks have to be balanced against the mother's wishes.

I am in the US but one of my friends had a panic attack in church and she ended up stuck in the hospital for a while. Just a panic attack, made worse by the medical professionals who did not treat her with compassion.

Heidi, I understand that you would support the way things are done- but I am personally having an issue with this because 1) I have been through the NHS as a foreigner and it was not easy 2) I have a diagnosis of bipolar and the whole meds thing is "dropped" a lot more- a person has a right to choose to stop their meds- you may not like it, but that doesn't automatically make them a danger. 3) I don't care if it a social worker, judge or psychiatrist making the decision. As a student in the UK, there was a debate about forcibly sterilizing persons with MH issues. I had gotten to the stage where I felt because I had bipolar I could not have children, and it is only recently that I have come across literature that supports monitored drug "holidays" so you can have a safe pregnancy and then possibly go back on meds instead of breast feeding. I do not know the full extent of the story, but I do know that system- criminal, health and social welfare fail many people with mental health issues- and I don't think that they need defending.
The child has already been kept away from its mother for 15 + months. This is discrimination on the grounds of gender, nationality, and health. The woman clearly needs a high profile advocate- because this is not the only case that I am reading about "secret courts" in the UK.

How is it discrimination on the grounds of gender and nationality? I'm sure if a severely mentally ill man gave birth to a baby it would be taken into care! And nationality? How? She wasn't sectioned or had her baby removed because she was Italian. To be unable to section someone or remove their child because of their nationality would be discrimination on grounds of nationality!
Yes, technically it is discrimination on grounds of health, but that's really not a remarkable idea. We don't let paraplegics become firefighters because their health means they simply can't do the job. Someone's disability may mean they simply can't do the job of parenting.

As for secret courts, the alternative is to have the intimate details of highly vulnerable adults and children available to the general public. When I was sectioned, I wouldn't have wanted my mental health reports shared with the press. But I should have had the right to tell my side of the story, same as this woman has. For people even iller and young children, they don't have the capacity to consent to their information being shared and so it should remain private until/if they gain capacity. This kind of information is the kind of thing that opens people up to real discrimination and so the "secrecy" is warranted.

For those interested, the adoption judgement can be found here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.html
It makes interesting reading, shows the judge to be pretty compassionate towards the mother and in my opinion justifies well the decision to take the child into care.

Interesting, thanks for posting that I've just finished reading through it. The judge sounded very fair in my opinion, the last comment especially sounded quite compassionate and sensitive;

This makes it worse.....calculated arrogance!!
 

7. an "unusual order" made
to remove the baby via C- section
8. the judge allowed the child to be kept from mother while the doctors (UK) wanted child with mother in hospital (so bonding of baby with mother only benefits mother and not child??!!)
9. By the UK authorities escorting the mother out of the UK back to Italy the judge is saying the woman's chances of keeping her child were reduced and it was obvious that she was ill- advised. Although she was said to have "legal capacity"- it was obvious she did not understand that she would lose her child if she left. The Italian doctors felt she was unstable when she arrived into their care.
15. Mother is asking for a chance to prove for 1 year that she can be a fit mother- before taking away her rights.

Reading down the rest....the intention is for it to be an open adoption.
I still think it is absolute arrogance on the part of the UK legal and social system, that they know better than the mother. If they were more keen they would be able to support the mother and her family over the next year in meeting parenting goals. But as in guilty until proven innocent- she did not take her meds in the past- she'll probably so it again. She HAS NEVER been a danger to her children. Of course it is traumatic for children to see a parent unwell, but you do not know what support she has in Italy- and "accepting" one has bipolar is a very personal journey. The child's father's status shows that there is further discrimination on the part of nationality because he cannot participate in the case without being displaced from his family in Italy.
I am glad that the lady was able to eloquently lobby for herself. However, I hope some prominent lawyer takes up the case and helps her sue or at least have a full inquiry launched.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...r-baby.html?fb

I am very confused by the concept of "threshold triggers" which seems to be some crystal ball that social services has access to to tell the future. Feels like the same one that got used on me that "I thought you had bipolar". It's a chronic condition that you learn to live with- with support. She is being persecuted for needing support!! If she had cancer, would you take away her kids in case she got sick- had a relapse- didn't want to take meds because they prevented her from functioning and might die!! It is like the family that had to run away because the state hospital was forcing them to treat their child for chemo.
That kid better turn out to be perfect.

