[MP-Ryan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Woman-has-child-taken-from-her-womb-by-social-services.html

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

Apparently, the original journalist might be a little questionable on the facts, but it's now popped up in three different media sources, features on the page of the quoted MP, and hasn't been retracted by anyone... supposedly, a British blogger named Milly Bancroft who blogs about legal issues has questioned some of it on Twitter, but as she restricts her feed to confirmed followers (how irritating) I can't actually see any of it.

Anyway, if true this story is unbelievable.  That British social workers got a woman who was in-country for a two week training course forcibly remanded into psychiatric care for two months, forcibly c-sectioned, baby taken into custody, ejected mom from country without baby, and now ARE SEEKING TO PUT THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION IN THE UK INSTEAD OF RETURNING IT TO ITS MOTHER AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN is ****ing unbelievable.

Were I the parent, I might be sizing up some pikes to see if they were suitable for the placement of the caseworkers' and judges heads.  (And since I know UK legal precedent is also stupid on free-speech-hating and unable to distinguish rhetorical device from true threat on the Internet,  let me be clear that that statement is pure rhetorical device.  Should I ever have foreign authorities try to seize and adopt-away one of my children you could be sure that my true promises - threats are promises broken, after all - would be abundantly clear to everyone.)

This story makes my blood boil.  I can only hope that the journalist got most of the facts wrong and this isn't as egregiously awful as it looks.

[BloodEagle]

I'd be interested in seeing a better source on this.

That being said....

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

The author of that sentence should be executed by firing squad.

[MP-Ryan]

Well, the story has now been picked up by various media internationally and still no fact corrections or retractions or alternate pieces emerging from Britain.  So, once again... a gigantic WTF.

[Luis Dias]

Were you the parent and tried to do any of the stuff you said you'd be presented as a clear cut example on how the social workers were just amazingly spot on on their judgement.

Really, this is like Kafka's worst nightmare.

[Lorric]

I don't know why you're so hostile here Ryan when we don't know the facts. Such extreme measures surely require extreme circumstances, and a lot of people would have had to agree on this to make this happen, social workers, judge, doctors. Are all those people idiots, or has prudent action saved a child's life? To me, the latter seems more probable.

[MP-Ryan]

Let me be absolutely clear:

There are no circumstances under which a citizen of a foreign country in another country temporarily and who has not committed a criminal offence requiring a court appearance should be forcibly held against her will from returning to her country of residence, confined to an institution, forced to deliver via caesarean, prevented from even seeing her newly-born child, be sent back to her country without her child, and then be forced to battle in court for fifteen months to prevent the country she was visiting from adopting her baby away to someone else in that country.

None.

Ever.

The story is scant on a number of details, but the really important ones are pretty clear:  British authorities forced a c-section on a foreign national, took her child into their care, and are now saying the child is being put up for adoption on their terms - despite the fact that the only legal claim they have to any of the situation is the fact that the woman happened to be physically in the UK when she had an anxiety attack.

[Luis Dias]

Can you imagine the things westerners would say if this were to happen in China to a western woman?

[MP-Ryan]

Can you imagine the things westerners would say if this were to happen in China to a western woman?

Nevermind "Westerners" (judging from Twitter and a number of other sources, Westerners are appropriately outraged about this).  No, I'd be very curious about the reaction of the Essex social workers and judges if this happened to a woman from Essex taking a two-week vacation in China.

[Colonol Dekker]

I reside in Essex, I have heard this mentioned numerous times on the radio etc.

She's had a very very serious mental breakdown apparently, causing the situation in discussion.


No more info.


PS-My girlfriend is a criminal and family law solicitor practicing in Essex and her firm may or may not be directly involved.


Free baby anyone?

[Grizzly]

She's had a very very serious mental breakdown apparently, causing the situation in discussion.

I geuss this is ... rather relavant. When I think "Very very very serious mental breakdown", I think towards auto-mutiliation and suicide, which does explain the UKs stance for a bit.

[Flipside]

The matter is apparently to be raised in Parliament so hopefully we will get more details then, but I will say this...

The child most certainly would not have been delivered in this manner unless there was a real and immediate need to do so for the sake of either the mother or the childs' safety. Also, I find it hard to believe the child could even be put up for adoption in this manner if this had happened, so it leaves one of two possibilities. The first is that the Council behaved in an unspeakable manner, the other is that the mother was having such a mental breakdown that she was threatening her unborn child in some way.

Either way, the operation could not take place without the consent of a Surgeon, and any such one that would do so without medical need would be struck off the register.

Whatever is happening here, there is more to the story than what we have heard. IF this happened as the woman states it has, then questions obviously need to be answered, but, and I know it sounds callous, but there is also the possibility that if this woman is bi-polar or the like, that what she believed happened to her child may be quite different to the actual story. For all we know she could have signed release forms, which promotes the question of why she was asked to sign them if she was mentally impaired at the time.

Until there are more details here, I'm not certain it's healthy to jump to conclusions.

@Luis, ironically enough, I was reading something today about the industry in China of kidnapping newly born boys from villages for selling to rich families who didn't want to take the baby lottery.

[Lorric]

She's had a very very serious mental breakdown apparently, causing the situation in discussion.

I geuss this is ... rather relavant. When I think "Very very very serious mental breakdown", I think towards auto-mutiliation and suicide, which does explain the UKs stance for a bit.

These are the kinds of scenarios I pictured as soon as I saw this thread.

These people would know their heads would be on the block if they called this one wrong. Normally social workers are criticised for inaction in the news. At least in my experience. I can't recall off the top of my head seeing something where social workers' actions were criticised. All this leads me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for you MP-Ryan, well, after the procedure has been carried out, this is a grey area I don't know much about. If anything, you'd think British authorities would be keen to offload the baby to Italian social care if possible, we have enough children in care as it is. So why have they retained the baby? Is the baby Italian, or British, since it was born here?

