Here's the other side to the story

[miasmum]

about the forced Caesarean section

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/why ... -was-wrong

[Kaz]

I knew there would be far more to this than had been reported. What a very tragic story.....the last part of the ruling in particular is heartbreaking. Thanks Shell xx

[KateLMead]

about the forced Caesarean section

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/why ... -was-wrong

Shell, whatever authorities come up with as to what happened was and is an outrage. This is not the first time Essex CC and the SS have been exposed for child abduction.
I have known individuals who suffer with BP, others with mental illnesses
Many walking the streets, homeless with no support. She was afraid to take the medication
For fear of damaging the child within her.
This woman had experienced when she called the police a panic attack.
And the problems started. Whatever the lawyers judges and the SS come up with as to
Their reasons for their shocking actions they were out of order. So she had three children by three
Different men, she did not abort them, put them into care and was working to support them financially.
The judicial system is joined at the hip with these other powers of authority.here and in general in Europe In my opinion whatever the excuses, reasons for their actions. "They were un acceptable"
They come up with I would find it to be questionable.

[Lozzles]

Thanks Shell. Very interesting reading. As Kaz says, the last part is heartbreaking, but I think it is good that it has been recorded, so that in later life the child can see that she was very much loved and wanted by her mother. A dreadfully sad case for all involved.

[Workingman]

Thanks for the link Shell, it does clear up some of the claims in the original reporting, which were inaccurate - at best. Those claims drove the story and strong feelings about what happened. However, it still leaves a nasty taste about the process.

Was a MedEvac back to Italy considered or offered? If not, why Not?

The Judge's notes show that the Local Authority, of which SS are part, considered using police action under section 46 of the Children Act 1989 in order to take the baby.

The Judge noted that the above action would be heavy-handed and advised then to seek an interim care order.

The Judge also makes it clear that when the application was opposed the offer from the mother, and her legal team, was for the baby to be looked after for about a year, or up to a year - a reasonable offer. No reason is given as to why this was denied except that it is outside the nine month timeframe allowed by an interim care order.

At the appeal, in 2013, which was turned down, the Judge said: "I am not able to say that P can return to the care of her mother today." He does not say that she should never be returned, just not now. However, that left the door open for the adoption route to be taken, which it was.

The Judge also notes, though not reported, that: "I am well aware that the adoption worker’s statement indicates that there are three families who might be suitable. They are not suitable on a racial basis because as I understand it neither are either Italian or Senegalese...." He orders the search for "suitable" adoptive parents to go nationwide.

He also makes it clear the the half-sisters know about the baby and may wish to make contact in later life. No account is taken as to what the adoption will have on them.

The blog is also a bit open to poetic licence when it states: The judgement says that one child in particular had been “traumatised” and “terrorised” by what they had witnessed.

What the Judge actually said is this: "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."

What normal child wouldn't be upset or "traumatised" at seeing an unwell parent?

In closing the Judge makes this hope: "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."

What if she doesn't? What if her mother or sisters try to contact her, or vice-versa, and are thwarted? What if racially "suitable" adoptive parents cannot be found?

I apologise that my original post heading appeared to be having a go at Social Services, that was not the intention. My thread heading was taken form the original Telegraph headline, though I did say: "the fact the High Court agreed sickens and frightens me."

Having now read the judgements by His Honour Judge Newton and Mr. Justice Mostyn I am still concerned.

[KateLMead]

I am always loathed to upset our dear Shell, Kaz or anyone else.. I read your posts with interest Frank, balanced
And factual.. Sadly we are only allowed to know as much as is considered good for us when it comes to any matter that could be publicly controversial. You have concerns, as do I.

[Kaz]

I'm not in the least upset dear Kate - I just don't agree with you on this. I've read the judgement and believe the judge ahs done what she considers to be the best interests of the child which might not necessarily be the best interests of the mother. It is a very sad case indeed. Courts always put the child's best interests before those of the parents, ever since the Children's Act.......

[KateLMead]

[quote="Kaz"]I'm not in the least upset dear Kate - I just don't agree with you on this. I've read the judgement and believe the judge ahs done what she considers to be the best interests of the child which might not necessarily be the best interests of the mother. It is a very sad case indeed. Courts always put the child's best interests before those of the parents, ever since the

Wonderful group on VV I feel blessed to have such cyber friends who tolerate my controversial opinions.

[Kaz]

(((((((((((((((x))))))))))))))))))))

[Workingman]

OK, this is my last word on this.

I have a daughter. She goes abroad quite often, sometimes on her own, other times with friends.

If she EVER became ill, for whatever reason, I would fight tooth and nail for her to be returned home as soon as possible. I would want her to be treated by an organisation she understands, in a country whose laws she understands, and in a language she fully understands; and somewhere close to her friends and family so that they could support her. I would want her condition and future to be assessed in the country where she would live out her life. Those things, for me, would override any legal or operational obligations of the country where she fell ill.

That is my position as far as this case is concerned.

If people who disagree with my position could put their hand on heart and argue differently for their own kin then I would respect that, but I do not think that they can.