Don't have a Panic Attack in the UK and be pregnant.

[irishScott]

Best of interest of the child.

For some reason British CPS decided that leaving a child with a mentally ill semi-single mother(the whole estranged husband living in another country thing) with a recent history of going off her medication and being committed for psychiatric care was not in the best interest of the child

Which was a decision made without giving the mother, a foreign national who was not typically subject to British law, or the family any chance to defend her or her child. She was given no trial, no independent psychological evaluation or option to appeal. She was drugged and unnecessarily cut open against her will by order of the British government, on the whim of a judge and some CPS workers who might as well be rapists for what they've done.

But won't someone please think of the children!


Sexual therapy is considered legitimate treatment for some conditions. Perhaps all women with said conditions should be rounded up and forced through such therapy without their consent. It's for their own good, and would be better for their children (if they have any) as the mother would undoubtedly benefit from the treatment.

The logic you mention is the logic of an abuser. Plain and simple. If I was the husband in this case I'd be making an international circus about this; and I'd probably have a strong urge to kill those who'd violated my former wife.

 

[irishScott]

No, but I can tell you for a fact you don't get sectioned at that hospital for an anxiety attack. It would have to be much worse than that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25204276

BBC is apparently much less dubious.

 

[nehalem256]

Which was a decision made without giving the mother, a foreign national who was not typically subject to British law, or the family any chance to defend her or her child. She was given no trial, no independent psychological evaluation or option to appeal.

Well except you know when visiting the UK.

She was drugged and unnecessarily cut open against her will by order of the British government, on the whim of a judge and some CPS workers who might as well be rapists for what they've done.

You would have preferred they performed the surgery without sedating her?

The logic you mention is the logic of an abuser. Plain and simple. If I was the husband in this case I'd be making an international circus about this; and I'd probably have a strong urge to kill those who'd violated my former wife.

The woman has an estranged husband who lives in the United States. The baby dady is not involved

She has two other children in Italy who are being cared for by her mother. The baby's father is a Senegalese man living in Italy who has not been involved in the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/03/pregnant-woman-surgery-baby/3856957/

Also interesting the part about her mother caring for her other 2 kids. Maybe she should spend more time caring for the children she does have?

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25204276

BBC is apparently much less dubious.

In August, the health trust gained permission from the courts to deliver her unborn baby by Caesarean.

The council said social services had taken the baby into care because "the mother was too unwell to care for her child".

"Historically, the mother has two other children, who she is unable to care for due to orders made by the Italian authorities," the council said,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25193084

Can I say ouch?

 

[irishScott]

Well except you know when visiting the UK.



You would have preferred they performed the surgery without sedating her?



The woman has an estranged husband who lives in the United States. The baby dady is not involved

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/03/pregnant-woman-surgery-baby/3856957/

Also interesting the part about her mother caring for her other 2 kids. Maybe she should spend more time caring for the children she does have?

A temporary visit to a nation does not give that nation the right to decide whether you're a fit parent or not. It sure as hell does not give that nation a right to perform involuntary major surgery and cut out an unborn child on the whim of a judge.

But regardless you're trolling. Or you're a psychopath. Color me surprised.

 

[irishScott]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25193084

Can I say ouch?

No, you can't. You can say that they should have sent her back to Italy and let them decide. Or they should have consulted the family.

 

[Nebor]

Looks like they did the right thing. She's not fit to raise the child.

 

[irishScott]

Looks like they did the right thing. She's not fit to raise the child.

So to be clear, you're in favor of individual judges having the power to order forced surgeries and take away unborn children without so much as consulting the family?

 

[nehalem256]

A temporary visit to a nation does not give that nation the right to decide whether you're a fit parent or not. It sure as hell does not give that nation a right to perform involuntary major surgery and cut out an unborn child on the whim of a judge.

The courts performed a c-section because it was time for the baby to be born not just because the judge gets his jollies off cutting unborn children out of women.

After refusing to take her bi-polar medication, she had "a number of very intrusive paranoid delusions" and was "profoundly unwell", the judge said.

She was then sectioned under the Mental Health Act on 13 June 2012.

The Court of Protection took the unusual step of giving a health trust permission for doctors to carry out a Caesarean section in August 2012, and the newborn girl, known as P, was taken into care by Essex social services.

So I ask what are they suppose to do? You have a woman suffering from "intrusive paranoid delusions". Does that seem like someone mentally fit to deal with the rigors of childbirth?

Now as for the adoption:

"In accordance with Essex County Council's Social Services practice, social workers liaised extensively with the extended family before and after the birth of the baby, to establish if anyone could care for the child."

The spokesman added: "The long term safety and well-being of children is always Essex County Council's priority.

"Adoption is never considered until we have exhausted all other options and is never pursued lightly."

They consulted with the extend family. I mean really what more do you want them to do? Place a child with a woman with a history of severe mental illness. A woman with a history of not taking her a medication. A woman with a history of having her other children taken from her. And you have the balls to say I am a psychopath?D:

But regardless you're trolling. Or you're a psychopath. Color me surprised.