So you believe that a family should be able to withhold life saving treatment (chemotherapy) from their children. You've basically admitted that children should die to uphold the rights of their parents. If you believe that then no wonder you disagree with this decision! I'm afraid that I believe that children are more than extensions of their parents and that after birth, they immediately gain their own rights. That is why I am glad to live in a country that has a legal framework to balance the rights of mother and child when they are conflicting with each other.

I agree. It seems that he has weighted up all the options and all the opinions of the professionals.

I think it's also important to realise that this women has already lost custody of her two eldest children, since early 2011 if I read that judgement correctly. If she was not able to improve after the lose of her two eldest children, why would this child be any different? Also, if she had improved so much why are her eldest children not back in her care?

I find this sentence to have real importance to judges decisions:

From what I've read, the forced c-section without even telling her seems shocking, but I can understand the reasoning for the adoption (she already lost custody of two other kids). I am sure there were reasons, but forced surgery instead of allowing a natural birth still seems rather barbaric, given they could have induced her etc.

There has to have been another way that they could have dealt with this.

There were patients on the mother and baby psych unit that I was in who were far too unwell to look after their babies, so the baby was put into foster care or in the care of the father until the mother was well enough to be treated on the mother and baby unit with the baby.

I had to sign a form when I was pregnant that if I lost capacity, then they could take measures to ensure the baby was safe.
E.G. If I had lost capacity, I could well have been in the same situation as this woman. And once I was well enough then we would be reunited on the mother and baby unit.

SS are notorious for their lack of communication with both parents and other professionals, which causes lots of problems.

I have seen extremely unwell mothers, on both acute units and PICU when they were too unwell to be with their babies and on the mother and baby unit where they had to be heavily supervised because there still may be a risk.
Mothers could then be sent to a parenting assessment unit (some specialising in MH) once they had become stable on the psych unit and these assessment units would be able to accurately decide whether the parents were capable of looking after a child or not.

There are so many things they could have done instead of this.

Sorry to keep referring to my own case here, but I have been told that even if I was stable for years and became pregnant again, SS would automatically become involved and I would either have to be admitted to a mother and baby unit again or the baby would be taken into care immediately so I could undergo assessments. Even if I had been stable for a long time.

EDIT: I also knew of someone through the mother and baby unit who killed her first baby due to severe postnatal depression. She had another baby a few years later and was totally fine. I understand that they would have to be especially careful since her older children were already in care, but it doesn't mean it will happen the next time and it should have been dealt with differently in a way that benefited both the mother and child. The family is always the best place for a child to be and every step should be taken to achieve this, even SS admit that.

The Caesarean court order came under the Mental Capacity Act, which means it was done solely for the mother's wellbeing when she was deemed not to be well enough to consent to medical procedures. The babies wellbeing didn't come in to it at all. We do not know wether this mother had a normal, healthy pregnancy, for example she may have had serious pre eclampsia at the time which necessitated the speedy delivery of the child. We also cannot be certain that she was not told, we only have the mother's account that she was kept in the dark. I don't duobt she can't recall being told or didn't understand if she was, I don't think she's lying but she was severely unwell at the time.

That could well be true, but then to take the child straight into care with no chance for them to be together?

