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.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
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.
I'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by bitomato : 03-12-2013 at 10:43 PM.
~Happy tomatoes together we will be~
You say toe- may- toe, I say toe- mah- toe:
Let's call the whole thing- red
“It’s time to lead the third revolution, which is not to say we want to be at the top of the world, but to say we want to change the world. Because the way the world has been designed by men is not working. It’s not working for women, it’s not working for men,
it’s not working for polar bears.” Arianna Huffington 2014
That could well be true, but then to take the child straight into care with no chance for them to be together?
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.
I do think that there is a risk of getting nationalistic and personal when there is no need to be. Heidi, you disagree with me fine- but I was only drawing a comparison where hospitals and court systems were conflict with the parents' right to parent. I hear this comment about bipolar and meds ALL the time. 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 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- someone was too lazy or too corrupt to 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 it was like for me. I spent a year become an expert on my rights so this could not happen to me. And I still had an advocate. 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 because 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- I really keep hoping parliament in Italy and England step in and sanction the first judge.
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 before) and possibly a different part of the UK. I had a colleague 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 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. So many times my family have intervened against my will and 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.
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....
I'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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.
I agree. Definitely justifies the decision made.
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
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....
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.
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 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.
I'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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.
Last edited by bitomato : 03-12-2013 at 11:17 PM.
Reason: separating my words from judges final statement
~Happy tomatoes together we will be~
You say toe- may- toe, I say toe- mah- toe:
Let's call the whole thing- red
“It’s time to lead the third revolution, which is not to say we want to be at the top of the world, but to say we want to change the world. Because the way the world has been designed by men is not working. It’s not working for women, it’s not working for men,
it’s not working for polar bears.” Arianna Huffington 2014
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.
I'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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.
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.
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.
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.
~Happy tomatoes together we will be~
You say toe- may- toe, I say toe- mah- toe:
Let's call the whole thing- red
“It’s time to lead the third revolution, which is not to say we want to be at the top of the world, but to say we want to change the world. Because the way the world has been designed by men is not working. It’s not working for women, it’s not working for men,
it’s not working for polar bears.” Arianna Huffington 2014
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.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
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.
~Happy tomatoes together we will be~
You say toe- may- toe, I say toe- mah- toe:
Let's call the whole thing- red
“It’s time to lead the third revolution, which is not to say we want to be at the top of the world, but to say we want to change the world. Because the way the world has been designed by men is not working. It’s not working for women, it’s not working for men,
it’s not working for polar bears.” Arianna Huffington 2014
