Baby taken from mother AD 2013

Well said Nightowl!

The statement of BASW (British Association of Social Workers) on this case.

www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=623

The pertinent points for me are "We will not get into speculation ......but on behalf of the profession we have a duty to point out that some of the coverage of this case has conferred on social workers a power beyond all recognition."

And secondly "The Daily Telegraph's assertion that 'A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers'.....reduces the debate to the absurd....."

As indeed the media continue to do in all cases involving Social Workers.

Spabbygirl - my husband was also, for his whole career, in Child Protection, finally as Head of Service. What people don't realise is that social workers in Children's services see, every day of their working lives, things that would send most other people reeling. For the most part, you couldn't make it up - and the series "Shameless" is a softened version of the harsh reality. And in this country we respect, quite rightly, everyone's right to privacy and that is why details are not, cannot be published. So the public make up what they don't know. And what dismays me is the way they so often and so aggressively attack the social workers who are doing their damndest in a context so hard and so difficult, where children die (how many of us, I wonder, have worked in professions with lives at stake?) when they alone do not take these decisions. It is health, education and the law who together make the decisions. I do hope that by now Bach feels better informed.

Just read in the 'Times' that the operation was carried out to prevent a 'potentially fatal ruptured womb' and that her two previous babies were both born by C-section.

The Judge ordered the C-section, on the grounds that she was so ill she wasn't thinking straight. Just being psychotic and having hallucinations on its own isn't enough to have a child taken away. There are many parents in the uk with all sorts of mental health conditions who are supported by social workers.

I think it is good that the Italian government are going to appeal the UK's decision, not because I suspect the decision is wrong, but because anyone having a child taken away from them deserves the decision deserves the utmost scrutiny to ensure there is no alternative.

The longer the decision takes though, the longer it will take to place the baby with a permanent home, since it may well be that s/he is in temporary care until it is clear that all alternative options aren't suitable.

As I understand the law, the C-section without consent could only have been carried out because of fears for the mother's well-being, not the welfare of the unborn baby.

From what's been made public, it was the day before her due date, she'd had two previous C-sections, and was very ill.

As to what's happened to the child since regarding fostering and adoption that's a different issue, and not the one that's caused the alarmist headlines.

I would be interested to know whether she 'stopped taking her medication' of her own volition or indeed was advised to do so because of her pregnancy. The medication used for bipolar disorder and other psychotic disorders is indeed risky to an unborn child and the need to get this right can cause problems even for women whose mental health is usually well stabilised by medication. It is very sad that this poor woman was in a foreign country without access to services that knew her. However, given that she has had previous children removed from her care, it seems likely that the outcome would have been the same even if she had been in Italy. It is a very sad case indeed.

I was a Child Protection Social Worker for many years. We have only the mother's point of view as quite rightly, the local authority can't give out any more details, because it would identify the child. It's never right to broadcast anyone's personal details, I so feel for Nigella Lawson at the moment.
These decisions are made by the Court and usually after many, many specialist workers and their very detailed reports. Also every child in this position will have had a Guardian Ad Litem, that is a guardian in law, to report on the child's best interests. These professionals also regularly disagree, it isn't a case where they all back each other.
The Court will also have investigated the children's extended family o both sides and father and for a reason we don't know, they have decided they aren't appropriate.
When you work in social services you come across people you would never meet in your ordinary lives who do things that are totally alien to you and everyone you know, like leaving a baby in a pushchair on a beach. Every social worker will tell you stories of parents who put their own needs before their child's.
This is one-sided reporting, it has to be. If your kids were squabbling, you wouldn't accept one child's view without listening to the other, and its just the same here. Don't judge one side without considering the other.

Just heard on the news confirmation that the LA did indeed explore all family members in the US and in Italy. I don't know the detail, but have experience of families who simply couldn't continue to absorb babies born to a family member who couldn't care for them.
The news article also corrected the media reports that social workers forced the mother to have a ceasarean and removed the babe without her knowledge. It was of course, the medical team who applied to the court for permission to do the caesarean, and the baby was with her mother on day 1 and day 2. The la then made its application. I do wish the media would report in a less sensational manner. The detail of this case that has been made public is desperately sad. The last thing the mother or baby need in the longer term, is untrue, sensationalist reports in the press.
The courts in Italy were consulted, and confirmed this should be dealt with in the UK. I don't know why, but there must have been significant legal/social/child centred discussions by the people who made the decisions in this case. Not to say decision making is without fault at all times, but we ask these people to make difficult, life changing decisions on our behalf.

It was on the Essex website but on checking just now it seems to have been taken down. However, there is an excellent article in LibDem voice which Ana referred to above. I can only suppose that Munby JJ has ordered the chronology to be removed. It gave no family details of course, but each order and medical consultation was dated including the decisions of the Italian courts.

Mice I couldn't find the chronology on the link you gave, any hints please? I have had dealings with John Hemmings MP and my view is he is not helpful to parents involved in care proceedings. His own personal life is 'interesting' and I'm not sure his ability to judge complex family situations is balanced.

No, although the woman has now been named in the media.

Ana, I am not familiar with Italian Family Law, neither can I read Italian. But if you are, you can you try googling Italian sites. Of course, it's perfectly possible that Italian law protects the privacy of the family in these sad cases as well, and the reasons would not be available to the general public.

Why?

(Our posts crossed, MiceElf)

So it must be correct, Ana!

Oh, it's OK, I found it in the LibDem Voice.

www.essex.gov.uk

This site gives the chronology. The ruling by the Italian court was made in May 2013

Where have you read that, MiceElf?

The Italian courts have ruled that the child should stay in Britain.

As others have said, we do not know the full story here, and neither should we. The only consideration should be the welfare of the child, although I do think that, if possible, it should be returned to family in Italy.

According to the Telegraph this morning, Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court, has ordered that he personally is going to hear the adoption application.
This must be an indication of the very difficult and complex nature of the case.

Very well put Nellie.

Bach This case is impossible to comment on without full knowledge of all the circumstances which should be subject to some confidentiality outside of the court system itself.

We do not have any right to know what is going on.

It would be quite wrong for every detail of this woman's personal health and the circumstances of her children to be banded about in the press.

The press like a good sad story. They are also the first to raise hell when wrong decisions are taken and children are harmed.

I heard on Radio 4 news That she has had two earlier children removed from her in Italy.

Yes she suffers from a mental illness. For some people these conditions are very severe and do not respond well to medication. This can mean a sufferer has great problems never being well for long, and can be dangerous to self and others for a long time.

As others have said no courts take such decisions lightly we need some objectivity here. Some parents are just not safe to have charge of children at all.

Well one hopes so. There must be an awful lot we are not being told.

Deedaa - the family in Italy will have been part of the assessment about the future of this baby