I do think that there is a risk of getting nationalistic and personal when there is no need to be. If anyone wants to disagree with me fine- but I was only drawing a comparison to where hospitals and court systems were in conflict with the parents' right to parent- and make decisions for their child. Quality of life is a complex issue and it is very easy to get emotional and lose sight of the point. The details of the case are not known- I know that it emotionally impacts me because I have bipolar, want children, and feel strongly about mental health rights.

I hear this comment about bipolar and meds ALL the time. People act like they never forget their keys, or to buy milk- or to take meds. Persons take antibiotics feel better and then stop before the course is through- does anyone question their competence? Everyone assumes- ahhhh run for the hills: bipolar crazies gone off their meds!! It doesn't work like that- and it sounds from the fact she impressed the judge- she is high functioning so it is probably worse to be very aware how much you are being screwed over.

I highlighted the link you shared where the judge stated the whole case was handled badly. We are no longer a society that views the mentally ill as invalids. Her extended family (husband's sister?) has petitioned for the child and been denied. Obviously the adoptive family has some clout as well as the social services and I think Cacoethes' experience is evidence that there are alternatives in the UK- but someone did not employ them. Services are probably not the same all over the UK, but if this is not best practice, everything needs to be done for this not to happen again.

As a person with bipolar I do not think that I should be afraid of saying the 'b' word to a non- psychiatric doctor or a police officer- but that is exactly what has been like for me since being diagnosed. I spent a year in the UK as a student become an expert on my rights so this could not happen to me, exactly because I was being victimized. And I still had an advocate- who was surprised at my capability to virtually advocate for myself and see the process through. Several times I was a victim of British citizens and had no protection, and I had the exact same attitude that if I got sick- get me on a plane home! I put a very detailed support network in place because I experienced severe discrimination, but I knew my rights. In the end I left the country very drained but I had achieved my goal of education.

Due to her diagnosis- this woman's battle is more expensive, time sensitive and because she cannot find support and compassion from other members of the mental health community- the mere fact that I feel that I have to defend her right to be a mother on a support thread, for me is really upsetting me- I really keep hoping parliament in Italy and England step in and sanction the first judge and she wins on appeal. I imagine child advocates and social workers seeing this differently- but as I work with children who are the "products" of going into care- I just know it is sooooo important to have a relationship with the mother.

I went by what was reported that the C-section was not a normal order, keeping the child away from the mother not normal, and Cacoethe's personal share that there would have been options if she was not Italian (therefore known to mental health services in the UK before) and possibly a different part of the UK. I had a bipolar classmate at University who felt she was supported because she was British and had transitioned from her mental health input to the one at University. I had my own experience of care in my home country- and the treatment I got in the UK was terrible to the extent that I had to lodge a formal complaint.

There is a need for mental health advocates in court as well as human rights lawyers- it is a fact. This entire situation reinforces the stigma against mental illness, specifically bipolar- and from my personal experience- it perpetuates ignorance. There is nothing worse than having real persecution being masked as "in your best interest". Just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not out to get you.

Maybe the mother was extremely violent? The adoption judgement does state that she "terrorised" one of her older daughters whilst unwell.

I also really can't decide which would be less traumatic, knowing your baby very briefly or not knowing them at all. Not that I think forced caesareans should ever be routinely justified for that reason. Just if the mother was under general anaesthetic anyway. Back in the olden days, way before the NHS, midwives used to routinely smother babies that they thought wouldn't survive and then tell the mother that they were stillborn. They thought they were being more humane doing that.

Can I just point out this is not a support thread, it is a debate one. Way, way different!

Just because the C section was not a normal order does not mean it was a wrong one. There are often exceptions to a rule in medical situations. Sometimes only 2 or 3 people in the world suffer from a particular disease, imagine how exceptional medical decisions involving their care are.