Seems to me like either you didn't read the actual story and are just buying hook line and sinker what the woman's lawyer is saying. Or you another person who uses "best interests of the child" as a way to extort money so women can do whatever they want.

sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25204276
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25193084

 

[irishScott]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-case-mother-Im-suffering-like-an-animal.html

She came to the UK in 2012 and was sectioned in June after she called emergency services from a hotel room.

Oh yeah, they did the right thing all right. Woman cries for help, gets held against her consent, drugged, forced to undergo major surgery, have her unborn child taken away, and then shipped back to Italy before receiving effective treatment.

Reminds me of that Norwegian woman who was jailed in the middle east after reporting her rape to the police.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you can't. You can say that they should have sent her back to Italy and let them decide. Or they should have consulted the family.

So to be clear, you're in favor of individual judges having the power to order forced surgeries and take away unborn children without so much as consulting the family?

The woman was 9 months pregnant and suffering from paranoid delusions so severe she had to be under psychiatric care for 2 months what would you do?

 

[irishScott]

The courts performed a c-section because it was time for the baby to be born not just because the judge gets his jollies off cutting unborn children out of women.


So I ask what are they suppose to do? You have a woman suffering from "intrusive paranoid delusions". Does that seem like someone mentally fit to deal with the rigors of childbirth?

Now as for the adoption:


They consulted with the extend family. I mean really what more do you want them to do? Place a child with a woman with a history of severe mental illness. A woman with a history of not taking her a medication. A woman with a history of having her other children taken from her. And you have the balls to say I am a psychopath?D:

Apparently she received treatment in Italy that allowed her condition to improve enough to present a well spoken case in court. That means that with said treatment she would have been rational enough to consent or not consent to surgery. She also reportably begged them to let her give birth in Italy. Given that they couldn't or wouldn't do anything, they could have sent her back to Italy well ahead of her due date, as opposed to holding her for two freaking months.

Seems to me like either you didn't read the actual story and are just buying hook line and sinker what the woman's lawyer is saying. Or you another person who uses "best interests of the child" as a way to extort money so women can do whatever they want.

sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25204276
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25193084

Sounds to me like you're stretching, rationalizing, and are buying hook-line-and-sinker what the government is saying.

 

[irishScott]

The woman was 9 months pregnant and suffering from paranoid delusions so severe she had to be under psychiatric care for 2 months what would you do?

Given that they apparently couldn't do anything for 2 months, and decided to send her home anyway after piling traumatic surgery and separation from her child on top, I'd have sent her home after the first couple of weeks.

 

[Zodiark1593]

The woman was 9 months pregnant and suffering from paranoid delusions so severe she had to be under psychiatric care for 2 months what would you do?

Regardless of what you believe, the fact of the matter is that she is an Italian citizen, and the baby is an Italian citizen by blood. The C-section is well within the rights of British jurisdiction (provided natural birth would have caused undue distress), however, deciding whether or not the mother (and/or father) is fit to keep the baby is overstepping their bounds. That decision would belong to Italy's own judicial system.

 

[davmat787]

Perhaps we should send them some of our redneck survivalists that are prepping for the next revolution. They're going to need them a lot worse and sooner than we will.

lol, sounds like a plot for the next new reality show: "Redneck Preppers in England"

 

[nehalem256]

Apparently she received treatment in Italy that allowed her condition to improve enough to present a well spoken case in court. That means that with said treatment she would have been rational enough to consent or not consent to surgery. She also reportably begged them to let her give birth in Italy. Given that they couldn't or wouldn't do anything, they could have sent her back to Italy well ahead of her due date, as opposed to holding her for two freaking months.

I don't recall reading where it discussed the intricacies of her treatment. It could be that she spent several more months in a British hospital before she was sane enough to fly back to Italy.

Or maybe this?

If you’re planning on travelling by plane, you should discuss this with your midwife or GP.
Before you book your tickets, check with your airline and insurance company that they will allow you to travel while pregnant. After week 28 of the pregnancy, most airlines require a letter from your midwife or GP confirming:
that you’re in good health
that you have a normal pregnancy
the expected date of delivery
Some airlines may require medical clearance if:
your delivery date is less than four weeks after your departure date, or
any complications are expected in your delivery

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/927.aspx?CategoryID=54#close

Clearly the woman was not in good health.

Ask yourself: Do you think that the UK just decided to hospitalize her for 2+ months for shits and giggles and then steal her baby for the hell of it?

Sounds to me like you're stretching, rationalizing, and are buying hook-line-and-sinker what the government is saying.

Yeah, why wouldn't I believe the woman with a history of paranoid delusions that the UK essentially had it in for her? :awe:

Given that they apparently couldn't do anything for 2 months, and decided to send her home anyway after piling traumatic surgery and separation from her child on top, I'd have sent her home after the first couple of weeks.

And on what basis do you think you know more than professionals who treated her?

 

[irishScott]

I don't recall reading where it discussed the intricacies of her treatment. It could be that she spent several more months in a British hospital before she was sane enough to fly back to Italy.

Or maybe this?

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/927.aspx?CategoryID=54#close

Clearly the woman was not in good health.

Ask yourself: Do you think that the UK just decided to hospitalize her for 2+ months for shits and giggles and then steal her baby for the hell of it?

