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?!
~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 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.
Be kind - everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle
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:
Quote:
By now Essex social services were involved, and five weeks later she was told she could not have breakfast that day. When no explanation was forthcoming, she volubly protested. She was strapped down and forcibly sedated, and when she woke up hours later, found she was in a different hospital and that her baby had been removed by caesarean section while she was unconscious and taken into care by social workers.
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.
Be kind - everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle
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!!!
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'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
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'm fine! Totally fine. I don't know why it's coming out all loud and squeaky, 'cause really, I'm fine!
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.
Last edited by whirlpools : 02-12-2013 at 02:38 AM.
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....
~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 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.
~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
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;
Quote:
If in later life P reads this judgment, as she may well do, I hope that she will appreciate that her mother in particular loved her and wished for her to return to live with her and to bring her up. It is not her fault, nor P's that that was not possible and that a predictable home could only be secured by way of adoption. P should know that the mother very much wished to parent her and bring her up and I hope that that is some small comfort both to the mother and also to P.
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.
~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 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.
~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 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.
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. 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:
Quote:
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.