Also, could you please point to me where Cacoethes states that this mother's treatment had anything to do with her being Italian? I think you are putting your own spin on other people's words. Your colleague may have somehow felt her support was dependant on her Britishness, but that jars with my own experience of MH services. When anecdote can counter anecdote we have to look for factual evidence. I've just spent nearly 3 months in a multi cultural, inner city psychiatric ward. Many of the patients were immigrants and quite a few could not speak a scrap of English, unlike this woman. Their care in no way differed from British citizens.

The judge did not say the whole case was handled badly. He said her decision to return to Italy was ill advised. I don't see how you can simultaneously argue this woman had capacity to be a parent, but lacked capacity to take a plane trip.

Also, about the baby being placed with family. I have read that social services attempted to get the baby placed with the woman's family in Italy, but these attempts were unsuccessful. The person being touted as family in the press is not a blood relative of the woman and lives in America, not Italy.

I don't understand why she wasn't immediately put under SS if this had happened before, she wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country if she was under SS in her home country.

That's a good point though Heidi.
I can only use myself as an example, if I knew that Jasmine would without a doubt go up for adoption, I would have preferred not to see her at all, but if there was even a slight chance of staying together, which I believe in this case could have been possible, then everything should be done to help that situation.

It's a really, really hard situation.
I do believe that parents should be given a chance with their baby, regardless of what has happened in the past, if the parent has a mental illness, because things really can change.

You don't hear of this happening with mothers who are alcoholics and drug addicts and use while pregnant, they will be referred to SS if it's spotted, but nothing like this would happen, and surely illegal drugs and alcohol are also as dangerous to an unborn child?

I'm rambling now....

This may be irrelevant, but there is also a quota that SS have to fill to get some sort of bonus at the end of the year.
It literally is, they have a target amount of children to put up for adoption and they get extra money if they meet that target. Which means a lot of children are being separated from families unnecessarily, especially from young parents and parents with mental illnesses because they are considered 'easy targets' simply because it's easier to find reasons to separate these families under this new threshold they have 'potential emotional neglect'.
I was told that my daughter isn't a 'quota baby' because she is mixed race and basically, she wouldn't be wanted because of this (they have rules so she would have to be placed in a family where one parent is white and one is asian)

The fact that phrases like 'quota baby' can even exist says a lot about the current state of SS.

I agree. Definitely justifies the decision made.

Wouldn't have been allowed to leave our country if she was under social services, we don't know what the state of play is in Italy. Even then, there have recently been several high profile cases of British women who fled to Ireland to avoid social services.

I think if a woman has a baby taken into care, then social services should be involved with any subsequent children. This does not mean I believe they should be automatically taken into care, things do change. But I do believe monitoring such women more closely is probably justified.

As for not hearing about it happening to alcoholics and drug addicts, do you really think the tabloid press cares about their rights?! The kind of things I read in there about addicts are about things like enforced sterilisation, not about supporting them to raise children.

I've been reading through this thread and I agree too that it was the right decision to make.

I can't imagine how hard it would be to give birth to a child, go through the whole labour, see them, and have them taken away. I can imagine that a cesarean would be easier to cope with in that situation.

I think the judge was fair and considerate of all needs, while still making the right, if very difficult, decision.

I meant wouldn't have been allowed to leave Italy, as I do agree she should have been under SS (or the Italian equivalent) while she was still pregnant.
The people involved with my care wouldn't allow me to posses a valid passport for this reason, although if I had known that my experience with SS was going to be like this, I would have gone to Ireland, no doubt.

And I meant taking the child at birth from drug addicts and alcoholics for the good of the children, in my experience and things I've heard from staff in contact centres and similar places, drug addicts and alcoholics are given a lot more chances and a lot more freedom than people with mental illnesses.

As I made clear during the course of argument, the mother was anxious to point out that she had never terrorised C in particular, but in fact the way in which I had understood the translation was that C has been particularly upset by the experiences which she has had to witness, that she has been both traumatised and indeed has been terrorised, not by the mother's behaviour, but by what it is that she has witnessed and in particular her mother being profoundly unwell.