Well as for the timeline, we have:

1. Sectioned in June.
2. Gave birth in August

Can't find a specific date when she was sent back, but:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-case-mother-Im-suffering-like-an-animal.html

Adoption proceedings were initiated and the woman, who a judge said was in a "poor state" went back to Italy.

Granted that isn't a medical opinion, but I wouldn't put it past the UK government to use your logic, decide that the child was better off without her, manufacture bullshit to hold her until she delivered, then stitch her up to the minimum required by those regulations you posted and send her back to Italy. All the while rationalizing that they were doing the kid a favor. Would also explain their otherwise unexplained reluctance to return the kid.

Yeah, why wouldn't I believe the woman with a history of paranoid delusions that the UK essentially had it in for her? :awe:

Well the fact that she's apparently back on her meds and highly articulate would seem to be a good reason.

And on what basis do you think you know more than professionals who treated her?

On the basis that the professionals appear to have acted rather unprofessionally. Besides, I accompanied my mom through a decade of cancer before she died. You'd be surprised how many "medical professionals" turn out to not know nearly as much as their credentials would imply.

 

[Nebor]

Regardless of what you believe, the fact of the matter is that she is an Italian citizen, and the baby is an Italian citizen by blood. The C-section is well within the rights of British jurisdiction (provided natural birth would have caused undue distress), however, deciding whether or not the mother (and/or father) is fit to keep the baby is overstepping their bounds. That decision would belong to Italy's own judicial system.

I disagree. The child was born in the UK, and the UK has to look after it's interests. It found that the child's interests were best served by not returning it to Italy.

 

[Nebor]

So to be clear, you're in favor of individual judges having the power to order forced surgeries and take away unborn children without so much as consulting the family?

Yes. That's why he's a judge. Judges here can order medical procedures too.

 

[Jaskalas]

Because clearly the reason people are so upset is the child might end up British instead of Italian

It's about custody, the UK should turn the child over to Italy and it should be an internal dispute between a citizen and her own government's policy. There's no excuse for the UK to make this an international incident.

 

[CanOWorms]

European countries will probably start doing more of this type of stuff to fight their declining birth rates.

 

[Nebor]

European countries will probably start doing more of this type of stuff to fight their declining birth rates.

Seems like an efficient, sensible strategy. How can they lose?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382374/The-NHS-hospital-80-cent-babies-foreign-mothers.html

 

[nehalem256]

Well as for the timeline, we have:

1. Sectioned in June.
2. Gave birth in August

Can't find a specific date when she was sent back, but:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-case-mother-Im-suffering-like-an-animal.html

Granted that isn't a medical opinion, but I wouldn't put it past the UK government to use your logic, decide that the child was better off without her, manufacture bullshit to hold her until she delivered, then stitch her up to the minimum required by those regulations you posted and send her back to Italy. All the while rationalizing that they were doing the kid a favor. Would also explain their otherwise unexplained reluctance to return the kid.

Per NHS guidelines, and common-sense, you can't stick an ill 8 month pregnant woman on a plane. Not sure what "manufactured bullshit" you are talking about. I certainly didn't see any claims that she was anything other than severely unwell.

Then once the child is born what are you going to do with it? They contacted her extended family, who did not want the child.

On the basis that the professionals appear to have acted rather unprofessionally. Besides, I accompanied my mom through a decade of cancer before she died. You'd be surprised how many "medical professionals" turn out to not know nearly as much as their credentials would imply.

Acted unprofessionally how? Not putting a deranged pregnant woman on a plane so that Italian authorities instead of British authorities could put the child up for adoption?

 

[irishScott]

Per NHS guidelines, and common-sense, you can't stick an ill 8 month pregnant woman on a plane. Not sure what "manufactured bullshit" you are talking about. I certainly didn't see any claims that she was anything other than severely unwell.

Then once the child is born what are you going to do with it? They contacted her extended family, who did not want the child.



Acted unprofessionally how? Not putting a deranged pregnant woman on a plane so that Italian authorities instead of British authorities could put the child up for adoption?

I'm saying it's odd that they can ship her back in a "poor state", yet couldn't ship her back before? I admit we're missing some key details, but from what information there is the situation strikes me as rather suspicious.

Acted unprofessionally in the sense of holding a woman involuntarily for 2 months and forcefully removing her unborn child. Not sure how it works in Europe, but we have this lovely thing called "informed consent" where if a person is mentally or physically incapacitated it falls to their next of kin to make decisions regarding treatment. I've yet to see any mention of where her family approved months of psychiatric confinement and a c-section. Seeing as how they claim to have been so avid about contacting the family, you'd think there'd be mention of this. Not to mention her family appears to be supporting her current efforts.


Bottom line is the ends don't justify the means, and the details we're missing have a lot of extraordinary ground to cover to make a decision like this valid. I'm doubtful they will, and call me cynical but I find it far more likely that a few social services workers and a judge felt like playing God "for the sake of the children."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Per NHS guidelines, and common-sense, you can't stick an ill 8 month pregnant woman on a plane.

They could have placed her on a train or bus to Italy. You do realize there's a tunnel that goes between England and France right?