Baby taken from mother AD 2013

It may well be the case that this woman is incapable of looking after her children herself, but I cannot understand why the baby was not returned to Italy - either to the family or to the authorities if that was considered safer. There would surely be an enormous outcry if this happened to an English woman in Italy. A lot of fuss is made about children being adopted from other countries and removed from their roots and this child will have a very different upbringing in this country.

Mishap, thanks for your update and for giving it in such a compassionate way.
I agree that sensationalistic reporting helps no-body in a tragic situation like this.
MiceElf sets out a number of possible scenarios in the build up to what must have been a very distressing situation for all concerned. We don't know why this unfortunate woman's 2 older children can't live with her. It seems possible that her mental health has been of significant concern in the past as well as at the time the court approved a very unusual course of action. I have professional experience of mothers who tried to kill their unborn babies. I'm not suggesting that applies in this sad situation, but as Mice said, there are so many complex issues involved. The local authority involved have a legal responsibility to assess all family members before any decision about opposed adoption can be considered.

It's an awful thing and terrible for the mother, but the baby and it's survival must come first. Decisions of this sort are not usually taken lightly or without soul searching and every possible avenue being looked at.

She was in a mental care home for five weeks. Surely this was ample time for her family and the Italian authorities to bring her home? Why didn't they? There's more to this.

I hope this gets sorted and explained. As previously stated stop people with mental health problems going for help. Until it's too late.

From the news programme that I have just heard it seems that she has two children in her home country and both are in care because sadly her mental health problems mean that she cannot function adequately as a mother.

There is a history here and the shock-horror headlines on sky news and elsewhere are out of order, as it is a very sad situation for her and all her family. Apparently attempts were made to find wider family who could take the baby in, but to no avail.

The medical indications for the CS are something that we cannot know about, but it seems that the mother did see the baby after birth and the next day. It sounds as if her mental state was so severe that it was not safe to leave the baby with her.

I am presuming that the fact that her other two children are in care means that she has a history of poorly controlled mental health problems - poor lady.

There surely has to be more to it. And I agree that the medi hype will not help. Also, I wonder why we have heard nothing of this elsewhere?

Surely the nationality of the mother is relevant in that she already had a family in Italy and was, apparently, planning to return there. What about the baby's father – surely he has some legal rights about the adoption of his child?

Of course it is true that decisions about the welfare of children by courts place those children's interests first and are not made on a whim. It is also true that some very bad decisions have been made in the past.

It is a cause for concern that the "episode" occurred because she was pregnant and apparently worried that her medication would affect her baby (a not unreasonable worry). To extrapolate that she might stop taking her medication again at some time in the future and then harm the child does seem a step too far.

I seem to have lost a line somehow:
It should have read "more information on this case. What I deplore is the emotive language used by the media, verging on "baby torn from mother's womb" etc...

Like others I am reserving judgement/an opinion pending more information on this verging on "Baby torn from mother's womb". Recent cases of appalling child cruelty have given me cause for reflection and to reconsider any opinion I might have had that a mother was the best person to look after her child. The child in the buggy on the beach, the child starved to death, babies and toddlers (more than one, but BabyP is an example) used as punchbags by partners/boyfriends. If asked I would have said that such women should never be allowed to have a child again - and I expect many would have agreed with me.
Is this another case of selective reporting by the media? It seems to me there are a heck of a lot of unanswered questions.

Surely this cannot be true?

The surgeon performing the caesarian must have been satisfied that it was justified - he/she would be charged with assault otherwise.

I can't imagine the decision was taken lightly.

The nationality of the mother is not relevant.

I agree totally with Janeainsworth and Elegran. Without the whole story all we have is speculation. Social workers cannot act alone. They must have a full range of medical and judicial support to take these kinds of steps. They will always place a child with a close family member whenever that is possible and appropriate.
What we must get our heads around now, is that at all times, even 15 months on, decisions must be made in the best interests of the child. Not parents or grandparents, the child.

I thought that too, Elegran.
The judges would have made their decision in the light of the child's best interests - there is no other.
We don't know half this story.

I don't understand why she was "visiting Britain to attend a Ryanair hostess training course at Stansted Airport in Essex" when she was five weeks away from giving birth (naturally or by caesarian section) to a viable baby.

Unfortunately information from those who took this action - for whatever reason and however justified or not - cannot be in the public domain because of privacy issues, so it is impossible to judge the case unless/until there is a public court case.

Who knows, perhaps the caesarian was a medically justified one, and not allowing the mother to keep the child was justified by evidence that has not been made public to us?

Maintaining a child involves an ongoing cost to the state. Would they take that on without a reason?

I would like to see the evidence that led to the decision.

There will be more to this than we know - I never trust the media in these sorts of situations. "Court and social workers take reasoned decision about at-risk child" is not as eye-catching as "woman's baby taken from womb by court order."

It is not good that this is now in the public domain, but this is of course part of being in a democracy where information is freely available and people have the chance to express their concerns.

No wonder people are terrified of being labelled as 'mentally ill' . As a granny my heart goes out particularly to the Italian Grandmother, not even considered as being capable of 'safequarding' her granddaughter if the mother should become ill again.

I would like to think there is more to this than meets the eye and that the 'authorities' had some good reason for their action but am afraid that it is just another case of strict adherence to the rules taking precedence over common sense and compassion.

It does seem dreadful on the few facts that are in the public domain. However, the case did go to the highest court in the land to concern itself with these matters and they would have had a great deal of information on which to make their decision.

I have no knowledge of what this might be, but suppose this woman had attacked and abused her other children whilst having a psychotic episode? Suppose she had killed the child? Suppose the previous children had been neglected or terrified by the mother's behaviour? Then the headlines would be very different.

It certainly wasn't social workers who made the decision. That was taken by the court after considering all the evidence.

They may or may not have reached the correct decision, but I really don't think it's right to have a family's privacy invaded by the press, the fallout goes on for years.

This does sound awful and draconian, doesn't it. There must be more to it than we know but yesterday my heart was broken by a story in The Mail of a woman who deliberately left her 2 year old daughter on the beach overnight, strapped into a buggy I think so that she drowned. All because the child got in the way of her love life. Even if part of this story is true I'm horrified so if the newborn is saved from harm then I'm glad.

On the face of it, it sounds absolutely horrific, but the professionals involved cannot comment as they have to maintain client confidentiality there may be more to this than we know about.

An when she applied to have her daughter returned to her, the Judge refused 'in case she failed to take her medication again'. Ubelievable!

I feel there must be more to this story than we have heard.

Apparently she is bi-polar and had given up her medication in case it harmed her unborn baby. Then she had an 'episode' and was sectioned. Why they then decided to rob her of her child is the unanswered question.

It sounds horrific; like you, I wonder if it has happened before and been covered up.