Obviously I have a completely different interpretation- that she did not "terrorize" her daughter directly, but in being unwell and witnessing this and being able to understand this the child was "terrorized" and "traumatised" in the observation. Which is my entire argument- that she is being persecuted for an aspect of her illness that she does not have control over. All of these people need an education about bipolar....
Being a debate thread- and I would contend more a discussion of news that a debate- because I am pretty sure I used the logo- but heh!! I have a significant background that is not "anecdotal" as well as people in the profession telling me that there is something corrupt happening. For every reported case.....
I am always glad when someone has a good experience of support services- that is how it is supposed to work for everyone. However, if in order to have faith in the hand that feeds them, one feels the need to attack anyone with a differing opinion or experience- not cool.
RYL is a support website. I would not disclose my personal interest on ANY other site. So it is not the same. Debate should not aim to be personal, to deride, to disrespect.
The medical community and research community have made it so anecdotal evidence is seen as having no value- but even if it appears to conflict it is information.

They need education about a lot of things.
They wrote in some of my reports that it's likely that my daughter would be brought up in poverty because 70% of people with mental illnesses can't work or hold down a job (not sure where that came from) and several other similar statements were made.

But she is not IMO being persecuted. She may not have control over her illness, but from all reports it only becomes an issue when she stops her meds, something she does have control over. When people have babies taken into care, very few times do people believe that the parents have control over their issues. Take severe learning disabilities, no one would argue that someone with Down's syndrome had any control over their condition, yet it would not be controversial to suggest that some Down's syndrome parents are unable to care for their children. It's not a moral judgement!



I've never attacked you, or said your opinions are wrong. I've said where my opinions differ, where I believe there are facts you aren't considering or where you have stated facts I believe are untrue. I don't think the OP should have the right to censor other poster's opinions, disagreements are very different to disrespecting.

Anecdotal stories do have value, but only with multiplicity. Numerous anecdotes become evidence. If you somehow disagree with the foundations of modern medical practise and the entire scientific community then that is your choice. But there are reasons that research is so rigorous and undergoes so many controls. Individuals are prone to human error, our opinions can mean we see what we want to see, we are not perfect, we are flawed.

Take a look at page 15 of this document:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...h-and-work.pdf
It states that 60% of people with a common mental disorder are not in work. It also says that only around 10% of those with a serious mental disorder are in work. The 70% you state is worse than the stats for common conditions but much! much better than the stats about psychotic disorders. It's sad, but I don't think their statements are unlikely to be true. And I say that as someone earning less than half of what I was when I was well.

I know that initially when I shared this link, I expected more outrage at the outcome. That may have been my oversight. I am pretty triggered from the tenor this debate has taken so I am going to try to back out respectfully. All I would like to say that as a female, non- UK with a bipolar diagnosis I personally had scientific evidence/ research of why I should be afraid of being sectioned in the UK while a student. So I would say I spent 75% of my time ensuring I didn't do anything to put me in that situation. At least in the UK, the law prevented persons from getting away with violating your rights- even if the process was tedious.
In terms of working- a lot of my rights are violated by family and the legal system to ensure that I do not have control over my financial situation, despite having the qualifications and capabilities to hold a job. I am not currently in the UK, but this thread distresses me to think- I might not be better off.

Stats are $*#$.
Each client with a mental health diagnosis should be treated as an individual and while stats and research can guide- no health professional should be treating a person like some physics experiment with a predictable outcome.
The wellness model or recovery model vs. the medical model is very powerful concepts.
I have limitations due to my diagnosis- but I will not tolerate other people telling me that according to the statistics- this is what I can expect from my life. Maybe it is because I have been personally alienated regarding children in my family vs. being really good working with kids that I resent the tenor this thread has taken when it has nothing to do with me.
Fine, if it has to be a debate- then great.
But when I come on RYL I expect support, enlightment and choice.
I will do my best to choose not to feel like I need to defend myself or this woman when I know in my heart- what happened to her was wrong.