[StarSlayer]

While I can see that having a mental break down and medical issues could require institutionalization and the subsequent c section of the child, the rest seems extremely suspicious.  Even if the mother was deemed unfit to take care of the child next of kin should be notified and take possession.  It does seem rather bizarre.

[MP-Ryan]

She's had a very very serious mental breakdown apparently, causing the situation in discussion.

I geuss this is ... rather relavant. When I think "Very very very serious mental breakdown", I think towards auto-mutiliation and suicide, which does explain the UKs stance for a bit.

It explains the initial hospitalization (assuming indeed that it was a very serious mental breakdown, and not a panic attack as she's claiming).

It most certainly does not explain the continuing chain of i-don't-even-know-what-the-****-i'm-reading-anymore after that.

The matter is apparently to be raised in Parliament so hopefully we will get more details then, but I will say this...

The child most certainly would not have been delivered in this manner unless there was a real and immediate need to do so for the sake of either the mother or the childs' safety. Also, I find it hard to believe the child could even be put up for adoption in this manner if this had happened, so it leaves one of two possibilities. The first is that the Council behaved in an unspeakable manner, the other is that the mother was having such a mental breakdown that she was threatening her unborn child in some way.

Either way, the operation could not take place without the consent of a Surgeon, and any such one that would do so without medical need would be struck off the register.

Whatever is happening here, there is more to the story than what we have heard. IF this happened as the woman states it has, then questions obviously need to be answered, but, and I know it sounds callous, but there is also the possibility that if this woman is bi-polar or the like, that what she believed happened to her child may be quite different to the actual story. For all we know she could have signed release forms, which promotes the question of why she was asked to sign them if she was mentally impaired at the time.

Until there are more details here, I'm not certain it's healthy to jump to conclusions.

@Luis, ironically enough, I was reading something today about the industry in China of kidnapping newly born boys from villages for selling to rich families who didn't want to take the baby lottery.

What bothers me is not the c-section so much as all the documented crap that has happened after it.  There are innumerable medical reasons that a c-section may have been necessary; I can think of no reasons why the UK has any business trying to adopt-away her child.  Both mother and child should have been returned to Italy to be dealt with by the laws of the country in which she is a legal resident and citizen.  If there are any rights that citizenship is supposed to confer, one would think the right to not have your baby taken by a foreign government ranks right at the top of the damned list.  There are undoubtedly unreported factors here, but every report I've been able to find mentions the ongoing adoption litigation which is what raises my ire the most.

[Flipside]

My own suspicion is some kind of breakdown where the mother mentally 'ran away' from her responsibilities and hated the child inside her, this may have led to self-harming or threats of harming the child which prompted the C-Section.

I suspect the mistake was made here that no-one took her mental condition into account after the child was delivered. I wouldn't be surprised if a release form for adoption did turn up that the mother had simply forgotten signing because she was in such a desolate mental place at the time.

We actually hold our local government to phenomenally high levels of performance when it comes to the welfare of children, on occasion too high, so there's no doubt some hard questions will have to be answered at some point along the road.

[MP-Ryan]

Is the baby Italian, or British, since it was born here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom

According to this very quick reference, the child does not have UK citizenship conferred by birth in the UK if neither parent is a UK citizen.  Should the child remain in the UK as a resident for 10 years, the child may become a UK citizen.

The UK is not like Canada or the US or several other democracies; being born in the UK does not automatically make one a citizen of it.

[StarSlayer]

Even if she was off her marbles shouldn't next of kin have been brought in?  If her condition was something fixable shouldn't that be treated and she be of sound mind before they start making decisions about what to do with her child?

[Flipside]

To be honest, they would have tried to contact the next of kin as soon as she was bought into hospital, one possibility is that she was unwilling or unable to give them contact details, but yes, the first port of call should have been to find someone to contact who knew the woman. Without any information, I can't really say whether that was attempted or what the outcome was.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that somewhere a horrible cock-up was made and a baby ended up being put up for adoption that should not have been, but its also not beyond the realms of possibility that the woman refused to give her name, and rejected the baby entirely at the time, but does not remember this because she was mentally unbalanced at the time.

I suppose its on the facts like those that the whole 'shape' of what happened here can be defined.

[MP-Ryan]

Telegraph has an aside article that seems to confirm at least the adoption proceedings ongoing:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10488040/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services-its-not-always-wrong.html

The mother had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and after five weeks still did not have the capacity to instruct a lawyer. The Court had to make the Order.

Can someone who speaks UK solicitor/barrister interpret whether that means she wasn't able to instruct a lawyer but had one appointed to act in her interest to oppose the Council application, or if it means she did not have legal representation?  If the latter, there's another gigantic red flag.

I would be far less up in arms about this were the woman a UK citizen and resident - but the implication that the UK authorities can take it upon themselves to dramatically interfere in the private life and basic human right to have and raise a child of a citizen of another country that just happened to be briefly in the UK is abhorrent.  Yes, the child deserves protection from harm; that said, mother and child deserve the protections of their country from the attitudes of a foreign one.

While lesser than the China scenario Luis posited, imagine the ****storm if the woman was from the United States and this happened.  Can anyone spell "international incident?"

[Flipside]

I suspect she was assigned a lawyer, but without her able to instruct him, there's few arguments to be made against an established court procedure (whether that procedure is a good one or not is a different discussion, of course).

What seems strange to me is that, after 5 weeks, no-one had even managed to find relatives, confirm her nationality, or even more strangely, no-one had reported her missing? Something weird is going on here, but I really don't know what percentage is incompetence on the part of the services, and which percentage was reluctance to give information on the part of the woman.