I think that is fair, but in this case, just from what we know publicly, the mum had been in/out of hospitals, but voluntary and involuntary in at least 3 countries, as a direct result of her refusal to take her medication. This had already resulted in the loss of her two older children, and the breakdown of her relationship with her parents (the grandparents) and the partner.

It wasn't a "simple" case of managed bipolar and the baby snatched by social services; the mother was acutely unwell and by all accounts, had been for a very long time. It's a shame that the baby did not go to live with the grandparents, but if it was not an option for her to have the first two older children, it seems unlikely she could manage with a new the baby either.

I do feel though that the c-section was harsh; but we don't know the reasoning. It is mentioned in articles that they deliberately withheld the information about the c-section; and withheld her breakfast, which caused her to protest, and also forcibly sedated her. I find it hard to believe that this was the best, safest option, involving major surgery, and the trauma of waking up to find her baby missing, for either mother or child, but perhaps there were, as Heidi says, mitigating factors.

I think I can follow this, because as a person who works really hard to stay well- I feel personally threatened when something like this happens.

I appreciate the insight that she did not have a positive case history.
However, many mental health providers that I have come across made assumptions about persons with mental health issues- and me personally- which makes me question how fair of a shake she was really given.

One scenario I've heard for the increased right wing press attention on social service is that the Conservatives wish to privatise the whole of social services and so need to soften up the public's opinions before they attempt it.

Terrorising and traumatising, whether it's direct or indirect in intent, is still terrorising and traumatising. The reasoning as to why it happened doesn't undo what has actually happened.

The systems we have in place aren't perfect, simply because people aren't perfect so how can we expect anything we implement to be such? But I do honestly think that people are trying to do the right thing, and I think they're going about it in the right way.

That's fair enough, there's a great deal of people with mental illness who aren't 'in the system' and won't admit to having a problem through fear of being fired. Which I think would throw of the stats a bit if they knew about all that.

I was also told I was showing signs of mental instability because 'my roots were showing and my hair was dry'.
I didn't dye it again because my hair was in bad condition! What a mistake that was :P

Its all speculation for the most part, very few people are aware of the reasons behind why this was authorised, however there must have been reasons behind it, substantial ones at that. These courts might be private but they do have to answer to people, as do social services.

The issue with SS is they are damned if they do, damned if they dont. Dont take a hard line, cases like baby P become more prevalent, become too cautious and heavy handed and things like this happen. I honestly cant imagine what its like to be a social worker, to go home at the end of the day knowing that a child could die because you cant intervene, or being blamed for torn apart families.

I'm not entirely sure comparing Bipolar and so on with alcohol/drug addiction is a very good comparison either. In fact I dont think anyones case can really be compared to anyone elses, different situations and different people handling the cases.

I feel sorry that they have targets for taking children from their families (if that is the case) I cant imagine how horrible it would be to have that pressure on my shoulders and I guess like in everything after a while most SS people probably become numb to it.

I think the judge for this part of the case made the right decision, his reasoning was measured and calm and it sounded like he was regretful that he had to come to the decision he did.

I dont believe they gave her a c section for no reason, I think there must have been circumstances that we arent aware of and may possibly never be aware of.

My old GP wrote in my notes that "her hair is now red but she shows no signs of mania"
So you can't have it either way:tongue2:

It's funny how hair can [apparently] be so indicative of your mental state!!! :P

Thing is, a few weeks ago I was on a ward and used the exact phrase to the psychiatrist "my hair is a barometer of my mental health, right now I haven't washed it in a month"! So really I've no right to moan about my GP, but this is way, way off topic.

My psychiatrist ALWAYS mentions my hair in notes. One time he was like, 'has poor condition of hair' and I was like RUDE when I told my therapist :P

Notes from the caesarean ruling if anyone is interested:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...d-judgment.pdf